Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[gweed123]

I agree that having a flat rate (especially for the TTC) is not the best option. I live in St. Jamestown and used to go to Ryerson, so if I chose to take the subway, I was 4 stops on the subway plus a transfer. Compare that to someone coming from STC going to Ryerson, it's at least 10x the distance, but it's the same fare. Implementing distance-based fares would mean an enormous boost in transit usage by people living in and around downtown.

 

[toraerach]

That's fine, let it cost more to take GO than the TTC between any two points. However, when one gets off the GO train, they should not have to spend another $2.25 to travel 2 stops on the subway. Implement a standard fare per km that might vary by mode. Kipling to Union may be 15km at 20 cents/km on the GO train. Union to Queen on the subway might be another 1 km at 15 cents/km. Total cost of trip: $3.15, compared to about $6.50 today.

Same goes for transferring between local systems. Queen to Steeles would be 16km at 15 cents/km on the TTC. Steeles to Highway 7 would be an extra 4km, still at 15 cents/km. Total cost of trip: $3.00, compared to about $5.00 today.

But do you charge for actual distance from the starting point to the destination or for the distance travelled? For example, would a trip from King station to St. Andrew station cost more if one decided to use the subway rather than take the streetcar?

Basically, if a fare-by-distance system was brought in, I would want to make sure riders aren't punished just because they live on a convoluted bus route out in the suburbs or something like that.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I agree that having a flat rate (especially for the TTC) is not the best option. I live in St. Jamestown and used to go to Ryerson, so if I chose to take the subway, I was 4 stops on the subway plus a transfer. Compare that to someone coming from STC going to Ryerson, it's at least 10x the distance, but it's the same fare. Implementing distance-based fares would mean an enormous boost in transit usage by people living in and around downtown.

I think that distance-based fares or fare zones are totally the way to go for the entire GTA. I'm guessing that having fare zones and higher fares for longer distances means that, at least in the TTC's case, shorter distance fares could be reduced dramatically. For instance, the base fare could be $1 or $1.50, with an extra 50 cents per zone travelled through. On something like the Go Train, Base fare could be $1 or $2, with an extra 25 cents per regional fare zone travelled through. I should make a map of this

I think it would really encourage people to use transit for shorter, more local trips that they'd usually take by car. Things like going to the library, getting groceries or going to the pool would be a lot easier to do by transit if shorter trips like those didn't cost the same as going from Jane and Finch to Union Station

 

[gweed123]

The funny part is a lot of the more suburban subway stations were actually designed to use zone fares.

I see the system working like this: get on the bus/streetcar/subway at point A, you're required to swipe a prepaid card through a card reader (for people who are looking for an example, look at Boston). The rider would then make all the transfers they want, move about inside the system, and then to get out of the system they're required to swipe their card again. The system would automatically calculate how far the person as travelled, and then base the fare off of that.

If the swiping at exit is not possible (ie on most buses, because having to swipe on exit could be difficult), it's done at the nearest point where it is convenient. Or you could always just flip it from the convention and have rear-door boarding and front door exit.

 

[Whoaccio]

Why don't we just price transit like everything else? Sell things for a function of what they cost to provide and what people are willing to pay for them, technology and practicality permitting. If we determine that the cost to provide an additional space for a passenger on the (at capacity) Yonge line during rushour is x, we should charge at least that and possibly more depending on the market demand levels for that particular trip. Conversely, the cost to add a new passenger to an underused subway segment would be quite low, so fares should reflect that. Airlines are a fairly good example, where excess seats are sold for fairly low prices in order to just get *some* money. If people are willing to pay a premium for premium service (or a discount for discount service) we should accommodate that. Until recently it would have been impossible to have such a complex fare structure, but if we ever did get around to an RFID system it would become more a matter of programing.

It would be difficult to fix both origin and destinations on surface routes without seriously screwing their operations. To that end, a flat fare of, say, 1$ would probably be the most practical. Routes that are designed to provide premium service (like express or GO busses) could reflect that but involving distance would be impractical. It may even be practical to provide super discount bus service around downtown for "free" that could be financed by advertising, provided they could get the cost per passenger down low enough.

 

[gweed123]

Why don't we just price transit like everything else? Sell things for a function of what they cost to provide and what people are willing to pay for them, technology and practicality permitting. If we determine that the cost to provide an additional space for a passenger on the (at capacity) Yonge line during rushour is x, we should charge at least that and possibly more depending on the market demand levels for that particular trip. Conversely, the cost to add a new passenger to an underused subway segment would be quite low, so fares should reflect that. Airlines are a fairly good example, where excess seats are sold for fairly low prices in order to just get *some* money. If people are willing to pay a premium for premium service (or a discount for discount service) we should accommodate that.

So let me get this straight, you want to charge poorer people who HAVE to use that particular line more, because more richer people who CHOOSE to use that line are crowding it up? Fantastic. Why don't we start instituting "rush hour fees" at emergency rooms for when they're busiest? Try and get some of those people over to the less crowded hospitals. Some things just don't work with free market principles, transit is one of them. Fees should be based on distance, not "which line is busier".

 

[doady]

The only way for that to happen realistically downtown is to tunnel them. I doubt the city would ever approve of changing King, Queen, Dundas, or College into 1 lane in each direction roads for vehicles while transit vehicles get their own centre lanes. Further outside of the downtown, at grade could be done, but only with expropriation and ripping down 1 side of the street to make way for the wider ROW (in essence 3 lanes in each direction). St. Clair was lucky in that it already had a parking lane plus 2 lanes in each direction, so the additional ROW could be put in without actually widening the street, but the afore mentioned streets aren't that lucky.

Queen, Dundas, King, and College just have be converted into one-way streets (for cars) and the streetcars can have their own ROW (for both directions on each street). It is not difficult.

 

[kEiThZ]

So let me get this straight, you want to charge poorer people who HAVE to use that particular line more, because more richer people who CHOOSE to use that line are crowding it up? Fantastic. Why don't we start instituting "rush hour fees" at emergency rooms for when they're busiest? Try and get some of those people over to the less crowded hospitals. Some things just don't work with free market principles, transit is one of them. Fees should be based on distance, not "which line is busier".

We toll roads according to the time of day. Why not transit? It might even encourage employers to better distribute their staff's hours.

 

[gweed123]

We toll roads according to the time of day. Why not transit? It might even encourage employers to better distribute their staff's hours.

Because transit is meant to be the alternative to driving. Making the alternative more expensive and more difficult to use will only force people back to the primary method of travel (ie cars). We toll roads because people who drive have the choice. Tolling transit ends up tolling people who have no choice BUT to take transit.

 

[Whoaccio]

So let me get this straight, you want to charge poorer people who HAVE to use that particular line more, because more richer people who CHOOSE to use that line are crowding it up? Fantastic. Why don't we start instituting "rush hour fees" at emergency rooms for when they're busiest? Try and get some of those people over to the less crowded hospitals. Some things just don't work with free market principles, transit is one of them. Fees should be based on distance, not "which line is busier".

Fees shouldn't be based on "which line is busier" (I didn't say that, so why quote it as if I did?), it should be based on what it costs to accommodate the next passenger. If the Yonge line is at capacity, the cost to add another passenger involves somehow making more capacity (bigger stations, bigger trains, better signaling) which involves hundreds of millions of dollars. Conversely, if a route is running under capacity the cost to add another passenger is basically zero. This isn't exactly free market radicalism, it is just logical that services should have an underlying relationship with their costs. Many people here, including myself, would argue that the best way to deal with road congestion is via some kind of pricing mechanism. The underlying logic is the same, if our roads are at capacity the cost of adding another car is the cost of adding more roads (which is typically expensive).

Because transit is meant to be the alternative to driving. Making the alternative more expensive and more difficult to use will only force people back to the primary method of travel (ie cars). We toll roads because people who drive have the choice. Tolling transit ends up tolling people who have no choice BUT to take transit.

No, it is not. Transit is meant to get people from point a to point b, and occasionally point c on the weekends. I also don't get where you get this idea that people who drive have choices while people who take transit have none. Anyone who can drive can take transit, and most* who can take transit can drive. The 407 doesn't have variable road pricing to promote the bus, it has it because adding additional roadspace at rushour isn't an effecient use of resources or even entirely possible.

*the obvious exception being the young and the disabled, but these aren't a significant portion of commuters.

 

[gweed123]

Fees shouldn't be based on "which line is busier" (I didn't say that, so why quote it as if I did?), it should be based on what it costs to accommodate the next passenger. If the Yonge line is at capacity, the cost to add another passenger involves somehow making more capacity (bigger stations, bigger trains, better signaling) which involves hundreds of millions of dollars. Conversely, if a route is running under capacity the cost to add another passenger is basically zero. This isn't exactly free market radicalism, it is just logical that services should have an underlying relationship with their costs. Many people here, including myself, would argue that the best way to deal with road congestion is via some kind of pricing mechanism. The underlying logic is the same, if our roads are at capacity the cost of adding another car is the cost of adding more roads (which is typically expensive).

I agree with the logic on the roads, but like I said above, we toll roads because people who drive have the option to use transit. The inverse is not necessarily true. Some people who use transit (captive riders) do not have the option to drive. Therefore, an increase in price that has been caused by those who choose to use transit negatively affects them, and they may not be able to afford it.

Suppose we do charge extra for using the Yonge line during rush hour. Is it fair that someone who needs to use transit and who works at say, Eglinton and Yonge, should pay extra because the people who chose to use transit and park at Finch drove up the price? Or is that person supposed to take the Spadina subway to Eglinton West and then take the Eglinton bus to avoid the extra rush hour fare on Yonge?

 

[Second_in_pie]

Fees shouldn't be based on "which line is busier" (I didn't say that, so why quote it as if I did?), it should be based on what it costs to accommodate the next passenger. If the Yonge line is at capacity, the cost to add another passenger involves somehow making more capacity (bigger stations, bigger trains, better signaling) which involves hundreds of millions of dollars. Conversely, if a route is running under capacity the cost to add another passenger is basically zero. This isn't exactly free market radicalism, it is just logical that services should have an underlying relationship with their costs. Many people here, including myself, would argue that the best way to deal with road congestion is via some kind of pricing mechanism. The underlying logic is the same, if our roads are at capacity the cost of adding another car is the cost of adding more roads (which is typically expensive).

But we're trying to get more people off roads. If we price subways based on their business, two things are going to happen. First, they'll be horrendously expensive, because Toronto isn't going to build any more subways as long as Miller and Giambrone are around, so I expect standard subway fare would be around $5, no?

Second, less people are going to use them. We're supposed to be making Transit as easy as possible, and charging people based on totally random numbers is not an easy way to do that. When I say "based on totally random numbers," I mean that if for some random reason there are a lot of people in the system, the price will be higher, and lower at other times, which is totally independent from you, the rider.

It's definitely not a good thing to base RT by demand. It just makes thing unnecessarily difficult, and might not reflect how far you're going.

Also, doing that would end up being directly counterproductive to building a strong RT system. If the TTC gets more money when their lines are more crowded (or "harder to accommodate people," as you say) then why would they want to build a DRL at all? Why would they want to build Eglinton? A packed to-the-brim Yonge line would be a pot of gold to them, and the amount of money they make would would drop for every other option someone has (aka how many lines there are to spread people out.)

I think that fare zones is the best way to create an integrated regional transportation network. They're flexible and easiest to manage in terms of knowing who's paid for what.

 

[Whoaccio]

Suppose we do charge extra for using the Yonge line during rush hour. Is it fair that someone who needs to use transit and who works at say, Eglinton and Yonge, should pay extra because the people who chose to use transit and park at Finch drove up the price? Or is that person supposed to take the Spadina subway to Eglinton West and then take the Eglinton bus to avoid the extra rush hour fare on Yonge?

First of all, I find it incredibly difficult to believe anyone would be unable to afford a rushour premium. Looking at London, rush hour premiums are typically something like 15% of the non-peak fare, but let's assume that we use a 50% premium. That gives us a hypothetical premium of $1.37. If anyone is literally unable to afford that, then we are talking about a welfare problem and something the TTC should even bother trying to fix. We would be better to just give the guy money on his tax return, if in fact he did exist.

You are missing the point though. One way or another, everyone pays for congestion. If the Yonge line is congested, then people will either have to pay to add more capacity or have to suffer time delays from congestion. The only alternative is to charge the users of a given service for the actual cost of it, which seems quite a bit more fair than building potentially unnecessary capacity.

If there are in fact captive riders who are too poor, too unhealthy or otherwise totally unable to switch routes we should just deal with them on an ad hoc basis through more targeted methods than keeping prices lower than they could be. Anybody who rides the Yonge line during rushhour will clearly see that most of the riders do not fall into the category of "captive riders" anyways.

 

[Second_in_pie]

You are missing the point though. One way or another, everyone pays for congestion. If the Yonge line is congested, then people will either have to pay to add more capacity or have to suffer time delays from congestion. The only alternative is to charge the users of a given service for the actual cost of it, which seems quite a bit more fair than building potentially unnecessary capacity.

Seriously? I would much rather "pay for more capacity" by letting my tax money go to build new lines than paying a rush hour premium fare. That way, everyone is paying to create a better transport system, which makes things much more fair. It's good to stagger the times people get to work, but with "premium fare," you'd just end up punishing those who's schedules either require them to move during more crowded periods, or those who's employers require them to come to work at standard time. There are better ways to improve transportation.

 

[gweed123]

If everyone can afford the peak fare and everyone who was using it before the fare increase continues to use it, how will that decrease congestion? The only thing it does is makes riders more pissed off that they're paying more to be squeezed in just as much as before. Even if the peak fare does "work", it will be working by having more people say "screw it, I'll just drive". Not the way we want to relieve congestion.

In order to justify increasing rates on the alternative mode of transportation, it needs to be a VIABLE alternative. Otherwise, all you're doing is forcing people back to the primary mode (cars). Again, I'm all for road tolls, as they have the double benefit of generating funds for transit, as well as getting people off the roads and onto transit. The same is not true the other way around.