O-Train Line 2/4 [Stage 2 | Greenboro to Limebank/Airport] | In Service

[Horus]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Have we got to this point when our goal is to get most people to use Park n Ride lots in the suburbs? How do we get TOD if we have a 500 spot parking lot next to the station. The Rivermead Park n Ride lot in Aylmer was mentioned on radio this morning saying that it is often full. This is the problem with Park n Ride lots. I know this is also an issue at Greenboro as well. It is easy for demand to exceed supply, which is another turn off with transit. Accessibility is not guaranteed.

How dare people use Park n Ride lots designed to have people use them.

"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." - Yogi Berra

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Horus

How dare people use Park n Ride lots designed to have people use them.

"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." - Yogi Berra

A 500 car parking lot is 1 FLIRT. Building enough parking for rail transit is inefficient. You need better connections to the station.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

A 500 car parking lot is 1 FLIRT. Building enough parking for rail transit is inefficient. You need better connections to the station.

Just read my comments about the Marianne Wilkinson interview just broadcast. We can't afford to expand Park n Ride lots. We can't afford to improve bus service. The system is starving for money. Why? Because we are moving people longer and longer distances. This is not sustainable unless we go to zone fares but nobody ever talks about this especially at city hall. They got us in this mess when they decided to get rid of express fares, which were effectively zone fares.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Just read my comments about the Marianne Wilkinson interview just broadcast. We can't afford to expand Park n Ride lots. We can't afford to improve bus service. The system is starving for money. Why? Because we are moving people longer and longer distances. This is not sustainable unless we go to zone fares but nobody ever talks about this especially at city hall. They got us in this mess when they decided to get rid of express fares, which were effectively zone fares.

That only matters if it actually improved the recovery ratio. Back in the "olden days" when express service existed the ratio was only 50%. We're targeting 55% now. Zone fares are not going to make a huge difference to that unless we want a much higher ratio. Every part of the city budget is starving for money, because politicians make a big political show every year of trying to keep property taxes below the rate of inflation, and they kind of have to because wages haven't kept up with inflation either for many people.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

That only matters if it actually improved the recovery ratio. Back in the "olden days" when express service existed the ratio was only 50%. We're targeting 55% now. Zone fares are not going to make a huge difference to that unless we want a much higher ratio. Every part of the city budget is starving for money, because politicians make a big political show every year of trying to keep property taxes below the rate of inflation, and they kind of have to because wages haven't kept up with inflation either for many people.

We need to go to a distance based fare system. That will require tapping out, but nobody can argue against distance based fares. It just makes sense that the further you travel, the higher the cost should be. That applies to cars, cabs, Uber. Why not transit? It will make the whole system more fair.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We need to go to a distance based fare system. That will require tapping out, but nobody can argue against distance based fares. It just makes sense that the further you travel, the higher the cost should be. That applies to cars, cabs, Uber. Why not transit? It will make the whole system more fair.

Purely distance-based, or zone-based? The latter could work very well if the Greenbelt is a zone border as it's a natural barrier.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Purely distance-based, or zone-based? The latter could work very well if the Greenbelt is a zone border as it's a natural barrier.

I have brought up both possibilities.

There could also be a time based factor built into a more sophisticated fare system as well.

For example, there could be a flat base fare for using the system. Say $1.50, plus so much per km. So let's say 0.10 per km plus there could be time based price.

If you travelled 10 km, then your fare is 1.50 + 1.00 = 2.50. If we add in a time factor, which considers the cost of running slow inefficient routes, you might have another 0.10 per 10 minutes. If you are on a bus for 30 minutes, this adds another 0.30 making a total of 2.80.

If you were coming in from Stittsville, say 25 km and on transit for 60 minutes, it would be 1.50+2.50+0.60 or $4.60.

Now let's say we are going from Stittsville to Bayshore. I am not being precise here, so don't get on me about that. Let's say it is 12 km and it takes 40 minutes. Then it would be 1.50+1.20+0.40=3.10


There would be penalty if you don't click off transit, say a $5.00 or $6.00 max fare would be charged.


Passes could be designed with maximum distances. A standard pass might give you a 15 or 20 km trip range. A regional pass would you give you unlimited trip lengths. If you exceed the distance with a standard pass, there would be an add on fare based on the additional distance travelled beyond the pass limit.


It is just an interesting thought that would improve fairness in transit fares. And with today's computing power, it becomes a possibility.

[roger1818]

^^^ How would you handle cash payment? Not everyone has a card they can tap on and off, especially kids. Would you have them prepay the correct fare based on their destination? That could be time consuming for the driver to look up. Would you revert to some sort of zone system for cash payment?

[roger1818]

I asked the Stage 2 team about double tracking of the Ellwood Diamond and received the following response:

The grade separation at Ellwood Diamond will be constructed with sufficient span to allow the future double tracking of the VIA Line. The grade separation structure will not preclude the future twinning of the structure to allow double tracking of the Trillium Line, however, the initial structure will only be built for a single track.

So there you have it. It will only be wide enough for single track of the Trillium Line, but the structure can be twinned.

[dhottawa729]

Originally Posted by roger1818

^^^ How would you handle cash payment? Not everyone has a card they can tap on and off, especially kids. Would you have them prepay the correct fare based on their destination? That could be time consuming for the driver to look up. Would you revert to some sort of zone system for cash payment?

Not everyone has a Presto card, but most people have phones, so why not design an alternate payment method similar to Uber's payment system? Download an OC Transpo app on your phone, tell it where you're going and it will give you a fare estimate. When you enter the station, scan your phone at the fare gate on your way in, and your phone's GPS will basically know when you've reached your destination because it can tell when you've left your destination station and resumed walking. With a system like that, customers pay only for what they use and OC Transpo can adjust rate calculations based on time of day if they wanted to.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by dhottawa729

Not everyone has a Presto card, but most people have phones, so why not design an alternate payment method similar to Uber's payment system? Download an OC Transpo app on your phone, tell it where you're going and it will give you a fare estimate. When you enter the station, scan your phone at the fare gate on your way in, and your phone's GPS will basically know when you've reached your destination because it can tell when you've left your destination station and resumed walking. With a system like that, customers pay only for what they use and OC Transpo can adjust rate calculations based on time of day if they wanted to.

And for those who don't? Especially children. You would need one device per person to scan in and out. Then what happens when your phone dies?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

^^^ How would you handle cash payment? Not everyone has a card they can tap on and off, especially kids. Would you have them prepay the correct fare based on their destination? That could be time consuming for the driver to look up. Would you revert to some sort of zone system for cash payment?

Exactly, a zone system of some sort for cash fares.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I asked the Stage 2 team about double tracking of the Ellwood Diamond and received the following response:



So there you have it. It will only be wide enough for single track of the Trillium Line, but the structure can be twinned.

Well in theory a new overpass can be constructed without needing to shut the line down... righhhhht?

Oh well. The grade separation will still be a huge improvement.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Well in theory a new overpass can be constructed without needing to shut the line down... righhhhht? :yuck

If they build the bridge supports now, they could potentially just drop in a second span in a similar way as the "rapid replacement" technology used on the Queensway overpasses. It shouldn't cost too much extra to do that and it would make things much easier later. I sent a reply asking if that is the plan.

Oh well. The grade separation will still be a huge improvement.

Yup. Huge!

[corynv]

Originally Posted by roger1818

If they build the bridge supports now, they could potentially just drop in a second span in a similar way as the "rapid replacement" technology used on the Queensway overpasses. It shouldn't cost too much extra to do that and it would make things much easier later. I sent a reply asking if that is the plan.

If they do something like this in the future, I would think the only time they'd need to shut down the line is when they need to replace tracks to add in switches for that segment.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We need to go to a distance based fare system. That will require tapping out, but nobody can argue against distance based fares. It just makes sense that the further you travel, the higher the cost should be. That applies to cars, cabs, Uber. Why not transit? It will make the whole system more fair.

I agree with your premise as the cost of using transit should mimic the cost of driving to the extent the further you go the more you pay. This will also lead to people choosing to live closer to their place of work or work being distributed throughout the city at transit nodes.

There should be a minimum fare for useage plus a distance based fare component. However, the longer the distance, the more the distance fare should be discounted. The total fare should never cost less for a longer distance subject to a discount than for a shorter distance subject to a lesser or no discount. A discount on long distance travel should be applied because it means fewer empty seat miles which means higher equipment utilization.

Fares should not be based on length of travel time because long travel times are primarily due to poor route structures and low frequencies which are out of the control of the transit user. Fares should also be discounted for travelling in non-peak time periods.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I agree with your premise as the cost of using transit should mimic the cost of driving to the extent the further you go the more you pay. This will also lead to people choosing to live closer to their place of work or work being distributed throughout the city at transit nodes.

There should be a minimum fare for useage plus a distance based fare component. However, the longer the distance, the more the distance fare should be discounted. The total fare should never cost less for a longer distance subject to a discount than for a shorter distance subject to a lesser or no discount. A discount on long distance travel should be applied because it means fewer empty seat miles which means higher equipment utilization.

Fares should not be based on length of travel time because long travel times are primarily due to poor route structures and low frequencies which are out of the control of the transit user. Fares should also be discounted for travelling in non-peak time periods.

The way we had it before with express and rural express bus fares were fine. The City should never have scrapped it to please suburban voters.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I agree with your premise as the cost of using transit should mimic the cost of driving to the extent the further you go the more you pay. This will also lead to people choosing to live closer to their place of work or work being distributed throughout the city at transit nodes.

There should be a minimum fare for useage plus a distance based fare component. However, the longer the distance, the more the distance fare should be discounted. The total fare should never cost less for a longer distance subject to a discount than for a shorter distance subject to a lesser or no discount. A discount on long distance travel should be applied because it means fewer empty seat miles which means higher equipment utilization.

Fares should not be based on length of travel time because long travel times are primarily due to poor route structures and low frequencies which are out of the control of the transit user. Fares should also be discounted for travelling in non-peak time periods.

Thank you for your comments. The more I think of time based fares, the more problematic it would be. For example, delays caused by weather, or traffic or detours. It would not be fair to charge for the extra time in cases like this.


If there is a base fare associated with a distance based fare, there will be a discount for longer distances, ie. the cost per km gets lower with distance, but always the fare will be higher for longer distances than shorter distances as it should be. The degree of distance discounting will depend on the amount of the base fare and the price per km. Lots of choices.

[Truenorth00]

Practically speaking a combination would be best. Make trains tap on/tap off and base them on distance. Make buses time-based. And combine when both modes are used.

London sort of does something like this.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Practically speaking a combination would be best. Make trains tap on/tap off and base them on distance. Make buses time-based. And combine when both modes are used.

London sort of does something like this.

While all of this is fine, it's not going to change the budget situation at OC Transpo significantly, as a switch to zone fares would almost as a given be revenue neutral at least at first. Vancouver, which has zone fares, high density, and no greenbelt isn't much better off than us.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio

The TTC has an excellent ratio, but they have an advantage of far more people in less space. We'll have to get more creative than just tweaking fares if we want to significantly get more bang for buck.