Valley Line LRT | TransEd/Marigold | City of Edmonton

Biking by 178st at 87ave.
E4E6A298-6FC1-42F7-BA37-9E97E2A57BDD.jpeg
B3EBF3DA-666B-4B41-9650-1CA3D1A406D3.jpeg
2B661A2B-AFB5-4AAC-BEEE-825D74D528B2.jpeg
 
Tropical said:
Can verify - transit was very busy on NYE. It's almost as if removing the fare promotes transit use? ;)
Click to expand...
Not sure how you can draw that conclusion when the 'experiment' occurred on a day with massively increased nightlife demand. Clearly there were other factors here at play, such as NYE?

Until we get a handle on the violence and harassment problem on transit, fares are a must to maintain at least some measure of control where only people who are actually using transit should be in transit spaces.
 
Tropical said:
Can verify - transit was very busy on NYE. It's almost as if removing the fare promotes transit use? ;)
Click to expand...
For this debate, the question is if ETS had another $125-$150M/year in funding, would it be better to use it to make fares free or to improve transit service.

Free fares seems to be mostly a thing for US transit systems that have low ridership and don't actually have much passenger revenue to lose, unlike the much more successful Canadian ones.
 
accord1999 said:
For this debate, the question is if ETS had another $125-$150M/year in funding, would it be better to use it to make fares free or to improve transit service.

Free fares seems to be mostly a thing for US transit systems that have low ridership and don't actually have much passenger revenue to lose, unlike the much more successful Canadian ones.
Click to expand...

It's also been implemented in Europe.
 
accord1999 said:
For this debate, the question is if ETS had another $125-$150M/year in funding, would it be better to use it to make fares free or to improve transit service.
Click to expand...
Great question! My money would be on improving frequencies and expanding some services. I personally have no problem having users pay a portion of the cost for services, but as a frequent user, I can see the allure of free service.
 
occidentalcapital said:
Not sure how you can draw that conclusion when the 'experiment' occurred on a day with massively increased nightlife demand. Clearly there were other factors here at play, such as NYE?

Until we get a handle on the violence and harassment problem on transit, fares are a must to maintain at least some measure of control where only people who are actually using transit should be in transit spaces.
Click to expand...

Silly me. I guess I connected the choices I made on NYE (based on free fares) to consumer behaviour.

Oops
 
accord1999 said:
For this debate, the question is if ETS had another $125-$150M/year in funding, would it be better to use it to make fares free or to improve transit service.

Free fares seems to be mostly a thing for US transit systems that have low ridership and don't actually have much passenger revenue to lose, unlike the much more successful Canadian ones.
Click to expand...
It’s been proven elsewhere that free or reduced fares is often not the biggest deciding factor in adoption. Usually it’s frequency, trip length, experience quality, safety. Especially in Edmonton’s current state, it’s quality, not cost, stopping ridership.

Whether it’s $50 or $100 for a monthly pass, if you can’t replace your car and still need a car for most trips, it’s not helpful. Most will keep driving.

I do think the “first 6 rides free” each month could strike a unique balance though of not decimating revenues, but attracting new users, especially for peak times (rogers events, festivals, holidays) and for one off trips to things like city attractions, mall trips, main streets. Gets ARC cards into pockets, people semi-familiar with transit near them, and ups ridership.
 
I would disagree with that. If bus passes were reduced to $50 that would catch a number of people's attention, particularly these days when people's budgets are tight and particularly for travel on routes that serve areas with very limited free parking (ex. downtown and the university). I don't buy a pass because I am an occasional user, but at $50 I would probably use transit more.

The Arc card does have potential flexibility to attract more users, but currently it is actually set up to do the opposite. First you have to pay a flat fee to get the plastic card, which is the first disincentive and then you have to use it a lot (not just a little) for it to become cheaper. Its fairly obvious the current system was designed by people who have little understanding of marketing and consumer behavior which is one reason the system continues to struggle to get new users.
 
I would disagree with that. If bus passes were reduced to $50 that would catch a number of people's attention, particularly these days when people's budgets are tight and particularly for travel on routes that serve areas with very limited free parking (ex. downtown and the university). I don't buy a pass because I am an occasional user, but at $50 I would probably use transit more.

The Arc card does have potential flexibility to attract more users, but currently it is actually set up to do the opposite. First you have to pay a flat fee to get the plastic card, which is the first disincentive and then you have to use it a lot (not just a little) for it to become cheaper. Its fairly obvious the current system was designed by people who have little understanding of marketing and consumer behavior which is one reason the system continues to struggle to get new users.
 
The pigeons are already back at Churchill -- they're coming from the Square and the Library where locals are feeding them.

They've also taken up residence in Churchill Connector. Don't know if the incoming winter weather will drive them elsewhere.
 
David A said:
then you have to use it a lot (not just a little) for it to become cheaper. Its fairly obvious the current system was designed by people who have little understanding of marketing and consumer behavior which is one reason the system continues to struggle to get new users.
Click to expand...
This is false.
Cash fare: $3.50
10 tickets @ $27.75 = $2.775 per ticket
Arc: $2.75

You can use it as little as you want and it's cheaper than cash. And while it's not much cheaper than tickets, you don't need to put out nearly $30 to buy 10 tickets whether you need them all or not, so for occasional users this is a positive, or people who might not be able to afford $30 in one shot.

Assuming 2 round trips per day, you reach the fare cap after 18.18 days, so if you are just taking transit 5 days a week for commuting to a job, you'll reach your fare cap and pay the same as a bus pass for the same period.

There's been months where I've had a week or two of holidays and debated whether I should fork out for a bus pass when I might not get my $100 worth of use, and if I should just buy tickets instead because it would be cheaper. I found tickets inconvenient. Having to remember to take them with me, or I having a bunch of them stashed in my wallet.
Arc... it doesn't matter. If I do travel for those 20ish days to work, I get fare capped and pay the same as a bus pass. If I travel less I pay slightly less than using tickets, and that's all without the hassle of buying the fare products, or trying to predict how much I'm going to need to use transit before the start of the month.

I don't get why this concept is so tough. There was a really off base letter the editor in the Journal today, claiming that ETS has ceased paper pass and ticket sales (they haven't) and similar complaints about Arc.

Yes, there's the $6 cost of the card initially, but since I got mine the convenience of not having to go and buy passes and tickets has been more than worth it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top