GTHA Transit Fare Integration

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's the same problem. Transit systems designed in the 50s/60s that have long since outgrown their structures, fare and otherwise.

You're totally right that every system has trade-offs and we've hit the limits of the one we have in place. We can certainly debate the nuances of the various options - and I've said a 905/416 subsidy may be the most palatable if not most sensible solution - but I think you have start by realizing the problem in the first place. Travel and growth patterns are entirely different from when those systems were designed. RER and Presto provide tools to think about all of it differently.

The problem is what, exactly? What's your end goal? What exactly is the "limits" you speak of? Right now it seems like an urge for a system-wide "solution" that is looking for bunch of minor problems to solve just because the power that be doesn't seem to want to own up the regional role it purports to play while running what is in essence a gold-plated system of restricted utility. I mean, is short-distance cross-boundary travel really the huge problem that demands distance or zone based travel as a solution? If Metrolinx/GO can't lower the price of travel within TO to that of the TTC to make their economic case, they're a little screwed in the first place.

AoD

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The problem is what, exactly? What's your end goal? What exactly is the "limits" you speak of?

TTC was built to serve a relatively concentrated population and Metro coordinated population growth and infrastructure simultaneously.
GO was meant to serve largely non-contiguous satellites in outlying areas and funnel them, at rush hour, in and out of the downtown core.
As the outer 416 and inner 905 grew, inner transit expansion effectively stopped.
Though obviously job density remains highest in the core, both jobs and residences are far more diffuse and dispersed than when the core TTC and GO systems were designed. People don't only travel to jobs downtown. They don't only do so at rush hour. They travel across meaningless borders all the time.
I think this stuff is pretty obvious.

I understand why it worked for Toronto to have a flat fare in the latter half of the 20th Century. When GO was introduced, it was effectively serving an entirely different market. It wasn't Coke/Pepsi or even Gap/Banana Republic. It was Coke/Milk. That's not true anymore.

It's obviously absurd and counter-productive that someone in Thornhill should pay a full transit fare to get from Highway 7 to Finch and then another to get downtown while someone else pays a single fare to get from Steeles to downtown. It encourages people to forsake YRT for driving or otherwise making their way down to Steeles. You can say it's a single example but it's emblematic of a system-wide issue. It's the same issue as people who are forced onto a slower TTC instead of a more convenient GO because of fares; the fare system discourages the most efficient use of the infrastructure. Not a minor problem at all.

Some of this can be resolved only with higher-level issues (ie funding and governance) but some of it can be resolved through a fare system that respects the reality of travel patterns.
So my end goal is seamless travel. One fare medium. A system that, while all have trade-offs, encourages most efficient use of the existing system. RER rquires a wholesale rethink of people can and should travel in this region. Looking at any single municipality in isolation solves nothing.

I mean, is short-distance cross-boundary travel really the huge problem that demands distance or zone based travel as a solution? If Metrolinx/GO can't lower the price of travel within TO to that of the TTC to make their economic case, they're a little screwed in the first place.

Well, yeah.
It's too many cooks protecting their own fiefdoms. TTC doesn't really care how someone gets to their system from York Region or Mississauga. you paid a double fare? You walked 20 minutes in the cold to avoid the double fare? You drove to a lot and walked 10 minutes to the station from your car? All good. All entirely counterproductive to the largely policy goal.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's obviously absurd and counter-productive that someone in Thornhill should pay a full transit fare to get from Highway 7 to Finch and then another to get downtown while someone else pays a single fare to get from Steeles to downtown. It encourages people to forsake YRT for driving or otherwise making their way down to Steeles. You can say it's a single example but it's emblematic of a system-wide issue. It's the same issue as people who are forced onto a slower TTC instead of a more convenient GO because of fares; the fare system discourages the most efficient use of the infrastructure. Not a minor problem at all.

Okay: 1. resolution through cross boundary subsidy; 2. lower GO fare. Neither involves rehashing the whole system by necessity. I mean, you really, really want to compare these issues to a system handling 500M+ riders and the transit benefit THAT level of usage offered? It's like someone crying unfair and therefore we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater

It's too many cooks protecting their own fiefdoms. TTC doesn't really care how someone gets to their system from York Region or Mississauga. you paid a double fare? You walked 20 minutes in the cold to avoid the double fare? You drove to a lot and walked 10 minutes to the station from your car? All good. All entirely counterproductive to the largely policy goal.

To be frank, I don't see that you are particularly concerned about how someone currently using one fare to go from one end of Toronto to another being potentially negatively affected seriously under some of the system changes suggested either - and that level of usage is a policy goal that already exist. You want to change that? Whatever changes that will be, it should minimize negative impact (time, money, convenience) to existing users first.

AoD

 

[TOareaFan]

Am I, honestly, the only person that sees absolutely nothing wrong with the current fare system we have? Single fare within municipalities/regions....extra fare for extra municipal travel and different/separate fare by distance on cross-regional trains/buses?

Not sure what the issue really is.

 

[crs1026]

Am I, honestly, the only person that sees absolutely nothing wrong with the current fare system we have? Single fare within municipalities/regions....extra fare for extra municipal travel and different/separate fare by distance on cross-regional trains/buses?

Not sure what the issue really is.

To my mind, a zone system is just an improved version of the status quo. The zone boundaries are simply tweaks recognizing that the municipal boundaries are not the most rational or functional lines at which the incremental fare is appropriate.

Fare integration should only solve the biggest real problems and not strive to some sort of technical or conceptual purity. We do seem to be trying to polish the cannonball here.

To my mind, the legitimate issues include:
- harmonising and optimising the use of GO/RER/ST versus TTC within Metro Toronto
- addressing the "boundary anomalies" caused by using the municipal boundaries as zones - a good example being how various fares to York U will change when the subway opens, because the various operators will not agree to the free transfer principle which is in effect between say Miway and BT (which, if applied at York, would mean TTC earns nothing for inbound traffic to York U but earns the whole fare for traffic going the other way)
- correcting inefficiencies - example being Etobicoke, where Miway buses heading to the subway could pick up local traffic on some routes, allowing TTC to eliminate its routes on those lines - that redundancy costs money
- frankly, blasting the TTC out of its very rigid us-first culture and forcing compromise/trade off with surrounding operators

Transit people I talk to all say the same thing: "We are all in favour of fare integration so long as we don't lose a single nickle of revenue". That attitude is driving the transit operators into bunker mentality. There will be winners and losers, in the sense of changed revenue distribution between operators - somebody will have to suck that reality up.

Lastly, there is a political reality. No one in Scarborough or at Jane/Finch is going to accept paying a higher fare to get to the Eaton Center than someone in High Park pays. Within Toronto, socioeconomic status is inversely correlated with transit distance. Flat fare within Toronto is going to stay. No point in spending mental energy or money designing some "perfect" distance based system for TTC. That's a fantasy exercise only.

- Paul

 

[MisterF]

GO - even post RER is going to be a downtown to periphery system - how should a municipality wide zone fare be of benefit for people whose origin and designation does not fit that pattern?

AoD

The whole point of RER is so that it isn't just a downtown to periphery system. RER is going to fill some pretty massive gaps in the mass transit system. It will be the default choice for even short trips within large parts of the central part of the city. There's no reason for someone to have to take two subways and a streetcar when to get from A to B when a frequent surface train can get them there faster.

Flat fares also reward long distance travel at the expense of local travel. Subway expansion priorities have reflected that. Flat fares combined with the attitude that GO is just a 905 shuttle have contributed to continued suburban subway extensions and the complete lack of expansion downtown in 50 years.

 

[amnesiajune]

Am I, honestly, the only person that sees absolutely nothing wrong with the current fare system we have? Single fare within municipalities/regions....extra fare for extra municipal travel and different/separate fare by distance on cross-regional trains/buses?

Not sure what the issue really is.

The issue is that it creates huge penalties for people whose lives aren't contained entirely within Toronto. I can commute 10 km south from my home for $125/month, but commuting 5 km north costs $250/month. It's not just faster, but also cheaper for me to drive to work than to take transit. If I could pay TTC fares that cap out at $145/month and pay an extra dollar when I take the bus in York Region, that would work out to around $160/month after the tax credit. That's a lot more reasonable, and it's completely supported by the existing Presto system.

 

[DSC]

Steve Munro has a very useful piece at: https://stevemunro.ca/2017/02/16/the-metrolinx-fetish-for-fare-by-distance/

 

[W. K. Lis]

There are people who are complaining that PRESTO is tracking the user, where they get on or off. See link.

Presto tracking a privacy issue?

Laura Bobak knows that on Valentine’s Day, she used her Presto card at Glencairn station at 8:11 a.m.

Later that day, at 5:20 p.m., she tapped on at St. Andrew station.

What she didn’t realize is Metrolinx is trailing her footsteps as well.

In a tweet Wednesday afternoon, Bobak posted a screenshot of her Presto transit card activity over the past six days, which detailed the exact date and time – down to the second – of her commute.

“Wow. Amount of personal info @Metrolinx (aka govt) has on your daily routines, whereabouts, hours you keep astounding #ttc #PRESTO #topoli,” she tweeted.

Ann Cavoukian, the executive director of the Privacy and Big Data Institute at Ryerson University, said consent to tie a card user’s identity with their route being tracked by Metrolinx needs to be explicitly noted so customers can opt out if they so choose.

“If I use tokens, that’s anonymous and that’s how I choose to be, but if we’re forced to switch to Presto in a year or so, I sure as heck don’t want my activities tracked,” Cavoukian said. “It’s the location and times and the association with an identifiable individual. And from that, you can make certain insinuations. I’m not suggesting they’re going to do that, but the point is you tread lightly.”

Bobak said on Twitter she recalls having to agree to the terms of use before a tax receipt was issued for her card, but she doesn’t know whether jargon about tracking her movements was mentioned in the contract. She also worries Presto records may be used by police or as evidence in court to perhaps corroborate criminal cases.

“Registering a #PRESTO is like getting a mortgage! Likely did agree b/c wanted receipts for taxes. But reports surprisingly detailed,” she tweeted.

Cavoukian, the former Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, added Metrolinx, a government agency that manages public transit in the Golden Horseshoe region, including Toronto, should indicate what information they will track up front to the customer.

“Privacy is all about control – control over the uses of your personal information, and that’s why you’ve got to seek the user’s consent,” she said. “I’m betting, they don’t lead with a big explanation of what they’re going to do with it and that they might be able to track. I don’t object to the use of the data if it’s anonymized. You can’t use this in identifiable form and assume it’s fine.”

Metrolinx insists it isn’t tracking the daily routines of its customers when they tap their Presto card.

In a tweet, the transit agency said Presto only identifies where a card has been tapped on and off and customers have the option of keeping the card anonymous. If the anonymous choice is selected, Presto doesn’t save any personal information, said the authority. But if they register their cards, information – such as names, address, phone number and email – are sent to a third-party payment processor, Moneris.

“Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Presto must retain the information collected for at least a year,” Metrolinx spokesman Anne Marie Aikins said in an email Wednesday.

@tsmitheman @AnnCavoukian @Metrolinx I predict #PRESTO records will soon be used by police or as evidence in court to corroborate evidence

— Laura Bøbak (@LBobak) February 15, 2017
“All data collected to develop ridership analytics is aggregated and non-identifiable and does not contain individualized or personal information that can be tied to an actual person,” she said. “If customers feel uncomfortable having their information on the Presto system, we can remove it at any time. However, this may limit a customer’s ability to claim any associated public transit tax credit ... The Canada Revenue Agency has told customers they require identity on the receipt in order to claim a tax receipt.”

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commission of Ontario, for its part, contends Metrolinx has an obligation to protect the privacy of personal information collected by Presto under the FIPPA and are authorized to collect customer service information, as long as there’s consent, for the purposes of providing a designated service.

“Although the IPC has not conducted a formal review of the program, an initial review of the personal information collected does not raise immediate issues, particularly given the option of keeping cards anonymous,” the office said in a statement.

I'm assuming the person in the article would be AGAINST fare-by-distance. They would need that information to calculate the fare in a fare-by-distance system.

 

[Voltz]

Am I, honestly, the only person that sees absolutely nothing wrong with the current fare system we have? Single fare within municipalities/regions....extra fare for extra municipal travel and different/separate fare by distance on cross-regional trains/buses?

Not sure what the issue really is.

I don't have much of an issue with the current system, the only thing I would change is the fare for cross municipal travel, it should be more or less the equivalent of the GO co-fare, with the balance coming from an increase in the provincial subsidy, not by jacking up the fares on everyone else with some complicated zone fare system.

And, I would have the TTC be dragged kicking and screaming into a time based transfer system.

 

[ssiguy2]

Fares based on service {ie more for subways/RT} is, by far, the worse option. People are price sensitive and will begin avoiding rapid transit for local service or longer route buses putting huge strain and cost on those while subway ridership and revenue falls. It would also make RER nearly as obsolete in Toronto as GO is now. It will also bring RT expansion in the city to a screeching halt as people resent massive sums being spent for people who can afford it while bus service is decreased for people who can't. People would actually demand a STOP to rapid transit expansion.

It also creates the headache of what constitutes RT. If streetcars are local what about Spadina and St. Clair with ROW? Is Eglinton RT or what about Finch LRT? If bus is local, does that mean York BRT is RT? Perhaps not as it's not much faster but the what about Miss BRT which is and yet the buses swerve off the Transitway to local service? Fare by technology choice creates a dizzying number of problems and inhibits {and make politically unpalatable} RT expansion. It's by far the worse possible option.

 

[ssiguy2]

Fares by Zone can work but work best with few systems. It works well in Vancouver because we only have one system and only 3 Zones and there are physical boundaries between most Zones. There are VERY few buses that actually cross boundaries as most are done by SkyTrain/Seabus. There are actually very few buses that even cross between Burnaby and Vancouver as they are done mostly by SkyTrain and the Kootenay Loop where most Zone 1 buses connect to Zone 2 requiring a transfer to a Zone 2 bus.

Toronto doesn't enjoy this benefit so crosstown routes from N/S to E/W would cross artificial boundaries constantly. Few large cities have a grid urban pattern not inhibited by a physical boundary like water. They may work in London but inner city London, unlike Toronto, has shorter and more meandering streets so you don't have bus routes of 20km. This is made worse by the fact that Toronto also has an absurd amount of different suburban agencies.

I also feel, unlike many, the fare-by-distance is also the MOST politically palatable. One of reasons, besides the politics, that the Gardiner/DVP tools failed was because they are deemed as unfair which of course they are. They are a municipal gov't equivalent of a federal flat income tax............everyone pays the same. In the latter you pay the same even if you make more/less and the prior you pay the same whether you travel 1 km or 20. It would be hard for the Liberals or PC's to argue against fare-by-distance because it is the antithesis of a toll system. The 407 is acceptable because the longer the distance the more you pay which is exactly what a fare-by-distance transit system is. By opposing a fare-by-distance system puts the Libs/PC of having to qualify why such systems are considered the best for highways but unacceptable for transit.

 

[TOareaFan]

I don't have much of an issue with the current system, the only thing I would change is the fare for cross municipal travel, it should be more or less the equivalent of the GO co-fare, with the balance coming from an increase in the provincial subsidy, not by jacking up the fares on everyone else with some complicated zone fare system.

And, I would have the TTC be dragged kicking and screaming into a time based transfer system.

So in this chart you are an "option 1" kinda guy?

 

[Momin]

UT update:

While Torontonians continue to debate what transit infrastructure to build where, there's an equally contentious exchange happening now between Metrolinx, the provincial agency in charge of coordinating transit infrastructure and policy in the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA), and the nine local transit agencies in the region. The debate isn't over lines or transit technology types, but over the system under which fares are charged to passengers.

 

[Voltz]

So in this chart you are an "option 1" kinda guy?

Yes, also there should be a GO TTC co-fare

Schemes from Metrolinx to institute zone fares on Subways and LRT lines were really just a scheme to hike fares on TTC riders using "premium" lines to subsidise cross border trips.