News   Dec 31, 1969
 0     0 
News   Dec 31, 1969
 0     0 
News   Dec 31, 1969
 0     0 

Metrolinx: GTHA Fare Integration

amnesiajune

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,059
Reaction score
965
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.
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.
 

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,329
Reaction score
1,630
Location
Ward 28
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.
I'm certainly not proposing it. And am saying your concept is silly/flawed for assuming that increasing fares for long-haul riders automatically equates to more revenue, thus markedly improving the biz case of peripheral extensions. Yes more revenue *per rider*, but if it has a lot less riders than a flat fare would otherwise offer how would that affect the bottom line in this business case?

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.
And what happens if there's a net increase in riders for the short trips, and a net decrease for long trips - which is obviously what would occur yet you fail to mention. And where do the existing revenue/subsidy discrepancies lie within the system? How about pass/km costs for new projects?
 

muller877

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 14, 2011
Messages
1,689
Reaction score
760
How do commuters access RER stations outside Paris? Does RER have parking lots like GO? What are the connecting services like?
Paris has a multitude of parking options for both RER and the Metro. The one I went to (on Metro line 4) was a pay per day but I understand there are others which are free.
 

Neutrino

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
1,207
Reaction score
879
Paris has a multitude of parking options for both RER and the Metro. The one I went to (on Metro line 4) was a pay per day but I understand there are others which are free.
But presumably most of RER's suburban ridership comes from connecting services?
 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
3,081
Reaction score
789
I think what I said earlier is fair and equally important, politically palatable.

Everyone in Toronto should be able to get to their downtown on the current TTC fare but anyone doing true cross-town travel would pay more and shorter trips pay less. For that to happen that means roughly the first 25km is current TTC fare. They could break this up so that the first 12.5km is, for example, $2.50 while the next 12.5km is $3.25, and the next 12.5km is $4.00. Seeing people in suburban Toronto get taxed by the same authority, pay to the same City, and should be able to get to their city's core for the same price they do now, the system would be politically easier to install and would be viewed by the public as generally fair.

Someone going from Malvern to Union would pay the current fare of $3.25 but pay $4.00 to get to Miminco but conversely if they are only going to STC they would pay the lower fare of $2.50.
 
Last edited:

brainfreezed

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
364
Reaction score
220
I think what I said earlier is fair and equally important, politically palatable.

Everyone in Toronto should be able to get to their downtown on the current TTC fare but anyone doing true cross-town travel would pay more and shorter trips pay less. For that to happen that means roughly the first 25km is current TTC fare. They could break this up so that the first 12.5km is, for example, $2.50 while the next 12.5km is 43.25, and the next 12.5km is $4.00. Seeing people in suburban Toronto get taxed by the same authority, pay to the same City, and should be able to get to their city's core for the same price they do now, the system would be politically easier to install and would be viewed by the public as generally fair.

Someone going from Malvern to Union would pay the current fare of $3.25 but pay $4.00 to get to Miminco but conversely if they are only going to STC they would pay the lower fare of $2.50.
I agree with this reasoning, though I think it would be better to have smaller increments. With 12 .5 km, you're creating virtual zone boundaries, which would make it unpleasant for those people who end up travelling 13 km, and get charged $0.75 for the extra 500 m. I'd prefer steps maybe every 1 or 2 km, with the minimum fare being maybe $2 (for up to 5 km) to a max of $6 or $7 for travelling the city from end to end (therefore keeping downtown around the $3.25 mark from any other spot). This would also bring it in line more with current GO fares. Per km would be on a sliding scale around $0.50, decreasing with distance maybe down $0.10.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,372
Reaction score
1,879
I agree with this reasoning, though I think it would be better to have smaller increments. With 12 .5 km, you're creating virtual zone boundaries, which would make it unpleasant for those people who end up travelling 13 km, and get charged $0.75 for the extra 500 m. I'd prefer steps maybe every 1 or 2 km, with the minimum fare being maybe $2 (for up to 5 km) to a max of $6 or $7 for travelling the city from end to end (therefore keeping downtown around the $3.25 mark from any other spot). This would also bring it in line more with current GO fares. Per km would be on a sliding scale around $0.50, decreasing with distance maybe down $0.10.
If we're making zones, I'd actually make Downtown have a 25% premium over the other zones (Dufferin to Broadview, waterfront to St. Clair), rather than being a discount. Demand outstrips capacity in in that specific section; have a premium go straight to capital for projects like the (hopefully) upcoming King Street rebuild, and additional subway car order (to bring ATO to capacity).

Any trip starting, stopping, or travelling through the zone has a premium or if you prefer, does not receive a 20% discount from the $4 standard fare.
 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
3,081
Reaction score
789
You could certainly break up the fare-by-distance zones more if wanted but the premise being that anyone from any part of the city can get to Union/downtown at the same fare they do now or cheaper if they are close by. You wouldn't have the push back from suburban councillors or voters as the the vast majority of travellers would see the same fare as they have now or cheaper. You could break it up into 10 FBD zones if you want as long as the premise of being able to get downtown for the same price as they do now is kept.

Most people could reasonable view this as fair. Suburbanites are part of the city and pay the same taxes and fees as everyone else so they should be able to get to their City Hall for the same fare as they do now.
 

amnesiajune

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,059
Reaction score
965
If we're making zones, I'd actually make Downtown have a 25% premium over the other zones (Dufferin to Broadview, waterfront to St. Clair), rather than being a discount. Demand outstrips capacity in in that specific section; have a premium go straight to capital for projects like the (hopefully) upcoming King Street rebuild, and additional subway car order (to bring ATO to capacity).
A gold fare zone makes about as much sense as a gold train car. The last thing we need is to give people more reasons to drive into downtown.
 

brainfreezed

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
364
Reaction score
220
Yea I don't agree with an extra cost for downtown. However, for people making long cross-town trips, if they can avoid downtown, maybe they can get a discount. A little hard to do now, as most train service is routed through downtown, but maybe easier once the crosstown and other LRT lines are built. I know London does this, and I think Hong Kong has this too, where people can tap on special readers in the middle of their journey, at junctions outside of the downtown, and get a discount. Helps to take people off really congested routes.
 

brainfreezed

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
364
Reaction score
220
A hypothetical example of my above point (though not really applying to long routes), was that if St George Station was getting dangerously overcrowded, then you could put a discount reader in the middle of the Spadina Station walkway that gave people maybe a $0.25 discount for transferring there during rush hours, by tapping through the tunnel.
 

amnesiajune

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,059
Reaction score
965
I think all these discount proposals are just wanting change for the sake of change or because of some indignation (i.e. "other people get more subsidies than we do"), not to address actual problems that make people a lot more likely to drive instead of taking transit.
 

Palma

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
2,346
Reaction score
187
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.
Well what about all the lost revenue on short distance trips by people who do not take ttc because they do not want to pay $3.00 to go 1-2 stops or more? If these short trips were less, those people would be taking ttc and there would be increase in revenue
 

amnesiajune

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,059
Reaction score
965
Well what about all the lost revenue on short distance trips by people who do not take ttc because they do not want to pay $3.00 to go 1-2 stops or more? If these short trips were less, those people would be taking ttc and there would be increase in revenue
Most people who walk wouldn't take transit at any non-trivial fare. It's not like Go Transit where the only alternatives are a cheaper & slower transit system or driving. Walking is free, and the time difference is usually negligible
 

ndawgg

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
213
Reaction score
199
I live right at College Station and I walk to the Scotiabank Theatre to save the $3.00 each way. If it was cheaper, I'd be more inclined to TTC it. Call me cheap, but I agree that they're losing my fare being a downtown person who avoids taking the subway to save money.
 

Top