GTHA Transit Fare Integration

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I think Metrolinx should have overall system planning, coordination and regional revenue roles - and that the revenue (from whatever sources - direct provincial subsidy, regional surtax/charges) collected will be used to balance out the cross boundary payment issues. As it stands right now, I am not sure if Metrolinx has the capacity to swallow up everything and still run properly. In the long run, perhaps - but how does a regional authority, without much by the way of regional representation fit within the provincial jurisdiction? Those are very legitimate questions to ask. In the meantime, riders don't really care - what they wanted to have is existing transit systems being operated properly with high degree of reliability, utility and reasonable price. I think it is far more important to fixate ourselves on that score than drawing boundaries at this point.

AoD

That's all well- said. It really boils down to the fact that Metrolinx probably should do it but can't in its current form.
You'd need to reconstitute the board, add local representation and fundamentally change funding, so they have dedicated revenue to subsidize regional operations.

This discussion keeps focusing on zones and if you're saying that if geographical boundaries are the problem now, new geographical boundaries doesn't solve anything, I agree. the goal should be to make "zones" virtually invisible for riders without sucking revenue from the agencies. I've said before, if you were starting from scratch you'd almost certainly not devise the breakdown we have now. We obviously have to deal with what's there now, which is the real challenge.

I'm not sure what the ideal solution is; probably something that involves much lower fares for transferring to a second (or even 3rd) system and time-based transfers.

 

[Palma]

Why do people think fare by distance will hurt the lowest income families? It hurts the cause when politicians perpetuate this misconception.

You assume that they all have the same travelling patterns as a white-collar worker (9-5 downtown). While some do, many have to travel from Toronto to Mississauga or York to get to their blue collared job working in a factory. Quite a few lower income friends have to have a car since transit is not running at the time they need to get to their shift (and the stop is a long way from work). They also need shorter trips to get to the mall to go shopping while generally middle/upper class can either walk to the store (downtown or right on a subway line) or drive there (outer Toronto).

Right now they are probably worse off due to the single-fare structure. If they want to get to the store for a bag of milk...it's $3. Pick up the kids from daycare...it's $3. With zones these short rides will be cheaper ($1.50) and maybe there will be a monthly pass for a small zone (5 km) that is only $50.

I'm really looking forward to the data that Presto will give us on where people go to/from. Sorta wish they gave Presto 6 months after implementation so they could gather data before making these decisions.

Agreed. There's zero evidence that the number of 905->416 riders is equivalent to the number of 416->905 riders.

There's also zero evidence that whatever change occurs would be revenue neutral - every government is looking for a way to increase revenues.

 

[Adjei]

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...60628_BoardMtg_Fare_Integration_Update_EN.pdf

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...60628_BoardMtg_Fare_Integration_Update_EN.pdf

Looks like they are going to go for modifying the existing system from the tone of the report. Make sense to me but it's clear it will put pressure on the subway system:

Customers shift from GO to local transit for longer trips to the downtown due to lower fares, increasing ridership on the subway by 12,000 - 16,000 peak period trips, an increase of 1.2 -
1.6% (p. 16)

All the more reason to move quicker on DRL

AoD

 

[cplchanb]

IMO not really a good sign if theyre already favouring option 1. They are really bending over to the status quo which has been outdated for decades. They had an opportunity to
instil a more 21st century mindset in riders, not to mention fully utilise the capabilities of Presto and fare gates, but it looks like they are really
content with just doing the absolute minimum.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Doing the minimum, not upsetting the apple cart....I guess that's all one can expect. Metrolinx has so little political capital to expend and Toronto -somewhat fairly given their ridership share- has too much clout to do anything bolder. A Metrolinx board that's truly operating at arm's length with local representation could do more. With the current situation, what more can you hope for?

It's a bit vague, obviously. There should be CONSISTENT transfer policies which seems more like common sense than ambitious planning but, again... It's hard to comment in detail without knowing what those policies are and how the "may require additional fare" pans out ni reality.

One thing I find really interesting about if we fix the cross-boundary issues:
-Auto trips across the Toronto boundary to TTC park and ride lots decrease by 20-25% in favour of bus service to the
subway

That's huge; it really shows how the current fares actively discourage people from taking public transit. More than 20% of riders are taking their cars effectively because the existing fare system is outdated. Bad policy, bad planning, bad for the environment, bad for suburban agencies like YRT and Brampton.
Buuuut...
-Each 1% in new ridership requires short term revenue reduction of 5-7%

What a ridiculous situation we've put ourselves in, eh? Fixing it's gonna take some time.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

One thing I find really interesting about if we fix the cross-boundary issues:-Auto trips across the Toronto boundary to TTC park and ride lots decrease by 20-25% in favour of bus service to the subway

That's huge; it really shows how the current fares actively discourage people from taking public transit. More than 20% of riders are taking their cars effectively because the existing fare system is outdated. Bad policy, bad planning, bad for the environment, bad for suburban agencies like YRT and Brampton.

Not really, it didn't say 20% of riders - but 20% of those who drive to park and ride lots. Just what is that figure anyways? Without knowing that, the figure could be meaningful or noise.

AoD

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Not really, it didn't say 20% of riders - but 20% of those who drive to park and ride lots. Just what is that figure anyways? Without knowing that, the figure could be meaningful or noise.

I understood what it said - I meant to say "drivers" instead of "riders" - but have you seen the parking lots at Finch? I think (this is me trying to remember) it's 2 lots X 2,000 spots each. On a typical weekday they're close to full by 9 am. It takes almost 10 minutes to walk from the far end to the terminal.

Then there's Downsview and Wilson and Yorkdale and Bayview Village and, and, and....

That's a LOT of cars. That means a significant number of people driving to the terminal have adequate local transit they are choosing not to take.

And getting 20% of those off the road is most definitely meaningful on a corridor where you have 2,500 buses running every day (speaking of Yonge, in this instance). Even if it was only 20% of 1,000 cars, I don't get how you shrug it off. If your transit system's goal isn't to significantly move people who have a choice out of cars and into buses and trains, what exactly are you doing?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I understood what it said - I meant to say "drivers" instead of "riders" - but have you seen the parking lots at Finch? I think (this is me trying to remember) it's 2 lots X 2,000 spots each. On a typical weekday they're close to full by 9 am. It takes almost 10 minutes to walk from the far end to the terminal.

Then there's Downsview and Wilson and Yorkdale and Bayview Village and, and, and....

That's a LOT of cars. That means a significant number of people driving to the terminal have adequate local transit they are choosing not to take.

And getting 20% of those off the road is most definitely meaningful on a corridor where you have 2,500 buses running every day (speaking of Yonge, in this instance). Even if it was only 20% of 1,000 cars, I don't get how you shrug it off. If your transit system's goal isn't to significantly move people who have a choice out of cars and into buses and trains, what exactly are you doing?

You are making certain assumptions though - just what is the percentage of those using the lots are cross 905-416 drivers? Not to say it is a bad thing, but I don't see it as the deciding factor as to whether it should be done. There are far better reasons for it as outlined in the report. As to the minus, the shift from GO to local is going to worsen congestion on existing lines, and that may have unintended consequences of its' own.

AoD

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

You are making certain assumptions though - just what is the percentage of those using the lots are cross 905-416 drivers? Not to say it is a bad thing, but I don't see it as the deciding factor as to whether it should be done. There are far better reasons for it as outlined in the report. As to the minus, the shift from GO to local is going to worsen congestion on existing lines, and that may have unintended consequences of its' own.

First - it actually says on TTC's website; I was close but no cigar. The two lots there are 1,552 + 1,675 spaces.

Anyway, I'm not making the assumptions. Metrolinx is. I'd imagine TTC has at least some sense how many people at those lots are 905 vs 416....I sincerely have no clue though I'd ballpark that it's around 50/50? But their report didn't say "905 Drivers," it just said "drivers," so the point stands.

I also didn't say it's a deciding factor, I said it was "really interesting." I stand by that controversial claim!

But it certainly goes to show that changing the fare structure would mean a lot fewer people driving to Finch and, one may logically construe, a lot more people taking YRT or other transit to TTC terminals, like Finch.

Which is to say (assuming this is accurate), the mere act of changing the fare structure creates a significant and measurable positive modal shift. It doesn't surprise me, but the numbers they have are interesting.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

First - it actually says on TTC's website; I was close but no cigar. The two lots there are 1,552 + 1,675 spaces.

Anyway, I'm not making the assumptions. Metrolinx is. I'd imagine TTC has at least some sense how many people at those lots are 905 vs 416....I sincerely have no clue though I'd ballpark that it's around 50/50? But their report didn't say "905 Drivers," it just said "drivers," so the point stands.

I also didn't say it's a deciding factor, I said it was "really interesting." I stand by that controversial claim!

But it certainly goes to show that changing the fare structure would mean a lot fewer people driving to Finch and, one may logically construe, a lot more people taking YRT or other transit to TTC terminals, like Finch.

Which is to say (assuming this is accurate), the mere act of changing the fare structure creates a significant and measurable positive modal shift. It doesn't surprise me, but the numbers they have are interesting.

Well the report did say cross-boundary drives - so it is in all likelihood implied. Anyways, that's not a reason against trying and measuring the impact - just to be cognizant of unintended consequences, have a handle of what they could be an address as necessary.

AoD

 

[Adjei]

http://www.citynews.ca/2016/06/21/video-is-it-time-for-a-intergrated-transit-fare-system-in-toronto/

 

[MisterF]

I'm starting to think that the only way to properly integrate fares is to merge Metrolinx with all the local transit agencies in the GTA. This arguing over customers and revenues is ridiculous and is holding the region back. The turf war mentality needs to stop. Just make one giant agency and be done with it.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm starting to think that the only way to properly integrate fares is to merge Metrolinx with all the local transit agencies in the GTA. This arguing over customers and revenues is ridiculous and is holding the region back. The turf war mentality needs to stop. Just make one giant agency and be done with it.

Except that why would Metrolinx (and by extension the province) what to expose themselves to it? For all the ills of fragmentation - which there are relatively low hanging fruits to pick - the last thing they would want is take on the file and basically be at the receiving end of all the flack. Right now can play the victim against intransigent municipalities - take it on, and they get the blame (and the tough decisions on how to fund it locally). It's a no-win for them relative to the running GO and divving out future operation of transit to local agencies. Besides, they haven't put forth a compelling funding formula across the region - and without that, "taking it on" is patently meaningless.

And we have to ask ourselves - just what do you mean by "fare integration" - that word is thrown out in every other line but no one has put forward what it really meant vis-a-vis expectations.

AoD

 

[minilude]

none of the three implies GO short-distance fare will be same as TTC base fare (only to bring them closer), so let's forget about Smart Track. Difference between option 1 and option 3 is basically whether to increase fare on medium length TTC subway trips and Crosstown trips.