Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[steveintoronto]

Here's a real game changer for those claiming that a Metrolinx Relief Line (or one that's not owned by ML but uses the GO fare system) wouldn't attract the same number of riders from the exurbs as TTC subway would:

 

[Neutrino]

Yes, a nice trial to gauge demand for GO inside Toronto. A step in the right direction, to be sure, but of course free transfers would be ideal. Steve, what is the potential for free transfers/fare integration when private enterprise builds transit? What degree of authority does the consortium exercise over the fare structure? And if there does need to be extra funding for covering co-fares, does the consortium provide that funding?

 

[Leo_Chan]

Yes, a nice trial to gauge demand for GO inside Toronto. A step in the right direction, to be sure, but of course free transfers would be ideal. Steve, what is the potential for free transfers/fare integration when private enterprise builds transit? What degree of authority does the consortium exercise over the fare structure? And if there does need to be extra funding for covering co-fares, does the consortium provide that funding?

We don’t know how a privately operated isolated transit system will work. We know that the Hurontario LRT will be operated by a private contractor but the city/region will decide the fares. Just because a private entity is constructing and operating a system, it doesn’t mean that they’ll have full control over fares and integration.

 

[steveintoronto]

Steve, what is the potential for free transfers/fare integration when private enterprise builds transit?

This remains a massive question. For many cities, there is no difference, the contract is an operating lease, not a fare collecting one. This is where things can go completely off the rails (pun fully intended) for Ford et al, as the 'unwritten understanding' with Ontarians (The People) is that it matters not who builds and owns it, it's what it costs the rider to use it, and the interchange of a common fare structure with all participants. The best illustration that comes to mind is the Oyster Card in London. (Edit: This is common practice in many large world cities)

The Oyster card is a form of electronic ticket used on public transport in Greater London in the United Kingdom. It is promoted by Transport for London and is valid on travel modes across London including London Underground, London Buses, the Docklands Light Railway (DLR), London Overground, Tramlink, some river boat services, and most National Rail services within the London fare zones. Since its introduction in June 2003, more than 86 million cards have been used.[2] [...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyster_card

Some of those companies are private, but the system was set-up to gain the efficiencies of private delivery along with the advantages of a universal fare system.

Your question is going to be a huge topic of discussion. Sentiment is changing fast on how people accept this or not (private delivery with shared fare structure) but suffice to say in London, and other cities to varying degrees, the buses are all private, (edit: The regulation has been increased back to all being the classic London Underground crimson, and interchange seamless for riders) aspects if not completely, London rail is muni government owned, but the National Network trains within the region are specific as to which is in and which out of the fare system.

I'll try and find a better link/reference for this later. Think the Orient Express not being included, but commuter services are, in general. To further complicate the latter, there's been a trend to bringing some of the private network rail operators back into civic government (TfL) ownership and/or operation.

The point again: Ford falls on his sword or not on how he implements this, as every indication is for me that a Private Owner/Operator has a big proposal on the Metrolinx table for Relief Line, and perhaps more.

I'll dig to see what the Montreal REM model is going to be.

Edit to Add: Per latter point above:

Fare Assumptions
2.20
It is expected that the current fare structure will remain in place and the REM will be fully integrated into Greater Montréal’s fare structure.

2.21 The only major modification would be related to the REM airport branche, where fares have been assumed to be $5 higher compared to the current 747 average fare.

http://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/sections/mandats/Reseau_electrique_métropolitain/documents/DA97.pdf

It's still a topic of great discussion however.

It's still unclear how much clients will pay to use Montreal's light-rail system

Details on integration with other transit networks, possibility of sale to government also revealed
CBC News · Posted: Apr 23, 2018 6:48 PM ET | Last Updated: April 23, 2018

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/rem-technical-briefing-1.4632068

I'll continue digging on this. Someone might have access to a much more recent and detailed/definitive answer.

 

[steveintoronto]

From the Globe, and some may not see it this way, but this ties right into the Relief Line modelling as being a Metrolinx competence:

[...]
The move is part of Metrolinx’s effort to transform GO Transit from a purely commuter service to one that serves local trips as well.

“What we are seeing is that there’s a whole market segment of short-distance travellers that we are not fully hooking into our service,” Metrolinx CEO Phil Verster said Monday. He cited internal modeling that he said showed the move is expected to generate an additional two million rides annually. [...]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...s-to-decrease-but-falls-short-of-smart-track/

 

[nfitz]

Here's a real game changer for those claiming that a Metrolinx Relief Line (or one that's not owned by ML but uses the GO fare system) wouldn't attract the same number of riders from the exurbs as TTC subway would:

What does it change in relation to the relief line? The only other GO stations that are less than 10 km from downtown (Union) are Bloor, Danforth, and Exhibition (and possibly Mimico if you measure across the bay, rather than along the track). So no changes for even Kennedy, Kipling, Oriole or Sheppard West.

The previous promise to price everything inside the city limits as $3 was a game-changer. But this is surely almost irrelevant. And entirely irrelevant for the 4 routes that have no stations within 10 km of Union (well 3.5 as some peak Stouffville trains stop at Danforth).

 

[p_xavier]

I'll continue digging on this. Someone might have access to a much more recent and detailed/definitive answer.

The ARTM is responsible for fares. Basically they will put the same OPUS system for the REM as the rest of the network. The ARTM is still looking into how to do the complete fare integration, be it by zone, km travelled etc. So no, it's not clear how exactly how an user will pay to use the REM, but it's also true for all the rest of Montréal's transit network.

 

[steveintoronto]

What does it change in relation to the relief line?

For Relief Line South? All the TTC planned stops are not only within that distance, once Metrolinx takes operating competence, it means also transferring to extant GO lines will be that much more affordable and convenient. In the present tense, in practical terms, it means nothing. In terms of the future business case of the entire line, it means a lot.
“What we are seeing is that there’s a whole market segment of short-distance travellers that we are not fully hooking into our service,” Metrolinx CEO Phil Verster said Monday.

The real question is why the massive change of heart from Metrolinx? Verster has seen the Ghost of Christmas Future, and changed his tune. (In all fairness the tune is the Metrolinx one of Christmas Past)

it's not clear how exactly how an user will pay to use the REM, but it's also true for all the rest of the Montréal's transit network.

The equivalency is still similar/same, as fare integration has to happen in Toronto too, and inevitably with electronic payment that will be distance based.

 

[nfitz]

For Relief Line South? All the TTC planned stops are not only within that distance, once Metrolinx takes operating competence, it means also transferring to extant GO lines will be that much more affordable and convenient. In the present tense, in practical terms, it means nothing. In terms of the future business case of the entire line, it means a lot.

Relief line south is designed to use TTC fares. I doubt very much that the city will agree to changing that even if the upload goes ahead. I thought you were referring to the whole "use the Richmond Hill GO line as a relief line" concept.

“What we are seeing is that there’s a whole market segment of short-distance travellers that we are not fully hooking into our service,” Metrolinx CEO Phil Verster said Monday.

How does that make any sense though - the previous pilot of using cheap fares for Exhibition and Danforth yielded almost no extra riders. All they've done for travel into downtown add Bloor and Weston.

The real question is why the massive change of heart from Metrolinx? Verster has seen the Ghost of Christmas Future, and changed his tune. (In all fairness the tune is the Metrolinx one of Christmas Past)

What massive change of heart? This impacts very few. It's a massive change of heart from what Metrolinx and the Ministry were promising last spring though with the $3 fare inside city limits.

 

[steveintoronto]

That Metrolinx hasn't folded UPX completely into GO yet defies logic. Or does it? What possible reason could there be for still running a semi-separate UPX agency?

Privatization. Whether a buyer would want to remain part of the GO fare system (Presto participation may or may not be included ) having a fare system distinct from GO would/could be a feature of the sale. It remains conspicuous as to why the two still remain separate. The only other advantage I can see, is that the premium airport price can be considered not covered by the Metrolinx Act fare appendix...except it is...lol...but that might be changed in a sale and the Act rewritten to accommodate it.

 

[steveintoronto]

What massive change of heart?

GO's refusal for the last two decades to change pricing of local trips on GO to a usable and reasonable level.

This impacts very few.

Not if you believe what Verster claims:

The price drop, which must be approved by the board of the regional transit agency, would result in a $3.70 fare for any trip shorter than 10 kilometres, down from the current lowest fare of $4.71. The move is part of Metrolinx’s effort to transform GO Transit from a purely commuter service to one that serves local trips as well.

“What we are seeing is that there’s a whole market segment of short-distance travellers that we are not fully hooking into our service,” Metrolinx CEO Phil Verster said Monday. He cited internal modeling that he said showed the move is expected to generate an additional two million rides annually.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...s-to-decrease-but-falls-short-of-smart-track/

 

[nfitz]

GO's refusal for the last two decades to change pricing of local trips on GO to a usable and reasonable level.

This seems more of the same really. Go back two decades - the minimum GO fare then was a lot close to TTC fare than it is now - at least it was 15 years go when I moved to Toronto.

Not if you believe what Verster claims:

I don't believe the claim. That was my point. It is completely contradicted by the Danforth/Exhibition pilot - which even included travel between Danforth and Exhibition - a distance of 12 km.

 

[jje1000]

That Metrolinx hasn't folded UPX completely into GO yet defies logic. Or does it? What possible reason could there be for still running a semi-separate UPX agency?

Privatization. Whether a buyer would want to remain part of the GO fare system (Presto participation may or may not be included ) having a fare system distinct from GO would/could be a feature of the sale. It remains conspicuous as to why the two still remain separate. The only other advantage I can see, is that the premium airport price can be considered not covered by the Metrolinx Act fare appendix...except it is...lol...but that might be changed in a sale and the Act rewritten to accommodate it.

I have a feeling they still want to return it to being a more 'premium class' express at some point later on, or at least something that remains separate from RER, rather than it remaining the RER-lite service it is at the moment.

 

[steveintoronto]

I have a feeling they still want to return it to being a more 'premium class' express at some point later on, or at least something that remains separate from RER, rather than it remaining the RER-lite service it is at the moment.

There's a number of scenarios, that's one and it made more sense up until now. I think that may have been the thinking when Wynne put a starting pistol to their heads for the CanAm Games and made them jump the plank. It was a disaster in terms of ridership however. We know and accept that being the case, but when the division CEO really was shot a few years back, why did they never fold the entire division into GO? It's beyond conspicuous, and the remaining parallel but distinct fare systems defies rational belief. There had to be some kind of rationale at work.

This new stance from Metrolinx heralds a real change of approach, and let me take your point one step further: By allowing for a return to 'premium service'...it even furthers the case for privatizing if! passenger numbers can be maintained. But there's catch 23 (22 with inflation added): Remove that fare equity with GO, and the ridership plummets again.

An answer for that is for UPX to return to being 'an airport premium service'...and private (allowing it to be outside the Metrolinx Act) but the physical operation folded into a greater UPX, one which has added three or four car high-platform trains to run to Bramalea to capture that "overwhelming demand" as some have called it, and Verster refers to, as the first leg of an RER Bramalea/Union or beyond. It won't be the RER touted by Metrolinx in the past, but it could be up and running in a couple of years. There's ample headway between the 15 mins that UPX now run on their present pathings to the airport. That service can remain (perhaps with only two car trains since demand will be lessened, and thus stock will last longer and be more flexible) and continue to run into the UPX station at Union, the added 'RER light' would run into a platform at Union proper, albeit with a high platform, and use DEMU/EMU stock that can run on both, thus enabling the more 'true' RER EMUs to run the service later.

The only service that would be privatized is the Airport service, and that would justify leaving the 'UPX only' stalks in situ for that service.

Edit to Add: As per GO's historical overpricing of local fares, here's an excellent piece by @ShonTron :
Not so fair-by-distance: GO Transit’s problematic fare system

 

[nfitz]

GO's refusal for the last two decades to change pricing of local trips on GO to a usable and reasonable level.

This seems more of the same really. Go back two decades - the minimum GO fare then was a lot close to TTC fare than it is now - at least it was 15 years go when I moved to Toronto

I found the 15-year old GO fares. The GO minimum cash fare in 2003 was $2.85 a 27% premium over the TTC cash fare of $2.25. In 2006, the $3.25 GO cash fare was only an 18% premium over the $2.75 TTC fare. Currently the $5.30 minimum is a 63% premium over the TTC $3.25 cash fare - and this goes to a 35% premium with the new (4.40) cash fare.

The new $3.70 GO Presto fare will still be a 19% premium to the $3.10 TTC Presto fare. (I'm not sure what the old 10-ride ticket discounts were).

While this reverses some of the excessive GO increases for short trips in the last decade, it only is restoring us back to where we were around 2006.