[txlseries4]

This is very interesting (from the TPA annual report):

View attachment 683493

Not to diminish the importance of the regular users, but it's interesting to see how important tourists and infrequent users are to the financial viability of Bikeshare Toronto.

The split of trips between annual and casual users between Oct 1 2023 to Sept 30 2024 (ridership data is out of date...) over 6,594,451 trips:
Annual members: 582523
Casual member: 6011928

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

The city of toronto finally learned about a thing called Speed Cushions (Speed bumps with divots for higher clearance and wider vehicles to pass through unimpeded) so they're going to be going with that whenever there's a bus route so that they can implement traffic calming on roads with bus routes while still allowing buses to move freely. However I think it is a bit much that the TTC is AFAIK the only system that doesn't run any revenue service on roads with speed bumps or raised crosswalks/intersections. Many other systems are fine with it.

Speed Cushions instead of Speed Humps...

 

[max]

Bikeshare's annual member pricing has always been shockingly low so I'm not surprised. They could easily increase membership cost by probably double and not see a huge decline in membership, especially if they shifted to a monthly membership fee ($14.99/month!). Annual memberships are well known in the marketing world to be discouraging for users who avoid large one-time charges.

Shifting from a $105/year fee to a $9.99/month fee would likely actually increase membership due the psychology of it, plus result in an effective fare increase of 14%.

This year I noticed they have an option to split the $105 annual payment into 3 consecutive equal monthly installments of $35, so I think they're trying to use that psychology to get people to sign up while avoiding the large one time payment.

 

[Natika33]

This year I noticed they have an option to split the $105 annual payment into 3 consecutive equal monthly installments of $35, so I think they're trying to use that psychology to get people to sign up while avoiding the large one time payment.

I would happily pay a one-time per year payment if it was significantly cheaper than the monthly "streaming" cost. Why can't both options be offered?

 

[innsertnamehere]

I would happily pay a one-time per year payment if it was significantly cheaper than the monthly "streaming" cost. Why can't both options be offered?

Many companies offer this, and yet the majority of customers still usually take the monthly.

I pay the annual always if it’s cheaper personally - but that’s not the norm. There is a reason people have tendencies to talk about insurance payments, phone plans, etc as monthly costs and not total purchase prices or annual costs overall.

 

[Northern Light]

Many companies offer this, and yet the majority of customers still usually take the monthly.

I pay the annual always if it’s cheaper personally - but that’s not the norm. There is a reason people have tendencies to talk about insurance payments, phone plans, etc as monthly costs and not total purchase prices or annual costs overall.

I don't mean to get the thread off topic on a tangent...........but what are you doing posting after 10pm? You're supposed to be an early morning poster....keeping UT interesting at 7:30am....... but you like a full night's sleep.

You can't be posting at this hour, you'll be late getting up and it will throw of the whole UT morning vibe. Just saying.

 

[txlseries4]

I would happily pay a one-time per year payment if it was significantly cheaper than the monthly "streaming" cost. Why can't both options be offered?

A discount for upfront payment by a city owned company would be a bad look through the equity lens, favouring those able to pay the larger amount

 

[Natika33]

A discount for upfront payment by a city owned company would be a bad look through the equity lens, favouring those able to pay the larger amount

Hmm, I suppose.