Grand River Transit

[MidTowner]

The article does not say that child fares would be eliminated, so I wouldn't jump to that conclusion quite yet.

I'm circling back on this because I did get confirmation from the Region that the subsidized/reduced fare would be eliminated. Starting at five years old, children would be charged the full adult fare of $2.86.

Just for context, that would mean the children and student's fare would be about 27% higher than in Guelph, and 40% higher than in Hamilton.

[KevinT]

Just for context, that would mean the children and student's fare would be about 27% higher than in Guelph, and 40% higher than in Hamilton.

Devil's Advocate: Would you like us to step back to their level of service so that we can equalize the fare?

[MidTowner]

Just for context, that would mean the children and student's fare would be about 27% higher than in Guelph, and 40% higher than in Hamilton.

Devil's Advocate:  Would you like us to step back to their level of service so that we can equalize the fare?

The short answer is 'No.' Though I lived in Hamilton and found their level of service 'Pretty good.' I grew up in London and found the LTC 'Pretty good,' too. But it's not a fair question.

I cite those because the Region and GRT identifies those as our peer cities. I would happily cite Toronto, where a parent can take an eleven-year-old child on a bus without paying an extra fare, and the adult fare is only 8% higher than ours, and the cash fare the same.

That's not really a fair comparison- paying 8% more wouldn't mean we could have TTC coverage and frequency. Rejecting a 15% cut to senior and children fares doesn't mean service would have to suffer.

[Bob_McBob]

Why do the region and individual municipalities use a LICO inconsistent with Statistics Canada data for the Kichener-Cambridge-Waterloo CMA? As of 2017, the City of Waterloo claimed the before-tax LICO for the region was $21,822, which is mostly consistent with the after-tax cut-off of $18,436 the region will be using for reduced income GRT fares. But that's the LICO for an area with a population under 500,000, and our CMA has been over that since at least the 2016 census. The cut-off should be at least $21,000 after tax now.

https://www.waterloo.ca/en/things-to-do/...cation.pdf

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/...5B0%5D=2.1

[MidTowner]

You can select 'before tax' on the Stats Can page you linked to, and see that the City of Waterloo is using the low-income cut-off (before tax) for a CMA of 100,000 to 500,000.

When were 2016 census numbers available? You're right that that's when we surpassed 500,000- maybe when the City last set rates for that recreation fee discount program, the 2016 population figures weren't yet available.

Edit: Where would GRT's $18,4xx come from, then? That doesn't align with any of Stat Can's cut-offs, unless maybe 2018 is available somewhere.

[jamincan]

The Kitchener CMA has actually been above 500,000 since 2009 when the population was estimated to be 501,631. 

(Statistics Canada's explanation as to why population estimates are more representative of the population at a given time than the actual census count)

[MidTowner]

Well, there you go. It must be a case of the bureaucrats not knowing what a CMA is and thinking that their own municipality has far less than 500,000. Though the Region should know how many inhabitants it has.

[taylortbb]

Well, there you go. It must be a case of the bureaucrats not knowing what a CMA is and thinking that their own municipality has far less than 500,000. Though the Region should know how many inhabitants it has.

Especially given the region produces its own population estimates, which as of this year is over 600,000.

[Bob_McBob]

I figured it out. They're using the Market Basket Measure thresholds for a population between 100,000 and 499,999 in Ontario because Statistics Canada doesn't provide anything more specific. I was also shocked to discover there are 43,000 local residents with incomes under this level, but fewer than 1400 people have access to the existing low-income transit pass program, which is notorious for approval waits running into years.

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recen..._5-eng.cfm

[timc]

I didn't see this mentioned before, but it looks like full bus wrap ads are going to continue on GRT buses. Council approved a new ten year contract this week.

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/960...o-council/

While Strickland said he understood the perspective of his colleagues, he said the $425,000 that comes each year from bus ads that wrap around the vehicle is not an insignificant amount. He pointed to the new low-income transit program council approved Wednesday night that will make subsidized transit available to more people but also cost the region an additional $681,000 annually.

Five buses out of the fleet of 273 can be fully wrapped at any time, while an unlimited number can have murals. Ads will not placed on buses with dark tinted windows.

[danbrotherston]

I didn't see this mentioned before, but it looks like full bus wrap ads are going to continue on GRT buses. Council approved a new ten year contract this week.

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/960...o-council/

While Strickland said he understood the perspective of his colleagues, he said the $425,000 that comes each year from bus ads that wrap around the vehicle is not an insignificant amount. He pointed to the new low-income transit program council approved Wednesday night that will make subsidized transit available to more people but also cost the region an additional $681,000 annually.

Five buses out of the fleet of 273 can be fully wrapped at any time, while an unlimited number can have murals. Ads will not placed on buses with dark tinted windows.

One of the worst quotes is Geoff Lorentz claiming he has never heard a person complain about this. The only thing that really proves is that Mr Lorentz never listens to transit riders. Mike Boos has personally delegated on this issue.

[KevinL]

It seems with that council, no matter how much a person directly delegates, if that citizen is not in the room when the final decision is made then all bets are off.

[KevinL]

I have to admit to feeling a bit of concern about GRT's construction priorities right now. The new University terminal seems to be in standby, I haven't seen any serious work in some time. The new terminal at Sunrise has yet to have its space cordoned off, let alone a shovel in the ground. And on a smaller note, many of the new stops that were created b realignments in June are still just grass by a pole - this could be problematic come winter.

I don't know if this is actually systemic or I'm just projecting, mind you. Rainy day musings.

[Lens]

I have to admit to feeling a bit of concern about GRT's construction priorities right now. The new University terminal seems to be in standby, I haven't seen any serious work in some time. The new terminal at Sunrise has yet to have its space cordoned off, let alone a shovel in the ground. And on a smaller note, many of the new stops that were created b realignments in June are still just grass by a pole - this could be problematic come winter.

I don't know if this is actually systemic or I'm just projecting, mind you. Rainy day musings.

This won't be a problem because GRT ALREADY doesn't clear stops, concrete or not.

[MidTowner]

GRT announced a number of changes to trips, effective yesterday, to "address overcrowding on some routes."

Routes 8 and 10A get one additional trip in the mornings. Route 19 gets four additional trips through the day.

Route 201 has a trip cut in the morning. For Route 9 Lakeshore, most (a total of 24 ) of the trips between UW and Cedarbrae are cut.

I kind of like that they are willing to tweak these schedules now, instead of waiting until winter. For 9 Lakeshore, it amounts to reducing frequency from 8 minutes to 15 from Cedarbrae to UW, and for 201 it essentially means starting the 10-minute headway slightly later in the morning. These aren't nice changes if you happen to have the habit of using one of those particular trips, but also not too serious.