Essay on a Bus

Plans
Candidates for the Mayor's and Councillors' job must play to the audience. Too often, logic flies right out the window. There is an understandable urge to tell those in the live audience the things they want to hear. Each candidate deserves a pat on the back. It takes a lot of courage to put themselves out there,to achieve a lofty goal, and barring evidence to the contrary each does it to serve the community. They must be or at the very least appear to be knowledgeable about everything. And its an eclectic list; budgets, police, fire, ambulance, streets, construction projects, sewers, shelters, parades and then there is the transit file. Ah yes. Transit.

Closely examine each municipal candidate's transit plan. Not one plan meets the city's challenge.Disappointingly the plans lack vision. The only common factor politicians obsess about is subways, subways, subways. A major part of their difficulties arise from whose advice they listen to. The advice about subways doesn't solve the issues of transit. Indeed putting a subway in the wrong place is worse than no transit.

Politicians seem to misunderstand why the TTC and public transit is so popular with the voters. Its because most people believe that it will solve Toronto's famous traffic gridlock. It won't, it will only make it worse. Why?

Most people want subways because they think everyone else will use the subway while they can continue on alone in their own cars. Problem, every other driver is thinking the exact same thing.

So subways are a total waste of money, if the reason is to reduce gridlock. Yes. If I were a politician I would change the whole idea of public transit by hiring smart people who know about public transit and keep my big political nose out of it.

Why? Its all about winning votes. And this results in the obvious parade of platitudes. They lose the opportunity to the real purpose of public transit in an urban environment. To them the TTC isn't about moving people. Its about moving votes. Let this be a lesson to all in all the other cities. The problems of urban transit exist in every Canadian city. So many people, including experts never identify and focus on just what public transit is for, its purpose.


Initial Goal

Toronto is an example of how not to do things. One overriding challenge emerges. As much as possible, keep politics out of public transit. The past Chair of the TTC (Karen Stintz) did a good job. The operators appreciated her chutzpah because the anecdote is that on the very first day she didn't know what a “short turn”was. She managed to learn quickly. Despite her obvious smarts, she never seemed to quite understand what public transit is for. I don't refer to budgets. I don't refer to managerial decisions.

To her credit she did resist the initial barrage of political pressure for more subways. Repetitive mantras of the demand for subways forces the political response, not a rational stage in the evolution of public transit. In this, she isn't alone by any means, the present mayor candidates with no exceptions it appearvto be in the same subway car. They don't really know what an effective public transit is for. As a result, any politician falls back onto cliche concepts, since so much of their activity includes the effort to get re-elected.

Piling onto the rest of the transit problem is that technology evolves so fast. Quickly technology problems develop as the supposed solution disappears. This points to the premise that somehow the purpose of public transit gets lost in the shuffle of a myriad of decision making. Rarely do they have the time to sit back and examine the wide scope. If they sat back for the moment, giving themselves to the time to work out the plan, subways would be the last option, not the first. How does that work?

In the case of transit issues, finding the definitions of the transport mode comes first. An updating of the ideas with regard to public transit gets the priority. The plans for fixing the transit system are worn cliches. We need more buses. We need more LRT. We need more subways. We first need an understanding of public transit. Otherwise, with no understanding of public transit, few projects will work.

Who, what, where and how much? Good intentions,along with good money wind up with bad results. Indecision emerges in rampant abstract forms. Toronto politicians, along with their provincial counterparts flip and flop in every sense on major projects. Its a critical error. Common sense should prevail. Starting a construction project, then abruptly stopping it before its completed explodes the costs and delays a much needed solution.

Regardless of the interim phase of a project, reversing, changing, or stopping a project, always winds up costing far more hard cash money,than if the project was finished. Mothballing a project is preferred over finishing half a project and then stopping or worse canceling.Without a complete change in politicians thinking the whole political system falls into disrepute. Now to prevent this.

Hopefully these notes help people to understand the general philosophy of transportation in an urban environment. In Toronto, the transit system, the TTC is a mish mash of equipment leading to elevated maintenance and operational costs. A wide range of technology combined with the timing of their purchase means the vehicles don't interface well. The why of this costly Balkanization, supports the example of political indecision.

Pedal your ass

One of the most fascinating urban transportation vehicles is the bicycle. Examining its use helps to understand exactly what goal a public transit system must endeavour to achieve.Cyclists embrace bicycle use despite the fact that the design is poor, it leads to air pollution, it inflicts injuries on the user, it inflicts increased health costs on society, its unsafe to operate, it conflicts with other vehicles on the road, it encourages lawlessness, it exposes the user to the environment and its not very good in winter situations. Despite all that, the users embrace that vehicle passionately. Cyclists go nuts over bicycles despite the long list of facts against bicycle usage they go into spastic horror when people such as myself outline the downside. On the flip side, car drivers measure their automobile with the same identical vigorous passions. Together, the bicyclist, and motorists are poorest transport analysts on the planet without fail. Selfish bias imprisons their opinion.

The reason why cyclists adore the contraption is because it does one thing very, very, very, very, very well. Its huge outstanding advantage is that it allows the rider the satisfactory pleasure of moving cheaply, easily and flawlessly through the dense urban environment.

The passion expressed from the anthropological standpoint derives from the basic animal need for territory, the need to patrol it and the need to defend it. Hence the explosive nature of road rage in otherwise calm and caring individuals. The bicycle (and car) enable the person to patrol his/her own turf. The territorial impulse is the principle reason why bicyclists blindly clutch onto the bicycle as a transport mode. Its expressed as adoration for the machine, when much like the car, its an avatar for life's territorial and food gathering impulses.

The territorial need is the primary reason why the car dominates urban transportation. The huge majority and somewhat close to ninety percent of cars in the daily traffic rush and gridlock, carry a single person, while their vehicle carry two, four, or six people. It is a horrendous abuse of transport logic. Cars pollute. Cars are horrendously expensive and difficult to control. Car drivers cheat on the legal and safety boundaries very frequently. Cars control so much of one's daily experience. The control is financial. The control is the myriad of obligations to that mode.

Obligations include fueling, maintenance and paperwork. Again, like the bicycle people stick with the car over the logic of public transit because they keep that feeling of moving through the urban environment.

This is not a study specific to the dilemma of cycles and cars, but a study to make public transport to work better. The emotional illogical power of these single user machines must be understood. Although they appear in conflict, the use of cars and bicycles stem from the same transportation philosophy. They allow the user to move efficiently through the urban environment despite gridlock.

For the community, accommodating these single user modes mean allotting a huge percentage of the urbanscape to facilitate the use of these cars and bicycles. The size, direction, and huge chunks of that dedicated real estate lead to urban sprawl, urban pollution. At the psychological level such transport practices exacerbates personal alienation with respect to other people and the urban landscape.

Logically public transit should dominate the other vehicle modes in every way including land use. Public transit in every way should crush the car/bicycle mode. Theoretically, it is cheaper. In fact it is cheaper. Factually its safer. Factually,public transit is far more environmentally friendly than single occupancy vehicles. Yes bicycles causes equal pollution compared to the car. That costing of bicycles is a whole other essay. Careful complete costing of bicycles is never done because a thorough examination of any vehicle type usually points to the fact that user always dramatically undervalues the actual costs. Regardless, the passion that the car/bicycle possess, forces the use of public transit into a distant third place.

On the car/bicycle a person travels through the environment with open options. Conversely the modern bus/ street car/light rail transit/ subway tend to isolate the user from the environment. Public transit vehicles lose the one on one intimacy with the environment. Failing to understand transport modes and their use developers have confused public and mass transit concepts to the detriment of both, and to the detriment of the environment. Public transit vehicles are poorly designed simply for the reason that those responsible don't use public transit and don't understand public transit.

An aside here. To appreciate the importance of a human need to move through the urban environment it explains the popularity of the street car as a public transit vehicle. Rail riding vehicles are notoriously expensive and difficult to operate. However, those cities that retain them because the city residents, the transit riders demand their continued use. Energy and operational costs are low but the vehicles present operational inflexibility, expensive maintenance, high cost parts, rail maintenance. Its a technology that exceeds the bicycle in its antiquity since it is directly descends from the cable car, and horse drawn and rail carriages. On the good side, streetcars are far better for the environment than cars or bicycles. They are better than buses for the riders from the standpoint that they glide through the urban environment.


Public versus the Mass

Mass transit and public transit are quite different concepts from one another but transit owners, management and operators treat them as the identical thing. The reason for this confusion is the fact that both concepts use the same vehicles, the same ancillary equipment, and the same maintenance regimes. Its the same equipment for different uses.

Mass transit is that transit which circumvents much of the surface urban matrix. For instance, the jet airliner can be considered the penultimate mass transit device. Rail and subwayurban express systems are similar. They employ tunnels, under thecity, or railway right of ways to express through the city withoutinteracting with the urban turmoil. Mass transit systems work bestwith long distances between stops and focus on moving suburbanites from the burbs to their downtown offices or from city to city.

Buses, and street cars are examples of the public transit where these pieces of transport equipment moves through the urban environment. Public transit doesn't avoid urban infrastructure, it is part of the urban environment. It allows the rider the choice of getting on and off close to their chosen urban destination and in between. It allows passengers to observe the changes in the city. It allows the rider to witness individual businesses or local events.

The mainstay of public transit are buses. These things are ordered, designed and bought to mass transit specifications. The designs suited to public transportation are ignored. For that reason, Toronto buses are more like cattle carriers rather than people carriers. Paradoxically, in terms of operations,there is never enough buses.

Streetcars remain the most popular public transit vehicles where the infrastructure exists. Despite their desperate inflexibility regarding timeliness and overall performance is the worst of all when riding on a streetcar with no one standing and everyone seated is very competitive with the bicycle and car. Riding on them in the quiet of the electric motors a rider feels that they are riding through the environment. Street cars possess a more relaxing and laid back ambiance which people to take to in a favorable light. Toronto politicians tried to remove streetcars from the system but whenever that idea is floated there is a distinct vehemence of opposition by the vast majority of very people who use it.

Significantly, within our definition, streetcarsare not considered mass transit vehicles. Its probably the only vehicle specifically employed by and a part of the urban infrastructure.

At this point we need an outline of the two basic concepts of urban transit.

1. Mass transit avoids or circumvents the urban environment to move people to points or destinations within that urban area. Mass transit stations or interfaces are usually distant, beyond comfortable walking distance between those stations or stops.

2. Public transit is the movement of large numbers of people through the urban environment. Stations or stops are comparatively close together and always without exception within easy walking distance to the next station or stop in either direction.Often it is the most difficult method to operate since the greaterthe density of people and structure make it very difficult to sustain timed schedules.


Subways

Subways present that mode which is both a public transit concept and a demonstrative example of a mass transit concept. Fortunately the TTC subways enter both categories although in different stretches of the lines. Recall the criteria for public transit as being a part of the urban matrix. The need a Dense urban infrastructure preferably commercial/zones. The subway needs Short distances between stations. The stations are spaced within easy walking distances.

At this point, its important to introduce economic geography as a major factor. This is why one must avoid having politicians put their noses too deeply in the public transit systems. Too often they will back a subway or LRT system which goes along railway rights of way or through a string of publicly owned green spaces. On paper, it means that the land acquisition costs are cheaper. Yes that is true, but it does nothing to solve the public transit problem at all. It might solve a mass transit problem from the far suburbs on the outer reaches of the city, and it doesn't come close in solving that.

An example of the public transit model is the subway structure from Eglinton Station to Spadina Station on the Yonge – University(Mandela?) line of the TTC. A person can walk along the route and find that it is densely lined with retail/commercial/office buildings. The builders of the early subway understood that a subway built for public transit must mesh with the surface infrastructure.

Subways are intensely expensive infrastructure just by the nature and placement of it. This form of transport requires equally gigantic revenue to sustain the capitalization, the construction and initial operational phase to cover the cost of debt and bonds. The capital and the operational costs in the public model are supported by property taxation and short distance fares along its route or right of way. Conditionally, subways remain revenue neutral when the annual value of taxes collected along the right of way plus the portion of fare allocated to that section of right of way fully cover those costs.

The principle reason this section of subway infrastructure falls within the public transit concept is that a senior citizen can exit a station, walk along the street's surface in one direction with ease and then re-enters the subway system at the next station. The spacing of the stops approximates the spacing of a surface bus/streetcar stop. The subway system along this part of itsright of way is essentially a part of the surface infrastructure. It augments the surface structures and business. In that sense it is a public transit because it allows the rider access through the city and easy access to all parts of the city structure.

North of Eglinton Station on the Yonge Street subway line, the distance to the next station, the Lawrence station is considerably larger. The average senior citizen would find it an uncomfortable but not impossible walking distance. The subway route does not interface with the surface structure and has little or no effect on the surface. A shopper or senior carrying bags would find it an uncomfortable walking distance. Compared with the shorter distance stops of the older line there is the prevalence of discomfort for city users if the riders try to use it to access the surface commercial/office/retail. So the subway route north of falls outside the concept criteria of public transit because it circumvents the surface.

The right of way then continues from Lawrence, to York Mills and then to Sheppard Ave. Between these stations, there is long distances again. In our definition the essential purpose of the subway changes. Functionally; the subway no longer interfaces easily with the surface. The subway moves people from point to point. It becomes Mass transit.

Noticeably the surface structure changes. The quality and concentration of retail/commercial/office structures diminishes the further the distance from the exit of the subway door. Not surprisingly there seems to be a correlation between the distance of the walk from the station door and the concentration of commercial/office buildings. Generally speaking the mid distance between the stations are gaps where apartments and residences or small one or two story commercial structures exist.

In that mid zone between these mass transit stations the retail value of the surface lands and the reflective property tax revenue doesn't generate enough revenue to cover the costs of the capitalization and the presence of the subway. The subway circumvents surface structure especially at the mid-zone. In other words the presence of the subway holds no benefit for the surface structure and the lower property tax (plus fare revenue) does not substantially contribute to capital and operational costs. Only the surface structure immediately adjacent to those stations benefit from the presence of the subway.

This remained true for the street level businesses between Sheppard and Finch when the Metropolitan Toronto government consisted of quasi independent city states. North York City Hall was placed exactly midway between the two stations. Mel Lastman and the North York City Council lobbied furiously and successfully for the construction of a station at the North York City Hall complex. The TTC finally relented and constructed a station at that point.

Explosion of commercial development ensued. What the spotting of this station did, was enabling pedestrians to have ready access to the subway system within a comfortable walking distances between Finch, North York and Sheppard. The station served a major commercial/retail/office structure not formerly easily accessible by pedestrians. Remarkably within a decade of the construction of that station, growth of commercial/office/retail space between Finch and Sheppard spurted. That section of the subway, was changed from a mass transit role to a public transit role. Tragically, while a fantastic addition to that part of right of way, it also led to the delusion of subway operations on the behalf of politicians.

Politicians of North York mistook the implications that right of way. They insisted that the best place for the next east-west subway route was along Sheppard. They looked at the subway route but mistook the data they were looking at. The growth along their part of the Yonge line was spurred by making the subway functional for pedestrian access and use. The spacing of the subway stations are too far apart on that subway for stimulating surface commercial growth.

The Sheppard – Don Mills line should be a model for not how to build a subway. Huge grandiose expensive stations were built and built too far apart. The subway route flunked and still flops as a costly embarrassment to all things subway. Smaller stations and a greater number of stations within walking distance of one another would have been a far better use of taxpayer moneys. A station is sorely needed at Willowdale Road.

The presence of the subway caused a reduction of the frequency of buses along the Shepard public transit corridor. This causes a reduction in the number of customers and users of retail because people using the subways are mass transit users not public transit users. The route moves the same number of people but surface business gains nothing from the presence of the subway as it did from the presence of frequent buses. Further the presence of the subway routes, did nothing to reduce traffic gridlock. If anything it may have cause more gridlock.

So here comes the significant lesson in the design and structure of public transit. The purpose of a public transit is not to reduce traffic gridlock. Public transit facilitates the movement of pedestrians.


Gridlock

Paradoxically, subways do reduce surface gridlock when its used to enhance pedestrian activity along the right of way. Mass transit doesn't. Again, mass transit may actually increase gridlock along the route. Mass transit encourages concentrated housing development such as townhouses and condominiums. This adds to the numbers of vehicles not reduces the number. For instance the Warden and Kennedy stations do not influence the land around them. And this is the third lesson of Mass versus Public transit.

In the study of the Shepard line, the spacing of the stations did stimulate growth in the form of housing projects that build townhouses, condos, and townhouses near and along the right of way. The subway only interfaces when spouses or students wish to travel. Usually there is one car per housing unit in this area. So the subway allows the driver to drop and pick up the other family members.

This is very similar to what happened at Warden Station on the Danforth line. When it first was built there was a vibrant shopping centre called Warden Woods. Its no more. In the terms of street location and location it wasn't placed very well. Even the construction of the subway station did nothing to rescue the mall. The proximity of a subway isn't the golden goose that politicians claim it is.

The same goes for the Kennedy station. Its placement doesn't assist nor does it impair the neighborhood businesses whatsoever. Indeed at the point of this writing, the nearest commercial property contains an abandoned coffee shop. Its been abandoned for a few years without a buyer. There are some businesses that are across from the station and the ownership has changed but the nature of the commercial use of that property hasn't changed since the end of line subway station was located there. This totally contradicts the theories that make it to the policies embraced by politicians who rarely use subways, by politicians who don't understand subways.

The absolute best route for a subway route beyond Main Station on the Danforth subway line would have turned the subway route east and north from Main Station onto Victoria Park and up Victoria Park then east onto Eglinton Avenue East with small and frequent stops to Kingston Road. There could be a link or fork along Eglinton East to Yonge and into Eglinton West out to Keele. Again the route would have more frequent and much smaller stations about the total size of the King Station downtown.

Why that route? First it has the best commercial potential. The present Warden Station and the present Kennedy Stations are mass transit terminals not public transit terminals. As public transit points, considering their cost its a total waste of money. Any effective new transit plan would construct a subway along the Victoria Park route, then branch out along Eglinton Avenue East. Once that is done, close Warden and perhaps Kennedy Stations.
The two stations provide an obvious case where the political influence on the TTC commission thwarted any common sense because the freckles of economic geography are patently absent. While it is one city, the City of Toronto, the two parts of this city formed along two completely different urban plans. They were at onetime two different smaller cities evolving with two completely different sets of politicians.

The original urban structure and planning of Toronto proper evolved around the horse and buggy with the Port of Toronto as its urban focus. The Borough of Scarborough evolved later and the urban plan evolved around the needs of the automobile. The latter has a distributed urban plan centred around the locations of housing projects. As a result the urban structure of Toronto needs a different subway routing strategy than Scarborough.
Toronto subways with the exception of the University line above Dupont Station can pay for itself. It would not be a bad investment to plunk a full subway along Queen St from Roncesvalle to the Beaches literally mimicking underground what the surface street car route is doing. Its an example of a part of the Toronto infrastructure just crying for a subway route again with frequent stops and small compact subway stations.

Why the Queen Street subway route was never constructed is beyond belief. It provides a clear example of too much politics impairing the transit commission. The original parts of the subway on the Yonge University lines and the Bloor-Danforth line didn't get the same level of political interference because the politicians in Toronto didn't really understand the impact of political influence that the public perception of subway construction involved. So the planners made all the right choices despite political fingers.

The demand needs of the automobile wasn't as great an influence during early subway projects compared with the monster it later became. The needs of the pedestrian outweighed the needs of the car in Toronto. In Scarborough, its a different city with regard to structure and planning. Its planning and construction totally involved and revolved around the automobile and auto owners. The planning evolution was and still is nodular.

In the most recent transit planning the proposals are totally politically driven. The most profound misunderstanding of just what public transit is emerges. There is a mistaken belief that traffic gridlock can be reduced by the presence of mass transit. The auto traffic gridlock along the GO transit lines in Ontario are just as heavy as before the advent of those methods of Mass transit. It is similar to the traffic gridlock out of PickerJax is just as heavy as it ever was.

The presence of the Kennedy and Warden Stations do nothing to reduce the traffic gridlock. The University line along the Allen Expressway did nothing to reduce the traffic knot above Lawrence Station. Where do the politicians get the idea that subways will solve surface traffic gridlock?

The answer is easy. People who do use subways are under the impression that they are faster. They are. Yet if you travel on the surface vehicles closely paralleling the subway route you will find that the time advantage isn't all that great. The determining factor on the TTC is the number of transfers. If you actually use the public transit one will quickly realizes that when you transfer vehicles it is reasonable to add time. Many transit users only count the time when actually on the vehicle. When planning any transit trip, add ten minutes at every transfer point including the first and the last stop. People just usually don't do that consciously.

The original transit improvements conceived during the Miller period were much better and cheaper than the use of subways along the proposed routes. The LRTs were just dedicated streetcars. Since it runs along the surface people use the mode during the off peak and peak hours. LRTs allow passengers to see for themselves the features of the passing cityscape. Riders witness the changes of the commercial, retail and office structures. The nature of the LRTs allows for more frequent stops if needed. If the LRT adhered to the walking distance rule then the LRT route would is far more revenue neutral than the present subway proposals put forward during the most recent municipal election.

The Scarborough subways projects in the configuration proposed would be costly to build and exceptionally costly to operate.


Summary
Here's the list:

1. Subways do not guarantee commercial stimulation. If the stations are too far apart it could actually impair the development of commercial/retail/office. If the stimulation is solely apartments, townhouses and condominiums then gridlock increases not decreases.
2. The route of a subway must carefully be charted. The prevalence and the concentration of commercial/office/retail is charted. Design and build the subway to enhance the pedestrian experience. When that is done solving the pedestrian will in turn solve the traffic gridlock problem.
   
   
3. Unlike a mass transit, a public transit subway interfaces with the surface infrastructure. While the use of Mass transit never seems to pay for itself along its designed route. Public transit, properly designed can generate enough revenue through commercial improvements that in turn generates increased property tax revenues that along with revenue on that right of way balances the capitalization and operational costs.
   
   
4. Neither Mass Transit nor Public Transit enhances or lessens traffic gridlock directly. Indeed in some cases the presence of Mass Transit might actually increase gridlock. Mass transit potentially is more of an effective environmental impact although that is speculative only if the ratio of the single passenger vehicles is diminished in some manner. As long as single passenger motorized vehicles (aka cars) are affordable, the environment will take a severe hit on the bad side of the ledger. The benefits of Mass transit then is more than questionable.

This comes to a conclusion of these notes as regard to the two major factors of public and mass transit. In the next section the subject refers to the Toronto Transit Commission specifically.


Part 2

The Evolution of Public Transit

Having established the definitions of Public Transit, how does it grow? Right off, one must understand the urban structure, the plan. The design dictates the nature and type of public transit. The plans of Etobicoke is different than Scarborough and in turn, each is different than the urban plan of Toronto. Each plan demands a different public transport vehicle and growth strategy.

Nodular plans are the most difficult. Subways impair the urban evolution of nodular cities. Its because the tendency for planners to employ the mass transit approach. Toronto needs subways because successful commercial properties are very dense and tax revenues cover capitalization and operating costs.
 
The order of the evolution of public transportation is Bus, LRT and then Subway. The evolution of public transit moves in lock step with the evolution of the urban landscape.The denser the infrastructure, the needs for the vehicle typeschange.


Fares


Understanding the difference between PublicTransit and Mass Transit also plays a significant role in setting fares. The development of a charge card type fare system such as Presto will enable differentiating fares along a given subway route. Those sections of Public Transit must apply a standard Public Transit fare applicable to the whole system. But those users wanting to use the Subway system that has both Mass Transit and PublicTransit zones should pay more.

The reason is this. In the Public Transit sections since the Subway interfaces with the surface urban matrix the increased value of commercial and property taxes assist in keeping the fare revenue down since the value of the surface properties do increase with the presence of that mode. In the case of the Mass Transit zones, a supplementary fare charge must be applied to the capitalization and operational costs of that part of the transit system. The operation of the Mass Transit section doesn't impact the surface or the adjacent right of way, therefore the fares on that part of the right of way must be greater to reflect the loss in revenue from not having that urban relationship.

Why apply the surcharge fare? Not only does the Mass transit lack any right of way revenue. Therefore the whole urban government must pay for that section of transit from general revenue.With the cash fare system that costs are unjustly averaged over the whole system. With the new Presto/card system those people moving through Mass Transit zones will pay the base rate when they swipe or tap the entry fee at the turnstyles. But then a formula will apply to that entry point where the user entering the Mass Transit station, which must be stopped upon the user exiting the system or a time surplus penalty will apply at the next tap in.

A Victoria Station user doesn't need to swipe out unless the direction of the route is towards Kennedy Station where the user taps or swipes exiting. The sections of Warden – Kennedy, Warden-Victoria Park sections should be covered by an extra surcharge of let us say $0.50. So all users of that part of the subway should pay just a marginal amount more to offset the lack of property tax revenue applied against fares on the right of way. So using today's fare structure. Victoria Park downtown is $3.00. The amount for the user coming from Kennedy would pay a dollar more. This couldn't technically couldn't be done before this decade without much difficulty. Today's technical advantages a more complex fare structure that appears seamless to the user.


Gord Campbell
05/Oct/2014