Decision Made! (was:Edmonton Transit Fare Strategy Review
Bradshaw, Cynthia
Is the "free zone" during peak hours to facilitate moving buses through town? I know for us (Seattle) that avoiding the time to collect fares downtown is significant in terms of speed and street capacity downtown.
Cynthia
-----Original Message-----
From: Jame Guthrie [mailto:jim.g...@gov.edmonton.ab.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 9:50 AM
To: tran...@cc.UManitoba.CA
Subject: Re: Decision Made! (was:Edmonton Transit Fare Strategy Review
The proposals have effectively been adopted for start Jan 2001.
-adult fare $1.75
-adult ticket $1.50 (not sold individually, this is the effective rate)
-child ticket $1.25 (good for age 6-17, increased from 15)
-child ticket $1.00
-Seniors pass $80/yr..
-Low income senior pass $40
-single "day pass" for child adult and senior, all at same fare.
-students monthly passes valid year round Monday to Friday, including
holidays (holidays used to be excluded, as were summer breaks)
- 35,000 tickets paid for out of Civic budget for use by low income riders.
(Donate a ride programme)
-no free mid day and Saturday service in Downtown LRT
Jim Guthrie wrote in message <39d2...@champ.gov.edmonton.ab.ca>...
>http://www.gov.edmonton.ab.ca/transit/fare_strategy_review/index.html
>is a link to the actual proposals and some background papers.
>In light of other discussion here, I thought it may be of interest.
>In brief, there are several interesting proposals:
>1. Abolition of the free use LRT in the Downtown in off peak time.
>2. Phased in abolition of senior citizens fares
>3. Adding in a means test based "low income" fare
>4. Raising the cash fare to $1.75 then $2.00 (a Twoony coin's worth)
largely
>to reduce coin handling costs
>5. Dropping the single ticket fare to $1.50
>
>This is not a done deal, but has generated discussion, as one can imagine.
>
>
Jame Guthrie
Bradshaw, Cynthia wrote in message <0A783574FBD0D311B3B0...@kcmail1.metrokc.gov>...
Robert Cote
<jim.g...@gov.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
> It sounds like the free zone will disappear in January, as planned.
> The Downtown Business Association is lobbying for its retention.
> Transit says that if someone else will subsidize the "lost" fares,
> then fine, but it is not ETS's business to subsidize downtown
> businesses.
Is that a chorus of angels I hear? Yes, singing hossanas!
> I put the "loss" in quotes, as the elasticity of demand
> for the "free" users is thought to be quite low: faced with a fare,
> many will walk or possibly take cars for close in journeys.
Try telling this to Portland's Tri-Met. They seem to think
otherwise. They are attempting to expand "fareless square" with the
stated belief that increased revenues will cover increased demand.
...
> (Our first winter snow was yesterday BTW!).
And I have to go out and mow my environmentally correct driveway
again. We all have our own crosses to carry.
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:g_GN5.567$bb.2...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> In article <3a06...@champ.gov.edmonton.ab.ca>, "Jame Guthrie"
> <jim.g...@gov.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > It sounds like the free zone will disappear in January, as planned.
> > The Downtown Business Association is lobbying for its retention.
> > Transit says that if someone else will subsidize the "lost" fares,
> > then fine, but it is not ETS's business to subsidize downtown
> > businesses.
>
> Is that a chorus of angels I hear? Yes, singing hossanas!
>
> > I put the "loss" in quotes, as the elasticity of demand
> > for the "free" users is thought to be quite low: faced with a fare,
> > many will walk or possibly take cars for close in journeys.
>
> Try telling this to Portland's Tri-Met. They seem to think
> otherwise. They are attempting to expand "fareless square" with the
> stated belief that increased revenues will cover increased demand.
>
You're wrong again, with your glib quackery canned
It's not Tri-Met that seeks "fareless square" to expand.
Robert Cote
"John" <jk...@dps.org> wrote:
Take off. From, http://www.tri-met.org/fareless_hist.htm
----
Following are the benefits and objectives cited in the report.
Fareless Square:
1. promotes transit riding by providing people who do not currently
use transit an opportunity to try it;
2. Reduces auto generated air pollution by eliminating short auto
trips within the free fare zone;
3. Helps provide higher mobility and coordination for travel
between governmental centers and offices in the downtown;
4. Provides more opportunities for travel within downtown to
retail, financial, hotel and entertainment areas.
The Transportation Control Plan outlined methods for addressing air
quality problems in the Portland air shed. Fareless Square was
promoted as a component of this plan. Other elements of the plan
included the downtown parking lid and staggered work hours. In
addition, Fareless Square was promoted as an element of downtown
revitalization.
----
That covers the claim I made about higher ridership.
Then go to;
http://www.ci.portland.or.us/mayor/speeches/2/farerepttps.htm
Where herhonner says:
----
Fareless Transit Report City Council hearing
January 14, 1999
* This is an excellent report that points out what we can do in
the short term to make Tri-Met more fareless and increase ridership.
* I raised the option of fareless transit in State of City speech
last year because we weren't - and still aren't - doing enough to
build a transportation system that connects us and gets us out of
our cars.
* My first priority is to build out our transportation system -
through light rail, streetcar, and Tri-Met's Transit Choices for
Livability recommendations.
* The idea behind fareless was to get people to ride on the system
we already have and the system when it's complete.
* To do that, we need to level the playing field between the car
and transit. As the report points out, people don't recognize the
hidden subsidies for auto use - they may think a 10-mile trip costs
50-cents to a dollar for gas, but the real cost to taxpayers and our
fellow citizens is really about $5-10.
* Our latest surveys show that our livabilty is improving in every
area except transportation.
* I will continue to raise transportation issues and options every
chance I can.
* Look forward to working with Tri-Met and our other regional
partners to work to implement some of these suggestions.
----
What was that part about Tri-Met?
Anyway moving on you jerk:
http://www.oregonlive.com/oped/99/08/ed081602.html
----
Some folks are sure to grouse about Tri-Met's agreement to extend
the downtown Fareless Square across the Willamette River to the
Lloyd District. But it's a welcome decision that didn't come easily
or quickly. And the partnership that made it happen is a model for
other, wannabe-fareless districts.
...
It took a determined and creative partnership of the city of
Portland, Multnomah County, Metro, the lodging and rental-car
companies, the Portland Oregon Visitors Association and Tri-Met to
make the Lloyd District extension happen.
----
Yep, dragged kicking and screaming into providing expanded service.
Go away you sad little creature.
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:6LKN5.4485$PP3.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> In article <OHJN5.1074$2X3.2...@news-east.usenetserver.com>,
> "John" <jk...@dps.org> wrote:
>
> > "Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
> > news:g_GN5.567$bb.2...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> > > In article <3a06...@champ.gov.edmonton.ab.ca>, "Jame Guthrie"
> > > <jim.g...@gov.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Try telling this to Portland's Tri-Met. They seem to think
> > > otherwise. They are attempting to expand "fareless square" with
> > > the
> > > stated belief that increased revenues will cover increased demand.
> > >
> > You're wrong again, with your glib quackery canned
> > It's not Tri-Met that seeks "fareless square" to expand.
>
> Take off. From, http://www.tri-met.org/fareless_hist.htm
> ----
<snip benefits and objectives>
> ----
> That covers the claim I made about higher ridership.
>
> Then go to;
> http://www.ci.portland.or.us/mayor/speeches/2/farerepttps.htm
>
> Where herhonner says:
<snip>
>
> * Look forward to working with Tri-Met and our other regional
> partners to work to implement some of these suggestions.
> ----
> What was that part about Tri-Met?
>
> Anyway moving on you jerk:
> http://www.oregonlive.com/oped/99/08/ed081602.html
> ----
> Some folks are sure to grouse about Tri-Met's agreement to extend
<snip>
> ----
>
> Yep, dragged kicking and screaming into providing expanded service.
>
==============
-->> "It's not Tri-Met that SEEKS "fareless square" to expand"
---------------------------
Main Entry:seek
Function:verb
Etymology:Middle English seken, from Old English s*can; akin to Old High
German suohhen to seek, Latin sagus prophetic, Greek h*geisthai to lead
Date:before 12th century
transitive senses
3 : to ask for : REQUEST
-----------------------
-->>Who then a bigger 'fareless square' does demand?
"In my state of the city speech, I proposed we seriously consider
implementing a totally fareless transit system ... " Vera Katz, Op Ed in The
Oregonian, 7.25.98
"We completed a study of my proposal to implement a fareless transit system
..." Vera Katz, State of the City address, 1.22.99
"The agreement I recently helped broker between the visitor industry and the
City, County, Metro, and Tri-Met means we will finally have Fareless Square
extended to the east side. ...." Vera Katz, Speech to the Portland
Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, 10.20.99
http://www.ci.portland.or.us/mayorstate/FarelessTransit.htm
> Go away you sad little creature.
----
Said Robert: "Try telling this to Portland's Tri-Met. ... They are
attempting to expand "fareless square" ..."
-->>Perhaps the English language Robert just doesn't understand,
-->>Or perhaps he thinks Tri-Met is the government of Portland?
Bradshaw, Cynthia
-----Original Message-----
From: Jame Guthrie [mailto:jim.g...@gov.edmonton.ab.ca]
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 2:59 PM
To: tran...@cc.UManitoba.CA
Subject: Re: Decision Made! (was:Edmonton Transit Fare Strategy Review
I have to reply up top as you did this in HTML.The free zone is on the LRT only, not surface buses. In theory we could have a "cordon" around the CBD, but we do not have the "board at front, board at rear" system used in Seattle.Fare collection time on board is not a huge deal, as most passengers at busy times are pass users. The main delay is students trying to "stretch" the time on transfer slips, which drivers may choose to scrutinize carefully.It sounds like the free zone will disappear in January, as planned. The Downtown Business Association is lobbying for its retention. Transit says that if someone else will subsidize the "lost" fares, then fine, but it is not ETS's business to subsidize downtown businesses. I put the "loss" in quotes, as the elasticity of demand for the "free" users is thought to be quite low: faced with a fare, many will walk or possibly take cars for close in journeys. (We have an extensive pedway system that allows weather protected travel amongst the main downtown building complexes. The LRT stations are linked into this - that is one of the attractions for the free use - you don't need a coat in mid-winter.
(Our first winter snow was yesterday BTW!).
Bradshaw, Cynthia wrote in message <0A783574FBD0D311B3B0...@kcmail1.metrokc.gov>..Is the "free zone" during peak hours to facilitate moving buses through town? I know for us (Seattle) that avoiding the time to collect fares downtown is significant in terms of speed and street capacity downtown.
Cynthia