Leo_Chan
Senior Member
What is more controversial? What to build or what to charge? I would say what the fares are because to most people, it's more about money than how fast to get somewhere. Of course NIMBYs would say otherwise.
|
|
|
GTHA Transit Fare Integration
- Thread starter RedRocket191
- Start date
TOareaFan
Superstar
Now we got some voting going on
Voltz checks the Option 1 box....Toareafan checks the status quo box!
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Time to start a poll!
Modified Option 1 for me as well.
AoD
Modified Option 1 for me as well.
AoD
TOareaFan
Superstar
A summary of the options currently on the table:
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/02/fare-integration-metrolinx-considers-options
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/02/fare-integration-metrolinx-considers-options
muller877
Senior Member
And also in the 60's/70's when they eliminated zones in the GTA there were no (or very few) transit options outside of the TTC and GO. So one fare could basically get you anywhere a bus/streetcar traveled. If you wanted to go further it was distance based (GO).
Back then they forced the one-zone riders into a 50% increase in fares just to eliminate the zones.
Technology has changed. So we can look at more options. Assuming that net there is no change in subsidies there will be winners and losers. One option I think would work is the Shenzhen Metro system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen_Metro
(in RMB but I used $ since i was lazy)
0-4 km = $2
4-12 km = $2 + $1 per 4 km
12-24 km = $5 + $1 per 6 km
> 24 km = $7 + $1 per 8 km
Business class is triple. (For the TTC we could double it for semi-premium service like RER/UPX/GO)
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
60 year old bathwater, give or take. But if you're arguing that the system put in place from the 50s-70s somehow still works just fine, even though everything else has changed, I can't really convince you otherwise.
And I didn't advocate for zones, per se. There are lots of ways to do fare integration and your two suggestions count. I don't think that quite goes far enough but it's a start.
You talk about "existing users" with no real evidence of who they are. Are there more people paying unfair double fares or people riding the length of Line 2?
I suspect the former but I don't know for certain and don't claim to. The assertion reads to me more as "you have to be fair to Toronto first." Obviously funding issues have to be resolved but here's a crazy idea: Look at riders - from everywhere first - and design a system the benefits them, as broadly as possible. Worry about being fair to all the consittuent agencies and governments secondarily. I care more about some rider who hypothetically needs that flat fare to get from Scarborough to Etobicoke than I do what it means to the TTC if something changes. Your 2 suggestions aren't aimed at riders so much as agencies, IMHO.
But this is, you know, how the private sector works - trying to meet the needs of customers first. It's not what we have now because there's no incentive to care about people outside your fiefdom, whereas the Gap cashier at Yorkdale could care less whether there's a store closer to you you "should" be using.
To sim up, here are two realities:
-No major metropolitan area does things the way we do. Whether it's zones or co-fares or different charges for different modes we are an aberration among "world class cities" (This, coincidentally, is equally true of how we fund transit.)
-You know how Canadians feel all superior looking down at America because we watch their media but also have a useful outsider's perspective and feel they're too far up their own asses to get how they really look? As someone who grew up in North York but now lives in York Region, I feel this exact dynamic applies equally to Torontonians who never leave the 416 have no clue how things look to everyone else. Live 500m outside Toronto and you'll find out quickly how absurd the transit system is.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Funny, considering I live in Mississauga, pay two fares on my inbound and three fares on my outbound. I don't find any of it "absurd" whatsoever. On the other hand, it would seem York Region in particular has a certain sense of entitlement when it comes to transit while couldn't even manage to break 15% transit modal split.
The evidence speaks for itself - the system may not be perfect, but the modal share for the City of Toronto is superior to most cities in America - and most certainly York Region. I mean, if you really want to talk about other metropolitan areas - quite a few of them also has a metropolitan level of government, a single transit authority, regional funding mechanisms (including taxation) whatnot (never mind other differences such as urban density, etc) - are you suggesting that York Region want to go down that route? Or are we just posturing with this whole "world class cities" have "world class system integration" thing while playing the we are an independent region, don't tax us stuff? I mean, if you really want to look into other "world class examples" - just how many actually have each local suburban municipality running their own system?
Nice try turning this into a riders vs. systems debate - it isn't - it is creating winners and losers among existing riders when you break down an existing fare system. And no offense to the last point - perhaps you should check out why riders tend not to use GO in the 416.
Actually, the private sector works by holding onto existing customers first and making sure their needs are served before moving into new market. Those who failed to do so tend to fail as a business.
AoD
Last edited:
APTA-2048
Senior Member
Is New York not set up the same way we are? Flat rate across all boroughs, premium fare for express buses, fare by distance for commuter trains, and separate fare for separate systems outside the city (though they appear to honour each other's transfers, including NYCT buses).
TOareaFan
Superstar
I live significantly more than 500m outisde the city of Toronto so maybe that is why I find the whole "double fare" issue, well, hard to understand....but since I walk about 500m to my morning bus (when I don't drive) now....if I did live 500m outside Toronto I am pretty sure I would just walk that far and pass on the double fare.
Tuck
Active Member
Strongly support distance based fares. It just makes sense, and would add total consistency to the system. Tap when you get on, tap when you get off. Thats it. Always.
It doesn't make sense for someone going one stop to pay the same fare as someone going ten. It doesn't make sense for someone to have to pay double the fare just because they cross an arbitrary line.
I'm mixed with the idea of subways/LRT/GO Train being a premium. Its not the worst idea in the world but I think it should purely be based on distance.
It doesn't make sense for someone going one stop to pay the same fare as someone going ten. It doesn't make sense for someone to have to pay double the fare just because they cross an arbitrary line.
I'm mixed with the idea of subways/LRT/GO Train being a premium. Its not the worst idea in the world but I think it should purely be based on distance.
Respectfully, you probably should care. Its in your own interest to care. Two fares is absurd, and three is ridiculous.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Fares by distance is the best. It get's rid of these imaginary boundaries and encourages people to use transit for shorter trips. It would only work however if it includes ALL transit modes including RER. Going from A to B should cost the same no matter how you choose to get there.
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Unless huge subsidies are in place, subways and RER will most likely be more expensive than bus or streetcar if going to the same place.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Yes. And fares are a symptom of the larger issue which is funding. Like I said, we've fallen behind and no one does things the way we do. New York does do all those things and, as everyone here surely knows, is funded entirely different from the TTC and all those separate systems are under the umbrella of a single transit authority. Plenty of that funding comes from people who don't live in NYC itself. Ergo, they have a shared interest and the rest falls into place after that.
Also, I can't remember the precise year but it must be at least 15 years ago that I traveled there and used a Metrocard the first time. Maybe 20. How's that Presto rollout coming in Toronto? Would Toronto have Presto or its own open payment system if Metrolinx hadn't gotten the ball rolling? We've fallen behind and no one does things the way we do.
Whether or not you find it "absurd" specifically doesn't alter my general point. I could say the same about people who live in Aurora and never go downtown not understanding Toronto's issues; it's about mutual understanding of interdependence.
And it's nothing to do with a sense of entitlement. The geography is the difference. Because of the river, the airport etc. on the Miss border as compared to the YR border where the development is entirely contiguous with Toronto.
So, Toronto's modal share is better than a suburb that developed a century later? Good to know.
The real point is that while it is factual and admirable, it's less meaningful than it was 50 years ago because the REGIONAL modal share isn't so great because, to repeat myself, we've outgrown the model we built.
It's like how Jen Keesmaat talks about all the great growth downtown in Toronto. it is great! Most cities would kill to have the quality and quantity of development Toronto is seeing. There's nothing to criticize there. But it's also a fact that the vast majority of growth in the GTA continues to be on the urban fringe. Pulling out the singular trend from the larger picture proves nothing. You can mock YR's modal split if you want, but it's part of the traffic problem in Toronto nonetheless.
Yeah, I made that exact point. The two things are obviously interrelated. We're behind how everyone else does things. Our governance and funding don't match up with the "problem" which you can call gridlock or traffic or congestion or whatever. I'm not sure how you think York Region can "go that route" and transform itself into a regional authority on its own but if you're asking whether I think we should have a regional transit authority, I think it's clear that I do.
Did I not make the point that METRO (which was, I'm pretty sure, a metropolitan level of government) coordinated infrastructure growth and it was when the population grew out past Metro that the model fell apart?You don't think that, when Metro was formed, people were talking about the comparably poor modal split in Scarborough or wondering why Etobicoke traffic was a problem Toronto should have to worry about? They achieved common interest through united governance and funding.
Ergo, a single transit authority with regional funding mechanisms would obviously makes this all more palatable and sensible. I'm the last one advocating for a patchwork system where every suburb etc. runs its own system.
Thank you. I disagree. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've heard Adam Giambrone and many others talk about it in explicit terms. The fare system ensures that there is no reason for agencies (especially TTC) to care about riders outside their borders, so they don't. The TTC, rightfully, doesn't want to have to worry about Toronto riders losing seats to 905 riders, even though they're all TTC riders. As long as the funding model persists, that will be the case.
I forgot there was only one reason, I guess. I neither particularly agree with this nor find it mutually exclusive with what I said. Greater minds than I have long ago observed the lack of a customer service approach to local transit, irrespective of fare integration. Here's one such report, by Richard Soberman. I'd probably argue that, on a micro level, Andy Byford has made some progress in this regard but larger change requires systemic change.
TTC won't "fail" because it's ultimately not a business. People will ride it because they have to ride it. But people who have a choice won't. The evidence of this won't be the TTC closing shop or even losing ridership, it will just be more people who would like to take transit choosing to drive (or whatever) instead. the fare system isn't the only germane issue, just the topic of this thread, but it is one thing that discourages ridership at the seams. (OTOH, "the built form of the 905" would be a rather more substantial factor, to use an obvious example.)
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Not really for the following reasons - 1. two fares is still competitive with GO, which BTW couldn't have solved the last mile problem 2. three fares (TTC-GO-MT) is a choice - I could have traded the TTC fare with walking to Union, which while time-consuming, is doable and 3. My interest in maximizing utility (i.e. lowest fare) to myself? Or my interest in having a broadly useful system that is convenient, and exact a reasonable amount of payment?
I mean, if the argument out there is that short distance fare is unfairly treated in a flat fare system, it sure is odd for Metrolinx to hitch it on the much smaller issue of cross-boundary travel and argue from that basis, no?
AoD