MisterF
Senior Member
5 professional sports teams.
|
|
|
GTHA Transit Fare Integration
- Thread starter RedRocket191
- Start date
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
Six if you count the Marlies, 7 if you want want to count the rugby team playing in a league in England.
Palma
Senior Member
Momin
Senior Member
Latest on Metrolinx's Fare Integration plan: http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/09/gtha-transit-fare-integration-metrolinx-delves-first-steps
flyinggoats
New Member
So with this new pragmatism (that starts with cross-boundary discounts), has GO accepted that fare integration won't be revenue neutral?
On the surface, I don't think it will be. GO's only hope is that the 'discount' they're giving to short-distance riders will be offset by an increase in short distance trips. GO has enormous potential for ridership growth in Toronto proper. I just don't think right now it has the capacity to absorb it (at least during peak), since many trains are packed by the time they even reach the city limits.
amnesiajune
Senior Member
There is going to be a huge increase in peak service. Stouffville, for example, is going from eight rush hour trains to 25+ trains. Even if there's a 25% reduction in train capacity, that means 17,000 - 23,000 additional seats during rush hour. Some of that ridership growth will come from the 905, but there's only so much parking capacity, only so much room on local buses (it takes a lot of 45-person buses to fill that many seats) and lower fares out there aren't likely to encourage much ridership - people who currently drive all the way into downtown aren't going to be more motivated by a fare that's $6.00 instead of $8.00.
If I worked for Metrolinx I'd push very hard for this sort of fare system (from their June report). It costs them very little existing revenue and gives them a significant amount of new riders. It doesn't really upset the local transit agencies either, as long as Metrolinx compensates them (particularly the TTC) for lost revenue.
For the TTC, I think they'd have mixed feelings - this sort of fare system could help quite a bit with crowding problems on major routes, but revenue loss is a problem for Metrolinx to sort out, and they're going to spend a while arguing over how to split those medium-distance fares that are "truly" integrated.
Attachments
nfitz
Superstar
The latest is the wonderful line, in the draft 2018 Big Move update (with the unsatisfying new name "2041 Regional Transportation Plan").
They seem to drop any pretenses this is going anywhere quick, only hoping to "Advance the integration of services and fares" by 2041.
They seem to drop any pretenses this is going anywhere quick, only hoping to "Advance the integration of services and fares" by 2041.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Charging more for rapid transit as opposed to local would be the stupidest thing known to man. It is such a counter productive measure it baffles the mind how transit planners could even contemplate such a move.
NOTHING will bring rapid transit expansion {in all it's forms} to a screeching halt faster than by charging more for it. You would find that overnight people who are about to get a new RT line would be fighting tooth and nail against it. People are very price sensitive when it comes to transit which is why ridership always declines after fare increases. It is also a very poor use of resources and usually ends up costing the system more. Those that use to take the subway for just 1 or 2 km will start taking the buses/streetcars so as demand declines for the subways it will increase on the buses. Subway, for the number of people they carry, are much more cost effective than buses. This would mean more buses would need to be run and if not then the riders would {and very justifiably} bitch that because they can't afford rapid transit they are getting inferior service to subsidize those who can afford the RT.
Of course this also brings up the problem of what qualifies for RT. Certainly subways but what about the LRTs or busways? What about rush hour express routes? Is RER RT when it is fast but doesn't come as frequently? I can hear the battle cries from here.
The best solution is the easiest............the longer the trip the more you pay and your choice of technology is irrelevant. Getting from A to B should cost the same on RER or subway as it does from taking a combination or every technology available.
NOTHING will bring rapid transit expansion {in all it's forms} to a screeching halt faster than by charging more for it. You would find that overnight people who are about to get a new RT line would be fighting tooth and nail against it. People are very price sensitive when it comes to transit which is why ridership always declines after fare increases. It is also a very poor use of resources and usually ends up costing the system more. Those that use to take the subway for just 1 or 2 km will start taking the buses/streetcars so as demand declines for the subways it will increase on the buses. Subway, for the number of people they carry, are much more cost effective than buses. This would mean more buses would need to be run and if not then the riders would {and very justifiably} bitch that because they can't afford rapid transit they are getting inferior service to subsidize those who can afford the RT.
Of course this also brings up the problem of what qualifies for RT. Certainly subways but what about the LRTs or busways? What about rush hour express routes? Is RER RT when it is fast but doesn't come as frequently? I can hear the battle cries from here.
The best solution is the easiest............the longer the trip the more you pay and your choice of technology is irrelevant. Getting from A to B should cost the same on RER or subway as it does from taking a combination or every technology available.
cplchanb
Senior Member
what are you talking about? you dont see any large metro system around the world screeching to a halt with that fare model. In fact its the preferred method for most large systems and it works.
Palma
Senior Member
i thought it was fare by distance. London has that (capped per day) though buses are a flat rate
amnesiajune
Senior Member
Most major cities use fare-by-distance for rapid transit and flat fares for local transit, but their definition of "rapid transit" is limited to fully grade-separated services, since they're fast enough that people won't bother taking the bus (and several transfers on longer trips) to save a tiny amount of money.
Having said that, I doubt even the subway will ever be more expensive than bus service in Toronto. Even if it was the right thing to do (it's not), the political fight isn't worth the cost.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Note how you said LARGE metro systems............Toronto doesn't qualify.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Toronto is the third busiest transit system in North America. It qualifies.