News   Apr 26, 2024
 1.3K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 310     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 859     0 

Is the TTC (still) the most expensive transit system in North America?

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1,061
Is the TTC (still) the most expensive transit system in North America?


February 6, 2013

Read More: http://www.blogto.com/city/2013/02/...st_expensive_transit_system_in_north_america/


Back in December 2011, I asked whether or not the TTC is priciest transit system in North America. The answer at that time was "yes," at least amongst big-city, single-fare, bus-and-rail systems. Since then, the lagging impact of the Long Recession has caught up with many US public transit systems, slamming them with large fare increases and service reductions. While generously funded compared to the TTC, many of these systems rely much more directly on sales, property and payroll tax revenue for these extra funds and their operating budgets are therefore much more sensitive to shortfalls during economic downturns.

- As a result of the economy, and despite solid ridership, cities such as Dallas, Chicago and Boston saw fare increases from 15% to 23% while other cities struggled with threats of massive service cuts. In other words, 2012 was not kind to many transit systems. So where does that leave the TTC compared to its peers as we enter 2013? With its more stable economy, Toronto was spared some of the funding crises that hit US cities (Rob Ford histrionics notwithstanding), although soaring transit use is putting increasing pressure on the system. And of course the TTC did see a fare increase kick in on January 1st, pushing the monthly Metropass up to $126. How does the comparison shake out? The short and unfortunate answer is that while the gap has narrowed some, Toronto has defended its title and remains the Most Expensive City for Transit in North America.

- While many transit systems have raised cash and multiple-trip fares, the TTC remains in the top tier for base fares. Senior fares are much more expensive in Toronto than all other cities except Ottawa, which offers a low cost monthly senior's pass (and free Wedesdays!) to compensate. Except for a pilot program on the St. Clair streetcar, the TTC has no two-direction transfers or reduced fare zone for those who only take short trips, harsh treatment in a city teeming with downtown residents. Most damaging, the TTC has by far the most expensive monthly pass, one that requires a stunning 48 trips to pay for itself. This equates to having to commute all 22 work days in a month, plus twice on the weekends, while never taking vacation or being sick. No other city has such a high index. Even New York, where levels of car ownership are low and a certain amount of non-work-related transit use can be expected, has a lower Trip Index.

.....




201326-ttc-chart.jpg





201326-monthly.jpg





201326-fares-seniors.jpg
 
I didn't think TTC even had the highest fares in the GTA ...

It doesn't. They've also stuck with flat-fare systems. A more interesting comparison might include a short-trip (2km) versus long trip (40km) chart and zoned or distance based fares.

Also interesting is that many of the cities on the right (higher fares) are actively expanding their transit systems (rapid transit lines planned and/or a growing bus service) and few on the left (lower fares) have expansion plans or recently completed expansion.

I consider expansion an indicator of demand.
 
Last edited:
According to their methodology....
Where different prices for bus vs subway do still exist, as in Boston or St. Louis, the rail fare was used. For Ottawa the bus price was used as this city is unique in having a full BRT trunk line. (The small demonstration rail line is actually less expensive to ride but carries only 2% of daily ridership and is therefore ignored).
But somehow SF is only $2 cash fare? I seem to recall that the BART is generally over $4. Or are they conveniently ignoring it (i.e. saying it is regional rail), for the sake of making Toronto look worse?
 
According to their methodology....

But somehow SF is only $2 cash fare? I seem to recall that the BART is generally over $4. Or are they conveniently ignoring it (i.e. saying it is regional rail), for the sake of making Toronto look worse?

BART is the equivalent of GO. It's commutter rail.

Muni is more comparable to TTC and they run mostly buses, a handful of streetcars, and a tourist rope-tow trolly (at tourist rates).
 
The objective of the TTC should not be to be inexpensive relative to their peer group. Their priority should be excellence in service and coverage. The TTC should spend every ounce of it's energy on improving service quality and network convenience and coverage. If this makes them the most expensive system in North America so be it.
 
Surely Caltrain is their equivalent of GO.
Bart:
640px-DalyCitysta.jpg

Yeah, I know, Caltrain and Amtrak are both there too and BART is kinda a hybrid; but there is no fare integration with MUNI which does provide grid service throughout most of San Fran for a flat rate. That central BART subway section is also MUNI; think of it as a distributed Union Station.

BART is electric 3rd-rail mostly due to the underwater tunnel. It's extra wide track because of earthquake concerns. The section from about North Berkeley through 16th St. Mission is pretty urban and tight spacing (ignoring the tunnel) but much of the rest runs outside is very commutter oriented with very wide stop spacing and infrequent service outside of peak periods.

Either way, BART is separate from all local bus servies and fare by distance. Zoned fares and fare by distance didn't make the chart in any city.

BARTs lowest one-way fare is $3.30 with the maximum in the $15 range.
 
Last edited:
BART is the equivalent of GO. It's commutter rail.

Muni is more comparable to TTC and they run mostly buses, a handful of streetcars, and a tourist rope-tow trolly (at tourist rates).

GO and BART are completely different systems. CalTrain, and the ACE(Altamont Commuter Express) is similar to GO train. It's somewhat difficult to classify the BART system. I think of BART as a regional metro system, similar to what was proposed with the GO ALRT system in the '70s.
 
GO and BART are completely different systems.

For the purposes of this fare report, GO and BART are exactly alike and excluded for the same reason. Both use a zoned based fare at commuter rates.

Anyway, you are right that the service BART operations cannot be classified but they're also not a good matchup to the TTC for fare comparison purposes.
 
Last edited:
For the purposes of this report, GO and BART are exactly alike and excluded for the same reason. Both use a zoned based fare at commuter rates.
They seem to have found ways to conveniently ignore many similar or more expensive systems.

What was their excuse for skipping Calgary, which has the same fares, and even higher ticket prices than Toronto? Or even Mississauga which is more expensive?

I have to think there's some serious bias here.
 
They seem to have found ways to conveniently ignore many similar or more expensive systems.

What was their excuse for skipping Calgary, which has the same fares, and even higher ticket prices than Toronto? Or even Mississauga which is more expensive?

They didn't skip Calgary (very right hand column). They did skip other GTA cities. I agree with your assessment that the comparison was very incomplete, which is why I said this:

They've also stuck with flat-fare systems. A more interesting comparison might include a short-trip (2km) versus long trip (40km) chart and zoned or distance based fares.

It particularaly annoys me that they skipped Vancouver.


It's the same methodology that made us believe Pearson Airport was expensive. If you exclude 90% of the charges other airports have, Pearson was very expensive. If you look at all revenues, Pearson is basically average.
 
Last edited:
BART is like Sydney Cityrail as it's a subway downtown then branches out into Commuter Rail on the same routes.
 

Back
Top