GTHA Transit Fare Integration

[ssiguy2]

Clearly any true fare-by-distance system is dependent upon a complete rollout and highly effective Presto system.

No matter what they decide {and in Metrolinx's case that probably means as little as humanely possible} it is essential that there be absolutely no difference in price regardless of technology. People, especially the transit dependent, would be justifiably pissed off if QP and Metrolinx continue to build transit infrastructure that they can't afford to take. RER will be as useless to Torontonians as GO is now if there is a price differential.

Proof is already in the pudding...............the UPX is essentially a RER line running all day, each way, every 15 minutes, and with GO fares and the results are in and they are horrible. Incredibly lousy ridership and even those numbers of 7500/day assume that many of those users are not just people who would have taken GO during the rush hour service.

A to B same price regardless of how you choose to do it...............it's easy, fair, makes the best use of infrastructure, labour, and rolling stock, and due to being the antithesis of the Gardiner/DVP toll where you pay the same travellin6 either 1 km or 20, it would also be the most politically palatable.

 

[crs1026]

A lot of the revenue-neutral arguments are overstated.

Suppose TTC agrees to a 75 cent co-fare for people transferring from 905 transit operators. That will result in a revenue loss of $XM. That sounds ominous, except that as a % of the next TTC fare increase it's lost in the rounding. Just add the underage to the next fare increase. After two fare increases, it will have been forgotten. Sure, TTC fare will be slightly higher, and each and every rider will experience some increased cost, but it's a multiple of cents not dimes.

Will passing that increase onto the entire TTC ridership really leave people at the curb, unable to afford their ride? I doubt it.

Arguably, refusing to build the cross-subsidisation of cofare transfers into the TTC base fare is giving TTC riders a break that riders in the 905 don't get. (Don't tell me that the 905 operators are 'eating' that cost somehow....they are building it into their base fare and asking their non-transferring riders to subsidise it). Why are we so afraid to face the Toronto ridership and tell them to suck it up and pay their fair share, as people in the 905 do for their local service?

The more attributes of the current situation that we guarantee cannot change, the fewer degrees of freedom we have to improve the system over all.

I agree that this exercise must not be used to inflate the overall revenue base, but even that principle has its peril, considering that we go to the same people to raise the non-farebox portion of transit expenditures. You can pay me now or pay me later.

- Paul

 

[W. K. Lis]

Steve Munro has three articles on Fare By Distance. Not going to cut-n-paste.

The Metrolinx Fetish For Fare By Distance
At this link.

The Metrolinx Fetish For Fare By Distance (II)
At this link.

The Metrolinx Fetish for Fare By Distance (III)
At this link.

The directors at Metrolinx and the TTC must hate it when non-board members and non-staff actually know more than they do.

 

[amnesiajune]

Steve Munro has three articles on Fare By Distance.

A couple of years ago he was criticizing Metrolinx because the per-kilometer cost of Go Transit trips is lower for longer trips and higher for shorter trips. He wrote that "the fare structure is rigged against short distance trips, and this has been getting progressively worse for a decade." Now he's criticizing Metrolinx because its fare integration plans "might discourage people from taking longer trips by transit due to extra cost." That's pretty damn rich, even for someone who makes a living by complaining.

So which is it, Steve? Should Metrolinx be proposing a fare system where everyone pays a fair amount based on how much they use the system, or should they be proposing a flat fare system that doesn't penalize people who are forced to travel farther? Or could it be that Steve doesn't really care - he just wants to poke holes in whatever's in front of him, or he wants a system that serves Toronto and damn everyone else - this is, after all, the guy who says that he "[has] no qualms about thinking that a lot of what the Toronto Megacity (and beyond) needs can be found, generally speaking, south of Eglinton Avenue."

 

[ssiguy2]

What they could do is a fare-by distance/zone hybrid.

The current fare is $3.25 so ideally all local transit systems agree to modify theirs to that base amount.

They could create a fare-by-distance that doesn't get down to every single km but rather "km zones". So, as an example, the base fare was brought in at $2.25 for the first 10km making short trips, which the lower-income people are more reliant upon, then after that it would be an extra $1 for every 10km. They would make it so the fare applies to everything.........GO trains/buses, RER, subway, BRT, streetcars, SRT. It is the best use of labour, rolling stock, and infrastructure, and get's rid of this stupid idea of charging more for one service than another and figuring out what is "rapid" and what isn't. If people have to pay extra for rapid transit expect to see the population demanding a STOP to RT construction and just more slow moving buses.

So your 8km trip on the bus would be $2.25, your streetcar and subway 13km trip would be $3.25, your 23 km trip on bus to RER to SRT would be $4.25, and your 85 km Hamilton LRT to Hamilton GO commuter rail to Kennedy station would be $10.25.

 

[muller877]

A couple of years ago he was criticizing Metrolinx because the per-kilometer cost of Go Transit trips is lower for longer trips and higher for shorter trips. He wrote that "the fare structure is rigged against short distance trips, and this has been getting progressively worse for a decade." Now he's criticizing Metrolinx because its fare integration plans "might discourage people from taking longer trips by transit due to extra cost." That's pretty damn rich, even for someone who makes a living by complaining.

So which is it, Steve? Should Metrolinx be proposing a fare system where everyone pays a fair amount based on how much they use the system, or should they be proposing a flat fare system that doesn't penalize people who are forced to travel farther? Or could it be that Steve doesn't really care - he just wants to poke holes in whatever's in front of him, or he wants a system that serves Toronto and damn everyone else - this is, after all, the guy who says that he "[has] no qualms about thinking that a lot of what the Toronto Megacity (and beyond) needs can be found, generally speaking, south of Eglinton Avenue."

Shenzhen does exactly what GO does. Shorter trips cost more per km...longer are cheaper. And their system only started 30 years ago so they didn't have the burden of self-interested groups keeping the status quo.

It makes sense. Most short trips are in highly sought after transit areas so it costs more. And at the outer ends of the lines you have excess capacity so you want to encourage more people taking trips.

I expect that GO stays the same for fares (premium trips). Local trips (non-premium) will have some type of discount but based on the same mileage/base fare formula. Per km its more expensive for the shorter rides and cheaper for the longer.

 

[steveintoronto]

Proof is already in the pudding...............the UPX is essentially a RER line running all day, each way, every 15 minutes, and with GO fares and the results are in and they are horrible. Incredibly lousy ridership and even those numbers of 7500/day assume that many of those users are not just people who would have taken GO during the rush hour service.

The observation may or may-not be correct, but it isn't proof of anything other than that particular case. If UPX ran to Bramalea, and even with the present GO fare pricing, (no co-fare with TTC) I suspect you'd see a very different demographic and usage. What's saved UPX from its own ill-fated destiny is opening up two destinations to using GO fare. It's the answer, not the problem. Discussing the Weston Corridor and gross underutilization is apart from the airport service, although proposals to make the airport a major transit hub could change that. Metrolinx have purposely made transferring through the airport onto UPX from a GO bus not possible. You must pay a second and full fare. Metrolinx still have some way to go to getting utilization higher for UPX.

Ridership Has Tripled on Toronto’s Union Pearson Express
The lower fares helped a lot.

By Sean Marshall
[...]
The remaining 20 per cent ride the train between Weston, Bloor, and Union stations, using the service as a commuter line, as well as for other purposes, such as shopping or attending games or other special events. Forty-two per cent of UP Express’s ridership during weekday peak periods (6-9 a.m. and 3-7 p.m.) are local riders to and from Weston and Bloor. The rest of the time, only 11 per cent of all trips are between Union, Bloor, and Weston stations, with the rest to and from the airport.

While the reduced fares have definitely improved ridership on the airport rail link, they have also made UP Express a far more useful service for residents living along the rail corridor. In 2021, the Eglinton Crosstown LRT is expected to open, offering another connection opportunity at Mount Dennis.

But there are other opportunities for improvement that will make UP Express even more useful. UP Express connects with GO Transit, the TTC, and even MiWay and Brampton Transit at Pearson airport.

http://torontoist.com/2016/10/ridership-is-up-on-torontos-airport-rail-link/

 

[TOareaFan]

So, as an example, the base fare was brought in at $2.25 for the first 10km making short trips, which the lower-income people are more reliant upon,

Is that true? Lower income people rely on shorter trips? Everything i read about Toronto commutes indicates that most lower income people are struggling with long commutes because they are forced to live in the outer 416 or further afield for housing cost purposes and then have to commute long distances to the employment centres (primarily downtown).

 

[rbt]

Is that true? Lower income people rely on shorter trips? Everything i read about Toronto commutes indicates that most lower income people are struggling with long commutes because they are forced to live in the outer 416 or further afield for housing cost purposes and then have to commute long distances to the employment centres (primarily downtown).

When I lived near Jane & Finch there appeared to be high turnover on the Finch Bus; still plenty going all the way to the subway and beyond though. It kinda makes sense; you don't need to go downtown for a minimum wage job so why bother? You might make that trip for a little over min wage but now they're now Q1/Q2 any more. They're also most likely to run across a Help Wanted sign around their home.

So, it's certainly possible. I hope they release their supporting research at some point.

 

[TOareaFan]

When I lived near Jane & Finch there appeared to be high turnover on the Finch Bus; still plenty going all the way to the subway and beyond though. It kinda makes sense; you don't need to go downtown for a minimum wage job so why bother? They're also most likely to run across a Help Wanted sign around their home.

I really hadn't given it much thought....just seems that, outside of these boards, the most vocal groups opposed to fare by distance are anti-poverty groups who tell the story that FBD hurts poor people the most because they can't afford to live near their jobs.

 

[steveintoronto]

Everything i read about Toronto commutes indicates that most lower income people are struggling with long commutes because they are forced to live in the outer 416 or further afield for housing cost purposes and then have to commute long distances to the employment centres (primarily downtown).

Not according to figures tabulated by the City (or agencies) itself:

Report details plans for low-income Toronto transit fares
Report suggests the “Fair Pass Program” would provide relief for 200,000.

By Ben SpurrTransportation Reporter
Thu., Nov. 24, 2016
A long-awaited city report to be published on Thursday will detail plans to provide financial relief to 200,000 low-income transit riders by cutting their fares by up to one-third, the Star has learned.

The report, which will be on the agenda for the mayor’s executive committee meeting next week, will outline recommendations for implementing what is being dubbed the “Fair Pass Program.”

A partial draft of the document obtained by the Star recommends that Torontonians who make less than 15 per cent above the low income measure be eligible. The discount recommended by city staff is 33 per cent for single adult fares, and 21 per cent for an adult monthly pass.

Any clients of the Ontario Disability Support Program or Ontario Works who already receive transportation supports wouldn’t qualify.

In an interview Wednesday, Mayor John Tory praised the Fair Pass plan as “ambitious, but necessary.”

According to the report, low-income Toronto families spend between 20 per cent and 35 per cent of their disposable income on the TTC, an amount the mayor described as “stunningly high.”

“The principle that we need to do something for this group of people who are the lowest-income people, who are having difficulty getting jobs or having difficulty getting to the kind of day-to-day things that a lot of us take for granted who may have a car or may have the means to use transit, to me that is a given,” he said.

The anticipated cost of the program, which would begin in 2018 and be implemented in three phases, is $48.2 million annually by 2021.

Funding for the first phase of the program would be “a property tax pressure,” according to the report. The second and third phases would be “subject to the availability of funding within the city’s operating budget and. . . federal and provincial cost sharing contributions.”

Tory suggested the cost of the Fair Pass could be also be offset by reviewing existing TTC concession fares.

The city spends $72 million a year to provide discounts to certain groups, including seniors, high school students, and children 12 years old and younger, but those concessions aren’t directly matched to riders’ ability to pay.

Tory said that it would be “common sense” to review the existing discounts and consider whether they should “apply as they do now to every single person across the board regardless of their income, or should we be focusing our efforts on people with lower incomes.”

While the mayor hailed the plan, it may not go far enough for anti-poverty advocates who for years have pushed Toronto to follow other cities like Calgary, Hamilton, and Saskatoon and introduce a low-income pass.

Karin Meinzer, co-chair of the Fair Fare Coalition, argued that transit should be free for all people on social assistance, including those already eligible for provincial transportation supports.

“If you look at the money that people receive, it’s really impossible” to live on, said Meinzer, who hadn’t seen the city report. “People really don’t eat in order to stretch their budget.”

She said that for low-income people who aren’t receiving social assistance, a monthly pass should cost no more than $50. [...]

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...ans-for-low-income-toronto-transit-fares.html

Article quotes Tory stating "stunningly high". I can't but agree. That isn't GO, but it makes the point even more abject. It's difficult to gauge whether granting a form of 'qualified income user pay' is overly 'socialist' or not, but that ignores the base issue:

How are these people to work or contribute to our society/economy unless they can transit? That Calgary and Saskatoon are way ahead of Toronto is indicative of a more rational approach. Both are Conservative strongholds. If commerce and industry want 'affordable labour'...then like medicare, (which many businesses will argue is far better delivered by governments, caveats beside) those same businesses must be cognizant of what is necessary to get healthy, willing workers to a place of employment.

"200,000". That's about the size of Saskatoon...

 

[TOareaFan]

Not according to figures tabulated by the City (or agencies) itself:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...ans-for-low-income-toronto-transit-fares.html

Article quotes Tory stating "stunningly high". I can't but agree. That isn't GO, but it makes the point even more abject. It's difficult to gauge whether granting a form of 'qualified income user pay' is overly 'socialist' or not, but that ignores the base issue:

How are these people to work or contribute to our society/economy unless they can transit? That Calgary and Saskatoon are way ahead of Toronto is indicative of a more rational approach. Both are Conservative strongholds. If commerce and industry want 'affordable labour'...then like medicare, (which many businesses will argue is far better delivered by governments, caveats beside) those same businesses must be cognizant of what is necessary to get healthy, willing workers to a place of employment.

"200,000". That's about the size of Saskatoon...

I have no doubt that transit takes up a large part of a lot of people's budgets....but where in that quote does it say anything about what we were discussing....ie....do lower income people have longer TTC rides than higher income people and, if they do, does fare by distance hurt lower income people?

 

[steveintoronto]

I have no doubt that transit takes up a large part of a lot of people's budgets....but where in that quote does it say anything about what we were discussing....ie....do lower income people have longer TTC rides than higher income people and, if they do, does fare by distance hurt lower income people?

Here's what you wrote:

Is that true? Lower income people rely on shorter trips? Everything i read about Toronto commutes indicates that most lower income people are struggling with long commutes because they are forced to live in the outer 416 or further afield for housing cost purposes and then have to commute long distances to the employment centres (primarily downtown).

That was in answer to this:

When I lived near Jane & Finch there appeared to be high turnover on the Finch Bus; still plenty going all the way to the subway and beyond though. It kinda makes sense; you don't need to go downtown for a minimum wage job so why bother? You might make that trip for a little over min wage but now they're now Q1/Q2 any more. They're also most likely to run across a Help Wanted sign around their home.

Well if they're stuggling with trips inside Toronto, how is it going to be any easier with trips outside?

"Forced to live in the outer 416" is one fare if they're working in Toronto. 416 = Toronto. Those 200,000 referenced are therefore in the 416 areacode. (To be precise, some living outside Toronto might buy a phone with a 416/647 area-code, but they would be statistically insignificant)

So for those "200,000" low income persons in Toronto, and not commuting from outside Toronto, which is another fare, then the relevance is immediate, and very germane to the discussion.

 

[TOareaFan]

Here's what you wrote:

That was in answer to this:


Well if they're stuggling with trips inside Toronto, how is it going to be any easier with trips outside?

"Forced to live in the outer 416" is one fare if they're working in Toronto. 416 = Toronto. Those 200,000 referenced are therefore in the 416 areacode. (To be precise, some living outside Toronto might buy a phone with a 416/647 area-code, but they would be statistically insignificant)

So for those "200,000" low income persons in Toronto, and not commuting from outside Toronto, which is another fare, then the relevance is immediate, and very germane to the discussion.

but it neither answers or does not answer the question about whether those 200,000 people living in Toronto and paying extraordinary portion of their income to transit are going to be even further hurt by FBD or not....are their commutes longer, on average, than the TTC users who are better off financially?

Is FBD going to (if it is introduced) impact people at the lower end of the economic spectrum more than others?

 

[steveintoronto]

Is FBD going to (if it is introduced) impact people at the lower end of the economic spectrum more than others?

As your question is expressed, of course they are *no matter how the fare is calculated*. Would the *degree* of impact be lessened with a distance based fare? Of course, if they are taking shorter trips, but it would for any income group, presuming the base fare is lower for their shorter trip than the present fixed fare.

"Would they still need assistance" is the question.