TTC Fare Zones (Possible solution to offset Capital and/or Operating costs)?

[The Mad Navigator]

I believe the TTC once had a 2 zone fare system back in the 70s that was quickly abolished when Metro council voted against it.

Now, I'm not sure if this would be a relevant topic today, but if service reliability and customer service improved, do you think the citizens of our city would strongly oppose a fare zone structure being reimplemented on the TTC? Could this be a tool to use to guarantee future expansion or at the very least help the commission avoid operating shortfalls?

Also, could this be the answer to constant fare hikes?

Opinions please!

 

[BMO]

someone would definitely get shot proposing this. Considering a large chunk of the population works downtown, this system would greatly benefit the richer condo neighbourhoods downtown, whereas some of the poorer suburban neighbourhoods would be at a disadvantage. They live in the suburbs because it is cheaper, I think most people would opt to live downtown if they could afford it.

 

[W. K. Lis]

It was on January 1, 1973, that the two zone fare system within Metropolitan Toronto (now City of Toronto) was abolished. With it, the TTC required a subsidy to operate. See Transit Toronto for more information. The reason behind the dropping of zones was that the HRT subway was, by May of 1968, into the "suburban" areas and the same zone as the "inner city".

It should be remembered that the TTC and GO has the highest farebox recovery in North America. They do not real estate to lease nor the very heavy density to work with, which agencies in Asia have.

 

[doady]

Two zone fares would only increase revenues if the majority of riders travel between the two zones. Otherwise, fare zones would result in decreased revenue.

 

[Justin10000]

Some would argue a zonal system would make fares "fairer", which is probably true. Unfortunately the people who would benefit from a zonal system live downtown, or close to work, and probably have choices other than transit. People who cannot afford to live close to work, or can only afford housing in the suburbs will be hurt by a zonal system.

 

[TOareaFan]

Some would argue a zonal system would make fares "fairer", which is probably true. Unfortunately the people who would benefit from a zonal system live downtown, or close to work, and probably have choices other than transit. People who cannot afford to live close to work, or can only afford housing in the suburbs will be hurt by a zonal system.

Ah...again, the assumption that the only people who live in the burbs do so because they can't afford to live anywhere else...it might be true for some...but not all. How many people living in, say, Oakville would you describe as being poor or living there because that is all they can afford?

Not only should zones be introduced but once there is integration in fares and collection between GO/TTC/others the fares should reflect rapidity of service. It costs more to build a subway than introduce a bus service.....if someone is, say, 14km from union and gets there by subway but someone else is 14km away without subway and gets there by bus the first person should pay more to refelct the increased capital cost of bringing them the subway (btw...don't bombard me with "who would take a ttc bus to union" type comments....I only use it as a landmark that we all know where it is).

Similary, GO sets its fares by distance (sorta ish after you get past those really short trips that get nailed by some "minimum" charge).....if all your trips are by train on one line but on another line you use buses, then the fair should be less on the bus to cover the same distance. Ie. those Milton folks who are crying out for mid-day trains should be charged less for their bus trips in the meantime than they would be if there was a train.

Essentially, charge people more for longer distances and charge them more for direct/"express" modes that they benefit from and others don't.

 

[Justin10000]

Ah...again, the assumption that the only people who live in the burbs do so because they can't afford to live anywhere else...it might be true for some...but not all. How many people living in, say, Oakville would you describe as being poor or living there because that is all they can afford?

Not only should zones be introduced but once there is integration in fares and collection between GO/TTC/others the fares should reflect rapidity of service. It costs more to build a subway than introduce a bus service.....if someone is, say, 14km from union and gets there by subway but someone else is 14km away without subway and gets there by bus the first person should pay more to refelct the increased capital cost of bringing them the subway (btw...don't bombard me with "who would take a ttc bus to union" type comments....I only use it as a landmark that we all know where it is).

Similary, GO sets its fares by distance (sorta ish after you get past those really short trips that get nailed by some "minimum" charge).....if all your trips are by train on one line but on another line you use buses, then the fair should be less on the bus to cover the same distance. Ie. those Milton folks who are crying out for mid-day trains should be charged less for their bus trips in the meantime than they would be if there was a train.

Essentially, charge people more for longer distances and charge them more for direct/"express" modes that they benefit from and others don't.

This is about Toronto suburbs(North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough) that are served by the TTC. Not about burbs outside the 416. You completely missed the point of the thread. And your idea of charging based on speed, and transit mode will probably make the fare system complex enough to drive riders to driving. The idea is to make transit user friendly, and convenient. Not to force riders to calculate how much they will be spending depending on how fast they reach their destination. It's silly to even bring the idea of charging fares based on speed.
GO transit is a regional operator, and having a zonal system makes sense. Telling riders they have to pay more to ride a local operator just because they live so many km from a city core(Brampton, Mississauga, whatever) is not going to make transit attractive to riders, especially if the service is poor.

 

[kettal]

"Possible solution to offset Capital and/or Operating costs"

Why must TTC strive to be the only profitable transit system in the western hemisphere?

 

[doady]

Also you have to consider that many of the most "disadvantaged" people in Toronto live far from the core in places like Rexdale, Jane-Finch, Malvern, etc. Would the fare zones still be a good idea if they force a lot of these people to pay a higher fare? On the other hand, the people who would most likely experience lower fares from a zonal system, the people in the inner city, are probably the ones who need the fare reduction the least.

 

[M II A II R II K]

It could work out better if workplaces offered their workers TTC work stamp tickets at a discount to make it fairer for those travelling to work from afar, but regular fare any other time.

 

[Dan416]

Fare zones within the 416 just don't make sense anymore. Having the inner 905 as one zone and the outer 905 as another would make sense. But the cost to cross a zone shouldn't be as high as it is now. Instead of paying 2 fares, why not 1.5? So instead of $3 for MT and $3 for TTC = $6 it'd be $4.50 total, which would be comparable to a GO ride (Erindale is $5.50 cash fare)...

Wait a second, when did it get cheaper to take GO than to take MT+TTC? Wow things have changed since I commuted to school in early 2000s lol.

 

[kEiThZ]

Instead of zoned fares I would suggest that the TTC should implement a mixed system of flat fares for surface routes and fare by distance for the subways and other heavy rail (GO). So for example, you put in a toonie to ride the bus for however long you want. When you reach the subway station, you swipe your Presto and tap out again when you reach your destination. And then they can charge X amount per station (calculated by the shortest route possible).

So for example if somebody lived at Finch and Leslie, they could take the Finch Bus to Finch station and ride down to Union. This would cost them ($2) for the bus and at $0.10 per stop on the subway, it would cost them $1.60. The total would be $3.60. This would of course require Presto to be fully implemented.

The key benefits for such a system from my perspective is that it provides a fair cost to those who use the system short distances (buses in the suburbs) or subways in the core, and also provides discounts for those who use a less comfortable and slower form of transportation (buses and streetcars) while pricing longer and faster trips more appropriately. I would also suggest that such a model could also be used for GO service integration (for example price GO at $1 per station) and would eventually lead to full GO and TTC integration.

It would make commutes more expensive. But I believe people are willing to tolerate that as long as there is some reward or incentive for short rides on the system. Right now the public does not like fare increases because it makes their commute cost more and makes their short bus ride to Grandma's more expensive as well. Change the paradigm to that the short bus ride is cheap and the commute costs a little more and people will be far more tolerant of price by distance. Zone fares really don't do much in this regard. They basically penalize the rider for living in one zone and working in another. That's not likely to be seen as fair by most people at all.

In terms of pulling it off, it could be done if there was a will to put in a short term subsidy for a few years while the transition was being made. Fares by distance could then be gradually increased until the subsidy was completely removed.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Think it probably would be easier to wait for each passenger to be scanned upon entry of any vehicle and customize each charge per customer based on whichever trip they happen to take and rack up their personal charges that way. That of course would be completely fair.

 

[wyliepoon]

Also you have to consider that many of the most "disadvantaged" people in Toronto live far from the core in places like Rexdale, Jane-Finch, Malvern, etc. Would the fare zones still be a good idea if they force a lot of these people to pay a higher fare? On the other hand, the people who would most likely experience lower fares from a zonal system, the people in the inner city, are probably the ones who need the fare reduction the least.

I think what can be done for disadvantaged riders in the outer suburbs if TTC does implement zonal fares is to implement some sort of special subsidy program for them. The TTC could establish a separate category of fares for them (like the student/senior fare today), or a level of government could provide a transportation allowance to them so that transit would not have to take such a big bite out of their income.

For example, Hong Kong has a Transport Support Scheme for low-income workers and job seekers who live in the outer suburbs and as a result have to pay more to ride Hong Kong's fare-by-distance transit network. The government provides a transport allowance to them, provided that they meet the requirements for the subsidy.

 

[kEiThZ]

The main problem for the "disadvantaged" isn't the cost of the commute necessarily, it's usually the cost of short trips inside their community or borough. I'd venture to say that most of the "disadvantaged" usually tend to work closer to home than their more middle class counterparts. As such, it's pricing for the bus routes, not the subway routes that hits them the hardest. $3 to ride the TTC just to get groceries? That's just as wrong as demanding $3 for a downtowner to travel 3 or 4 stops in the core. In this case the "disadvantaged" don't need subsidies. They just need a fairer system.