GTHA Transit Fare Integration

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Fare integration doesn't necessarily cost a lot more money. A $3.00 fare collects the same amount of money regardless of whether it's set by the TTC or Metrolinx. The only thing that would end up costing the TTC a bit more money is the small number of people who transfer from other systems, but some of that would also be recouped from people (me, for example) who would take public transit more often if they didn't have to pay twice as much because they live on one side of an arbitrary line and work on the other side. You'd also get more transit usage from people who live or work (especially those who work) within a short bus ride of Toronto's GO stations, but not quite within walking distance.

That depends on where the origin and destination, which I have noted. Huge difference between someone who basically using both system in a manner that is consistent with intra-municipal transit from someone who is using it to get to the core (which, given how busy the various termini are, is probably the predominant mode of inter-regional local transit right now). Any form of system integration will need to address this differentiation.

I think the real holdup in all this is just negotiating the division of fares between transit agencies. For example, if someone takes both the TTC and YRT, they should be splitting the fare 50/50, but obviously both transit agencies are going to kick and scream for a bigger slice of the pie. It might take a provincial government that's willing to impose fare integration instead of negotiating it, which is completely within the provincial government's power but will burn up some political capital.

Again, see point above - at a certain point, it's less about splitting the fare but having two fares as a reflection of the amount of transit used.

AoD

 

[gweed123]

It would be interesting to see how the equation would change if the Province went back to the 50% operational funding model it had prior to 1995. I'd be totally fine with the Province saying "we'll change the deal to do 50% on operating and 50% on capital". Any federal funds introduced into the mix would reduce each side's percentage by an equal amount.

The 50% for each would be delivered via Metrolinx, so the cross-boundary losses each agency would be on the hook for, which is a pretty small piece of the larger pie to begin with, would be reduced by 50% as well.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It would be interesting to see how the equation would change if the Province went back to the 50% operational funding model it had prior to 1995. I'd be totally fine with the Province saying "we'll change the deal to do 50% on operating and 50% on capital". Any federal funds introduced into the mix would reduce each side's percentage by an equal amount.

The 50% for each would be delivered via Metrolinx, so the cross-boundary losses each agency would be on the hook for, which is a pretty small piece of the larger pie to begin with, would be reduced by 50% as well.

Except the province doesn't appear to have the slightest inclination to go back to funding operational - beyond the ECLRT type of arrangement for new builds.

I am almost tempted by the idea of creating a fake "zone" that is more or less around the old City of Toronto. If the origin and destination is outside this zone, then there should be no additional fare applied for 905 area users for cross-boundary travel. This will address the issue of short/medium distance cross-boundary trips being penalized, encourage further uptake of transit where there is spare capacity and improve usage in the suburbs in general. Extending this notion further - what we can have in that instance is a one plus one rule for the entire GTA - that a single fare (no matter where the origin is) entitles the user to travel within the zone and to one zone beyond. By cordoning off the old city as a zone, you can preserve the existing flat fare within the City of Toronto (because inner suburbs/downtown count as two zones) and extend the utility of suburban transit (because in essence the 416 boundary disappears so long as the destination isn't DT).

AoD

 

[rbt]

2018 is a provincial election year so fingers crossed they'll have the stones to force the issue before there's a change at the top. With the Spadina line and RER coming online over the next few years, a proper solution is required sooner rather than later.

It's already too late. Even if Wynne gave direction to implement X method now at all costs, they'd not get it implemented before a government change (TTC fare gates need to be installed everywhere including the tap-out component) and the whole thing would be rolled back just as fast by the new government.

The transit riding voters need to buy in to the new plan and that's only going to happen if fares are same or cheaper than their old fare for the large majority of them. Government can spend the following decade jacking fares up again but for those first few years require a pile of cash for additional subsidies.

 

[gweed123]

Except the province doesn't appear to have the slightest inclination to go back to funding operational - beyond the ECLRT type of arrangement for new builds.

AoD

This is true. I just figured it would be worth looking at in the event that negotiations for fare integration hit a dead end or end up with something that's so sub-par and convoluted that it's not even worth it.

 

[amnesiajune]

That depends on where the origin and destination, which I have noted. Huge difference between someone who basically using both system in a manner that is consistent with intra-municipal transit from someone who is using it to get to the core (which, given how busy the various termini are, is probably the predominant mode of inter-regional local transit right now). Any form of system integration will need to address this differentiation.

That just overcomplicates things. I think it should be very simple: you used to pay roughly $3.00 to transit system A and $3.00 to transit system B -- a 50/50 split. Now you pay $3.00, with the same half of the fare going to each transit system. If you take three buses, it can be split 33/33/33, with a system getting two thirds of the fare if you used two of its buses.

Fare-by-distance on the subway could help a bit though - if you're taking a YRT or MiWay bus to the subway and then a long subway trip, the bus can get it's 50% of the flat bus fare and the TTC can get the remainder, which would be at least the same as the 50% bus fare, plus any extra fare-by-distance.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

That just overcomplicates things. I think it should be very simple: you used to pay roughly $3.00 to transit system A and $3.00 to transit system B -- a 50/50 split. Now you pay $3.00, with the same half of the fare going to each transit system. If you take three buses, it can be split 33/33/33, with a system getting two thirds of the fare if you used two of its buses.

Fare-by-distance on the subway could help a bit though - if you're taking a YRT or MiWay bus to the subway and then a long subway trip, the bus can get it's 50% of the flat bus fare and the TTC can get the remainder, which would be at least the same as the 50% bus fare, plus any extra fare-by-distance.

But that doesn't address that reality that you shaved off 50% of total revenues - it doesn't matter how you divvy up the pie if the pie itself gotten smaller. Cordoning off the subways as an entirely distance based mode will also create problems as well, on the issue of complexity, plus you will basically disincentivize a whole swath of transit users who do the bus-subway transfer in the 416. Is that loss of ridership (don't even go into the socioeconomic aspect of those riders) worth the marginal gain of what number of riders?

AoD

 

[Zach6668]

How do monthly passes and/or monthly capping systems work in jurisdictions with fare by distance?

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Serving whose riders? A system with 400 Million plus boarding vs. the smitten of cross-border commuters in jurisdictions that can barely get even a minority of mode-share? Let's not pretend the latter constitute the most important component of customers on an impact basis.

More and more of them every day. Most of the population growth is in the 905 and has been for a while but...

And if you want to emulate other regions, have a regional body that collect taxes regionally (yes, regionally) and subsidize the operating cost of transit accordingly. Empty talk about what other regions does without considering that is pointless. If you want Metrolinx to step in and do the flat-fare thing, perhaps they should pony up some dough. Did they?
[/QUOTE]

No, they didn't cuz they're chickens. (Though that's on the government, not Metrolinx as they have zero taxation powers.) But, damn straight - there should be regional taxes to fund this, particularly in regards off-setting TTC costs. And it's not empty talk, I've said as much before. Metrolinx should be a proper transit authority, not an arms length agency.

I suspect everyone knows the outcome of the current studies and the foot-dragging is political. Toronto tolls notwithstanding, this stuff is moving way way slower than it should. We're coming up on a decade from The Big Move, after all.

 

[amnesiajune]

But that doesn't address that reality that you shaved off 50% of total revenues

Not 50% of total revenues. 50% of revenues from a tiny number of the TTC's passengers. As of 2014, weekday ridership at Finch (the main YRT transfer point) and Islington (the main MiWay transfer point) is a combined 133,540. So that's 8% of the TTC's 1.7 million daily fares, and the vast majority of those people are parking at/walking to the station or transferring from a TTC bus route. It's not going to result in a significant decrease in revenue.

Cordoning off the subways as an entirely distance based mode will also create problems as well, on the issue of complexity, plus you will basically disincentivize a whole swath of transit users who do the bus-subway transfer in the 416.

Not necessarily. You can include a medium-length subway trip in the bus fare. A short subway-only trip can cost a bit less, and a long trip involving the subway can cost a bit more. I don't think someone travelling from Finch to Union would freak out over paying an extra $0.50-$1.00. And for low-income riders you can offer a discount like some other cities do.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Not 50% of total revenues. 50% of revenues from a tiny number of the TTC's passengers. As of 2014, weekday ridership at Finch (the main YRT transfer point) and Islington (the main MiWay transfer point) is a combined 133,540. So that's 8% of the TTC's 1.7 million daily fares, and the vast majority of those people are parking at/walking to the station or transferring from a TTC bus route. It's not going to result in a significant decrease in revenue.

Not necessarily. You can include a medium-length subway trip in the bus fare. A short subway-only trip can cost a bit less, and a long trip involving the subway can cost a bit more. I don't think someone travelling from Finch to Union would freak out over paying an extra $0.50-$1.00. And for low-income riders you can offer a discount like some other cities do.

Say it is 5-10% of that 8% (I am being rather generous with that estimate - especially given the amount of YRT trips that terminate at Finch, ditto MT at Islington), which gives about what, 1% of overall fares - that's approximately 20K paid fares per day or 5M, give or take daily fares per year (5 weekdays x 50 weeks). That's $15 Million. I am not sure if anyone is in a position to just wave that off. Besides, if the revenue differential is so minor because there are so few cross-border riders as you claim, then clearly we are making a molehill out of the double fare issue. I am not sure why we have to design policies to specifically address a policy issue that is a non-issue for the vast majority of users in that instance.

re: subway riders - actually let's not pretend it's just riders from Finch that will be paying more - but also at both ends of the city. Plus, why is one penalizing someone living closer to the core just to enable someone further to pay what is in effect a lowered fare (ostensibly because it would facilitate 905 to non-core travel, but let's not kid ourselves that it is anything but the predominant mode). Don't even get into the glib low-income people will get a discount (who is subsidizing that, I wonder?) - for a system change to whose benefit?

If the issue is facilitating 905 to non-core travel (which is what the complaint is supposedly about, over and over again), then the solution is to cordon off the core as a zone and have a 1+1 rule.

AoD

 

[amnesiajune]

Say it is 5-10% of that 8% (I am being rather generous with that estimate), which gives about what, 1% of overall fares - that's approximately 20K paid fares per day or 5M, give or take daily fares per year (5 weekdays x 50 weeks). That's $15 Million. I am not sure if anyone is in a position to just wave that off.

Sure, but it's not just a loss of revenue with no benefits. Some people will also decide to take transit since they don't get hit with penalties for living in one city and working in another. Some others will take transit to their jobs in Toronto because they don't have to work within walking distance of Go Transit stations. That creates new revenue - perhaps not enough to cover the full cost, but definitely enough to cover a significant percentage.

Besides, if the revenue differential is so minor because there are so few cross-border riders as you claim, then clearly we are making a molehill out of the double fare issue.

The reason why it's a big deal is that it costs the TTC virtually nothing ($15 million would be less than 1% of their 2016 budget) but benefits the people who would use it a ton - possibly cuts their cost of transit usage in half. And if that increases transit usage by just 1%, you're still taking 15,000 cars off the road.

Plus, why is one penalizing someone living closer to the core just to enable someone further to pay what is in effect a lowered fare

Flip the question. Two people currently live at North York Centre, one wants to go 5 km north and the other wants to go 15 km south. Why should the person who's travelling three times farther pay half as much? And if you go back to the pre-1970s system, the same problem is still there - why should someone travelling 5 km south from NYCC pay a double fare when someone travelling 15 km east or west doesn't?

It's always going to be unfair to make fares wildly different because you cross some arbitrary line on a map. That's why something like what Washington, London or Vancouver does makes a lot more sense - short trips pay a bit less, long trips pay a bit more, and two trips that are similarly long will almost always pay similar (if not identical) fares. Notably, all of those systems also charge a bit less if you travel outside of peak hours.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Sure, but it's not just a loss of revenue with no benefits. Some people will also decide to take transit since they don't get hit with penalties for living in one city and working in another. Some others will take transit to their jobs in Toronto because they don't have to work within walking distance of Go Transit stations. That creates new revenue - perhaps not enough to cover the full cost, but definitely enough to cover a significant percentage.

If you can't even quantify that shift, you really are not in a position to say it is sufficient to cover any percentage (much less apply the title "significant").

The reason why it's a big deal is that it costs the TTC virtually nothing ($15 million would be less than 1% of their 2016 budget) but benefits the people who would use it a ton - possibly cuts their cost of transit usage in half. And if that increases transit usage by just 1%, you're still taking 15,000 cars off the road.

Have you been following the budget deliberations? They are fighting over a few tens of millions in the TTC budget and deliberating the items that need to be cut to enable that. Not to mention, what if your proposed changes decrease transit usage as well? Potentially where there is the least amount of capacity for alternatives?

Flip the question. Two people currently live at North York Centre, one wants to go 5 km north and the other wants to go 15 km south. Why should the person who's travelling three times farther pay half as much? And if you go back to the pre-1970s system, the same problem is still there - why should someone travelling 5 km south from NYCC pay a double fare when someone travelling 15 km east or west doesn't?

Which is what the 1+1 rule allows you to do - travel across one boundary for free. Besides, if you want to be that vigorous with distance, your proposed changes could do nothing to equalize anything. And lord forbid I should include how GO is priced. And why just consider distance? Why not time (which is probably an even more meaningful factor from a customers' perspective)?

It's always going to be unfair to make fares wildly different because you cross some arbitrary line on a map. That's why something like what Washington, London or Vancouver does makes a lot more sense - short trips pay a bit less, long trips pay a bit more, and two trips that are similarly long will almost always pay similar (if not identical) fares. Notably, all of those systems also charge a bit less if you travel outside of peak hours.

It's always going to be unfair to someone. I rather a policy be unfair to a) the least number of individuals and b) most unfair to individuals in the best position to handle it. Besides, if you want to talk about fairness around distance - lest I remind you that distance isn't just North-South. I don't see any talk about segmenting Viva along an East-West basis for example, even though the distance involved can be far longer.

AoD

 

[rbt]

The reason why it's a big deal is that it costs the TTC virtually nothing ($15 million would be less than 1% of their 2016 budget) but benefits the people who would use it a ton - possibly cuts their cost of transit usage in half. And if that increases transit usage by just 1%, you're still taking 15,000 cars off the road.

This years 10 cent fare increase is expected to bring in $27M.

Are you really willing to increase the token price by 5 cents in order to allow York Region riders to have a single fare? And if you are, how long do you think you'll stay Mayor of Toronto?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This years 10 cent fare increase is expected to bring in $27M.

Are you really willing to increase the token price by 5 cents in order to allow York Region riders to have a single fare? And if you are, how long do you think you'll stay Mayor of Toronto?

Or conversely, get York Region to pay for that fare as a yearly subsidy to the TTC? Since it really isn't that much anyways.

But in all seriousness, I think what really need to happen is some degree of regional revenue pool to facilitate cross-boundary integration.

AoD