GTHA Transit Fare Integration

[muller877]

Toronto City Council yesterday voted unanimously to direct the TTC to work with Metrolinx on a single, flat fare for the city that covers both Go Transit and the TTC.

https://www.insidetoronto.com/news-...single-fare-for-all-transit-trips-in-toronto/
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOC3SzAWkAAUjrn.jpg

I had the fortune of taking a premium class subway car a couple of weeks age (Shenzhen Line 11). The normal cars have bench seating and lots of room to stand (a bit less seating capacity than the TTC). The business class has GO transit-like seating and costs 3x as much. It was awesome for a 45 min ride. Really blurs the line between a metro and rail system.

I thought it was a great option to harmonize the TTC and GO fares and quality of service.

GO trains could be modified with a economy class train cabin on the lower floor (layout similar to the TTC). Premium class on the upper floor. With the increased passenger/m2 on the bottom floor there is added capacity on the system. Plus a lower fare (distance based but targeted to be around $3.25 for an average Toronto ride)

Premium class fares would be targeted initially to be equal to the current GO train fare. But a dynamic model with a goal of having 90% of seats full when it leaves Union (defeats the premium class if you have to stand).

Any higher-level transit service in the future would also have this differential service model (RER, DRL, etc). Basically blurs the line between GO and the TTC while giving people the option to have a premium level of service they are used to on GO.

It also gives lower-income people in the suburbs/inner 'burbs the opportunity to work/play downtown without the need to pay for an expensive train ticket.

 

[cplchanb]

I had the fortune of taking a premium class subway car a couple of weeks age (Shenzhen Line 11). The normal cars have bench seating and lots of room to stand (a bit less seating capacity than the TTC). The business class has GO transit-like seating and costs 3x as much. It was awesome for a 45 min ride. Really blurs the line between a metro and rail system.

I thought it was a great option to harmonize the TTC and GO fares and quality of service.

GO trains could be modified with a economy class train cabin on the lower floor (layout similar to the TTC). Premium class on the upper floor. With the increased passenger/m2 on the bottom floor there is added capacity on the system. Plus a lower fare (distance based but targeted to be around $3.25 for an average Toronto ride)

Premium class fares would be targeted initially to be equal to the current GO train fare. But a dynamic model with a goal of having 90% of seats full when it leaves Union (defeats the premium class if you have to stand).

Any higher-level transit service in the future would also have this differential service model (RER, DRL, etc). Basically blurs the line between GO and the TTC while giving people the option to have a premium level of service they are used to on GO.

It also gives lower-income people in the suburbs/inner 'burbs the opportunity to work/play downtown without the need to pay for an expensive train ticket.

imo if theyre going to do that they should do the whole car. When i was in japan they had the green cars for the tokaido main line routes and they were distinctly different with a double decker layout and 2-2 seating.
there was also a machine iirc on the platform so that you can upgrade on the fly

 

[amnesiajune]

I don't like the idea of "premium" public transit at all. Public transit should just be that - public transit, with every member of the public getting the same service.

 

[cplchanb]

I don't like the idea of "premium" public transit at all. Public transit should just be that - public transit, with every member of the public getting the same service.

It makes more sense with higher density commuter trains. In japan where their suburban rail can get extremely congested there is a strong market for those who want a guaranteed seat rather than getting squished for long trips. Obviously we dont have quite the numbers on our go trains to justify this but maybe in the future

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

I think the London underground or at least some of its predecessors (as it is made up of several independent railways that were later brought together) had first class cars back in the day when they ran stem engines on it.

 

[adrianaliu]

price discrimination allows for subsidies of the lower price fare. in other words having first class on top level of go trains for a higher fare allows them to make more revenue to put towards lowering the base fare. i still dont think its a good idea at all but it is something to consider if we wanna make RER even more acessible

 

[TOareaFan]

Obviously we dont have quite the numbers on our go trains to justify this but maybe in the future

in rush/peak times? Are there any trains pulling into Union in the am morning peak or out of union in the evening peak where everyone has a seat?

I use the KW* line mostly....and for the trains I ride it seems like Brampton is the last inbound stop where people are "guaranteed" a seat....from Bramalea (easily the busiest stop on the line) onward it is either not impossible or very "car dependent".....

....not sure how it would work but in terms of our train layouts but since people are already showing a willingness to pay for otherwise free parking to guarantee a spot, it strikes me that there may be an ability/willingness to pay a premium for a seat too.


EDIT: *10 car trains are the max on that line...that may be creating an "experience bias" for me.

 

[amnesiajune]

I think the London underground or at least some of its predecessors (as it is made up of several independent railways that were later brought together) had first class cars back in the day when they ran stem engines on it.

This is the same country that uses "public school" as a term for private schools. I don't think we should be looking to the UK for lessons on equitable transit systems, especially the 19th-century UK.

 

[PinkLucy]

Given that the term public school has been in use for a very long time, it really isn't relevant to this discussion. They are called public schools because they are open to the paying public, not necessarily open to the public-at-large however, and they aren't paid for by the state or religious institutions.

 

[amnesiajune]

Given that the term public school has been in use for a very long time, it really isn't relevant to this discussion. They are called public schools because they are open to the paying public, not necessarily open to the public-at-large however, and they aren't paid for by the state or religious institutions.

My point is (like every other time that someone brings up first class transit)... Public transit shouldn't be transit for the paying public, and there shouldn't be special transit for the people who pay more. It should be affordable to everyone, and everyone should get identical quality transit service. Trips from Point A to Point B should cost about the same regardless of whether you travel on a bus, a streetcar/LRT, a subway, the front of a Go Train or the back of a Go Train.

Fare integration is a slow move towards this ideal. Creating separate classes of train passengers is a giant leap backwards.

 

[ssiguy2]

I don't like the idea of "premium" service. Everyone's taxes helped pay for it so everyone should be able to ride it.

As far as integration goes, there are really only 2 options..........zones or fare-by-distance. I prefer the latter because as the system grows there will be more and more people crossing boundaries. Also someone going from Lakeshore GO to Miss will pay more than someone going from Malvern to Lakeshore which just doesn't seem fair. Also if the city wants to encourage people to try to live near where they work, fare-by-distance is the way to go. Artificial boundaries are also more difficult in a city like Toronto as opposed to Montreal or Vancouver. Those cities have natural boundaries of water that help make the distinction easier to follow and also results in far fewer trains/buses that actually cross boundaries.

I think Metrolinx has already decided it will be a fare-by-distance system once Presto is up and running. I think they have totally realized {thank God} that charging a different fare for rapid transit is a non-starter. Truly one of the stupidest ideas known to man.

 

[amnesiajune]

As far as integration goes, there are really only 2 options..........zones or fare-by-distance. I prefer the latter because as the system grows there will be more and more people crossing boundaries. Also someone going from Lakeshore GO to Miss will pay more than someone going from Malvern to Lakeshore which just doesn't seem fair. Also if the city wants to encourage people to try to live near where they work, fare-by-distance is the way to go. Artificial boundaries are also more difficult in a city like Toronto as opposed to Montreal or Vancouver. Those cities have natural boundaries of water that help make the distinction easier to follow and also results in far fewer trains/buses that actually cross boundaries.

I think Metrolinx has already decided it will be a fare-by-distance system once Presto is up and running. I think they have totally realized {thank God} that charging a different fare for rapid transit is a non-starter. Truly one of the stupidest ideas known to man.

Any FBD scheme is really just fare zones. The difference between all these proposals is just the number and size of zones, with larger & fewer zones meaning flatter fares. Personally I think what makes the most sense for Toronto is a zone system that keeps the existing 416 and 905 transit "zones" but allows short trips between the two for the flat fare, and doesn't charge a whole second fare for crossing a boundary. So for example, charge $3.00 for a trip from Richmond Hill Centre to Yonge & Eglinton, but charge $4.50 to go from RHC to Bloor-Yonge or from Yonge & Eglinton to northern Richmond Hill.

 

[muller877]

My point is (like every other time that someone brings up first class transit)... Public transit shouldn't be transit for the paying public, and there shouldn't be special transit for the people who pay more. It should be affordable to everyone, and everyone should get identical quality transit service. Trips from Point A to Point B should cost about the same regardless of whether you travel on a bus, a streetcar/LRT, a subway, the front of a Go Train or the back of a Go Train.

Fare integration is a slow move towards this ideal. Creating separate classes of train passengers is a giant leap backwards.

Why is it a great leap backwards? We already pay for a different quality of service. People at Dundas West chose between UPX and the subway. Long Branch between the GO and a streetcar. And many of those who chose the higher priced version would rather drive than be stuck on the lower quality service.

So i'm proposing to create this differential throughout the entire system. Hopefully to attract the more affluent who currently drive to work but would be willing to take a higher quality service. And they would pay full cost (or greater than cost) to (1) subsidize the rest of us and (2) increase the frequency of service.

If you wanted to use a GO Train for a TTC fare you could hop on the cheaper fare car and stand most of the way. If you were stressed out after a long day of work and needed to relax you could pay to get a premium seat on the subway.

The other option...get rid of the higher level of service on GO so that capacity increases so the fare can decrease (if you have been standing on GO for 45 minutes before you know that the 905 would not go for this)

Canada is about the only country in the world where there is this belief among progressives that the entire public should have identical service for everything. Many more progressive countries have tiered transit systems. (very similar to what the TDSB just tried with the special & gifted program). If we strive for average that's all that we will become...average. I want the public system to fill the needs of the average, the disadvantaged and the exceptional.

 

[Fred.S]

I also prefer fare-by-distance. My ideal system would measure a straight-line distance from your start point to end point, and charge you accordingly per km, with a discount on each consecutive km, irregardless of which transportation system and mode you use (you could even apply it to bike share, if that's part of your journey). Therefore someone who travels 20 km doesn't get charged twice as much as someone who travels 10 km, but they still pay more. I find this fair, and should be possible with Presto, provided bus GPS is more reliable, and people tap-out.

Realistically and politically, I think fare-by-distance for GO, and time-based for municipal systems is going to be the norm for a long time.

 

[ssiguy2]

FBD is not just like a fare zone system with just more zones. Even with many zones you still have imaginary lines to cross. Someone could ride the bus for 1 km and get charged the same as someone going 15 km. Breaking up zones also makes system integration more difficult as you would end up having far more buses/subways etc ending at a certain zone point and then having to transfer. FBD is the easiest way to go. I am certainly not suggesting that everyone be charged per-km but by sections ie $2.50 for under 10 km, $3.25 for 10 to 20km, $4.00 for 20 to 30km etc. It gets rid of these imaginary lines and encourages people to live near where they work.

Like I said thou, ANYTHING {including just staying with the system they have now} is vastly superior to charging more for rapid transit. The debate about what is and is not RT would be endless and nothing will bring RT expansion to a halt faster than having people to pay extra for it.