Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[S-Man]

I'm pretty sure that doing things on the backs of the poor is no longer a big concern these days. Whether it's true or not, I just hear about it less nowadays.

Besides, the poor will be too busy trying to pay their hydro bills.

[DarkArconio]

Just because a rich family with an expensive cable bill, fast internet, and multiple smartphones pays $400/month, it doesn't mean that's the cost of getting an internet connection. A perfectly fast connection can be had for around $60/month, and slower ones go down even more.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

In a way, aren't we increasing fares on the backs of the poor who are least likely to have access to get or refill a Presto card?

I just spoke to a coworker who commented that the cost of being 'connected' in her family is now over $400.00 per month. That includes phone, Internet and cable. How can people of lower income afford this kind of cost, which just seems to be escalating at a tremendous pace.

I fail to see how "poor" people will not have access to Presto cards. The upfront cost is $2. As for paying $400 a month for being "connected", your colleague needs to shop around a bit and/or live with a bit less service. In my family we spend less than $150 (2 cell phones, internet and Netflix). We survive with no cable or home phone.

People like to complain about money a lot and not do anything about it.

[McC]

I don't know about the "poor", but the truly poor don't have the credit cards, online banking or home internet access, etc. that make Presto so convenient for those of us more fortunate (that is both fortunate to have those nice things, and fortunate not to have had the troubles using them with Presto that others have). And frankly, they often don't have the spare cash to pre-load the balance on a card (especially by the end of the month) -- even if they're "good" with their money.

Social services agencies often have stacks of bus tickets to dispense to their clients in need, stacks of preloaded presto cards would be much more expensive, either for agencies to purchase or the city (i.e., taxpayers) to provide. Handing out cash costs more, given the higher cash fare, and is vulnerable to other kinds of problems both practical and perception.

That's why the idea of having some way to obtain or pre-print tickets if we're moving to bar/QR codes is so important.

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I fail to see how "poor" people will not have access to Presto cards. The upfront cost is $2. As for paying $400 a month for being "connected", your colleague needs to shop around a bit and/or live with a bit less service. In my family we spend less than $150 (2 cell phones, internet and Netflix). We survive with no cable or home phone.

People like to complain about money a lot and not do anything about it.

There was a time not too long ago when women, the poor, and racial minorities were deemed 'uncreditworthy' by default. Yes, we have come a long way from the days when only white males could get credit in their names but there are still lot's of poor and downtrodden that don't have triple AAA creditworthiness.

The very people who *need* public transit as a public service.

If I'm in the business of giving out money on the basis of credit (trust) I have huge incentives not to if you're below the poverty line since rational people would choose food and survival before paying bills.

So we shouldn't rush to drop paper tickets.

Currently I'm trying to survive off $150 of income a week and it's hard.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by DarkArconio

Just because a rich family with an expensive cable bill, fast internet, and multiple smartphones pays $400/month, it doesn't mean that's the cost of getting an internet connection. A perfectly fast connection can be had for around $60/month, and slower ones go down even more.

These people are not rich. Whether they have more service than needed is another question. But it points how effective these companies are at getting you to spend more and more money and before you know it, your costs have become unaffordable. There is more and more pressure to purchase expensive smart phone plans especially if your business requires you to be accessible.

I spoke to one gentleman whose monthly Internet bill got to over $500 because he is in a service hole and had to use a service that charged by the megabyte.

My point is the cost of being connected to a decent standard is becoming out of reach for more and more people whether it is $500 per month or $150 per month. That is a lot of money if you are barely scraping by.

Using Presto effectively requires that you be connected and also requires up front money which is something that is really difficult for some people, and those who need transit the most. So we will penalize them for using cash or tickets.

[1overcosc]

People without internet connections can easily get & fill PRESTO cards the same way you used to get monthly passes, by lining up and buying one from a clerk.

Fare increases are fine as long as they are minimal. The current system we have, of fares going up by a small amount each year every year, works well, because people get used to these small annual increases.

In Kingston fares were increased by 12% in 2011 after being the same since 2004, and it caused a lot of anger from a lot of people because they were used to paying the same amount all the time.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I fail to see how "poor" people will not have access to Presto cards. The upfront cost is $2. As for paying $400 a month for being "connected", your colleague needs to shop around a bit and/or live with a bit less service. In my family we spend less than $150 (2 cell phones, internet and Netflix). We survive with no cable or home phone.

People like to complain about money a lot and not do anything about it.

Where did you get the $2 upfront Presto card pricing from? The OC Transpo website says they're $6 each.

http://www.octranspo1.com/tickets-and-passes/get_your_presto_card

[Beedok]

Financial aid subsidies maybe?

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by McC

I don't know about the "poor", but the truly poor don't have the credit cards, online banking or home internet access, etc. that make Presto so convenient for those of us more fortunate (that is both fortunate to have those nice things, and fortunate not to have had the troubles using them with Presto that others have). And frankly, they often don't have the spare cash to pre-load the balance on a card (especially by the end of the month) -- even if they're "good" with their money.

Social services agencies often have stacks of bus tickets to dispense to their clients in need, stacks of preloaded presto cards would be much more expensive, either for agencies to purchase or the city (i.e., taxpayers) to provide. Handing out cash costs more, given the higher cash fare, and is vulnerable to other kinds of problems both practical and perception.

That's why the idea of having some way to obtain or pre-print tickets if we're moving to bar/QR codes is so important.

This is all true, but then how is it that other cities' poor manage? The minimum load is $10, which is pretty comparable to a sheet of bus tickets. And the 5 pound minimum top up for the Oyster Card in London. But with the new system of having pay terminals at stations where you can add value to your Presto card, that should solve all this? No?

[S-Man]

Does anyone have the data necessary to post a list of what the annual fare increases for OC Transpo have been over the past decade? I'd be curious to see what it looks like.

Not having math on my side (just memory), it seems the last few years saw quite a jump in fares, for both tickets and cash. And, of course, a streamlining of services last year.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My point is the cost of being connected to a decent standard is becoming out of reach for more and more people whether it is $500 per month or $150 per month. That is a lot of money if you are barely scraping by.

Using Presto effectively requires that you be connected and also requires up front money which is something that is really difficult for some people, and those who need transit the most. So we will penalize them for using cash or tickets.

Sorry for being off topic, but I think a lot of people are overpaying for internet. Teksavvy has good plans in the $30 range, national capital freenet for even less (and I think they have discounts for people on low incomes as well). At a lower cost, a barebones tablet is under $100 and can pick up free wifi all over and if that is too much libraries still have internet terminals. Obviously people who panhandle for change or bus tickets are going to have more difficulty, so hopefully social service agencies or charities will come up with some sort of solution. Some cities have temporary farecards (Singapore for example) that tourists, visitors or people unable to otherwise use the normal system can get from vending machines. That might be a good alternative for people currently using cash or tickets.

[McC]

Originally Posted by gjhall

This is all true, but then how is it that other cities' poor manage? The minimum load is $10, which is pretty comparable to a sheet of bus tickets. And the 5 pound minimum top up for the Oyster Card in London. But with the new system of having pay terminals at stations where you can add value to your Presto card, that should solve all this? No?

London has this thing where people on social assistance or low income get cheap passes for the bus, but they don't have access to the Tube. Kinda odd, a very "British" solution.

Other cities also let you buy single rides in their stations from machines (any different than our on-board fare boxes? I don't know, but I don't understand why we don't have the modified pay and display parking dispensers deployed beyond the OTrain.)

[rocketphish]

Construction Summary: Week of December 2

West Portal

Material removals and mining using the roadheader is ongoing; approximately 40 metres have been mined to date.
As the cold weather begins, a cover has been added to the tunnel entrance to shield against inclement temperatures.
Construction on the interior of the storage warehouse is ongoing.


Tunneling continues at West Portal

Central Shaft

Blasting has been completed. Material removals continue this week.
Shotcrete to reinforce the tunnel support continues.
Installation of large components of the central shaft roadheader (3rd roadheader) continues at the West Portal until mid-week.
Preparations begin mid-week to lower large parts of the 3rd roadheader in the tunnel where it will be assembled. Assembly will likely continue for approximately one week.

East Portal

Pouring of concrete slab where the bench was mined takes place at the beginning of the week.
Mining the tunnel using the 2nd roadheader begins mid-week under the tunnel support umbrella.


East Portal mining

Highway 417

Construction on various structures along the highway is ongoing, including refacing work on the Vanier Parkway overpass abutment* and on the footing foundations of the St. Laurent Boulevard overpass.
Sewer work from Nicholas to the Split and line painting along the Split continue in preparation for winter slowdown.
Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) work, TCB and QMB relocations and clean-up are ongoing in preparation of winter slowdown.


Bridge work

MSF

Site servicing activities continue in preparation of the beginning of construction, scheduled for 2014.

Note:

*Abutment: refers to the substructure at the end of a bridge span on which the superstructure rests.

http://www.ottawalightrail.ca/en/construction/construction-summary-9/

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Where did you get the $2 upfront Presto card pricing from? The OC Transpo website says they're $6 each.

http://www.octranspo1.com/tickets-and-passes/get_your_presto_card

I got mine for free as anyone who planned ahead did. They also say 55000 free cards are reserved for students and "community groups".

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I got mine for free as anyone who planned ahead did. They also say 55000 free cards are reserved for students and "community groups".

I find it interesting that PRESTO charges $6 for a card and has a minimum load.

When I was in London Oyster cards cost money but can be purchased empty from a coin operated mechanical dispenser, like a gumball machine or vending machine in a washroom. There is then a minimum load when you actually load the card.

In Boston, the CharlieCard is free. Admittedly they are hard to get, often only available from the fare collector at certain stations at certain times, even when the booth is staffed at other times, but they are completely free, unloaded.

[rocketphish]

Third burial discovered by workers digging watermains near Parliament Hill

By Dean Beeby, The Canadian Press December 7, 2013 7:46 PM

OTTAWA - The movers and shakers on Parliament Hill usually know where the bodies are buried.

But deposits of human bones uncovered within sight of the Peace Tower seem to have caught everyone off guard.

Construction workers digging out part of downtown Queen Street have come across yet another burial under the busy road, the third finding of human remains since September.

The excavation is to upgrade old watermains before the Big Dig, a massive tunnelling project for light-rail-transit trains that will rumble for 2.5 kilometres under the city core, dubbed the Confederation Line.

But some pre-Confederation history has been mucking up the process.

Archeologists believe workers have stumbled onto an old Methodist cemetery, part of a burial ground established in the early 19th century, when this part of Ottawa was called Upper Bytown and well before it became Canada's capital.

The watermains themselves are of more recent vintage, the oldest parts dating to 1874.

The watermain work was first halted Sept. 19 when bones were identified in a dig at Queen and Melcalfe Street, and the police called in. The remains were found only about a metre below ground, above the mains. Police forensic officers confirmed the bones were human.

The coroner's office soon ruled out criminal activity. The matter was deemed archeological, and the finding turned over to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Since then, two more burials were uncovered in other watermain work, one of them many metres farther east along Queen Street.

The archeological investigation has been turned over to consultant Benjamin Mortimer, of Paterson Group. A preliminary report is expected this month, with more on-site investigations planned for the spring.

"The archeological investigation on Queen Street is still ongoing," said City of Ottawa spokeswoman Courtney Ferguson. "When it is concluded, there will be a report to the city with all the details of the excavation."

At least three historical maps clearly show a cemetery in the vicinity, established in 1828 for military and civilian dead. But the burial ground was closed in the 1850s and initial surveying for this year's watermain work did not note the possibility of finding bones in gravesites.

The first bones encountered appear to have been previously disturbed, perhaps during construction in the area in the 1970s.

"Subsequently, additional human remains and evidence of burial shafts were discovered," said Sue Carroll, an Ontario government spokeswoman in Toronto.

"Currently, the remains are believed to be associated with the Queen Street Methodist Cemetery."

So far, there's no information about the age or gender of the deceased individuals, though an internal Ontario government report currently lists them as "Euro-Canadian."

Documents related to the discovery were obtained by The Canadian Press under the province's freedom-of-information legislation.

"Some of the disturbed and fragmented remains have been collected by the archeologist and have been secured," said Carroll.

"Those areas with additional partial burials have been secured and protected so that the further investigation can be completed on spring 2014."

City officials say the gravesite discoveries are not expected to delay the main LRT tunnel construction.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Third+...gging+watermains+near/9260085/story.html

[rocketphish]

What it’ll take to get $975 million in LRT money from the province

December 6, 2013. 4:30 pm • Section: City Hall
Posted by: David Reevely

Mayor Jim Watson met Ottawa’s Liberal MPPs (though they were short Madeleine Meilleur) Friday afternoon and summoned reporters afterward for a short “media avail,” as it’s called. They talked about things the city wants provincial money for: the Ottawa River clean-up plan’s next stage and, perhaps more importantly, the next stage of light-rail, for which Ottawa wants $975 from each of the federal and provincial governments.

Everyone was really, really pleased with how the chat went. No, there’s no money, at least not yet. But wow they had a good talk.

Senior-government funding for large projects like this is, of course, heavily laden with politics. Yes, there’s a formal process for requesting money, and due diligence to be done, but you may remember that the provincial and federal governments offered $200 million each toward the Bob Chiarelli rail project at different times (and then the feds, at the instigation of John Baird, yanked their money away at a politically convenient point in the 2006 mayoral election). Then, although both governments upped their contributions to $600 million for the revised rail plan under Larry O’Brien, they offered the money at different times then, too.

The province even put its commitment in writing before the 2010 city election, whereas the announcement of the winning bidder in 2012 was punctuated by federal MP Royal Galipeau’s showing up with a written funding promise from the feds, even though he and Baird had made a $600-million promise in summer 2010. There are back-room assurances, public announcements, and then written funding agreements. Things get increasingly serious as you go, but even so there are back-room assurances you can take to the bank and written funding agreements you can’t count on.

Anyway, although we’ve now had multiple ministers, from Glen Murray to Kathleen Wynne to Bob Chiarelli, praising the excellence of the city’s new transit plan and promising to work with the city on it, nobody has said anything about a cheque. I asked about it Friday afternoon.

Q: If the Transportation Master Plan is clearly defined, which it is, you know exactly how much money you’re going to need — this is probably a question best put to Mr. Chiarelli, in the circumstances — what are you waiting for from the city before saying, “Yes, we will be there with the $975 million”?

Bob Chiarelli: Well, first of all, you know, in principle we’re extremely supportive. Today was very helpful to us because we did get into more of the details. For example, when the environmental assessments will be nearing completion, the city will be better able to predict the exact budget. Also the phasing, over how many years will the funding be required, and there’s a huge difference between any level of government giving a commitment for $975 million that will be required over one or two years or $975 million that will be required over four or five years. So the kind of information we received is extremely helpful. We are impressed with the level of planning, the level of precision, the level of consultation that’s taken place. It’s clear that this Stage 2 of the LRT represents a very strong community consensus, there was I think unanimity, or near-unanimity at city council, and there was a lot of consultation, it impacts on every part of the city. So we’re pleased to see that the city has its act together. We’re looking forward to being a partner with the city, both with the Ottawa River Action Plan and in Stage 2 of the LRT and we’ll be working with them on an ongoing basis, looking at details and at how we can make it happen together.

Q: Maybe I’ll put that question a different way at Mr. Watson. What did the province have in 2009 when you came forward with the $600 million that it does not have now, now that you’re asking for $975 million? What’s the difference between those two situations?

Jim Watson: Well, I guess a couple of things, David. One, you may recall the back-and-forth on the north-south route and that was cancelled, we were going forward with the east-west. We did not have the final figure for the light-rail plan until very late on in the process. So what we’ve done differently this time is put the affordability lens on the project, factored in construction inflation so that when we are able to start Phase 2, ideally we’d like to start it in 2018 after Phase 1 is completed and the first phase of LRT is up and running and it would be a five-year period. The second point is that what we are looking for that’s different this time is a true one-third-one-third-one-third cost-share. As you know, the original proposal, that was proposed actually by Bob Chiarelli when he was mayor was a one-third-one-third-one-third, based on the north-south, that went from 200 to $600 million, and when we, uh, council cancelled that we moved forward, they committed to just the $600 million, as did the federal government, even though the plan was $2.1 billion. So what we’re looking for now is that we believe we’ve been much clearer in terms of what our cost estimates are and what our plan is, so that we can truly be in that framework of that a-third-third-third partnership with the federal and provincial governments.

Watson and McGuintyWhat’s amusing about that answer from Watson, of course, is that he was the senior minister for Ottawa when the provincial government offered up less than a third of the money it took to build the LRT. There he is, standing next to Dalton McGuinty as the then-premier announced the $600 million, and only $600 million, in December 2009. The price of the project was already set at $2.1 billion at the time (though as it turned out the final cost of the deep, cross-country tunnel under downtown that was planned then was actually higher).

As Mohammed Adam reported at the time:

[E]ven if the federal government comes up with its matching $600 million, and the city provides the final third, total funding for the project will come to $1.8 billion — meaning the city would have to either pare back the project or cover the extra $300 million itself.

Both the premier and Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson (who is Baird’s provincial counterpart at Queen’s Park) made it clear that with Ontario facing tough times, $600 million is all the province has to give. McGuinty, who once called the plan expensive, said the city will have to “cut the suit to fit the cloth” — in essence, make the project fit the budget.

Watson said the provincial government made the announcement to make clear what it can afford and give the city a chance to budget accordingly. He said Ottawa is lucky to get $600 million from a province facing a huge deficit, and warned the city not to expect anything more from the Liberals. The city will be on its own for any cost overruns.

“The province has limited resources and if we didn’t have the premier on our side, we wouldn’t be announcing this,” Watson said. “We don’t want this plan to turn into a huge money pit. The city’s next challenge is to develop a plan for $1.8 billion.”

So Watson is seeking better treatment now than he was prepared to offer the city then. If Kathleen Wynne stays premier, he’ll probably get it. Premier Tim Hudak … maybe not.

Anyway, that’s a sidetrack. Watson, who’s been on both sides of the issue, doesn’t remotely answer the question.

As it turns out Chiarelli’s response almost does, albeit in a way that only makes sense once it’s explained more clearly. A city staffer edged up to me just after this exchange and quietly said that the difference between funding in 2009 and not-funding in 2013 is that in 2009 the city had completed an environmental assessment, a year after city council had approved a transportation master plan that included the tunnel-based LRT project. The new transportation master plan having just been approved, the city doesn’t have environmental assessments for all the track it proposes to lay.

If the city wants to have construction scheduled for a new phase of rail construction in 2018, it’ll need to have at least a public announcement of funding by about 2015. That’s coming up pretty quickly but there’s still time to get those environmental assessments done.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/12/0...-million-in-lrt-money-from-the-province/

[rocketphish]

Scott Street rerouting might be appropriate, but communication strategy dismal

By Joanne Chianello, OTTAWA CITIZEN December 9, 2013 8:44 PM

The transit commission agenda item titled “Detours During Confederation Line Construction” seemed self-explanatory. It suggested members of the public could voice their concerns about bus detours during light-rail construction at Monday’s meeting.

Wrong.

The item in question was actually about how many and what sort of buses OC Transpo would need during the LRT construction. When the transitway is shut down in big swaths between Blair and Tunney’s Pasture stations starting in 2015, we’ll need more buses to move the same number of people at about the same rate that we do today. Transit bosses described to commissioners how OC Transpo will spend $74 million on 39 double-decker buses, which have the lowest per-rider price tag. That $74 million includes all the costs associated with running those extra buses, such as paying drivers. As leasing buses is a very uncommon and thus expensive option, OC Transpo will use the new buses to replace those that need to be retired between 2019 and 2021.

And all that makes sense.

The only problem was that people did not want to talk about “bus acquisition options” at Monday’s meeting. Many wanted to demand changes to the current plan to disgorge hundreds of buses onto Scott Street when the segment of the transitway between LeBreton and Tunney’s Pasture stations is closed in 2016 for as long as two years. (After a piece of the transitway is closed, it won’t be reopened until the LRT starts up in 2018.)

There are plans to widen Scott Street and run as many as 300 buses an hour during peak periods along the road. This is understandably a concern for those who live right on Scott — “a wall of buses” is how one woman described it at an open house attended by hundreds last week — and those nearby who are worried about cars spilling from Scott Street into their side streets.

Enough folks emailed the city with comments and queries about getting buses off Scott Street that city clerk and solicitor Rick O’Connor thought it a good idea to remind councillors and public members of the transit commission that they had no authority to discuss the routing of buses during LRT construction.

In short, O’Connor told commissioners in a memo late Friday afternoon, “the Scott Street Detour decision has already been made by city council.”

Now, for years there’s been an understanding that buses along that part of the transitway — which run in an underground trench on the north side of Scott Street — would use the adjacent road when the time came. But not many City Hall observers could remember exactly when that final decision came down.

It turns out it was Dec. 19, 2012. When council approved the $2.1-billion LRT contract with the Rideau Transit Group. There was a glancing reference to staff being directed to come up with a plan for the “detour along Scott and Albert.” Unsurprisingly, the item was largely overlooked.

“Do you mean that one line of an 80-page report?” fumed Coun. Diane Holmes. “Sounds like another stealth issue.”

She is right, of course, when she says that it’s “pretty hard for the public to get the info” when it’s buried in a huge document. The expectation that the community would focus on that passing mention in the complex report puts an unreasonable onus on residents to be on top of the issues impacting their neighbourhoods.

The issue also makes a mockery of the principle of public consultation and engagement, a theme that’s been swirling through council committees lately. The city portends to want to improve the way it says it consults residents, who in turn have complained that the city consultation efforts feel like a formality. It’s easy to see where people are coming from.

The Scott Street question also underlines how little input anyone has in the LRT project. The $74 million worth of buses that OC Transpo has to buy to get us through the LRT construction? The transit commission merely “received” that report on Monday. The commissioners had no say in the matter.

Indeed, city clerk O’Connor reminded the transit commission that it’s the finance committee, chaired by Mayor Jim Watson, that has authority “has oversight over the majority of Confederation Line matters.” That means that the (mostly) politically accountable body that oversees OC Transpo has no say in where buses are rerouted during LRT construction. (And yet, the commission approved the fare strategy for the Confederation Line, including what kind of machines to buy and where they should be placed in the new stations. Go figure.)

Putting transitway buses on Scott Street is reasonable. That is not the issue. And there’s certainly no magical detour plan that will make everyone happy.

But is it necessary to run all the buses on Scott Street? As community activist Linda Hoad wondered, “Can’t we share the pain?”

Local MP Paul Dewar thought so. Last month he asked the National Capital Commission whether it would allow buses along the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway between Tunneys and LeBreton. The NCC was open to the idea, but said that neither the city nor the Rideau Transit Group had raised it.

Why not? Possibly because the city and Rideau Transit Group already had a report written by transportation consultant McCormick Rankin that found that dedicated bus lanes on Scott Street were the best detour option for the Tunneys-to-LeBreton section of the transitway.

Dated October 2011, the document doesn’t appear to have been posted to the city’s website, but it was shown to the companies bidding for the LRT project. So it’s no wonder that the LRT construction plans called for rerouting buses onto Scott Street — the city’s own consultants told them to do it.

If the city was sincere in its efforts to engage communities, it would have asked for their input when this detouring plan was hatched in 2011. The fact that didn’t happen — and that officials are now blaming residents for not raising the issue last year — gives more than a little credence to residents’ impression that this whole public consultation thing is just for show.

[email protected]

twitter.com/jchianello
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa...ing+might+appropriate/9266335/story.html

[eternallyme]

The upfront price of a PRESTO card should be reduced to, say, $2, to encourage their use (equalizing the $1 difference per ride for a round trip), and to help phase out tickets (which should also be increased to the same price as a cash fare in 2014).

Most monthly passes should be frozen for 2014 in terms of base rate - at about 39 PRESTO fares for adults and 32 PRESTO fares for students (even less for seniors). A $5 surcharge should be added for paper passes though to encourage use of PRESTO passes.

One possible setup:

Cash - $3.50 regular, $5.25 express
Tickets - $1.75 each (so they match as close as possible) - eliminate in 2015?
PRESTO - $2.50 regular, $3.75 regular, $1.25 reduced fare (all considerable reductions) - about 35% off the cash fare (70% off for reduced fares)

Reduced fares (i.e. for children, seniors and Para Transpo registered clients with ID) - set at 50% less than the base fare - would only be available with a PRESTO card.