Fare evasion on the TTC...

[digi]

How much problems does the TTC have with those sneaking thru turnstiles or illegally entering a bus or streetcar at a rear door?

Lots of problems, they actually encourage it on the 501.

 

[threnody]

I guess this is slightly balanced out by dopes like me, who - when I don't have tokens on me -- end up paying $3 a fare because, seriously, who carries quarters on them any more?

Haha, glad to hear I'm not the only one that does this! Too honest for my own good, I guess.

 

[urbanfan89]

In a few years another common way to cheat the TTC will be to deposit US coins into the fare box...

 

[Darren B]

Lesouris's explanation isn't exactly right. After all, Royal York and Islington stations were built at the same time beyond the fare boundary and have fare-paid bus terminals, while Runnymede isn't fare-paid and was inside the boundary.

It has to do with the design of the station. The way they built it there is no room for a fare barrier on the ground level, and people access the station through the bus terminal.

So, the question is: why didn't the TTC expropriate more property in Bloor West Village for full-size stations with bus terminals when they built the subway? Politics or something else?

I disagree. Jane is fine as is, IMO. All busbays should require transfers, and the busbays should be reduced in size or eliminated all together. A smartcard system could record the transfer on the card, as well as its expiry time, such as the MTA's Metrocard. It may make for a marginally longer transfer from surface to subway and vice versa, as bus riders now have to board from only the front to have their card swiped, and swipe at a turnstyle to enter the subway. At the same time it will significantly reduce fare evasion, and it may one day compliment a zone based fare system.It's an investment worth doing. Busbays are relics of the past and they discourage development, and attract fare evasion. It's ironic that right outside the station there then is a bus stop anyways, such as at Woodbine, Finch, Jane, Runneymede, Main, etc.

Busbays along with those Plexiglas barriers beside each subway door are my biggest two pet peeves on the TTC. One encourages fare evasion, and the other attracts door blockers, but both are kept by the TTC.

 

[wonderboy416]

I remember the days of being a car-less student in Mississauga, at the Hurontario GO I'd grab a transfer when getting off and give it to someone taking another route thus giving them a free ride.. and sometimes someone would do the same for you (it was always other younger kids). Nothing will beat the time we got a free bus ride to the square one, then saw 3 free movies at the colisium and another free bus ride back home lol. I'd be ashamed of myself for such action today, but I was all of 17 at the time.

If the TTC required riders to swipe in and out at different stations or when getting on and off the bus there would essentially be a second barrier in place.. also a more advanced fare calculation system could be introduced charging less for short trips and a bit more for long trips as well as eliminating the need for paper transfers.

 

[Darren B]

If the TTC required riders to swipe in and out at different stations or when getting on and off the bus there would essentially be a second barrier in place.. also a more advanced fare calculation system could be introduced charging less for short trips and a bit more for long trips as well as eliminating the need for paper transfers.

Yeah...a new transfer system would transform the dynamics of the entire system. Less above ground space would be needed for example, and along with a DRL the type of subway ridership could change where more people walk to their station compared to being bused in.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If the TTC required riders to swipe in and out at different stations or when getting on and off the bus there would essentially be a second barrier in place..

I've often thought that a turnstile at the door on the buses that opened once the fare was paid was the obvious solution to fare jumpers, plus it removed the driver from fare collecting. Of course you'd have people with huge strollers, walkers and bundle buggies complaining about access.

 

[CDL.TO]

I disagree.

I'm confused. What do you disagree with?

- That Royal York and Islington have fare-paid bus terminals, while Runnymede doesn't?
- That the design of Jane station makes a fare-paid bus area impossible?
- That there might be a historical explanation as to why Bloor West Village stations have non-fare-paid terminals unlike others built at the same time?

I don't see what in my post is disagreeable.
`

 

[urbanfan89]

Busbays must be preserved, because they are what make the TTC's system unique. Buses are not seen as separate from subways, and this encourages bus ridership. A healthy transit system requires a healthy surface network, and getting rid of the busbays will create traffic jams on the surrounding streets (perhaps leading to calls to reduce bus service, which a pro-car city council will happily do). Besides, it is so easy to sneak into the subway that fare evasion will continue to exist regardless.

The issue of fare evasion could be addressed (but never eliminated, no system will ever eliminate fare evasion) through surveillence cameras and actual enforcement of the rules, which is pitiful as it stands. In the future the system should be moved to an honour based system, though this will require actual investment by governments so that people will actually want to pay to use the system.

 

[toraerach]

Lesouris's explanation isn't exactly right. After all, Royal York and Islington stations were built at the same time beyond the fare boundary and have fare-paid bus terminals, while Runnymede isn't fare-paid and was inside the boundary.

It has to do with the design of the station. The way they built it there is no room for a fare barrier on the ground level, and people access the station through the bus terminal.

So, the question is: why didn't the TTC expropriate more property in Bloor West Village for full-size stations with bus terminals when they built the subway? Politics or something else?

I'll admit I was a little too busy/tired to do the proper research and I just went with what I could recall off the top of my head at the time. Here's a better explanation from Transit Toronto:

Since the area inside the subway fare barrier was in Zone 1, but the stations’ bus terminals were in Zone 2, the bus terminal had to be outside the barrier in each station. (At the boundary stations, Jane and Main Street, Zone 2 buses and Zone 1 buses or streetcars came together. Rather than the complexity of separate terminals, a single terminal outside of the station’s fare-paid zone was used in each case.) At Royal York and at Main Street stations, the fare booths were placed on the mezzanine level between the bus terminal and the subway platforms. When the zone fare system was eliminated, the TTC moved these fare booths into the bus terminal, between the main entrance and the westernmost bus bay doors. This is why the mezzanine levels of Royal York and Main Street stations are especially long.

Islington had more difficulty in expanding its fare paid zone to include its bus terminals, primarily because the TTC did not want to move the collector booths from their original location. The fare barriers were forced to meander in order to separate passengers entering from the street exits from the bus terminals. This was solved when the entire fare area was reconfigured and the collector booths moved during renovations in 1996. In the case of Old Mill station, buses turned around right outside the main entrance to the station, making the expansion of the fare zone to cover the bus stop impossible. A similar problem occurred at Jane station, with the bus terminal and the street entrance being too close to each other to easily separate. To the east, Victoria Park and Warden stations were quickly converted to include their bus terminals in their fare paid zones.

I have no idea why Runnymede's bus bays weren't built into the fare-paid area. Was the station served by any fare zone 2 bus routes when it opened? That might explain it.

 

[RedRocket191]

I have no idea why Runnymede's bus bays weren't built into the fare-paid area. Was the station served by any fare zone 2 bus routes when it opened? That might explain it.

79 Scarlett Road was the zone 2 bus that served the station.

 

[golodhendil]

Busbays must be preserved, because they are what make the TTC's system unique. Buses are not seen as separate from subways, and this encourages bus ridership. A healthy transit system requires a healthy surface network, and getting rid of the busbays will create traffic jams on the surrounding streets (perhaps leading to calls to reduce bus service, which a pro-car city council will happily do).

Speaking from experience, many of the metro stations in HK also have large bus/LRT terminals above/below/next to them, so they are certainly not unique to TTC. The difference being that those buses aren't operated by the same company as the metro, so the bus bays are not in the fare-paid area. However, transfer is still seemless due to the use of smartcards, transfer discounts, etc, so bus ridership certainly isn't discouraged by the fact that the passengers have to swipe out and in.
Boston's MBTA also have these at many of their heavy rail stations and a few of the major light rail stations, but again, not in fare-paid area (again feasible due to their use of smartcards and transfer discounts).

Besides, it is so easy to sneak into the subway that fare evasion will continue to exist regardless.

Why do you say that?

The issue of fare evasion could be addressed (but never eliminated, no system will ever eliminate fare evasion) through surveillence cameras and actual enforcement of the rules, which is pitiful as it stands. In the future the system should be moved to an honour based system, though this will require actual investment by governments so that people will actually want to pay to use the system.

Enforcement is certainly necessary, but I personally feel there are much better and more efficient ways of dealing with fare evasion (along with a better fare structure, fare integration etc). It will, of course, cost money and effort, and as I asked earlier, had rigorous cost-benefit analyses ever been done? In any case, I think an honour system would be a backward step, but again, I am open to it if actual, rigorous studies show otherwise.

 

[Long Island Mike]

TTC Fare evasion: How prevalent is it?

Everyone: Good insight and information on TTC fare evasion here!

I had a feeling that those wide-open bus bays would be a problem...

If you are stopped by Police in NYC for example for farebeating I wanted to mention the charge that sometimes applies to this violation:
"Theft of Service" - should you have to answer your summons in court.

You can get a criminal or arrest record from farebeating-that could come back to haunt you if you try to get that good government job you want as a good example especially if the matter is not settled.

I fully understand if the person has little money and is desperate,say sneaks on a subway to get home but to me it is different if it is someone who has no money problems but evades fares to "screw" the system.

I recall reading stories of use of counterfeit passes on commuter rail trains,for example-specifically the Metro-North Commuter Railroad in the NYC area. They have sweeps occasionally by MNCR(MTA)Police working with train crews and some of those arrested were well-to-do white collar types and not lower income people as many would think.

Those arrested were charged with misdemeanors or even low-level felony charges meaning more then likely a police record.

I will ask this question in closing: Is farebeating really worth it?
With these legal problems possible emphatically NO!!

- Long Island Mike -

 

[wonderboy416]

I fully understand if the person has little money and is desperate,say sneaks on a subway to get home but to me it is different if it is someone who has no money problems but evades fares to "screw" the system.

So you are also okay if said person swings by the supermarket and helps themselves to a loaf of bread without paying? If they can't afford the subway how can they afford food? What if they need new shoes? hmmm

 

[Railization]

Rail you dont need the staff. I gave the example of NYC's metrocard, where its swiped at a turnstyle and the transfer is recorded on it. It either permits the rider through or charges a new fare, depending on the circumstance. It needs no new staffing what so ever, and the ATU113 will be against this along with any other automation

You're not understanding the system at all if you think that requires no new staff. You're talking about overhauling the fare payment infrastructure altogether across the entire system. Not only is that a massive capital investment that won't pay for itself (doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile, but it must be recognized as a massive cost that will never be recovered), but it also requires a new paid army of IT staff to maintain and monitor. This is why the savings from elimination of the old system are cancelled out by the additional costs of the new system.

The added benefit of the new system is that the TTC can record impressive and useful amounts of ridership data, so it is possibly a worthwhile investment as that is extremely valuable information. However, it will not save the system any money in operations. To think that we can just get rid of staff and leave technology to look after everything all hunky dory, that's just blatant ignorance.