[SarcasticMarmot]

“We’re also considering whether there are other offerings related to Arc that people are looking for, in terms of the types of fare media and how people are travelling,”

They really need to look into pay for distance. Short trips for irregular users are discouraged under the current fare structure.

For example, my wife and I live by stadium station. It would make a ton of sense for us to take the train 1-2 stops downtown for an event. But that ends up costing $14 between the two of us. Much cheaper to drive in and park. When we lived in Asia a decade ago fares were done by distance. One train stop: 50 cents, two stops: 75 cents, etc until the cap. That would open up a whole new market of use for the trains and is completely doable with the ARC system.

 

[dkazzed]

Maybe a multi-use Arc ticket to replace the 10 ticket pack for those who are adamant on buying things retail and not being tracked. The ticket validators need to go.

Without fare gates, I don't know if paper monthly passes need to go. The advantage of moving away from it in favour of Arc is that it makes it easy for police and security to observe who's tapping in.

 

[dkazzed]

They really need to look into pay for distance. Short trips for irregular users are discouraged under the current fare structure.

For example, my wife and I live by stadium station. It would make a ton of sense for us to take the train 1-2 stops downtown for an event. But that ends up costing $14 between the two of us. Much cheaper to drive in and park. When we lived in Asia a decade ago fares were done by distance. One train stop: 50 cents, two stops: 75 cents, etc until the cap. That would open up a whole new market of use for the trains and is completely doable with the ARC system.

Vancouver promised distanced-based fares when it was released in 2015 but hasn't delivered yet. Edmonton hasn't promised anything at all.

Remember the days of the fare free downtown zone?

 

[thommyjo]

They really need to look into pay for distance. Short trips for irregular users are discouraged under the current fare structure.

For example, my wife and I live by stadium station. It would make a ton of sense for us to take the train 1-2 stops downtown for an event. But that ends up costing $14 between the two of us. Much cheaper to drive in and park. When we lived in Asia a decade ago fares were done by distance. One train stop: 50 cents, two stops: 75 cents, etc until the cap. That would open up a whole new market of use for the trains and is completely doable with the ARC system.

Agreed. When the new west line opens, I’ll have grocery stores 1 stop away. Hopping on the train vs a 17 min walk would be nice. But the cost being equal to Lewis farms to downtown is frustrating.

Could also work well as a solution for “downtown free zone” concerns about loitering and such. Still have to pay. But 1 dollar to get to brewery district from central business district makes a lot more sense than $3.50-7 potentially.

 

[SarcasticMarmot]

Vancouver promised distanced-based fares when it was released in 2015 but hasn't delivered yet. Edmonton hasn't promised anything at all.

Remember the days of the fare free downtown zone?

Which is so frustrating, its not exactly a novel system that hasn't been used around the world for decades!

I'm not such a fan of a downtown zone, people still need to get downtown before it helps. And if you live nearish downtown the cost/benefit for irregular users just isn't there.

Both cases are the result of a system designed by office commuters that only makes sense for office commuters. Not a transit system designed for people to use as an alternative to driving.

 

[occidentalcapital]

If you take a lot of short trips I think ARC is actually a big improvement because of the fare capping over the month.

 

[dkazzed]

Just using it as an example that City of Edmonton at one point was willing to sacrifice a bit of fare revenue to increase ridership in the system, albeit a limited part of it. With distance-based fares, they wouldn't sacrifice it completely and may attract new ridership. Busier transit vehicles in turn leads to safer transit, which will attract more people to transit who were on the fence due to safety.

 

[soupcrate]

They really need to look into pay for distance. Short trips for irregular users are discouraged under the current fare structure.

For example, my wife and I live by stadium station. It would make a ton of sense for us to take the train 1-2 stops downtown for an event. But that ends up costing $14 between the two of us. Much cheaper to drive in and park. When we lived in Asia a decade ago fares were done by distance. One train stop: 50 cents, two stops: 75 cents, etc until the cap. That would open up a whole new market of use for the trains and is completely doable with the ARC system.

$2.75 x 2 trips x 2 people = $11.
Still a fair point, but the last thing ETS needs is less revenue.

 

[erudyk_29]

When it comes to pay for distance, without fare gates on the LRT, you're essentially working on the honors system. (Which the LRT basically runs on anyways most of the time since there's usually nothing and no one stopping you from just getting on the train). If a pay for distance system was implemented, I would like to see a system similar to the Bangkok MRT where it gives you a reusable/rechargeable token for the stop you are supposed to end up getting off at. You tap to get on and then return the token into a slot to get off. This would reduce waste from having to print a new card or ticket every time you get on the train.

 

[David A]

They really need to look into pay for distance. Short trips for irregular users are discouraged under the current fare structure.

For example, my wife and I live by stadium station. It would make a ton of sense for us to take the train 1-2 stops downtown for an event. But that ends up costing $14 between the two of us. Much cheaper to drive in and park. When we lived in Asia a decade ago fares were done by distance. One train stop: 50 cents, two stops: 75 cents, etc until the cap. That would open up a whole new market of use for the trains and is completely doable with the ARC system.

Interesting idea. Sadly, our transit bureaucracy seems remarkable resistant to user ideas. They want to make it more difficult and costly for us to use it and then they wonder why more people don't.

 

[SarcasticMarmot]

$2.75 x 2 trips x 2 people = $11.
Still a fair point, but the last thing ETS needs is less revenue.

Yes, $11 if you use the ARC card.

Is it less revenue? The train is running anyways, the choice is between not driving or driving and we are choosing driving because its cheaper for short trips.

 

[David A]

If you take a lot of short trips I think ARC is actually a big improvement because of the fare capping over the month.

A lots of short trips is a frequent user and ARC becomes like bus pass, but yes the incentives are not there for infrequent users.

This idea could also work, say for those who would like to travel from Corona to Central Station when it is cold or rainy out, if you have a lower rate for a short trip.

It could get more people using the LRT, people who are not regular users and so it would be a revenue gain, because otherwise they wouldn't be using it as much or at all.

 

[CplKlinger]

One of the vending machines at Bonnie Doon was out of Arc Cards on Sunday.

 

[thommyjo]

Interesting article in St Alberta media about arc cards dropping Edmonton transit revenue, but they don’t think it will for them. Had some numbers in it too.

 

[Kosy123]

Honestly it's good to finally see a number for what current LRT ridership is like, along with the tidbit that it's off peak service that hasn't fully recovered yet.