|
|
|
GTHA Transit Fare Integration
- Thread starter RedRocket191
- Start date
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Well, I mean, Steeles is the boundary of the known universe, so I'm not quite sure what your point is.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Then I guess we should ignore that the Hudson River is a physical boundary as well as a state border, whereas development on either side of Steeles Avenue is entirely contiguous? Steeles is a random line on a map. It could just as easily have been drawn at Finch Avenue or Major Mackenzie Drive.
First, I said the opposite in several posts: every fare system has pros and cons. The delusion TTC has is that since we've had the flat fare since 1973, those trade-offs are the best ones.
Secondly, as you (presumably) well know, Metrolinx has ZERO say. It's up to the province and they chickened out after 2 rounds of consultation. Shame on them, sure. But if you think TTC was hoping they'd succeed, or if you think they have any organizational interest in participating in regionalism, well I'd sure love to see evidence.
I would simply say that a better system will encourage more cross-border trips. It's an indisputable reality that all along Steeles Avenue are people who bike, drive and otherwise avoid local buses to get on the TTC. On the other side of the border, TTC riders stand on Yonge watching empty YRT buses going to Finch blow right by them.
That is, unquestionably, a scenario in which the economics are distorting travel patterns and disincentivizing transit use. I guarantee you, none of those people care what colour the bus is. They want to get where they are going efficiently and without paying a double fare.
Zone fares won't singlehandedly fix every problem, but they can certainly alleviate many of the ones we know are there.
I actually don't have to meet any of your prerequisites but be that as it may, I haven't advocated for any one of the Metrolinx proposals, specifically. For now I'm just saying we need better fare integration.
I didn't do that because I don't have to. I don't work for Metrolinx and so I don't have the spare time to analzye all that data to prove a meaningless point to you,. I didn't specifically advocate for zones, per se. but you're right - we do have have a kind of zoned system. But its boundaries are stupid because they are meaningfully politically and not in terms of actual movement of human beings. My example above proves the stupidity of the "zones," irrespective of people's "fancy." Those "zones" weren't devised with any forethought or indeed anything to do with public transit at all; they are an accident of history and from a time when the population, its distribution, growth and transportation patterns where entirely different.
We can adapt to the present reality and evolving future or keep slipping ever further behind.
nfitz
Superstar
That would hold more water, if one system wasn't run by an agency jointly run by the state New York and the counties in New York where it provides service, and the other run by a agency jointly run by the states of New York and New Jersey. And don't forget the New York-only agency runs commuter trains in New Jersey with no issues.
There's more commonality in governance between MTA and PATH than there is between TTC and YRT or GO Transit.
Also, in Ottawa, you can get transfers over provincial borders.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
In Toronto, we have a "Toronto Wall", however.
Even when there was a "Berlin Wall", the trains crossed (but didn't stop).
Even when there was a "Berlin Wall", the trains crossed (but didn't stop).
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
In Toronto, we have a "Toronto Wall", however.
Even when there was a "Berlin Wall", the trains crossed (but didn't stop).
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/inside-the-forgotten-ghost-stations-of-a-once-divided-berlin
W. K. Lis
Superstar
New York City (MTA) has a farebox recovery ratio of 51.2%. Toronto (TTC) has 73%. Would the TTC get two-hour transfers if they had the same subsidy as New York City?
nfitz
Superstar
TTC has estimated that two-hour transfers would cost $20 million.
73% farebox recovery is something like 1.095 billion of revenue on their roughly $1.5 billion budget. So two-hour transfers would reduce that revenue to 1.075 billion, dropping the farebox recovery from 73% to 71.7%.
Dropping fairbox recovery to MTA rates of 51.% would provide over $300 million to riders. For that, you could significantly reduce TTC fares - by other $1 (with corresponding pass reductions) - making them more in line with MTA fares.
cplchanb
Senior Member
two things that you need to remember when comparing with MTA....
-The population of NYC and surrounding area is more than our entire province, so they have the potential capacities to justify their supposedly lower (which isnt much when converted to CAD) fares
-They are actually in serious deficit, even redder than ours. They are short BILLIONS.
So essentially, to compare TTC and MTA is like apples to oranges
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
The more you get down to specifics, the more the comparisons with any other agency fall apart. History, population distribution, density, geography - - it all varies. Totally fair to say.
What does not vary is that the systems we "look up to" - MTA, CTA, Paris, TfL- have some things in common:
-electronic fare collection
-subsidies from higher levels of government (and other municipal sources)
-single agency for basically the entire commutershed
-fare integration (of some kind) between various agencies
There's no question we need a "made in the GTA" version of all this. But it's a lot of hubris to say the flat fare and total lack of coordination between various agencies (aside from some limited co-pay agreements) is what's best for us. I don't thiink we should copy NYC or London but we can definitely learn lessons from them they can't learn from us and it's why I say no one else does things the way we do.
What does not vary is that the systems we "look up to" - MTA, CTA, Paris, TfL- have some things in common:
-electronic fare collection
-subsidies from higher levels of government (and other municipal sources)
-single agency for basically the entire commutershed
-fare integration (of some kind) between various agencies
There's no question we need a "made in the GTA" version of all this. But it's a lot of hubris to say the flat fare and total lack of coordination between various agencies (aside from some limited co-pay agreements) is what's best for us. I don't thiink we should copy NYC or London but we can definitely learn lessons from them they can't learn from us and it's why I say no one else does things the way we do.
cplchanb
Senior Member
agreed. The first thing really to make anything work is to have a commitment from all participating agencies especially the red one in the middle to be on board and to put the collective welfare over their own.
Right now we essentially have almost everyone but the biggest and most important one fully on board.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
It's hubris to say that flat fare within an agency (or zone that is contiguous to political boundaries) is not what is best for us. The question isn't that - it is how you deal with transition between agencies (and zones, if you like), not arbitrarily declare that the existing zones are deficient, eliminate it, draw a whole new set of boundaries and then declare fait accompli without knowing what it the implication to existing ridership and funding is.
Like I have said before, and will say again - what is it that you are trying to do, exactly? Redrawning zone boundaries for it's own sake is very different from ameliorating the negative impact of the current zones to certain types of users. At the end of the day, what riders care about is cost and overall ease of use - and perhaps the lens should be - what scheme is beneficial to the most number of riders.
AoD
Last edited:
cplchanb
Senior Member
Maybe if we have Metrolinx swallow up everything in the GTA and just have it divided like Metrolinx North (YRT), West (MW/BT), East (DRT) and Central (TTC),
then we can justify zonal fares more easily.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I think Metrolinx should have overall system planning, coordination and regional revenue roles - and that the revenue (from whatever sources - direct provincial subsidy, regional surtax/charges) collected will be used to balance out the cross boundary payment issues. As it stands right now, I am not sure if Metrolinx has the capacity to swallow up everything and still run properly. In the long run, perhaps - but how does a regional authority, without much by the way of regional representation fit within the provincial jurisdiction? Those are very legitimate questions to ask. In the meantime, riders don't really care - what they wanted to have is existing transit systems being operated properly with high degree of reliability, utility and reasonable price. I think it is far more important to fixate ourselves on that score than drawing boundaries at this point.
AoD
Last edited:
Steve X
Senior Member
With all the revenue loss going towards TTC? Won't happen in a million years.
Berlin is in a huge hole too. It's not like zones will solve transit problems. Berlin had considered shutting down some of their subways or operating less services. It's taking them forever to connect that tiny 3 station U55 line with the main U5 line.