TTC: Sheppard Subway Expansion (Speculative)

[44 North]

So.. you think it's fair to ding people who are unfortunate to live outside the core with crappy service?

This argument works both ways: Why should people paying a higher cost of living in transit-friendly neighbourhoods overly subsidize long distance commuters?

 

[kkgg7]

I personally disagree with zones that are based on street/station boundaries as it will unfairly punish people on the boundaries. Someone going from Lawrence to Eglinton shouldn't get dinged more than anyone else travelling one stop on the system. Zones could be created, but based on where your trip originated from and number of stations or kms travelled. I also think the rates should reflect time of use and demand. I'm sure current technology exists to make this feasible, obviously it would have to be a completely electronic system, but I haven't thought about the implementation much or if it is something PRESTO could easily be converted to.

There's another thread on here about pricing congestion on the roads which I thought was a great read, and think a lot of the ideas could be applied to the subway system which itself seems to be a scarce resource (particularly certain segments) and capacity seems really hard to add.

I don't have problems with subway in the suburbs. There are plenty of major office clusters north of Eglinton. If someone from Richmond Hill Centre wants to use the subway to get to their job at Finch, then go ahead by all means. However if they want to use it to get to their job at the Financial District and not use the GO service (because it is currently more expensive), then I have a problem with that. The subway for long haul distances should be priced HIGHER than GO because of the all day frequent service and destination possibilities it provides you. It is a premium service, and its price should reflect that.

I agree with you on both points. I was just mentioned a possibility as an example. Fare should be determined on distance traveled to be more precise. Shanghai is a city which adopts this system. The card reader automatically determines the shortest distance possible between the stations you travelled and deducted corresponding amount of money. Fare starts at RMB 3 and goes all the way to RMB 9 or 10. It is a smart system, as not everyone necesarily goes to downtown. For example, if you travel from Kenney station to YYZ, I don't think $6 is too much to ask considering the distance. On the other hand, if you go from Queen to College, charging $2.5 is a bit too much (sometimes walking is not an option, esp in winter)

I also agree that people who live so far away from the city center should not rely on cheap subway to start with. You need to pay a premium for the frequency.

Fare should vary between rush and off-rush as well, as London and Paris do. discounts should be travellers outside rush hour.

 

[kkgg7]

This argument works both ways: Why should people paying a higher cost of living in transit-friendly neighbourhoods overly subsidize long distance commuters?

Being poor sometimes is abused as an excuse for all sorts of entitlements. I am poor, so you can't do this and that to me.
Honestly, being poor is not really a reason to live that far. Before I had a job, I used to rent a room for $400 a month in an old downtown house. It is a huge room, almost 20sq meters, all utilities included including cable TV and internet included. I shared bathroom and kitchen. Before someone brings out "I have a family" argument, there was a family living in the next two rooms. Their combined rent was like $700.

Being poor is not the reason to live far away. It is being poor and wanting big and comfortable space.

 

[Rainforest]

Being poor sometimes is abused as an excuse for all sorts of entitlements. I am poor, so you can't do this and that to me.
Honestly, being poor is not really a reason to live that far. Before I had a job, I used to rent a room for $400 a month in an old downtown house. It is a huge room, almost 20sq meters, all utilities included including cable TV and internet included. I shared bathroom and kitchen. Before someone brings out "I have a family" argument, there was a family living in the next two rooms. Their combined rent was like $700.

Being poor is not the reason to live far away. It is being poor and wanting big and comfortable space.

And what if two working spouses have jobs located far apart, and neither can easily find another job?

 

[nfitz]

And what if two working spouses have jobs located far apart, and neither can easily find another job?

Sure, it happens. But I can't imagine that the majority of people who are commuting extreme distances are in this situation.

 

[kkgg7]

And what if two working spouses have jobs located far apart, and neither can easily find another job?

then i don't see the reason of visiting downtown that frequently.
The idea is to live close to work, which many refuse to do.

 

[Justin10000]

I think it is fair that you pay more for longer distances you travel. If you think it is not fair, do you consider it fair for someone to pay equal amount of money to travel from Scarborough towncenter to Pearson Airport as someone to travel from King station to Bloor?
Staged fare system are adopted everywhere, so it is not fair in London, Paris etc?

I do not care if it's "fair" or not. The point is to get people to use transit, not drive them away. Telling people it's fair that they pay more for transit because transit in the area is terrible isn't going to attract riders, is it? it's not about fairness, it's about attracting people to transit, and switching to a distance based system to achieve what you perceive as fairness isn't going to attract riders. Flat fares are simple,and easy to understand.

Not to mention, who is honestly complaining about the flat fares, other than transit enthusiasts?

 

[Justin10000]

This argument works both ways: Why should people paying a higher cost of living in transit-friendly neighbourhoods overly subsidize long distance commuters?

It can, but here is the kicker: Those in transit-friendly neighbourhoods can afford to live there, and have other travel options. In the 'burbs, it either transit or the car. Guess what people are going to take if their transit cost rise, because people luckily enough to live in a transit-friendly neighbourhood want to pay less?

 

[Vaucluse]

Instead of a zone based fare how about a time based fare. In Prague I paid full fare for 90min on their public transit system, for a half fare I got a 45min ride, I thought it worked well there why couldn't work here. Buy your ticket at the automatic dispenser or wait in line to buy from a human, then just as you enter the fare-paid zone get your paper ticket (with hologram anti-fraud strip) stamped at one of the many time stamp machines, there are similar machines near all of the doors on the streetcars and busses as well.
I think Lyon uses a same system but only 60min. I got from a suburban lrt stop to a downtown metro station and finally at the main train station with 5min to spare!

 

[44 North]

Those in transit-friendly neighbourhoods can afford to live there

Umm...not necessarily. And "lucky enough" doesn't mean anything, either. I know a lot of people that choose to live in the core at the cost of disposable income. Or the luxury of owning a car. They choose to pay higher rent - or property taxes - so they're closer to their work. Or just to simply live downtown. That doesn't mean they're rich or lucky.

 

[Amy Rose]

Umm...not necessarily. And "lucky enough" doesn't mean anything, either. I know a lot of people that choose to live in the core at the cost of disposable income. Or the luxury of owning a car. They choose to pay higher rent - or property taxes - so they're closer to their work. Or just to simply live downtown. That doesn't mean they're rich or lucky.

like everyone is single and can afford $750,000 shoebox condos

 

[Palma]

I do not care if it's "fair" or not. The point is to get people to use transit, not drive them away. Telling people it's fair that they pay more for transit because transit in the area is terrible isn't going to attract riders, is it? it's not about fairness, it's about attracting people to transit, and switching to a distance based system to achieve what you perceive as fairness isn't going to attract riders. Flat fares are simple,and easy to understand.

Not to mention, who is honestly complaining about the flat fares, other than transit enthusiasts?

It is about fairness. When those tolls starts a coming - then its either tolls or distance based fares. Plus I am sure soon cars will be banned in parts of the city. It will start slowly - perhaps 1 street and eventually it will spread. Then those people wont have much choice.

 

[Rainforest]

then i don't see the reason of visiting downtown that frequently.
The idea is to live close to work, which many refuse to do.

There are at least two situations when living close to work is not possible:

1) Both spouses work and their jobs are far apart. Say, one spouse works downtown and another in Markham. No matter where they settle, one of them will have to commute long way.

2) In some industries (IT is an example), many positions are transient. One can be a contractor with one employer for just a few months, and than has to move on and find a new position that may be located very far from the previous office. In that case, moving closer to the new job every time is way too costly and tedious.

 

[Palma]

It can, but here is the kicker: Those in transit-friendly neighbourhoods can afford to live there, and have other travel options. In the 'burbs, it either transit or the car. Guess what people are going to take if their transit cost rise, because people luckily enough to live in a transit-friendly neighbourhood want to pay less?

Well as gas prices rise and tolls and congestion taxes are introduced then what will they do? If they get rid of a car they could afford to live closer to transit. Its a choice.

 

[Chuck]

To be completely fair, you need to consider the combined rent plus transportation cost. Rent costs hundreds more downtown per month, however walking or even a metropass costs hundreds less than car ownership. The two cancel out in the end.

Living downtown versus the suburbs is a lifestyle choice, not a financial choice. For the exact same cost, you either buy a condo in the city, or a house in the suburbs. I say bring on fare by distance.