ETS are not issuing tickets with end of 2024 expiry instead you can use last year’s tickets this year. I don’t know if that indicates they will be getting rid of tickets this year or not but it does sound suspicious.
 
David A said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m sure there’s threshold for the occasional user to just go get a “monthly pass” (if those still existed), but it’s likely under $20. Most people don’t use transit in Edmonton due to quality, not pricing. To convert the “middle class” users, it has to be reliable, convenient, and safe. People glad pay for Ubers all the time over transit. Or for 2 vehicles in a household just for the convenience of having a car accessible to both adults, even if they only both need it for separate uses 1 or 2 times a week.

Price isn’t the issue.
 
thommyjo said:
I’m sure there’s threshold for the occasional user to just go get a “monthly pass” (if those still existed), but it’s likely under $20. Most people don’t use transit in Edmonton due to quality, not pricing. To convert the “middle class” users, it has to be reliable, convenient, and safe. People glad pay for Ubers all the time over transit. Or for 2 vehicles in a household just for the convenience of having a car accessible to both adults, even if they only both need it for separate uses 1 or 2 times a week.

Price isn’t the issue.
Click to expand...

And for those where the fee is a barrier, they may qualify for monthly passes at $35/month - based on income and other factors.

www.edmonton.ca

Ride Transit Program | City of Edmonton

The Ride Transit Program provides greater access to transit by offering adult and youth passes to eligible Edmontonians at a subsidized rate.
www.edmonton.ca www.edmonton.ca
 
Foolworm said:
Wait... A Flexity vehicle only has 1.5x the capacity of a SD-160 despite being almost twice the length?
Click to expand...
Yeah. That's with Edmonton's suboptimal seating arrangement, and the lack of walkthrough trains that should probably be implemented (see Frankfurt U5).

With better seating and walkthrough trains, ETS would be closer to around 1,300 people per 5 car train compared to the current capacity of around 950 people. The Subway in Edmonton will be able to move just slightly under the TTCs highest capacity line, with no modifications to any stations.

Now imagine you're Calgary. Sinking billions into an underground subway line, but running low floor CAF Urbos trains, with only slightly higher capacity than Edmonton's Valley Line trains.
I think it's stupid, and it will put their subway system at around 60% the capacity of ours, despite being 50-60 years newer.

We complain here about ETS' decision to have at grade crossings, the choices made regarding Valley Line, etc. Atleast the people running things here know the difference between a tram-like line and a subway.

I do think the Valley Line is going to run into capacity issues shortly, and will need to run exclusively 2 car trains. This can be solved to an extent by increasing frequency, and creative train stacking during extreme peak times. Still, it's currently capable of moving 16,500 sardines per hour at 5 minute headways.
 
Regarding ARC vs paper ETS fare media, iirc ETS has already noted a drop in "fares" initially as people went for the card as they didn't need/want a full booklet, so buy what you need, equals less purchases until you reload, and should eventually even out.
Of course, off loading the costs to ARC and their administration should be cheaper than keeping things in house, anybody recall what ARC costs?

But going back to the buy what you need theme, It's past time to initiate fare zones.
As an example, a person boards the bus in Secord, and is set to go downtown (or further). Nice, maybe 1 or 2 transfers, and a seat.
Picture the same rider boarding at 124th going into downtown. Rider lucks out and finds a seat, but more likely, no seat, and crammed in line sardines.
Or a rider boarding downtown to southgate, vs downtown to whyte avenue.
The buying what you need/use philosophy fails as there are not any fare variances related to a different product. Should be a simple enough with the ARC programming.
I read a lot of backlash regarding the cards cost and registration when first rolled out. Yes, they passed out many free cards, but the 6.00 fee may be an issue to some, maybe 2.00?
Then the registration issue, how much revenue will this create for ARC, because, let's face it, that is happening (ARC is not a charity) with the offer of saved balances and replacement cards seems a reasonable solution.
Some will never freely give out our information, and yes I am one of "them". I prefer anonymity and will select whom my information is shared.

Still would have liked the high floor vehicle vs the low floor as capacity is greater, and allows greater accessibility look at McKernan Station or Calgarys 39th
 
heard on a podcast from the ETS manager that they aren’t doing fare zones anymore as originally planned due to “equity”.

I disagree and would love to see their report/logic.

Essentially their argument is that you can’t punish low income people who have to live further away from work.

What about all the low income people paying $3 to travel 20 blocks downtown though, while rich suburbs kids take a bus and the LRT 100+ blocks into uni or downtown?

I don’t think the framing should be “pay more for farther”, but rather “pay less for shorter”. I actually think the non fare zone approach is more inequitable.
 
I'm gonna come out and say that I don't really care for the equity argument, but I'm against fare zones. Fare gates at all stations where it's possible (regardless of the line) can be paired with the flat rate of $2.70 for the entire city. I don't think discouraging suburban ridership on transit would be a good idea at all. I ride StAT enough to know what limited service from low demand does to a service area. None ARC payment options should have been scrapped at the end of 2023, in my opinion. Allowing paper transfers delays fare gates until at least 2025 now.
 
Habibfazil said:
Then the registration issue, how much revenue will this create for ARC, because, let's face it, that is happening (ARC is not a charity) with the offer of saved balances and replacement cards seems a reasonable solution.
Click to expand...
I fail to follow. How does registering a card create revenue?
Registering does protect balances.

Benefits of Registering an Arc Account:
Protect your money if your card is ever lost or stolen.
Auto-reload money on your account.
Link multiple Arc cards on one account.
Required for access to eligible discounted fares - including for seniors, youth and other discounted programs - when available in 2023.
 
I support getting rid of the 90 min transfer window and instead charge a distance base fare up to a max of $2 to $3 per ride tap on then tap off. I think this would be a fair system and encourage people who only ride 2-3 stops to use the bus
 
Barnaby said:
Yeah. That's with Edmonton's suboptimal seating arrangement, and the lack of walkthrough trains that should probably be implemented (see Frankfurt U5).

With better seating and walkthrough trains, ETS would be closer to around 1,300 people per 5 car train compared to the current capacity of around 950 people. The Subway in Edmonton will be able to move just slightly under the TTCs highest capacity line, with no modifications to any stations.

Now imagine you're Calgary. Sinking billions into an underground subway line, but running low floor CAF Urbos trains, with only slightly higher capacity than Edmonton's Valley Line trains.
I think it's stupid, and it will put their subway system at around 60% the capacity of ours, despite being 50-60 years newer.

We complain here about ETS' decision to have at grade crossings, the choices made regarding Valley Line, etc. At least the people running things here know the difference between a tram-like line and a subway.

I do think the Valley Line is going to run into capacity issues shortly, and will need to run exclusively 2 car trains. This can be solved to an extent by increasing frequency, and creative train stacking during extreme peak times. Still, it's currently capable of moving 16,500 sardines per hour at 5 minute headways.
Click to expand...

In the first place, the capacity assumptions that the Siemens and Bombardier vehicles uses are different. The Flexity vehicle capacity assumes AW2, or seating plus 4 ppm. The 190 person capacity of the high floor Siemens vehicles is based on AW3, seating plus 6 ppm instead.
 
Foolworm said:
In the first place, the capacity assumptions that the Siemens and Bombardier vehicles uses are different. The Flexity vehicle capacity assumes AW2, or seating plus 4 ppm. The 190 person capacity of the high floor Siemens vehicles is based on AW3, seating plus 6 ppm instead.
Click to expand...
I didn't use Bombardier's capacity estimates. What I did was apply Calgary's S200 (longitudinal seating) capacity, and only added an additional 13 people per car to my capacity estimate due to the center sections. Chances are I'm 50-100 people low on my estimate, but it's not high whatsoever.
 
Barnaby said:
I didn't use Bombardier's capacity estimates. What I did was apply Calgary's S200 (longitudinal seating) capacity, and only added an additional 13 people per car to my capacity estimate due to the center sections. Chances are I'm 50-100 people low on my estimate, but it's not high whatsoever.
Click to expand...
No, I'm referring to just the first part of the post, Calgary and Toronto's vehicles have nothing to do with my original question.

Barnaby said:
Yeah. That's with Edmonton's suboptimal seating arrangement, and the lack of walkthrough trains that should probably be implemented (see Frankfurt U5).
Click to expand...
 
The only issue I really have with Arc is that the tap on/off function is more awkward than basically any other tap card I've used. You often have to hold the card on the reader for a good second or two, which wastes time for impatient riders/drivers, and there's semi-regularly issues with even getting it to read at all. I never have this issue with any other tap card, from Tokyo to Los Angeles. It's a quick swipe and read.

This is admittedly a relatively mild complaint in the grand scheme of things.
 
Foolworm said:
No, I'm referring to just the first part of the post, Calgary and Toronto's vehicles have nothing to do with my original question.
Click to expand...
I see what you are saying now. If you control for the differences, it would put the 2 car Valley Line train at 743 passengers?, so just shy of the capacity of the current SD160s of 760 in a 4 car arrangement.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top