Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Just to be clear on what I am proposing. The best fare system would be one that represents the cost to add an additional passenger-trip. This would represent specific time demand (congestion pricing), mode demanded and distance demanded. Peak usage should logically cost more than off peak usage, longer trips should logically cost more than shorter trips and trips on modes that are, for whatever reason, more expensive should cost more than trips on modes that are cheaper. Frankly none of these strikes me as odd or somehow unprecedented given that they are ubiquitous in so many areas of life (variable electrical rates, higher gas prices before long weekends, more expensive hotels during March Break, meals costing more on Saturday night than Tuesday lunch and so forth).

If a line is at capacity, then the cost of adding an additional passenger-trip (all things being equal) is the cost of adding more capacity. Looking at the Yonge line specifically, peak direction travel during peak hours between Bloor and Union is the primary concern. As I see it, there are three possible solutions. The first would be to simply add more capacity. Current demand for this stretch is about 30k pphpd. If all upgrades can increase this number to 40k, we would add a theoretical 10k pphpd which we could otherwise not accommodate. Given two hours of peak travel during two peak travel periods (AM & PM), that gives us about 40k passenger trips which could otherwise not be accommodated. Station expansion, upgraded signaling and larger subway cars would put a price tag on this of over a billion dollars for what would be fairly minimal gains.

The second option would be to do nothing. I don't think anyone here sees this as a good option. Fair enough?

The third option would be to raise prices on that trip so as to keep demand at a level the system can accommodate. This would benefit us in a number of ways. First, the TTC would get more money from higher fares. That money would get relocated into routes that have more potential for expansion thereby benefiting more people than either of the previous two options. Second, it would improve the competitiveness of alternative routes. Currently, the Downtown Express buses are totally impractical when compared to the Yonge line. By raising the cost of peak travel on Yonge, alternatives like the Downtown Express buses as well as commuter buses from the suburbs would become more viable. In future, a DRL like line (preferably reaching to Eglinton) could also potentially benefit from such a regime as it would be relatively more affordable. On the capital side, moneys could be redeployed from expansion along Yonge towards other projects.

Pricing for distance seems fairly uncontroversial here, so I won't dwell on it. Suffice to say it makes little sense that someone taking a streetcar from Kensington Market to the waterfront should pay the same as someone commuting in from the boonies.
 
The third option would be to raise prices on that trip so as to keep demand at a level the system can accommodate. This would benefit us in a number of ways. First, the TTC would get more money from higher fares. That money would get relocated into routes that have more potential for expansion thereby benefiting more people than either of the previous two options. Second, it would improve the competitiveness of alternative routes. Currently, the Downtown Express buses are totally impractical when compared to the Yonge line. By raising the cost of peak travel on Yonge, alternatives like the Downtown Express buses as well as commuter buses from the suburbs would become more viable. In future, a DRL like line (preferably reaching to Eglinton) could also potentially benefit from such a regime as it would be relatively more affordable. On the capital side, moneys could be redeployed from expansion along Yonge towards other projects.
Well, I have two things to say about that.

The first is that by doing that, you're making the faster and easier form of transportation something almost like a luxury, something that wealthier people would choose. If your way of improving people movement is to put all lower income people on busses, then that's just totally unfair.

Second, if you're trying to get people making regional trips onto regional lines (Go lines) then you could do this with a fare zone or distance-based system. The TTC could be something like $1.50 base, with an extra 75 cents per zone you pass through. Go, on the other hand, could have a $1.50 base, with an extra 25 or 50 cents per zone. That would encourage people to use Go, but wouldn't give the premium service to those that can more easily afford it.

And the best (Best!) way to reduce congestion is to just increase capacity. How do we do this? We build more lines for people to chose. I don't understand how turning subways into a luxury is a better idea than just building more subway lines to even people out. This is a no-brainer. A region with a population of over 5 million can not be expected to function properly on 60km of subway, spread across 2 1/2 lines.
 
The first is that by doing that, you're making the faster and easier form of transportation something almost like a luxury, something that wealthier people would choose. If your way of improving people movement is to put all lower income people on busses, then that's just totally unfair.

Well, anyone in Toronto outside of maybe the homeless could afford something like a 1$ premium. Let's just be clear that I don't think a subway ride should be costing 50$ or even have a premium over 60% of base level. At those levels, this talk of "two tier" transit is a bit odd.

More to the point, the best way to deal with social welfare is by welfare, not playing around with prices. Honestly, how many people would be forced to choose between rush hour subway usage on that particular stretch or eating? 1% of riders? 5%? Even if it is 10%, we are still effectively spending 10 dollars for every one dollar going to someone in need. It would be much better to just give the poor 5 dollars and pocket the rest, so to speak.

Second, if you're trying to get people making regional trips onto regional lines (Go lines) then you could do this with a fare zone or distance-based system. The TTC could be something like $1.50 base, with an extra 75 cents per zone you pass through. Go, on the other hand, could have a $1.50 base, with an extra 25 or 50 cents per zone. That would encourage people to use Go, but wouldn't give the premium service to those that can more easily afford it.

I don't see how partially basing fares off of congestion excludes some kind of distance based fare. London currently operates both a fare zone system as well as a peak-hour premium, so it's is clearly not impossible.

And the best (Best!) way to reduce congestion is to just increase capacity. How do we do this? We build more lines for people to chose. I don't understand how turning subways into a luxury is a better idea than just building more subway lines to even people out. This is a no-brainer. A region with a population of over 5 million can not be expected to function properly on 60km of subway, spread across 2 1/2 lines.

Right, I think most people agree that more capacity=good. The rub comes in how to best use our limited capital to best effect. Right now we are basically saying that it is more important to expand the Yonge line's capacity than building new routes, as demonstrated by the priority given to projects like a Y/Bloor rebuild or improved subway signaling over, say, a DRL or something.

I don't think adding more capacity to Yonge is that important or even a good deal (see my 3:23 post) to begin with and hence not a good use of capital compared to other projects. That said, I don't think just waiting for congestion to make the line unbearable is a good plan of action either. Luckily, we can eliminate the peak hour congestion, thereby allowing capital funds to flow to better uses than a bigger Bloor station, and even make money doing it (which could then be plowed into whatever). Congestion charging shouldn't necessarily be viewed as a way to avoid new capacity at all, just to better allow us to prioritize how we go about adding capacity while not just letting the service crowd over.
 
Well, anyone in Toronto outside of maybe the homeless could afford something like a 1$ premium. Let's just be clear that I don't think a subway ride should be costing 50$ or even have a premium over 60% of base level. At those levels, this talk of "two tier" transit is a bit odd.

More to the point, the best way to deal with social welfare is by welfare, not playing around with prices. Honestly, how many people would be forced to choose between rush hour subway usage on that particular stretch or eating? 1% of riders? 5%? Even if it is 10%, we are still effectively spending 10 dollars for every one dollar going to someone in need. It would be much better to just give the poor 5 dollars and pocket the rest, so to speak.
If this premium charge isn't going to deter people from taking the subway (especially those who are actually short on money,) then what's the point of even implementing it in the first place? If you're trying to make it seem both friendly to those in the lower-class and a way to actually reduce crowding on the Yonge line, then good luck trying to figure out a way to do that with a premium fare.

Again, it's better to just support things like that through tax money. That way, transit users aren't the only ones paying.
 
Let's Plan Long Term!

Let's make a 20 year plan for the DRL. With each completed leg more riders will be diverted out of their cars or off the Yonge line.

2011 EA done
2014 Queen/Pape to University to open (providing rapid downtown access to/from the Distillery District and West Don Lands and transfers from the Queen streetcar)
2016 extension to Danforth (achieving first major goal - the DRL)
2018 extension to O'Connor
2020 extension to Thorncliff
2022 extension to Eglinton
2024 extension to Lawrence
2026 extension to York Mills
2028 extension to Sheppard

Then work should start on extending the line west along King/Adelaide/Wellington, and eventually north-west. With continous building, as previous posters have mentioned, we will build and maintain expertise, get full value from equipment purchases and have perdictable construction budgets.
 
I don't think adding more capacity to Yonge is that important or even a good deal (see my 3:23 post) to begin with and hence not a good use of capital compared to other projects. That said, I don't think just waiting for congestion to make the line unbearable is a good plan of action either. Luckily, we can eliminate the peak hour congestion, thereby allowing capital funds to flow to better uses than a bigger Bloor station, and even make money doing it (which could then be plowed into whatever). Congestion charging shouldn't necessarily be viewed as a way to avoid new capacity at all, just to better allow us to prioritize how we go about adding capacity while not just letting the service crowd over.

Well your plan certainly would solve the capacity issue on the Yonge subway... by putting people back in their cars. The loss in ridership would certainly negate using the peak pricing difference to fund future transit projects. In fact, I bet you'd be making less than before, because collecting $2.75 from 10 people vs $3.25 from 8 people, you're making more without the peak pricing, AND it's less of a headache, both for passengers and booth collectors. Would you increase the price of the Metropass to compensate? Or make Metropass users still pay the extra $0.50?
 
Let's make a 20 year plan for the DRL. With each completed leg more riders will be diverted out of their cars or off the Yonge line.

2011 EA done
2014 Queen/Pape to University to open (providing rapid downtown access to/from the Distillery District and West Don Lands and transfers from the Queen streetcar)
2016 extension to Danforth (achieving first major goal - the DRL)
2018 extension to O'Connor
2020 extension to Thorncliff
2022 extension to Eglinton
2024 extension to Lawrence
2026 extension to York Mills
2028 extension to Sheppard

Then work should start on extending the line west along King/Adelaide/Wellington, and eventually north-west. With continous building, as previous posters have mentioned, we will build and maintain expertise, get full value from equipment purchases and have perdictable construction budgets.

Historically speaking, government funding for transit has usually been pretty shaky. Unless you plan on getting all the funding up front, and then building in phases, I would advise against it. Even with all the funding secured up front, we could end up with a Sheppard Stubway. I think it would be better off to combine some of those phases. I think University to Pape/Danforth should be done in 1 shot. Also, I disagree with the Queen alignment, but that's a whole other debate (I'm partial to the Wellington alignment myself).

I also find it interesting you didn't include the Western leg in that timeline. I would personally place that first, given the Georgetown EA is about to be completed, and construction ready to begin within 5 years. Perfect opportunity to piggyback the DRL onto that (also increases the chances of getting the Eastern leg built as well).

Overall though, pretty realistic start and end dates.
 
Well your plan certainly would solve the capacity issue on the Yonge subway... by putting people back in their cars. The loss in ridership would certainly negate using the peak pricing difference to fund future transit projects.

Why the pessimism? In case you haven't noticed, ridership isn't dropping even though fares are increasing every year. And do you really think that the billions to be spent on solving the congestion issue for Yonge will not result in fare increases? In fact, in my (and I suspect Whoaccio's) books, that's worse because the fare increase from improved Yonge service would basically penalize under-utilized routes further. The status quo that you are advocating for is what results in the under-utilization of transit. It's what discourages transit use outside of peak hours and for short trips. After all, if the buses are less crowded during off-peak hours, you can bet that the roads are well.

Setting an economic incentive to travel via other routes (other than Yonge) or at a different time would not necessarily drive someone to use a different mode of transport altogether. I bet, it'll help balance the load out. Some companies (could be lead city and provincial government offices) would switch hours to allow their workers to travel off-peak. And in the long run development would spread so that travel would not always need the Yonge line. And there's no saying that we could not make the change in fares revenue neutral, so that off-peak fares decrease from the current rate to promote off-peak and short distance ridership.

I don't necessarily support the idea, but I think it's bad form to shoot it down right away and then suggest that it will automatically compel commuters to drive. For most of us, even a 15% premium isn't worth the time of sitting on the DVP during rush hour. We should not dismiss outside the box thinking off hand.....and this idea is hardly outside the box. Cities with far better transit systems than ours already employ this idea.
 
Let's make a 20 year plan for the DRL. With each completed leg more riders will be diverted out of their cars or off the Yonge line.

~Plans~

Then work should start on extending the line west along King/Adelaide/Wellington, and eventually north-west. With continous building, as previous posters have mentioned, we will build and maintain expertise, get full value from equipment purchases and have perdictable construction budgets.
Yep, pretty much. But this is what I'd do for the DRL:

2011: EA done (Makes sense?)
2015: Build Phase I (preferably Eglinton-Union across Front St/Rail Corridor)
2017: Completion of Don Mills: Eglinton-Lawrence (With one station halfway between Donway Road and Green Belt Dr.)
2019: Completion of Don Mills: Lawrence-York Mills (With one station at Bond Avenue: BOND STATION!)
2019: Complete Phase II (again, preferably along the rail corridor then up Roncesvalles to Dundas West)
2022: Completion of Don Mills: York Mills-Sheppard (with Sheppard interchange and probably two stations, at Duncan Mil Road and Parkway Forest Drive.)
2024: Completion of Don Mills: Sheppard-Seneca College (Stations at the Northern and Southern end of the Peanut, Don Mills & Finch, and Seneca College & Finch Hydro Corridor)
2027: Complete study to extend subway to Markham Town Center (Who knows if this'll actually happen? Maybe the line could branch to Beaver Creek/MTC)


@ Gweed, could you explain to me why you think piggybacking the Georgetown line makes so much sense? Why piggyback when you could potentially have two metro lines serving Western Downtown, both going from Union to Dundas West? I think if you gave the Georgetown line just one stop at Queen/King, and real Regional Rail frequency, it'll be a good enough DRL on it's own, and won't need a subway piggybacking on it at all. :cool:
 
I'll try to respond to two posts at once here...

@ keithz: Why do you assume that transit improvements along Yonge would directly result in fare hikes? Yes, I do agree fares go up on a bi-yearly basis or thereabouts, but there are other reasons for it (ex: inflation). Don't forget, the Yonge upgrades are scheduled to happen around the same time as the first wave of TC projects, so it's likely any fare hike will be distributed evenly throughout those.

I think if we're going to implement a different fare structure, it should be based on distance, not distance + time of day. It introduces a complex new element into the pricing system, and some people (particularly tourists) may find it very confusing. Just think of when you're doing on street parking downtown, how long it takes you to figure out a) whether you can or can't park there, b) how long you can park there, c) how much will it cost you to park there? Sometimes it's like trying to read Egyptian to figure it out... Too much hastle and confusion for too little a benefit.

However, if there were decent alternative routes to the current ones (ie not just YUS to reach downtown), it may be something to look at in 20-30 years.


@ Second_in_pie: I like the Georgetown alignment for the DRL for 3 reasons:
1) Express/local service: Having express and local options side by side could make the trip downtown (and to the airport) a lot easier.

2) It's being ripped up already: The tracks will be being moved, ROW widened, bridges built, etc. The funding has already largely been secured for the work. Strike while the iron is hot. There will never be a cheaper subway option, all you need to pay for is the tracks and the stations (and the small tunnel section at Wellington). In terms of $/km, it would be incredibly low for subway.

3) Brownfield Redevelopment: The advantage of following a rail ROW is there are many unused or underused industrial sites along the corridor. These sites would be perfect for ToD, brownfield, infill, green, "pretty much every buzz word imaginable" development, all centred around the subway stations on the local line. Just look at what's happening now between Liberty Village, that style could be common along pretty much the entire line. At the very least, they would make for some pretty killer lofts.
 
I'll try to respond to two posts at once here...

@ keithz: Why do you assume that transit improvements along Yonge would directly result in fare hikes? Yes, I do agree fares go up on a bi-yearly basis or thereabouts, but there are other reasons for it (ex: inflation). Don't forget, the Yonge upgrades are scheduled to happen around the same time as the first wave of TC projects, so it's likely any fare hike will be distributed evenly throughout those.

I think if we're going to implement a different fare structure, it should be based on distance, not distance + time of day. It introduces a complex new element into the pricing system, and some people (particularly tourists) may find it very confusing. Just think of when you're doing on street parking downtown, how long it takes you to figure out a) whether you can or can't park there, b) how long you can park there, c) how much will it cost you to park there? Sometimes it's like trying to read Egyptian to figure it out... Too much hassle and confusion for too little a benefit.

However, if there were decent alternative routes to the current ones (ie not just YUS to reach downtown), it may be something to look at in 20-30 years.

Are you suggesting that people in London are somehow more intelligent than people in Toronto? It's not rocket science. I'll admit that time of use pricing is more complicated than what we have today. But pricing by distance or zoned fares would also be a big change to what we have now. Adding time of use pricing for some lines (not the whole system) would not be that much of an added complication when you go to zoned or distance based fares. How difficult is it to suggest that if you travel during peak hours on the Yonge line you will be charged 50 cents on top of your fare?

As to your other points...

The Yonge capacity upgrades will not be sufficient. That's why there's all the discussion about the DRL. At best the upgrades only buy a few years till the city will have to build the DRL. This discussion on time of use pricing is another alternative to help cope with the load if the DRL is not built on time. It could also help push commuters to use the parallel GO line as well (by reducing the premium for GO service).

On the issue of tourists. We don't build transport systems around tourists. We build them around the peak-hour travel patterns of our commuters. Implementing Presto across the GTA (including the TTC), starting up Blue 22 and improving maps and travel information services (like the customer service counters in European transit systems) would do far more for tourists than skipping out on time of use fares. Besides which, how many tourists do you know that travel during peak hours?
 
If this premium charge isn't going to deter people from taking the subway (especially those who are actually short on money,) then what's the point of even implementing it in the first place? If you're trying to make it seem both friendly to those in the lower-class and a way to actually reduce crowding on the Yonge line, then good luck trying to figure out a way to do that with a premium fare.

Because evidence tends to show that people respond to small, relatively unimportant differences in prices. Take road congestion pricing. The goal isn't to bankrupt people or render them unable to pay, it is to incentivize them to change their patterns. Stockholm instituted a 3$ congestion charge on vehicles entering the City, which is basically nothing compared to the costs of car ownership (insurance, gas, parking, depreciation, financing, maintenance...). It still succeeded in reducing the amount of cars entering the central city during peak hours by 22%. If you offered someone a trinket for 1$ now or free in an hour, almost everyone would opt for the free option even if they can also afford the more expensive one.

So, on the Yonge line, what is to say people won't simply move their schedules forwards or backwards by an hour to miss peak periods? There are some people who need to get to a 9-5 shift, but there are also a good number of people who could move their schedules forwards or backwards by an hour (thereby avoiding peak premiums) and thereby reducing the need for us to spend billions on expanding Yonge.

gweed said:
Well your plan certainly would solve the capacity issue on the Yonge subway... by putting people back in their cars.

Not necessarily. There are viable alternatives to the subway that don't involve cars. I occasionally take downtown express buses and, minor flaws aside, they are fairly competitive with the subway. Those living near highways, like STC or RHC, commuter buses would actually be a lot quicker than a subway given their limited stops. Fundamentally though, evidence from elsewhere shows people would just alter their schedules to avoid congestion prices. Peak hours are about 7:30-8:30 and 17:30-18:30. It is very easy for anybody to avoid those, and evidence from elsewhere shows that they can be encouraged to do so. The key thing about capacity issues on Yonge is realizing that they are time and direction specific and by simply rearranging the timing of trips we can avoid the need for any major expansion.

gweed said:
The loss in ridership would certainly negate using the peak pricing difference to fund future transit projects. In fact, I bet you'd be making less than before, because collecting $2.75 from 10 people vs $3.25 from 8 people, you're making more without the peak pricing, AND it's less of a headache, both for passengers and booth collectors. Would you increase the price of the Metropass to compensate? Or make Metropass users still pay the extra $0.50?

I could just as easily say 9 people paying 3.25 is more than 10 people paying 2.75. It's a bit meaningless without any real market research to back it up though, ain't it? It would also be important to consider the timing of those trips. As in 8 people commuting during the 3.25 period plus 11 people commuting during the 2.75 period is more than 20 people commuting during a 2.75 period. Once again though, a totally meaningless example given the lack of any significant investigation.

The more important saving of congestion pricing though is quite undeniable, it would render capacity expansion along Yonge less of a priority. We already know the numbers for that and it is several hundreds of millions, if not billions, for questionable gain. Congestion pricing would have to destroy a lot of riders in order to eliminate those savings.
 
So, on the Yonge line, what is to say people won't simply move their schedules forwards or backwards by an hour to miss peak periods? There are some people who need to get to a 9-5 shift, but there are also a good number of people who could move their schedules forwards or backwards by an hour (thereby avoiding peak premiums) and thereby reducing the need for us to spend billions on expanding Yonge.
...I think I kind of understand what you're trying to say, but I can't be sure. Either way, Yonge isn't as crowded as some may think. A DRL up to Finch, or even Sheppard would take a ton of pressure off Yonge, and improvements on Yonge probably won't really be necessary for a while. The only reason that Yonge is crowded is because it's the only option. Give people more options, and congestion on Yonge will half, because all the passengers from the East will transfer to Don Mills/DRL instead of going all the way to the core.
 
A DRL up to Finch, or even Sheppard would take a ton of pressure off Yonge, and improvements on Yonge probably won't really be necessary for a while. The only reason that Yonge is crowded is because it's the only option. Give people more options, and congestion on Yonge will half, because all the passengers from the East will transfer to Don Mills/DRL instead of going all the way to the core.

Amen! Might even draw off drivers from the DVP, when they see the traffic coming to a standstill around Lawrence. "Hey, I could hop the subway at the next exit and avoid all this!"
 

Back
Top