News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 682     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 1.2K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 3.2K     8 

GTHA Transit Fare Integration

amnesiajune said:
This makes no sense. Go RER exists because the current system only works for people who go downtown in the morning and back home in the afternoon. Two-way service recognizes that there are a lot of other places where people work outside of downtown, and a lot of people who work outside of the "traditional" 9-5 schedule, that currently have very poor transit options.
Click to expand...
I just don't see it as being beneficial for people in Toronto to use unless it's something they already use.
 
There are many RER/suburban train type systems in the world that have higher ridership than their respective subway/Metro systems. This will also be the case for Toronto as Toronto, for it's size, has a relatively small subway system. RER will increase in capacity and frequency if it develops a fare-by-distance pay system to subway levels. When the RH & Milton lines are eventually RER lines and at-grade intersections are replaced by grade separated ones, the system effectively become a subway but one of nearly 300km. Basically they become subways for longer distance trips with fewer stations.

They are also not just for people going downtown but longer distances with connections to local transit like the buses, subways, LRT etc. For many it's not just a way to get downtown faster but also a way to connect to those services faster. This is why most RER-type systems have different vehicles than standard commuter rail. They have more and wider doors and are usually single level as people got on-off the train throughout the system as opposed to commuter rail using double decker coaches as everyone just gets on/off at one central hub like Union. They have different vehicles because their provide different services.
 
ssiguy2 said:
They have more and wider doors and are usually single level as people got on-off the train throughout the system as opposed to commuter rail using double decker coaches as everyone just gets on/off at one central hub like Union. They have different vehicles because their provide different services.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of places where double-deck trains are used for this kind of service. There's a whole spectrum of service types (for heavy rail in general), and we're going to end up with something much closer to Sydney Trains and New York's LIRR (also Paris RER aside from their insane train frequencies) than the Berlin S-Bahn, San Francisco BART or London Overground.
 
How do commuters access RER stations outside Paris? Does RER have parking lots like GO? What are the connecting services like?
 
amnesiajune said:
Cities that use zone-based fares usually have much bigger or more sprawling transit systems. You can travel an area just as big as the City of Toronto on the base fare, and you pay more when you take transit out into the suburbs.
Click to expand...
Not really. The area covered by the Paris metro is barely 15 km across. In London it's 20 km, Berlin is 30 km, Washington is 40 km. In Toronto, it's about 27 km from Kipling to McCowan - more compact than some, more sprawling than others.

How far you can get on a base fare varies widely depending on the city. In some cities you can go city-wide on a single fare while in others it depends on how far you go. London's zone 1 is barely bigger than downtown Toronto while Vancouver's zone 1 is about equivalent to the old city of Toronto.

There are plenty of ways to structure fares. I'm just challenging 44 North's assertion that fare by distance will drive riders away in droves.

amnesiajune said:
It's not. If anything, FBD would actually help the business case for expanding transit out into the suburbs since it gets more farebox revenue, and hurt the business case for projects within downtown that would require relatively larger subsidies to operate.
Click to expand...
Charging higher fares for longer distances would reduce demand for those trips. Simple supply and demand. Flat fares across the system encourage long rides and discourage shorter ones, which benefits the business case of suburban subways and hurts the business case of downtown subways. There are of course many reasons that that subway expansion downtown stopped 50 years ago, but flat fares couldn't have helped.
 
MisterF said:
How far you can get on a base fare varies widely depending on the city. In some cities you can go city-wide on a single fare while in others it depends on how far you go. London's zone 1 is barely bigger than downtown Toronto while Vancouver's zone 1 is about equivalent to the old city of Toronto.
Click to expand...

I don't know how Vancouver works, but in London the base fare is three zones, not one. You only pay extra to travel through a fourth zone.

MisterF said:
Charging higher fares for longer distances would reduce demand for those trips. Simple supply and demand. Flat fares across the system encourage long rides and discourage shorter ones, which benefits the business case of suburban subways and hurts the business case of downtown subways. There are of course many reasons that that subway expansion downtown stopped 50 years ago, but flat fares couldn't have helped.
Click to expand...

It would result in more revenue though, which means fewer subisidies, which means a better business case. And similarly, a lower fare downtown means less revenue, and less revenue means a worse business case. If a higher fare meant less revenue, the TTC would never raise fares at all. I don't think flat fares had any impact on the decisions for where to expand the subway, but your premise is completely wrong and shouldn't be allowed to spread through these threads.

If you want to know the actual reason, the TTC decided back in the 1960s that for political reasons new subway lines shouldn't be built and existing ones should just be expanded out. They reasoned that any proposal for new subway lines would just result in everyone being upset, either because they wanted one but didn't get it or were getting one but didn't want it, and hardly anything would end up being built. As we found out the hard way from 1985 to 1995, they were very right.
 
amnesiajune said:
I don't know how Vancouver works, but in London the base fare is three zones, not one. You only pay extra to travel through a fourth zone.



It would result in more revenue though, which means fewer subisidies, which means a better business case. And similarly, a lower fare downtown means less revenue, and less revenue means a worse business case. If a higher fare meant less revenue, the TTC would never raise fares at all. I don't think flat fares had any impact on the decisions for where to expand the subway, but your premise is completely wrong and shouldn't be allowed to spread through these threads.

If you want to know the actual reason, the TTC decided back in the 1960s that for political reasons new subway lines shouldn't be built and existing ones should just be expanded out. They reasoned that any proposal for new subway lines would just result in everyone being upset, either because they wanted one but didn't get it or were getting one but didn't want it, and hardly anything would end up being built. As we found out the hard way from 1985 to 1995, they were very right.
Click to expand...
London's base fare depends on how you pay and time of day. The base fare across 3 zones only applies if you get individual tickets. With an Oyster Card at peak times, the cheapest fare applies only to zone 1 - going into zones 2 and 3 costs extra.

Lower fares for short distances increases demand while higher fares for longer distances lowers demand. Whether either of those would increase or decrease overall revenues is purely a guess.
 
MisterF said:
Lower fares for short distances increases demand while higher fares for longer distances lowers demand. Whether either of those would increase or decrease overall revenues is purely a guess.
Click to expand...

No, its not - you're completely wrong on this. There's an entire field of science dedicated to things like figuring out if a price change will lead to more or less revenue. If lower fares led to more revenue it would be a no-brainer for the TTC, and you'd never see a fare increase because they would leave the TTC in worse financial shape.
 
amnesiajune said:
No, its not - you're completely wrong on this. There's an entire field of science dedicated to things like figuring out if a price change will lead to more or less revenue. If lower fares led to more revenue it would be a no-brainer for the TTC, and you'd never see a fare increase because they would leave the TTC in worse financial shape.
Click to expand...
Well unless you and I are actually practicing that science then yes, anything we try to come up with are just guesses. If zoned fares automatically led to lower revenues then you wouldn't see them exist in so many cities. In any case, I'm not saying that flat fares necessarily suppress revenues of central subways, I'm saying that they suppress demand for central subways. Big difference.
 
amnesiajune said:
I don't know how Vancouver works, but in London the base fare is three zones, not one. You only pay extra to travel through a fourth zone.
Click to expand...
There are six zones within London, and three extra zones outside. As to what you pay depends on the Travelcard or ticketing that you buy.
[...]
The first zones were introduced on 4 October 1981. The whole of Greater London was divided into bus zones where flat fares applied. On the London Underground the area that is now zone 1 was divided into two overlapping areas called City and West End. On 21 March 1982 fares to all other London Underground stations were graduated at three mile intervals—effectively creating zones—although they were not named as such until 1983 when the Travelcard product was launched covering five numbered zones. City and West End became zone 1 and the rest of Greater London was within zones 2, 3, 4 and 5. Further products were launched using the zones: One Day Travelcard (1984), Capitalcard (1985), One Day Capitalcard (1986). In January 1991 Zone 5 was split to create a new Zone 6.

Principal fare zones
All of Greater London is within the six principal fare zones numbered 1 to 6. Inner zone 1 forms a roughly circular area and covers central London. Each of five outer zones forms a concentric ring around it. Zones 4, 5 and 6 additionally extend into parts of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. List of boroughs in each zone:
[...]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_fare_zones
 
Last edited:
MisterF said:
Not really. The area covered by the Paris metro is barely 15 km across. In London it's 20 km, Berlin is 30 km, Washington is 40 km. In Toronto, it's about 27 km from Kipling to McCowan - more compact than some, more sprawling than others.

How far you can get on a base fare varies widely depending on the city. In some cities you can go city-wide on a single fare while in others it depends on how far you go. London's zone 1 is barely bigger than downtown Toronto while Vancouver's zone 1 is about equivalent to the old city of Toronto.

There are plenty of ways to structure fares. I'm just challenging 44 North's assertion that fare by distance will drive riders away in droves.
Click to expand...

Was more a rhetorical Q + deduction that if we increase fares ~3x for long-haul riders that it's reasonable to conclude this general subset of riders will decrease (relative to the current flat fare model). However for short-haul riders that see fares drop by 2-3x we'll obviously see a surge in usage for them. This is kinda where things balance out. Lose some riders, gain more elsewhere, either way a political hot potato. And am still pretty confused as to what a reasonable base fare will be vs a fare for those riding +20km.

What I certainly don't agree with is amnesiajune's concept that if we increase fares ~3x for really long-haul riders that it's somehow a cashcow, and improves the biz case of peripheral extensions. As if the same amount of riders will be there to pay that much. Or that if we decrease fares for short-haul riders the biz case for core area projects is ruined due to heavy subsidies. In both instances I think the complete opposite is the case.
 
44 North said:
What I certainly don't agree with is amnesiajune's concept that if we increase fares ~3x for really long-haul riders that it's somehow a cashcow, and improves the biz case of peripheral extensions. As if the same amount of riders will be there to pay that much. Or that if we decrease fares for short-haul riders the biz case for core area projects is ruined due to heavy subsidies. In both instances I think the complete opposite is the case.
Click to expand...

Price elasticity is fairly simple. If the TTC increases fares a bit, it'll mean more revenue. If they increase fares a lot (i.e. from $3.00 to $9.00, as you're proposing here) it'll mean less revenue since nobody will take transit. And no matter what, if they decrease fares they'll lose revenue, because the TTC (unlike Go Transit) isn't competing with a cheaper transit provider. They're competing with wheels and feet, which are either free or fairly expensive.

Business cases basically ask "what is the cost of providing this service, and is that cost justified?" More revenue improves the business case, since the cost of providing the service is lower. Less revenue hurts the business case, since the cost is higher. A fare policy that decreases revenue on short trips and increases revenue on long trips improves the business case for the long trips and hurts the business case for the short trips.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top