New Transit Funding Sources

[ssiguy2]

Exactly.

It shouldn't matter how you get from A to B, the price should be the same. This not only means the travelling public will have the fastest trip possible at the same price but it is also fairer and a better use of operational costs.

 

[steveintoronto]

Exactly.

It shouldn't matter how you get from A to B, the price should be the same. This not only means the travelling public will have the fastest trip possible at the same price but it is also fairer and a better use of operational costs.

And the better means of travelling will be the one used most, and thrive. This of course, is dependent on the shared carrier fare system being distributed to operators by a passenger number audit.

Sand Diego's regional system does it like this:

[...]
Responsibilities within the fare and revenue system have been divided up as follows:
The San Diego Association of Government (SANDAG)
!
Ensures that each operator submits Ready Pass boarding and 10-Pack Ticket counts.
!
Determines the proportion of revenues to be allocated to each operator and prepares
appropriate reports.
MTDB
!
Funds and administers the design and purchase of fare media.
!
Manages the prepaid fare program including distribution, and sells Ready Passes, Day Tripper
and 10-Pack Tickets, Trolley Multi-ride Tickets and all other group sales tickets and submits
sales summary to each operator.
!
Determines the proportion of local sales tax subsidy to be allocated to each operator for
senior/disabled and youth passes.
!
Keeps a separate fund for all pass and ticket sales revenue.
Operators
!
Keep pass use and ticket counts.
!
Provide monthly summary to SANDAG

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_10-e.pdf

 

[rbt]

I thought Ontario had the highest electricity prices in North America according to some of the media. No wonder Trump won. Media is just there to spread misinformation these days. We need to fact check the media on our own from independent sources.

There was a brief time a few years ago when it was true for commercial/industrial rates. Not residential though; California residential rate was around 22.7 cents per kwh, well above Ontario's 18 cent per kwh peak rate and triple our off-peak rate.

Since then many US electricity providers have significantly increased their rates largely for the same reasons Ontario did (maintenance, grid stability, replacing ancient plants, etc.), and the CAD/USD has dropped significantly. CAD dropping reduced Ontario rates by about 20% (relative to southern neighbours) due almost entirely to decreased cost of labour.

 

[Adjei]

There was a brief time a few years ago when it was true for commercial/industrial rates. Not residential though; California residential rate were around 22.7 cents per kwh, well above Ontario's 18 cent per kwh peak rate and triple our off-peak rate.

Since then many US electricity providers have significantly increased their rates largely for the same reasons Ontario did (maintenance, grid stability, replacing ancient plants, etc.), and the CAD/USD has dropped significantly. CAD dropping reduced Ontario rates by about 20% (relative to southern neighbours) due almost entirely to decreased cost of labour.

Thanks for info..

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I think if we want to get really serious about sustainable transit funding, we'll have to look at our fare system, and make some hard choices. In my experience, many places in the world with the geographic size and population density of Toronto have some sort of distance-based fare structure. Within Toronto, you could travel up to 35 km for $2.90, which seems way too low for that distance. A GO transit ride within the city usually runs just over $6.

With Presto, and tap in/tap out being possible, we have the technology to have distance-based fares without zones. You tap in at one station, tap out at your destination, and then the system calculates your point-to-point distance and assigns a fare. For example, you could have fares that are between $2 and $6 as below:

<5 km = $2
10 km = $3
15 km = $4
20 km = $4.50
25 km = $5
30 km = $5.50
35 km = $6
* $0.20 per km between 5 and 15 km, $0.10 per km between 15 and 35 km.

This means that people taking shorter trips pay almost a dollar less than today, and those taking what I assume is an average commute of 15 km, pay a dollar more. Those traveling over 15 km get a lower per km rate, so there is still technically a discount for longer distances. As well, with fare integration, you would pay the same fare whether you use a subway, LRT, or GO train, thus incentivizing people to use RER for longer trips within Toronto, and putting less burden on the subway system (assuming RER will be 10 min frequencies, all-day, in both directions). You could also make this GTA-wide, so there are no cross-border double fares.

One big issue that would have to be figured out is bus (and streetcar) transfers. You could either go tap-out on buses, or keep a flat fare and put a discount on transfer to/from buses. Something that won't cost the person more or too much less on long-distance trips.

In my opinion, the province is tapped-out for cash, and has some worrying debt issues. Tax hikes, new taxes, and other funding sources probably won't even cover all the capital costs of new projects. This may be difficult politically, but I think a fare system similar to this is necessary if we want to get really serious about making transit more sustainable.

The problem with distance based fares is that in multimodal systems, distance isn't very strongly correlated with the cost of transport. Someone travelling a long distance a crowded Bloor train costs the TTC way less to move than someone travelling a short distance on an sparcely used bus route. Distance based systems aren't more fare than flat rate systems; they merely modify which groups of commuters are the losers in the fair arrangement.

 

[TOareaFan]

I thought Ontario had the highest electricity prices in North America according to some of the media. No wonder Trump won. Media is just there to spread misinformation these days. We need to fact check the media on our own from independent sources.

I think the rates quoted above are for residential users.....I think that when people state that our hydro is too high they are referring to industrial users...ie. if our rates for industrial users are higher than our competitor jurisdictions it can have the effect of chasing jobs away. I am not sure if we are the highest or not but I don't think the argument is solved by looking at the residential rates.

 

[TOareaFan]

I suppose, but it depends on what you expect to get for your taxes. If you asked Atlantans what services they expect from government, their list will be shorter than Torontonians'.

In the context of this discussion, though, I don't think it matters. The discussion was why can't we just raise our sales taxes like they are in some jurisdictions (Atlanta given as an example) in the states.....I think part of the answer is that we already have a rate of sales tax which is significantly higher than those jurisdiction....making the "next" hike harder to swallow.

 

[Fred.S]

The problem with distance based fares is that in multimodal systems, distance isn't very strongly correlated with the cost of transport. Someone travelling a long distance a crowded Bloor train costs the TTC way less to move than someone travelling a short distance on an sparcely used bus route. Distance based systems aren't more fair than flat rate systems; they merely modify which groups of commuters are the losers in the fare arrangement.

I see what you're getting at, and yes, the crowded Bloor subway is cost-efficient vs a bus. However it's the modal split between subway/RT and regional services that I'm mainly trying to address. The problem is that there is over-utilization of the two main subway lines, especially as a regional service, whereas it would be more cost-effective to run faster services on the GO network. For example, people coming in from Scarborough to downtown would be better off on trains that made far fewer stops, thus making the trip faster for them, and less crowded. It also become cheaper for the operators if they can run less slower services on one line (ie TTC Line 2), and more faster services on another, especially with higher-capacity vehicles (ie GO trains). This is also true for those coming from Mississauga in the west, and York Region in the north. A frequent GO train makes more sense for people if there was no fare penalty, but as it stands now we're wasting a lot of unused track capacity, and overusing the subway network.

As for which groups of commuters are losing in the arrangement, there's a valid concern with the distribution of low-income residents having to live farther out, and potentially getting harder hit with fare increases versus those who live closer to the core. However as I understand it, there's an increasing shift towards people commuting within an area of Toronto, such as those going from one point in Scarborough to another, and they potentially would pay the same they do now, if not a little less. As well, how much of the burden do we put on the TTC to subsidize long-distance commuters? Under my original fare example, those traveling longer distances still get a per km discount vs shorter distance travelers. We would have to decide where that line is. In the end, fares will have to go up (from what we hear from Any Byford), will it get to the point where there's a $5 flat fare for someone to travel 3 km on a subway?

 

[steveintoronto]

This is a good string of discussion. Let me take brain's point even further:

However it's the modal split between subway/RT and regional services that I'm mainly trying to address. The problem is that there is over-utilization of the two main subway lines, especially as a regional service, whereas it would be more cost-effective to run faster services on the GO network. For example, people coming in from Scarborough to downtown would be better off on trains that made far fewer stops, thus making the trip faster for them, and less crowded. It also become cheaper for the operators if they can run less slower services on one line (ie TTC Line 2), and more faster services on another, especially with higher-capacity vehicles (ie GO trains). This is also true for those coming from Mississauga in the west, and York Region in the north. A frequent GO train makes more sense for people if there was no fare penalty, but as it stands now we're wasting a lot of unused track capacity, and overusing the subway network.

We also have to look at the incentive for providers to offer better ways of offering faster, more comfortable delivery. The provider who does that, given a level playing field of all possible routes being charged at the same rate per distance (distance being as the crow flies) is the one who garners the greatest ridership and thus the highest fare-box recovery and perhaps subsidy. (This is determined by audit or by electronic fare card means) It also makes it possible for private enterprise to also offer competing routes and means for the same fare and subsidy. London does this, and does it very successfully. Buses are privately owned, rail and tube partially so, and almost all are members of Oyster Card, which charges by distance, no matter what means you take.
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/uploads/forms/lbsl-tendering-and-contracting.pdf

The most successful providers are the ones offering the most value per rider cost. Gets overcrowded to the point of loss of comfort and performance? Customer switches mode of delivery.

I'll see if I can find a better link that illustrates this. Transport for London (TfL) has some very real issues, but offering all sorts of options (including river-ferry) to commute around the central zones isn't one of the issues.

[...]
Key points about London's buses are:

• Although there are separate bus operating companies, the regulation, fares and ticketing for buses, Underground, DLR and London suburban trains are managed by a central government body called Transport For London chaired by the mayor of London. The transport passes that nearly everyone uses, Oyster and Travelcard, allow you to travel seamlessly across all modes of transport, bus, Underground, train and DLR using the same ticket/pass.
  [...]

• https://www.londontoolkit.com/briefing/buses.htm

 

[Adjei]

I think the rates quoted above are for residential users.....I think that when people state that our hydro is too high they are referring to industrial users...ie. if our rates for industrial users are higher than our competitor jurisdictions it can have the effect of chasing jobs away. I am not sure if we are the highest or not but I don't think the argument is solved by looking at the residential rates.

I looked deeper into the report and they compare averages for residential, medium, and large power users. They are pretty high but nowhere are they the highest in North America. You could make an argument for Canada but they have been telling us the highest in North America and not Canada.

 

[Euphoria]

You have to take all these things together in terms of cost of living. Ontarians have a very high cost of living: personal income taxes, land taxes, housing, fuel, and to a growing extent hydro. Universal health care does not offset all these costs. Our transit is a joke compared to New York's.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

You have to take all these things together in term of cost of living. Ontarians have a very high cost of living: personal income taxes, land taxes, housing, fuel, and to a growing extent hydro. Universal health care does not offset all these costs. Our transit is a joke compared to New York's.

We have a high cost of living, by what standard? Everything I've seen has indicated Toronto is cheap compared to other cities of similar tier.

 

[Adjei]

You have to take all these things together in term of cost of living. Ontarians have a very high cost of living: personal income taxes, land taxes, housing, fuel, and to a growing extent hydro. Universal health care does not offset all these costs. Our transit is a joke compared to New York's.

Dude we are talking about whether Ontario has the highest hydro rates in North America. I don't see what cost of living has to with it. If you want to talk about cost of living open another thread.

 

[Euphoria]

How can you separate hydro rates or cost of living out of the discussion? This thread is on funding transit. Hydro is just another one of our various inputs that needs to be considered in the grand scheme of paying for infrastructure. I'm asking the question, how is it possible that with such a high cost of living, using higher taxes as a means of paying for transit is the answer?

 

[Adjei]

How can you separate hydro rates or cost of living out of the discussion? This thread is on funding transit. Hydro is just another one of our various inputs that needs to be considered in the grand scheme of paying for infrastructure. I'm asking the question, how is it possible that with such a high cost of living, using higher taxes as a means of paying for transit is the answer?

Because the discussion was not about cost of living which is not just about hydro rates and includes many different factors. The discussion started because someone posted a Hydro Quebec report which showed how much is paid for hydro across different places in North America and we have been hearing that Ontario has the highest hydro rates in North America from the media. The report shows this is not true. That is what the discussion is about. If you want to talk about whether Ontario has the highest cost of living in North America, open a new thread or bring up some facts to support it.