Grand River Transit

[plam]

I don't think I ever heard someone official say 6 months.

[timc]

I found the six month thing:

https://www.grt.ca/en/fares-passes/fareboxes.aspx

4. The new farebox does not accept paper tickets. During this first phase of the transition to electronic fare payment, a temporary ticket container will be installed on the bus next to the new farebox. Customers paying with paper tickets will show their ticket to the operator and put it in the ticket container. If customers need a transfer, they can push the transfer button to print a transfer.

In the next phase, when the EasyGO Fare Card has been launched, the paper tickets will be gradually phased out. GRT will give customers 6 months' notice when paper tickets will no longer be accepted.

I'm not sure what that means.

[plam]

I found the six month thing:

https://www.grt.ca/en/fares-passes/fareboxes.aspx

4. The new farebox does not accept paper tickets. During this first phase of the transition to electronic fare payment, a temporary ticket container will be installed on the bus next to the new farebox. Customers paying with paper tickets will show their ticket to the operator and put it in the ticket container. If customers need a transfer, they can push the transfer button to print a transfer.

In the next phase, when the EasyGO Fare Card has been launched, the paper tickets will be gradually phased out. GRT will give customers 6 months' notice when paper tickets will no longer be accepted.

I'm not sure what that means.

Yep. Although I'm pretty sure GRT was hoping that EasyGO would have been running for a long time alreayd at this point.

[Canard]

A little nugget in here in a document Jamincan posted in the cycling thread:

Document: https://calendar.regionofwaterloo.ca/Cou...f5010a1035

Pages: 9-11

Summary: GRT is going to relax it's procedures for crossing ION tracks.

Their statistics are fascinating regarding collisions - I had no idea that so many accidents were caused by GRT busses stopping at tracks!

The wear & tear and fuel consumption thing I also totally get and respect, as a hypermiler myself. Also totally respect they note that noise will be decreased as well due to not having to accelerate again. Love!

I'm glad sanity has prevailed!

[ijmorlan]

Summary:  GRT is going to relax it's procedures for crossing ION tracks.

Their statistics are fascinating regarding collisions - I had no idea that so many accidents were caused by GRT busses stopping at tracks!

Very good news! Now if we can just get the school bus operators to do the same … unfortunately I have an idea they might be subject to different HTA rules, which are harder to change. Does anybody know if this is in fact the case?

They should have done this decades ago, though — imagine how many times buses have stopped at the Waterloo Spur, which hasn’t typically had more than 2 trains a day since I can remember (except for when the tourist train was running).

[Canard]

Yeah, the facts and figures are all right there in the report, you can just multiply them by the number of years to figure out how much money and fuel was wasted.

[timc]

Their statistics are fascinating regarding collisions - I had no idea that so many accidents were caused by GRT busses stopping at tracks!

I get what you're saying, but saying that those collisions are *caused* by GRT buses stopping at tracks is unfair. The report says that they may have been avoided had buses not stopped, but my guess is that they are caused by drivers following too closely or being distracted and driving into buses.

Regardless, I think this change will make things better for everyone. The only risk I can see is that, during the change, pedestrians may expect buses to stop and be surprised when they do not.

[Canard]

Now you’re unfairly blaming GRT for distracted pedestrians.

[plam]

A little nugget in here in a document Jamincan posted in the cycling thread:

Document:  https://calendar.regionofwaterloo.ca/Cou...f5010a1035

Pages:  9-11

Summary:  GRT is going to relax it's procedures for crossing ION tracks.

Their statistics are fascinating regarding collisions - I had no idea that so many accidents were caused by GRT busses stopping at tracks!

I often jaywalk at the University/ION crossing. The buses disrupt the flow of traffic and make it hard to do that. So for me it would seem way better if the traffic kept on moving. In particular, if there's just a bus and then cars far behind, then in the time that it takes the bus to start/stop, the cars have caught up and crossing is no longer safely possible. (There might also be fewer buses once the ION is running.)

[tomh009]

Excellent news!

[jwilliamson]

Summary:  GRT is going to relax it's procedures for crossing ION tracks.

Their statistics are fascinating regarding collisions - I had no idea that so many accidents were caused by GRT busses stopping at tracks!

Very good news! Now if we can just get the school bus operators to do the same … unfortunately I have an idea they might be subject to different HTA rules, which are harder to change. Does anybody know if this is in fact the case?

They should have done this decades ago, though — imagine how many times buses have stopped at the Waterloo Spur, which hasn’t typically had more than 2 trains a day since I can remember (except for when the tourist train was running).

In the document, it says that "Two operators in Ontario (MiWay and YRT) [...] follow the more restrictive school bus policies [...]"

[jwilliamson]

Another interesting fact from the report: high school, college and university students, riders with corporate passes and members of the beta program form 53% of the ridership of GRT.

[Spokes]

Still progressing toward a target recovery rate?

"As reported in the February 6, 2019 Public Transit budget information paper, GRT customer price elasticity is generally such that a 1% change in price results in a 0.3% change in ridership. In an environment of service improvements, this decrease would be experienced simply as a minor reduction to the overall rate of ridership increase. Experience has also shown that elasticity may be higher when considering fare increases greater than 5%. "

So they're willing to sacrifice 1% of ridership....in a year of ridership growth...and low gas prices, low tax hikes, and flat parking fees, 

*sigh*...idiocy..."Experience has also shown that elasticity may be higher when considering fare increases greater than 5%."  I wonder if staff realize that people, unlike, umm...I dunno, staff logic, does not reset yearly...a 3% hike 3 years in a row is a 9% fare hike, double the amount that risks "increased elasticity"...

This is something that's always been stuck in my head, but I've never run the numbers to see.  If cutting fares increased ridership, would it not make sense to do so?  Like if you cut $1million from fare rates, but the increased ridership generated $1million, wouldn't that be a win?  

I guess they figure that there are some people that won't ride it no matter how cheap it is

[jwilliamson]

"As reported in the February 6, 2019 Public Transit budget information paper, GRT customer price elasticity is generally such that a 1% change in price results in a 0.3% change in ridership. In an environment of service improvements, this decrease would be experienced simply as a minor reduction to the overall rate of ridership increase. Experience has also shown that elasticity may be higher when considering fare increases greater than 5%. "

So they're willing to sacrifice 1% of ridership....in a year of ridership growth...and low gas prices, low tax hikes, and flat parking fees, 

*sigh*...idiocy..."Experience has also shown that elasticity may be higher when considering fare increases greater than 5%."  I wonder if staff realize that people, unlike, umm...I dunno, staff logic, does not reset yearly...a 3% hike 3 years in a row is a 9% fare hike, double the amount that risks "increased elasticity"...

This is something that's always been stuck in my head, but I've never run the numbers to see.  If cutting fares increased ridership, would it not make sense to do so?  Like if you cut $1million from fare rates, but the increased ridership generated $1million, wouldn't that be a win?  

I guess they figure that there are some people that won't ride it no matter how cheap it is

My understanding of price elasticity is that an elasticity of 0.3 means that if fares were cut by $1M, there would be an increase in ridership that would generate about $300K. As long as elasticity is less than 1, fare increases will increase revenue, and fare cuts will decrease it.

[danbrotherston]

This is something that's always been stuck in my head, but I've never run the numbers to see.  If cutting fares increased ridership, would it not make sense to do so?  Like if you cut $1million from fare rates, but the increased ridership generated $1million, wouldn't that be a win?  

I guess they figure that there are some people that won't ride it no matter how cheap it is

My understanding of price elasticity is that an elasticity of 0.3 means that if fares were cut by $1M, there would be an increase in ridership that would generate about $300K. As long as elasticity is less than 1, fare increases will increase revenue, and fare cuts will decrease it.

This is of course what happens when you are not accounting for all the costs...

Lowering fares generates less fare revenue, but more ridership, that ridership has value above and beyond fare revenue.

Of course, the region has been reliable in ignoring those types of benefits (see the cancellation of hybrid buses)--this is only the most obvious problem with running a government "like a business".