New Transit Funding Sources

[aquateam]

I agree it's unfair but the problem with time-based fares is that they make the assumption that the system is working fine. What if you are on the subway and it breaks down? It would be a real slap in the face if not only were you stuck for 30 minutes underground but because of it your fare actually goes up. What if there is an accident along the streetcar/LRT route, should you pay extra for that inconvenience?

Even with the delay, 2 hours is a bit of a stretch for any TTC trip.

And with enforcement of the time based fares, the fare inspectors should be aware of any serious delays. I'm assuming a bit of common sense and decency on the part of the TTC here, but I'm sure it only takes a bit of negative publicity on them "scamming" customers before they update their policy to take into account delays when enforcing fares.

Fare inspectors would also be able to see that your fare expired only minutes ago, and you're unlucky enough to be caught by one within that short window on the final leg of your trip.

I don't really see this being a problem.

What if your trip takes longer than it should because 3 buses have gone by but couldn't stop because they were packed?

The clock doesn't start to run down until you validate your fare upon boarding, so that doesn't apply if this is the first leg of your trip. For transfers that could be a problem but normally when transferring (from subway to bus) the buses unload almost everyone at the station so there's room to board.

And again, 2 hours should be sufficient for any trip. If not, you could set it to 2.5 hours.

I appreciate what you are saying but I don't think time-based fares are practical or even fair. Travel by distance or a zone system is preferable.

My impression is that the best argument for time-based fares is that they are the most practical and easy to understand. Distance-based fares require tapping out, which the system isn't set up for and which would slow people's trips by creating delays and choke points.

 

[rbt]

I'd pay the $1 to quickly hop on the streetcar downtown or the $3 if I were travelling farther or to run some errands and return home within that 2 hour window. It works the same way if you're in Scarborough. You pay $1 to do a quick hop on the bus somewhere local or $3 to get downtown.

TTCs challenge is that $1 is only useful outside of rush-hour. During peak periods (on the return trip) you risk displacing someone with a longer $3 commute. They'd end up either purchasing and running several more vehicles which are largely empty by the end of the run for short-trips, or purchasing and running a few vehicles for short-trips which are short-turned and piss off the $3 customers.

Many routes, including King line, are over-capacity (as per off-peak standards) near their subway connection points. I don't see how they could take your $1 without an increase in subsidies to fully support the trip.

In our current political climate you would need to restrict that kind of pricing to where there is excess capacity being run. Perhaps $1 no-transfer fares on any route more than 2km from a subway line?


From an expenditure perspective, downtown short-trips during peak are actually some of the most expensive for TTC to operate. In fact, an 8:45am Bloor+Yonge to College trip may be the most expensive possible trip for the TTC to provide due to massive capital and operations outlays to provide capacity in that tiny section of track.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Between 1970 and 1973, the TTC went from where fares met or exceeded operating expenses to having the city (and until 1995, the province) subsidize the operating expenses.

From the 1970's up to the 1980's, the TTC had to introduce senior citizen fares, the Sunday/Holiday Pass (which evolved into the Daily Pass) is introduced, zone fares were eliminated, Wheel-Trans is established, and the Metropass was introduced. All on orders of Metro (now City) Council. And all adding to the expenses the TTC has to pay for. The City should be subsidizing the TTC since they were the ones who ordered the listed expenses (and others) to be implemented.

Meanwhile, the TTC was and still is the least subsidized transit agency in North America.

 

[ssiguy2]

It should be more subsidized by the province for sure but again how does the City subsidy compare to it's peers domestically and in the US?

 

[aquateam]

It should be more subsidized by the province for sure but again how does the City subsidy compare to it's peers domestically and in the US?

From this article:

According to the TTC’s 2014 budget highlights, the subsidy the TTC receives remains the lowest in North America at just $0.78 per ride.

The subsidy other municipalities get:

• Montreal – $1.16
• Vancouver – $1.62
• Chicago – $1.68
• New York City – $1.03
• Mississauga – $2.21
• York Region – $4.49

Fares generate about $1.1 billion of the TTC’s $1.6 billion operating budget. The rest primarily comes from a city subsidy, which is $428 million, up from $411 million in 2013.

 

[goreckm]

I'm at King and Spadina and I'd rather walk to the Eaton Centre than pay the same exact full fare that someone riding all the way from deep in Scarborough pays. This increase doesn't help. Short ride fares need to be implemented if the TTC wants to increase ridership.

Time based fares would make this equitable for everyone.

$1.00 30 min window
$3.00 2hr window

I'd pay the $1 to quickly hop on the streetcar downtown or the $3 if I were travelling farther or to run some errands and return home within that 2 hour window. It works the same way if you're in Scarborough. You pay $1 to do a quick hop on the bus somewhere local or $3 to get downtown.

As it stands right now. The TTC is likely missing a very large category of casual riders who refuse to pay such a high fare for short trips and would rather walk, cycle or worse, drive.

The sad (not so) secret is that the TTC would rather charge you $6 and keep charging $3 for the Scarborough rider. There is no room for more people to jump on the train during rush hour, as has been mentioned. If we did the $1 fare in downtown, we would probably need 3 new subway lines through the core. Which, imo, would probably be more useful than any Scarborough extension that we're building now. Alas, this is all driven by politics and not how best to actually move people.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From an expenditure perspective, downtown short-trips during peak are actually some of the most expensive for TTC to operate. In fact, an 8:45am Bloor+Yonge to College trip may be the most expensive possible trip for the TTC to provide due to massive capital and operations outlays to provide capacity in that tiny section of track.

It maybe the most expensive trip to provide on its' own, but don't know how such a short trip could be more expensive to operate in general than say a trip from STC to College - considering the distance involved (which necessitates the capital and operation cost you've mentioned - plus a lot more) while charging on $3 for it.

AoD

 

[rbt]

It maybe the most expensive trip to provide on its' own, but don't know how such a short trip could be more expensive to operate in general than say a trip from STC to College - considering the distance involved (which necessitates the capital and operation cost you've mentioned - plus a lot more) while charging on $3 for it.

There are a large number of factors, many of which depend on policies on short-turns and that kind of thing too; of course you can argue that anti-short-turn policies are the fault of (and should be absorbed by) the long-distance rider.

So yeah, if you can restrict to running vehicles to places where there are riders (as in regularly turnaround a 50% full vehicle and combine loads), then those short-trips are much cheaper to operate. There is a $COST per seat-minute which is pretty much fixed; and applies whether there is a passenger in that seat or not.

Running a seat the seat a significantly longer distance than the rider users it for still needs to be charged to someone; whether it's the rider who demanded an empty seat waiting for them or the passenger(s) who demand a longer route is up for grabs.

I naively assigned the empty seat cost to the short-trip rider but there's no reason more routes couldn't have an overlapping central service like the 504 and 514. Most TTC "S" services still cover a huge chunk of the route.

 

[ssiguy2]

From this article:

Appreciate the link but still doesn't tell me what I was asking. Obviously the provincial assistance is low but what about the City itself. How can other systems in Ontario have such varying levels of per-rider support? I guess what I am trying to ask is what constitutes a subsidy in the cities?..........municipal or provincial/state. Is it that not only is Ontario cheap but also that Toronto isn't willing to put it's money where it's mouth is?

 

[gweed123]

I think the more important distinction that needs to be made now is "when", not "how far". Yes, distance-based fares need to come into effect at some point, but I think right now the biggest challenge is the crush load capacity during rush hour. Raise the price of a peak fare by 50 cents (7-9 AM, 4-6 PM), and lower the price of a non-peak fare by 50 cents (all other times). That $1 differentiation should boost off-peak ridership, when the system isn't as taxed and actually has room to carry more passengers.

It would also have the benefit of potentially having some people shift their working hours forwards or backwards to fall outside of peak, further lowering the strain on the system. And yes, I purposely set the window as only 2 hours instead of 3 hours to allow that.

 

[crs1026]

There are a large number of factors, many of which depend on policies on short-turns and that kind of thing too; of course you can argue that anti-short-turn policies are the fault of (and should be absorbed by) the long-distance rider.
So yeah, if you can restrict to running vehicles to places where there are riders (as in regularly turnaround a 50% full vehicle and combine loads), then those short-trips are much cheaper to operate. There is a $COST per seat-minute which is pretty much fixed; and applies whether there is a passenger in that seat or not.
Running a seat the seat a significantly longer distance than the rider users it for still needs to be charged to someone; whether it's the rider who demanded an empty seat waiting for them or the passenger(s) who demand a longer route is up for grabs.
I naively assigned the empty seat cost to the short-trip rider but there's no reason more routes couldn't have an overlapping central service like the 504 and 514. Most TTC "S" services still cover a huge chunk of the route.

I wonder what the TTC's (or anyone else's) view of the minimum distance threshold and fare ought to be. It's interesting to see people debating that that our streetcar routes (501 excepted) are long enough that someone riding to the end is crossing that minimum threshold. I wouldn't have thought of a zone or distance system as that granular.

Presumably similarly to taxi fares there is a base fare and distance that applies, even if I flag down a half-empty bus for a stop or two in the outreaches on a light-ridership route. Arguably that ride has little or no variable cost, but there will be some fixed cost that I should pay a share of.

The short-turn issue is a bit of an orange in this. Short turns happen at rush hour when the system is operating outside its planned envelope. Most short-turns do not involve picking lightly loaded cars, condensing their ridership, and redirecting the extra capacity towards unfulfilled demand. Rather, they involve kicking the entire ridership of a heavily-loaded car onto the sidewalk and telling them to wait for another heavily-loaded car, which may not be able to accommodate them, while the now-empty car turns and fills a gap in an equally overstressed schedule in the reverse direction. That's different from a formal plan that schedules added service in the core portions of a route. IMHO rush hour short turns need the equivalent of GO's Service Guarantee - carry me the full way on time, or give me some money back.

- Paul

 

[aquateam]

Appreciate the link but still doesn't tell me what I was asking. Obviously the provincial assistance is low but what about the City itself.

The article said that the TTC has a gross operating budget of $1.6 billion. Of that, $1.1 billion is recovered from fares, the remaining $0.5 billion deficit is through subsidy and other minor sources of revenue like advertising. The article states that the city's subsidy was $411 million in 2013 and $428 million in 2014, so I'm not sure what's unclear about the level of City support. Do you want to compare total subsidy per municipality instead of per rider?

If you want an ultra detailed breakdown of both operating and capital subsidy and how it's split between Federal/Provincial/Municipal sources, Steve Munro has an analysis from 2000-2015.

How can other systems in Ontario have such varying levels of per-rider support? I guess what I am trying to ask is what constitutes a subsidy in the cities?..........municipal or provincial/state. Is it that not only is Ontario cheap but also that Toronto isn't willing to put it's money where it's mouth is?

The subsidy figures listed were in $/ride. Toronto provides the largest subsidy to transit by far in Ontario in terms of absolute amount of cash, but it has so many riders that the subsidy per ride is low.

 

[rbt]

Presumably similarly to taxi fares there is a base fare and distance that applies, even if I flag down a half-empty bus for a stop or two in the outreaches on a light-ridership route. Arguably that ride has little or no variable cost, but there will be some fixed cost that I should pay a share of.

It's the fixed cost (the contribution to capital) that wouldn't be incurred by the TTC for trips contained within the light-ridership areas of the route .

The variable cost (operator time to stop the vehicle, wait at the stop, fare overhead, energy to accelerate, and some impact in trip quality to other passengers) that still applies. Of course, that also implies that stops with few users should have a higher cost than stops with many users as those operation impact costs get divided over a number of people boarding at once.

At this time I'm not sure the TTC has a skillful enough model of their customers to be able to maximize revenue in this way. Opportunity cost of an added stop, for example, seems poorly measured; which is unfortunate because the stop removal program gave them plenty of opportunities to measure this. Detailed ridership counts on those routes before/after, and random other routes before/after would have been useful inputs to the GTA model.

 

[crs1026]

It's the fixed cost (the contribution to capital) that wouldn't be incurred by the TTC for trips contained within the light-ridership areas of the route .

That assumes that someone else has already fully paid the capital cost (government? taxpayer?). If part of the capital is being raised from the riders, then every rider needs to be charged something towards it. Even if it's just an arbitrary levy as opposed to a charge with some valid accounting rationale behind it.

The variable cost (operator time to stop the vehicle, wait at the stop, fare overhead, energy to accelerate, and some impact in trip quality to other passengers) that still applies. Of course, that also implies that stops with few users should have a higher cost than stops with many users as those operation impact costs get divided over a number of people boarding at once.

That's true, I had simplified the scenario to a single added use of a bus that is going to run anyways. I wonder if these factors meet a materiality threshold. If a bus collects 40 riders on the way to the subway, from common sense we may ask if stops that only collect 1 or 2 of these should be retained. TTC does have data to that level of precision. But broader considerations - eg declaring no more than x00 meters between stops - may argue for some stops knowing that ridership may be minimal. Do we actually intend to assess the fares based on this? Or do we just charge each rider the same share of the route's cost?

The other factor in this is that seats turn over. The King-College trip on the subway at rush hour only looks expensive if it is truly an incremental ride. If someone then boards and fills the same seat from College to Bloor, it's not so marginal any more.

- Paul

 

[rbt]

That assumes that someone else has already fully paid the capital cost (government? taxpayer?).

The riders in the peak portion of the route require (and pay for) the capital outlay. We design & build for peak so if we're charging fares based strictly off TTCs cost, then those peak time+direction riders have massive fares.

I wonder if these factors meet a materiality threshold. ... TTC does have data to that level of precision.

I'd like to think the TTC is able to make informed decisions along these lines. Various reports I've seen lead me to believe that they typically work the other way (take large events and assume they apply on a fractional basis to small events too).