GTHA Transit Fare Integration

[gweed123]

That's because it's a 19 MB JPG with 24,000x18,000 pixels.

How about some common sense ... I can download it, and get to see a bit of it, but very difficult to see anything. It would be a lot more funcational if you hadn't overlain overtop of a photograph ...

I knew it may not display properly in the forum thread itself, but I figured opening it in a separate window would be ok (it worked on mine). I've uploaded a new version that doesn't have the image background. Sorry for the browser crashes!

Without background: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43869799/GTA System Map - To Scale_NoBackground.jpg

Full PDF version (big map, be warned): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43869799/GTA System Map - To Scale.pdf

 

[Evening]

I would prefer a little less radical kind of reform:

There should be three fare "tiers": TTC, all other local agencies, and GO. TTC and the other local agencies would operate under the same rules. Pay one fare to access everything. There will continue to be a double fare to use both the TTC and other agencies. GO should continue to operate as it does but I think it would be great if taking local transit (including the TTC) to and from GO could be subsidized completely.

I would also like to see standardized fare rates and fare categories (possibly no fare categories at all).

 

[gweed123]

I would prefer a little less radical kind of reform:

There should be three fare "tiers": TTC, all other local agencies, and GO. TTC and the other local agencies would operate under the same rules. Pay one fare to access everything. There will continue to be a double fare to use both the TTC and other agencies. GO should continue to operate as it does but I think it would be great if taking local transit (including the TTC) to and from GO could be subsidized completely.

I would also like to see standardized fare rates and fare categories (possibly no fare categories at all).

I'm a tad confused by this. Are you still proposing zone fares or fare-by-distance within these different 'tiers'? Or are the local agencies a flat rate regardless of distance travelled on them?

In a lot of 905 areas, GO already has a co-fare arrangement with the local transit agency. It's just there isn't one yet with the TTC.

First, that is an incredible map you made!

Second, in Toronto I think GO should be treated as a TTC Downtown Express service. This means that going anywhere to anywhere within the city limits is $5.65 cash, $5.30 tokens/Presto, or an extra $2.65 with a Metropass. If transferring from another service, it is $2.65 cash or another token.

That said, you can get the Downtown Express Metropass for $166.25. So with 40 monthly trips using GO it comes to $4.15 - not including any extra trips you take using regular TTC services.

Thank you! And that's an interesting idea. The model I've described does kind of work in that way, that there is a premium attached to the 'express' nature of GO. I don't think GO should be a flat rate in Toronto though. There's a tremendous amount of potential for GO to carry some of the load from the Old City of Toronto, and with such a high fare I think it would discourage that. Basically, as long as you're staying in one zone, it doesn't matter what type of transit (local, local RT, express RT) you take. It's only as your trip becomes longer and longer do you start to see a premium for local RT or express RT.

 

[TOareaFan]

I'm a tad confused by this. Are you still proposing zone fares or fare-by-distance within these different 'tiers'? Or are the local agencies a flat rate regardless of distance travelled on them?

In a lot of 905 areas, GO already has a co-fare arrangement with the local transit agency. It's just there isn't one yet with the TTC.

That is true but those co-fare arrangements are a little different than the ones I see suggested for Toronto. In the 905 it seems to be the goal to encourage the use of local transit to get to GO while in Toronto there seems to be a push to find a way for people to be able to use GO either instead of TTC or to get to TTC.....both, I think are valid goals....but subtly different.

 

[gweed123]

That is true but those co-fare arrangements are a little different than the ones I see suggested for Toronto. In the 905 it seems to be the goal to encourage the use of local transit to get to GO while in Toronto there seems to be a push to find a way for people to be able to use GO either instead of TTC or to get to TTC.....both, I think are valid goals....but subtly different.

That's true. Does anyone know the average cost of providing a parking spot vs GO partially subsidizing the trip to the station on local transit? I would imagine they would be pretty similar. The 905 in general is desperately trying to boost transit ridership, while the TTC is just trying to cope with the ridership it already has.

Of course, getting people TO GO and getting people off the TTC are sometimes not mutually exclusive goals. For example, a co-fare arrangement may increase the number of people taking the Sheppard East bus (and in the future the SELRT) to Agincourt GO station. That may cause some increased use of part of the route of the bus, but it also may open up more spots further down the route, because that person that got off at Agincourt used to stay on until Don Mills.

I'm sure there are a bunch of travel patterns that will change with the introduction of a co-fare arrangement that will either increase, modify (+ here, - there), or decrease TTC usage. I don't think there's a single blanket assumption that can cover all of them, because I think the end result will vary dramatically from station to station, TTC route to TTC route.

 

[Evening]

I'm a tad confused by this. Are you still proposing zone fares or fare-by-distance within these different 'tiers'? Or are the local agencies a flat rate regardless of distance travelled on them?

In a lot of 905 areas, GO already has a co-fare arrangement with the local transit agency. It's just there isn't one yet with the TTC.

I was thinking a flat rate regardless of distance travelled. Its very similar to how things are done now except the rates would be standardized and the TTC would be conforming with 905 fare and transfer rules. I think it will be necessary for the TTC to maintain a double fare though. There is no way it can make up the lost revenue unless it adopts fare-by-distance which will subject to significant fare evasion.

In terms of the GO, I was talking about a fully subsidizing the local fare rather than partially subsidizing it like they do now (this would be a costly initiative though).

 

[gweed123]

I was thinking a flat rate regardless of distance travelled. Its very similar to how things are done now except the rates would be standardized and the TTC would be conforming with 905 fare and transfer rules. I think it will be necessary for the TTC to maintain a double fare though. There is no way it can make up the lost revenue unless it adopts fare-by-distance which will subject to significant fare evasion.

In terms of the GO, I was talking about a fully subsidizing the local fare rather than partially subsidizing it like they do now (this would be a costly initiative though).

See, this is where we disagree. I don't believe that someone should have to pay a double fare simply because they cross an imaginary municipal line. For me, fare-by-distance is a much more equitable way of doing things.

As for fare evasion, I think that can be largely stopped if:

1) The fare-by-distance is only applied to rapid transit. It's much easier to control passenger movements that way. On local transit, movements in and out of the system is too hard to impose FBD.

2) The 'refund' model is used. What I mean by that is, when you tap onto the RT system, you pay the maximum fare for that line or system (the max fare for the TTC RT system would be 3 zones). If you use less than the maximum fare, on your way out you can tap again and get a refund for the difference. It's a lot easier to get people to tap again if they're getting money back, not paying more.

 

[Evening]

See, this is where we disagree. I don't believe that someone should have to pay a double fare simply because they cross an imaginary municipal line. For me, fare-by-distance is a much more equitable way of doing things.

As for fare evasion, I think that can be largely stopped if:

1) The fare-by-distance is only applied to rapid transit. It's much easier to control passenger movements that way. On local transit, movements in and out of the system is too hard to impose FBD.

2) The 'refund' model is used. What I mean by that is, when you tap onto the RT system, you pay the maximum fare for that line or system (the max fare for the TTC RT system would be 3 zones). If you use less than the maximum fare, on your way out you can tap again and get a refund for the difference. It's a lot easier to get people to tap again if they're getting money back, not paying more.

Aren't fare zone boundaries also arbitrary lines?

And how about people who don't pay with PRESTO?

 

[SunriseChampion]

Doesn't basing it on time rather than distance double punish people who live in areas not served, or underserved, by the more rapid forms of transit? If you are pushed onto the slower forms of transit but travel the same distance as someone who has more/better access to more rapid transit, you are more often going to go over your 2 hour time limit.

I agree. I think a fare zone scheme is the most fair system for users.

That's not to say there can't be a hybrid scheme put in place like they have in the Lower Mainland.

 

[Dan416]

I think we're going to have to go to fare-by-distance at some point or another. It just makes sense.

 

[gweed123]

Aren't fare zone boundaries also arbitrary lines?

They are, but they're lines that equate to a rider paying a modest surcharge, not a double fare and having to potentially change services to get across that boundary.

And how about people who don't pay with PRESTO?

I've been thinking about that, and there's really no easy way to do it. I suppose what I'd like to see is a system similar to Boston, where you could get a card and pre-load it with enough for X number of trips within X number of zones. This would require POP, but realistically it's the only way to do it. Naturally, the cost per ride on these cards would be higher in order to encourage Presto use.

Of course, eventually what I'd like to see is NFC payment via a dedicated smartphone app, where it would debit either your chequing account or credit card directly just by tapping your phone. That way, having a card wouldn't be a barrier to using Presto. I can see that being especially popular with tourists or occasional users. Just download the free app, and (if you're on an iPhone) enter your iTunes account information and go. Of course physical cards would still be available, but I think a lot of people would prefer to use the smartphone app route instead (I know I would).

 

[gweed123]

I agree. I think a fare zone scheme is the most fair system for users.

That's not to say there can't be a hybrid scheme put in place like they have in the Lower Mainland.

Again, it's all a balance. For every one person who has a really long transit trip that may exceed the 2hr time limit, there's somebody who would choose to take transit to go to the store and back, because they can get there and back within the 2hr limit, whereas today it would cost them 2 fares to do the same trip. You could invent hypotheticals to support or refute either option.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...dMtg_GTHA_Fare_and_Service_Integration_EN.pdf

Here we go.

 

[rbt]

I think we're going to have to go to fare-by-distance at some point or another. It just makes sense.

Is GO's current system close enough to fare-by-distance?

With small enough zones, you get pretty close. IIRC, GO has 70 to 80 zones in their fare system.

 

[gweed123]

Is GO's current system close enough to fare-by-distance?

With small enough zones, you get pretty close. IIRC, GO has 70 to 80 zones in their fare system.

Their plethora of zones in their system works well because of the limited number of GO stops. It would be quite difficult to expand that same system to local rapid transit though. Not to mention it's skewed towards the high end in Toronto.

Pure fare-by-distance would require a whole new Presto payment system, although probably could be achieved through a smartphone app too.