GTHA Transit Fare Integration

[TheTigerMaster]

Fare integration has been narrowed down to three options: http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news...nsit-fares-metrolinx-considers-3-options.html

Mark my words, modified status quo will be selected.

 

[ksun]

Setting up the fare system to solve income disparity is a sure path to disaster. Let the wider tax and income support systems deal with the income disparity issues. Transit fares should be set up to maximize recovery, promote certain modes of usage, or reduce time spent on the system, reward loyalty, etc.

Exactly.
Fare system is NOT supposed to, nor is it capable of taking care of income disparity. Why would one be naïve to believe that someone living in the old city of Toronto is richer than someone from the suburbs or 905?? Judging by the people around you, is that really the case?

I don't know why people keep using this "fairness" logic to say a flat fare makes sense, exactly in what sense is that fair? Doesn't fairness mean paying more for using more resources? And why the hell should the transit fare system consider income of its riders? That's the government and tax agency's job, isn't it? If you keep mixing the two, you achieve nothing.

 

[minilude]

I vote for hybrid. modified status quo means dramatic drop of GO revenue and minimum ttc fare for all york region subway. good for riders but would be disaster for government and tax payers.

 

[rbt]

Fare integration has been narrowed down to three options: http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news...nsit-fares-metrolinx-considers-3-options.html

Mark my words, modified status quo will be selected.

I agree, it probably will because it makes the most sense for TTC operating efficiency. Last thing we need is a couple hundred thousand trips to skip the subway and take buses downtown instead. We might see a time-of-day discount (higher fares during rush, offpeak discount) in the long-term though.

My personal preference would have been a congestion premium. Add an extra $1 to any trip through heavily congested corridors (Bloor-Wellesley, St. George-St. Patrick, GO at Union) which goes straight into a capital expansion fund ($120Million/year for choke points mentioned). While not much, over 10 years it would pay most of the LakeShore tunnel at Union or 1/3rd of the DRL short option.

Of course, I'm also good with a 20% property tax increase dedicated toward public transit expansion too.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

Fare integration has been narrowed down to three options: http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news...nsit-fares-metrolinx-considers-3-options.html

Mark my words, modified status quo will be selected.

I think Metrolinx is going to push for the hybrid system, because it's likely to make riding the subway as expensive as GO travel in the 416.
The hybrid option would be very difficult to implement since the majority of subways user arrive by bus.

 

[facepalming_brooklynite]

I vote for hybrid. modified status quo means dramatic drop of GO revenue and minimum ttc fare for all york region subway. good for riders but would be disaster for government and tax payers.

Riders are tax payers too, by the way

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think Metrolinx is going to push for the hybrid system, because it's likely to make riding the subway as expensive as GO travel in the 416.
The hybrid option would be very difficult to implement since the majority of subways user arrive by bus.

What I am curious about is how a distance-based (or quasi-distanced based, by the way of zones) system for the subways will affect usage patterns in the longer run, in the presence of RER. Incidentally, it may undercut the rationale for subway extension in the burbs.

AoD

 

[minilude]

Riders are tax payers too, by the way

that's true, riders are tax payers, but tax payers are not necessarily riders.

 

[rbt]

I think Metrolinx is going to push for the hybrid system, because it's likely to make riding the subway as expensive as GO travel in the 416.

The only way they get Hybrid is to drive GO fares through the floor so the highest 416 fare is around $3.50. Anything else will be politically disastrous for Wynne.

Of course, over the following 15 years fares can be driven back up. But in the short-term it means a hefty subsidy for GO operations.

Riders are tax payers too, by the way

Kinda. A surprisingly large chunk of residential in Toronto cost more to operate for the city than they collect in revenues.

Toronto businesses pay buckets of property tax; it's possible to argue that TTC is largely subsidized by businesses and malls trying to get their customers/employees to their locations. Less so today than under Lastman (thanks Miller?), but it's still somewhat true.

A larger office building like Scotia Plaza pays $40M in property taxes (including education component) per year. Aura, our largest residential, is closer to $3M/year (including education component). Aura runs a profit (most condos do as they use very little street frontage, etc.). The lower density parts of the city (single level homes) don't come close in most areas; lots of road/pipe/etc. per house.

 

[ksun]

Riders are tax payers too, by the way

yes and no. Plenty of riders don't pay taxes, or very little taxes. And taxpayers like me are rare riders. Don't mix the two.

 

[Palma]

I vote for hybrid as I think its the fairest. Not sure if should be zone or distance. But there is no way Metrolinx should use the 22km as local. I think that's the number they used when looking at what constitutes local rides. I am not sure if that was when they were looking at zones and so that would constitute one zone.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

What I am curious about is how a distance-based (or quasi-distanced based, by the way of zones) system for the subways will affect usage patterns in the longer run, in the presence of RER. Incidentally, it may undercut the rationale for subway extension in the burbs.

AoD

York Region wants the subway extension to RHC. This brings up another issue: Politics. What politician in their right mind is going to tell their constituents who make long commutes that their simple flat fare is going to become more expensive and complex because "fares fair?"

 

[muller877]

I agree, it probably will because it makes the most sense for TTC operating efficiency. Last thing we need is a couple hundred thousand trips to skip the subway and take buses downtown instead. We might see a time-of-day discount (higher fares during rush, offpeak discount) in the long-term though.
.

I agree that there should not be a subway or LRT premium (but instead a downtown premium on all routes)

However, for the GO or UP I can rationalize some premium fare. At Dundas West you can choose to get to the business district via a streetcar, subway, GO or UP.

Assuming 1/2 the frequency for the wait plus walk time to King & Bay:

Streetcar - 45 min + 2 min = 47 min
Subway - 30 min + 2 min + 2 min = 34 min
UP - 21 min + 7.5 min = 29 min
GO - longer wait but can hop on either the GO or UP

We don't want people clogging up the King Streetcar by deciding to save $1 and adding 13 minutes to their trip.

So I can choose the Subway or UP and can be downtown within 5 minutes of each other (but more relaxed on the UP). I would pay an extra 50% for the comfort and not fighting for a seat (but not the $5 more right now..including the subway fare to get to Dundas West....unless the subway is having issues)

 

[ksun]

I vote for hybrid as I think its the fairest. Not sure if should be zone or distance. But there is no way Metrolinx should use the 22km as local. I think that's the number they used when looking at what constitutes local rides. I am not sure if that was when they were looking at zones and so that would constitute one zone.

Me too, and I think distance based fare makes far more sense than fare zones. In Shanghai for example, you pay about 60 cents for under 6 km,80 cents for 6-16km and additional 20 cents for each extra 10 km. And if you spend more than $14 in a month, your trip for the rest of the month will be 10% off (with no cap). I think that is fair and not too complicated.

I don't think there should be a month cap. One should always pay for additional trips, but at a discount. In Toronto's case, the base fare should probably start at $1.5. And it is not too much to ask if one pays $5 to travel from east Scarborough all the way to YYZ.

Don't think the TTC would lose revenue of short trip. Plenty of people choose to bike or simply walk to avoid the $3 now because it is not worth it. If the fare is lower, many will simply take the subway from Queen to Bloor for example.

 

[minilude]

York Region wants the subway extension to RHC. This brings up another issue: Politics. What politician in their right mind is going to tell their constituents who make long commutes that their simple flat fare is going to become more expensive and complex because "fares fair?"

Currently ppl commuting from York Region beyond Finch station is either ($3.4+$2.9)x2=$12.6 by VIVA/TTC, or $2.9x2+$5=$10.8 by parking at Finch, or $6.35x2=$12.7 (from Langstaff to Union Station, if you are going to Bloor or College, extra TTC fare will kill ). Even if an extension cost $5 one way to Union it will still be the most economic way unless York Region will charge for parking but I doubt they will. $2.9 one way would be a too big gift and that's what the "modified status quo" is suggesting. Probably the "medium-length GO trip" from Langstaff to Union will also be brought down to $2.9.