GTHA Transit Fare Integration

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I hear you. But the point is that we're not reinventing the wheel. We can look at Vancouver, New York, London, Paris; on and on, places where they have various forms of fare integration. Toronto's position - to be clear- is they want NO fare integration. Or, to be a little fair, no fare integration without a fare subsidy which is not entirely unreasonable, as a position. But their starting position is NO change, just like with Presto they would have kept using
tokens until kingdom come (unless you believe the belated "open payment" dog and pony show they put on).

The open payment dog and pony show is exactly what other systems, like TfL is moving to. Presto is frankly yesterday's technology. As to comparison with other systems with fare integration - without an understanding how the finer details of financing, subsidy and governance, merely saying that it's been done elsewhere is meaningless.

As for 416/905 commuting, there are screenline counts that show how many people go between the regions.. I've seen them but maybe some pros know where to find them. I don't know the numbers are equal but they're definitely more than 416 pols think and the trend of 416-->905 trips is certainly increasing consistently over the years, I think it's safe to say.

Let's not pretend that reverse commuting by public transit is the dominant mode - public transit isn't even the dominant mode of local commutes in said area. It's safe to say the trend in on the rise just because the starting point is so low.

I think the larger point is that one way of reducing stress on the current radial system is to encourage cross-border trips and off-peak trips and that there are already lots of off-peak, and reverse-commuting trips that are not served by the current system. A good system would create overall fairness, even if some people who now benefit would no longer do so.

What's "overall fairness", exactly? The fact of the matter is TTC makes up the greatest majority of regional transit trips - if one goes by the measure of "fairness" by users, a negative impact to that would be obviously unfair, no? Why should a stressed system that has fairly high, proven ridership be asked to borne the cost of reverse commuting trips to destinations that are by and large low-density, with little to no record of high transit modal share and requires large amounts of subsidy to be competitive? I am all for lowering the per-ride add-on cost for cross-border trips, but at the end of the day I think the revenue differential should be covered through a regional transportation tax applied to everyone living in the region.

AoD

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

I really don't get this whole fare integration talk. To me it make sense if you live outside of the city you should pay more to use public transit. People keep using London as an example yes they have zones with in the city itself but if someone come in from outside of London say for example nottingham for the day. They can't just pay there fare to the rail service and then be able to get on to the underground for a cheaper rate. It makes sense to me thath if you come in by Go transit or Viva you should pay the TTC fare in order to get on the TTC. Just like it makes sense for me if I get on a go train I should pay Go the fare or if I get on a Vova bus I pay YRT the fare.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I really don't get this whole fare integration talk. To me it make sense if you live outside of the city you should pay more to use public transit. People keep using London as an example yes they have zones with in the city itself but if someone come in from outside of London say for example nottingham for the day. They can't just pay there fare to the rail service and then be able to get on to the underground for a cheaper rate. It makes sense to me thath if you come in by Go transit or Viva you should pay the TTC fare in order to get on the TTC. Just like it makes sense for me if I get on a go train I should pay Go the fare or if I get on a Vova bus I pay YRT the fare.

One can argue that the increment of increase is high (double) but that's a scale issue, and implementation of zone fare systems elsewhere can actually see the price double outside the core city. So really, the current arrangement in the city and the surrounding burbs is in essence a form of zone fare. One might not like the zones drawn, but in this instance the "benefit" is congruence with political boundaries. The only instance where I think it creates a problem is short distance cross municipal boundaries trips, but given the commuting patterns that's more the exception than the rule, and there are already ad hoc methods of dealing with it that can be expanded.

AoD

 

[TheTigerMaster]

One can argue that the increment of increase is high (double) but that's a scale issue, and implementation of zone fare systems elsewhere can actually see the price double outside the core city. So really, the current arrangement in the city and the surrounding burbs is in essence a form of zone fare. One might not like the zones drawn, but in this instance the "benefit" is congruence with political boundaries. The only instance where I think it creates a problem is short distance cross municipal boundaries trips, but given the commuting patterns that's more the exception than the rule, and there are already ad hoc methods of dealing with it that can be expanded.

AoD

Exactly. Toronto absolutely uses a zoned fare system. People might not like where the boundaries are currently drawn, but they had to be somewhere.

I expect the end result of this fare integration kerfuffle will be to have the 416 formalized as a single fare zone, perhaps with some fare discount when crossing the zone boundaries. Individual agencies will still set fares within their zones.

 

[Steve X]

Exactly. Toronto absolutely uses a zoned fare system. People might not like where the boundaries are currently drawn, but they had to be somewhere.

I expect the end result of this fare integration kerfuffle will be to have the 416 formalized as a single fare zone, perhaps with some fare discount when crossing the zone boundaries. Individual agencies will still set fares within their zones.

The revenue lost from this discount has to come from somewhere, usually at the expense of other people. It's not going to sit well with 90% of the riders seeing a fare raise to pay for the 10%. TTC/Toronto isn't about to subsidize these 905 folks at Toronto resident's expense either. Ultimately either the 905 agencies/governments will pay for them or the Ontario government pays. Otherwise, this goes no where.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The open payment dog and pony show is exactly what other systems, like TfL is moving to. Presto is frankly yesterday's technology. As to comparison with other systems with fare integration - without an understanding how the finer details of financing, subsidy and governance, merely saying that it's been done elsewhere is meaningless.

first, I didn't say OPEN PAYMENT is a dog & pony show; it's obviously the "wave of the future."
I was referring to the high school drama play Giambrone et al played, deciding to RFP a Toronto-only open payment system in lieu of Presto. It was a joke in just about every way and shows how little Toronto is interested in playing along with the team. (I get there were legit financing issues to be worked out; it was still a dog & pony show).

And you're totally right about funding and governance. And I make the same argument - no major metro area that I know of does things the way we do. New York City isn't having Josh Colle come to explain to their city council how payroll taxes and hotel taxes aren't needed to fund transit - just a low subsidy and a reliance on a farebox. TfL isn't considering disbanding because they've seen how well regional transit works with a bunch of little fiefdoms and one big agency.

When was the Oyster Card introduced -2005 or something? Do you think TTC was even thinking about electronic fare collection at that point. I assure you, they were more than happy to have unionized employees count teeny coins until kingdom come. they didn't even change tack when they had that forgery issue. Did they say, "Gee - shoulld we do a study of other fare systems?" Nope - they made new tokens. It's rather embarrassing. They only looked at open payment when their feet were to the fire with Presto. Too little, too late.

Everyone does it better than us: funding governance, fares. All connected. We're behind on all 3. In all cases, largely because of TTC being the biggest, most important agency, and the one with the least interest in ceding an inch to help riders.

Let's not pretend that reverse commuting by public transit is the dominant mode - public transit isn't even the dominant mode of local commutes in said area. It's safe to say the trend in on the rise just because the starting point is so low.

Keeping double fares and mutiple transit agencies is a great way to make sure transit is never the dominant mode for "reverse commutes." Is that our long-term goal?

What's "overall fairness", exactly? The fact of the matter is TTC makes up the greatest majority of regional transit trips - if one goes by the measure of "fairness" by users, a negative impact to that would be obviously unfair, no?

No - that's a very simplistic way to read "overall fairness," or, to use a fancier term, equity. It's a far more nuanced discussion but the short version is every system has pros and cons and Toronto's flat fare is no different. clearly one thing it does do is penalize cross-border riders and there are ever more and more of those because outside Toronto is where most of the population growth is. Equity isn't just about which system handles the most riders (except in terms of TTC's internal finances), it's about helping riders get from A to B in the most efficient, least expensive way. You don't want a system that encourages people to (for example) drive to the subway when a bus runs right by their house, but that's what we have now.

Again - no one else does it the way we do.

Why should a stressed system that has fairly high, proven ridership be asked to borne the cost of reverse commuting trips to destinations that are by and large low-density, with little to no record of high transit modal share and requires large amounts of subsidy to be competitive? I am all for lowering the per-ride add-on cost for cross-border trips, but at the end of the day I think the revenue differential should be covered through a regional transportation tax applied to everyone living in the region.

Ultimately I agree. There should be a regional agency and a regional tax, which could take any one of a number of forms. I think a 'subsidy pot' (as I just named it) should be part of any integration plan.

But if your goal (as Metrolinx's explicitly is) is to create a seamless regional network, and if we want to encourage the increasing number of suburbanites to take transit and if we want to draw "reverse commutes" out of cars....the current system doesn't cut it. We've outgrown it.

 

[zenmeister]

I really don't get this whole fare integration talk. To me it make sense if you live outside of the city you should pay more to use public transit. People keep using London as an example yes they have zones with in the city itself but if someone come in from outside of London say for example nottingham for the day. They can't just pay there fare to the rail service and then be able to get on to the underground for a cheaper rate. It makes sense to me thath if you come in by Go transit or Viva you should pay the TTC fare in order to get on the TTC. Just like it makes sense for me if I get on a go train I should pay Go the fare or if I get on a Vova bus I pay YRT the fare.

WTF? Nottingham is 200 km away from London. You using it as an example for this issue is just about the stupidest thing I think I've read on this forum. Btw, the underground has lines that extend about 100 km outside the city centre, and people at the end of that line pay the rate based on the number of zones they cross to get to the city, the same thing is being suggested here. It just helps that 1 transit agency runs the system there for the region, not just the City of London which is actually very small. It's time to stop thinking of Toronto as a city and more like a region.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Don't forget that London is "Metropolitan", made up of different boroughs and a city.

So a zone is like crossing into another borough.

Now if Toronto had not amalgamated, we could have set up a zone for each city or borough and...

 

[ssiguy2]

First of all, get rid of a good chunk of the transit systems themselves.

York VIVA has it's problems but one thing they did right is getting rid of tons of small systems which makes paying a nightmare and regional transit planning impossible. Just 5 transit systems.........TTC/York/Peel/Halton/Hamilton and then also GO.

Second, just have a standard reduction when going from one transit service to another. For example as soon as you go from the TTC to York or from Peel to Halton systems you pay the standard fare and a {for example} 50% premium. The premium would be on top of the fare system you pay for your local ticket. If you have a pass allow people to buy a "2 transit zone pass" for both convenience and even more savings. You could also have 3 zone, 4 zone or even 5 zone passes/tickets.
This also makes it easy because you do not need to know the exact fare of the system you are going to because you pay the premium on your own fare.

So if you have morons who actually would consider commuting from Oshawa to Hamilton everyday, they would simply buy a 5 zone pass and pay it when the board the train/bus near their home.


Third, get rid of GO fares! GO should not have ANY 'GO only" tickets. GO should not exist as a revenue specific service. When you buy your ticket from your area that includes ALL services provided in that jurisdiction. So if you are in Toronto and you buy your ticket or Metropass that is good for ANY service within the city boundaries whether that be regular bus, GO commuter bus, express bus, GO train, subway, LRT, SRT, or streetcar. Not only is it easier and better for commuters but also if a far superior use of rolling stock, infrastructure, and labour because people can choose the route and system that works best for them. Right now it is the exact opposite where GO is expensive so people avoid it so you have half empty GO rail running passed packed buses and subways. Due to different GO and local transit services you also end up with bizarre scenarios like the Mississauga Transitway where you can take some of the buses but the other buses that are going the exact same place cost more for the sole reason that they have green paint.

GO can certainly work as an entity in providing the service and long term planning but there should be no where to buy your "GO ticket". You simply buy your transit ticket and that gets you any service you want and your ticket price is determined if you are staying or not staying in your zone {or transit operator}.

GO can run it's service by getting back a set amount for each transit agency per rider on the system or the region as a whole can bring in a revenue tool strictly for GO.

GO and having a ridiculous number of transit agencies is what is making this whole scenario far more complicated than it has to be.

 

[zenmeister]

I disagree, any service that get you from one place to another faster should be marginally more expensive than slower forms of transit.

Express Commuter Service > Local Commuter Service/Rapid Transit > Busses/Streetcars

I would prefer 1 regional transit system with fares were based on mode of transport. Cost should incrementally increase based on zones crossed for Commuter and Rapid transit services, and local transit should have a flat fee.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Exactly. Toronto absolutely uses a zoned fare system. People might not like where the boundaries are currently drawn, but they had to be somewhere.

I expect the end result of this fare integration kerfuffle will be to have the 416 formalized as a single fare zone, perhaps with some fare discount when crossing the zone boundaries. Individual agencies will still set fares within their zones.

The revenue lost from this discount has to come from somewhere, usually at the expense of other people. It's not going to sit well with 90% of the riders seeing a fare raise to pay for the 10%. TTC/Toronto isn't about to subsidize these 905 folks at Toronto resident's expense either. Ultimately either the 905 agencies/governments will pay for them or the Ontario government pays. Otherwise, this goes no where.

Certainly. The province is going to have to pay for this. These fare discounts for crossing the zone can easily cost tens of millions of dollars per year. The Presto fees + fare integration could very well cost the TTC upwards of $100 Million per year if we're not careful. That's unacceptable.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Now if Toronto had not amalgamated, we could have set up a zone for each city or borough and...

What difference does amalgamation make? Metro effectively was amalgamated and used TTC to link the city and suburbs the precise way me (and others) are suggesting Metrolinx do now. Same issue, bigger scale.

And while it's not perfect, it's not a bad idea to set Zone 1 as the core, Zone 2 as the inner ring (Scarb/Etob/NY) and then 905 as start of Zone 3.

I get the sense a lot of people here have traveled on other systems. The more you do, the more you appreciate the good and bad things about TTC. Its parochial focus and institutional intransigence are definitely some of the bad ones.

 

[ssiguy2]

When you charge more for one service then another you are providing a poorer service to fewer people. You are also creating a 2-tiered transit system which also costs more to operate and is a far poorer use of infrastructure.

When you charge more for one service you are creating an environment where lower/fixed income people have to take inferior transit even though due to their lower incomes are the most transit dependent in the first place. You also create a system where labour costs are higher and yet service levels lower as you have half empty expensive trains going by packed buses and subways that may have even had to bypass passengers due to overcrowding. You are also creating longer routes as people travel further on a packed bus to get to the subway as opposed to shorter more frequent service if getting to the GO station serves more people.

Charging more for a service is also a stellar way of bringing rapid transit construction to a halt. people will, justifiably, not be overwhelmed with their tax dollars going towards expensive services while the service for the plebeians is left to rot. The UPX is a stellar example of both.

We don't accept two-tiered healthcare or education so why is it acceptable for another essential service, transit?

 

[Megaton327]

When you charge more for one service then another you are providing a poorer service to fewer people. You are also creating a 2-tiered transit system which also costs more to operate and is a far poorer use of infrastructure.

When you charge more for one service you are creating an environment where lower/fixed income people have to take inferior transit even though due to their lower incomes are the most transit dependent in the first place. You also create a system where labour costs are higher and yet service levels lower as you have half empty expensive trains going by packed buses and subways that may have even had to bypass passengers due to overcrowding. You are also creating longer routes as people travel further on a packed bus to get to the subway as opposed to shorter more frequent service if getting to the GO station serves more people.

Charging more for a service is also a stellar way of bringing rapid transit construction to a halt. people will, justifiably, not be overwhelmed with their tax dollars going towards expensive services while the service for the plebeians is left to rot. The UPX is a stellar example of both.

We don't accept two-tiered healthcare or education so why is it acceptable for another essential service, transit?

To build on your point, unless serious and expensive changes are made, for instance, to the TTC, the poor won't even have that option--the 97 Yonge bus, as far as I know, only runs the full King-Finch route during peak hours. There is no bus that I know of running St Andrew-St George-Downsview, and I doubt one will exist to VMC. There is no bloor-danforth bus that I know of, nor is there one mirroring the SRT route. I think the 85 Sheppard does run above the subway route at all times, but it's the exception.

So, a) the poor won't even have the choice of taking a bus because as soon as a subway is built bus service is generally cancelled along that route, or b) lots of money will have to be spent on extra vehicles and operators to provide bus service along subway/LRT routes--not to mention that a large part of the benefit/advertised benefit of LRT and subway construction is taking a swarm of buses (looking at you, Eglinton) off the road, so I'm sure people will love having that congestion thrown back in. Hurontario, Hamilton, etc. would be in the same situation, and GO would have to start providing comprehensive train-mirroring service on every line to all stations at all times of day that train service runs--even on routes with bus service e.g. Barrie the buses generally don't run at the same time as the trains. Ditto for streetcars--are we going to permanently run full bus service overlapping every streetcar line in the city?

I'm all for zone-based fares as long as they're done granularly and in a well-integrated manner, but zone by type of transit is absurd to me. Why should a resident of the city be told that, sorry, we decided to build a subway here so you have no choice but to pay more suddenly? It's insane.

 

[zenmeister]

Marginally higher were the key words in my argument.