Time-Based Versus Distance-Based Fares

[M II A II R II K]

Time-Based Versus Distance-Based Fares


October 22, 2010

By Jonna McKone

Read More: http://thecityfix.com/time-based-versus-distance-based-fares/

Time-based systems allow passengers to ride a transit system and make free transfers for a set amount of time. This scheme can be anything from an unlimited weekly pass to an unlimited monthly pass, to even shorter periods of time, such as a free transfer within a one- to two-hour time period. This pricing system requires some sort of card (paper, magnetic or smart card) to issue the transfer.

Distance-based systems charge higher fares for rides that cover greater distances. The fares could either be on a route-by-route basis, as we have in Washington, D.C., where the price between two points varies (here’s a nice run-down of the District’s pricing options), or a set of fare zones that could establish incremental fares based on certain regions of the city. For example, Paris has concentric circles that ring the city and form zone boundaries. Travel to the outer zones is more expensive than inner areas. Los Angeles’ Metrolink is much different—the system offers a daily pass for $6 and a preboard flat fare. The thought behind the distance-based scheme is that riders who use more service should pay for the service.

There are drawbacks to both systems. Distance-based fares often end up being more complicated to develop and enforce, as they require a card to be re- swiped, tapped or punched for bus or rail, or they require a barrier that reinforces additional payment.

The Los Angeles Metro system reviewed the pricing strategies of 244 North American transit services from data collected by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). According to the findings, “some form of time-based pricing is offered on 32 of 244 systems with the most common form allowing unlimited transfers within the available time window (19 properties allow transfers within a 1 to 2 hour window).â€

 

[EnviroTO]

I think the fares should be based on 3/4 of a cent for each km^2 / h.

 

[cacruden]

Most of the places that I have taken transit has been based on distance (London and Paris, Bangkok, and Tokyo). In Tokyo, some routes are more expensive, some are less - probably based on the operator of the line (multiple operators). Even if operation of lines are subsidized, I do believe that distance based fares are the right way to go. Cost of transit should factor into decision on where to live - and whether to move closer to where people travel to (i.e. work). Once an entry/exit system is in place, then it opens up options on new companies to bid on new lines - and lobby government for the building of new lines. The operation of lines - whether one company - or multiple companies - is not visible to the customer.

 

[EnviroTO]

There needs to be a speed component as well. A good fare system with a speed premium and a distance portion could be used across all the GTA transit systems regardless of whether it is a subway, GO train, local bus, etc.

 

[Dan416]

Well right now GO is more expensive even though you can do the same trip by TTC alone or TTC+another transit provider, but GO is invariably faster.

 

[cacruden]

GO also costs more to operate per passenger - I believe that the current fare structure recoups around 80% of the cost of operation in the 2010/11 year. That puts the the percentage subsidy to be on par with the TTC.

 

[doady]

GO's cost recovery is 90%. GO has a bad system because short trips are too expensive, especially within City of Toronto. Also it includes parking cost, but that's a separate issue.

Paris fare structure sucks too, judging from the map. Riders are only see increased fares when travel toward or away from the city centre, and the map suggests that traveling a few km just to the very next station down the line can result in extra fare if crosses a fare boundary. It's like someone at Jane and Finch traveling to Jane and Highway 7 and having to pay the double fare. That sucks.

I think if all transit in Toronto amalgamated, just reduce fares and give people 1 hour transfers for local transit. People who travel farther distances will need to pay extra fares. It is much simpler than a distance-based fare system. GO can have separate premium fares since it is much faster and farther-reaching than the rest.

 

[M II A II R II K]

But what about delays, that'll cause people to complain if they get stuck for too long and have to pay more than what they expected to.

 

[cacruden]

"She said the consumer revenue projected for the 2010/11 fiscal year is 79 per cent while traditionally it has been around 85 per cent, with the rest covered by the government."

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/transportation/article/764854--go-transit-proposes-another-fare-hike

 

[cacruden]

GO's cost recovery is 90%. GO has a bad system because short trips are too expensive, especially within City of Toronto. Also it includes parking cost, but that's a separate issue.

Paris fare structure sucks too, judging from the map. Riders are only see increased fares when travel toward or away from the city centre, and the map suggests that traveling a few km just to the very next station down the line can result in extra fare if crosses a fare boundary. It's like someone at Jane and Finch traveling to Jane and Highway 7 and having to pay the double fare. That sucks.

I think if all transit in Toronto amalgamated, just reduce fares and give people 1 hour transfers for local transit. People who travel farther distances will need to pay extra fares. It is much simpler than a distance-based fare system. GO can have separate premium fares since it is much faster and farther-reaching than the rest.

Actually, that map shows pretty much all of RER system, including metro. Paris is basically mostly in Zone 1. At 1.60 Euro - it is actually quite affordable.

Zone 1 to Zone 2 would be the same cost as Zone 6 to Zone 7 - yet Zone 5 to Zone 6 covers a greater distance.

Go Transit costs more, it costs more to operate - if you don't like going on express (at a premium) - take the local transit. Go is basically heavy rail - not meant for short trips. It is basically the difference between taking a Concord (before retirement) and a normal jet (747) - Concord costs more to operate - goes faster - and in turn costs more to take.

I have never used a time-based transit system.

 

[bleeepbluuup]

Vancouver has both -- 3 zones and a 90 minute transfer window. But the zones go away after 6:30 pm and on weekends/holidays.

 

[cacruden]

I think if all transit in Toronto amalgamated, just reduce fares and give people 1 hour transfers for local transit. People who travel farther distances will need to pay extra fares.

Reduce fares or "rebalance" fares. If you just reduce fares - you reduce revenue - which means taxes have to make up the difference. Which pocket do you want the money to come out of - your left - or right.

 

[nfitz]

Vancouver has both -- 3 zones and a 90 minute transfer window. But the zones go away after 6:30 pm and on weekends/holidays.

Though the entire city of Vancouver is in Zone 1. Can you imagine if we stretched from Oshawa one side to Oakville the other side with only 3 zones?

 

[sjc]

GO has a bad system because short trips are too expensive, especially within City of Toronto.

I believe there is a law that says that noone can provide transit within Toronto for less than the TTC charges. I'm not sure which law/bylaw that is, though.

 

[gweed123]

I believe there is a law that says that noone can provide transit within Toronto for less than the TTC charges. I'm not sure which law/bylaw that is, though.

I would imagine that it isn't a by-law, because any by-law that the City of Toronto passes can be trumped by the Province anyway (Municipalities are creatures of the Province). I would guess it's a Provincial law to protect against private transit operators setting up shop. But that's just a guess.