M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Not separate fare boundaries, but graduated fare zones where you would pay like 50 cents more to cross a boundary on top of the base fare. Or kinda like what VIVA does or something.
|
|
|
ksun
Senior Member
Having steeles ave as an arbitrary boundary irrespective of the departure stop is stupid. When one crosses Steeles, he could be traveling 20km from downtown, or just 1 km. What I proposed is a fare zone based on how much one has travelled. With the expansion of the system, a flat fare system is definitely very flawed.
The system that I prefer is the following:
-Fare zones are approximately 6km x 6km (although could vary slightly depending on geography or lines)
-Fares are calculated as such: $2.50 base fare (covers 2 zones) + $1 for each additional zone
-Would be regardless of mode (local, local rapid, express rapid)
Makes it really easy to figure out, because you count the number of zones you're going to travel through, and add $0.50. The variations in the fare zones would be in such a way that a line doesn't just barely graze through one fare zone for a couple hundred metres, adding to the cost. Also, fare zone boundaries would be located along RT routes, if possible. This would allow a RT line to be in 2 zones simultaneously, with an extra fare added only if the passenger transfers onto a perpendicular route.
ksun
Senior Member
^
1) if $2.5 is the base, that means the already most expensive TTC fare will increase substantially.
2) fare zones still can't overcome the problem of arbitrary boundary. If a 6X6 zone is determined, which essentially means from waterfront to Davisville station, does that mean it costs a two zone fare to travel from St Clair to Eglinton?
Most European cities adopt zone fares, such as London and Madrid. Asian cities such as Tokyo, Taipei, Singapore and Shanghai are all distance based, which I think give better results
1) it is more fair and doesn't involve arbitrary "boundaries" - cross one particular street and you pay an additional fare although the distance is shorter than many trips within the same zone. There is no justifiable reason for that.
2) in reality, it results in much higher fare recovery rate (100-200% vs. 40%-90% Europe)
A flat fare is the cheapest way and gives the worst result.
Many cities including Vancouver impose an additional charge to get to the airport. I think Toronto should too. It is not outrageous to charge $6 to get to Pearson from Scarborough.
1) if $2.5 is the base, that means the already most expensive TTC fare will increase substantially.
2) fare zones still can't overcome the problem of arbitrary boundary. If a 6X6 zone is determined, which essentially means from waterfront to Davisville station, does that mean it costs a two zone fare to travel from St Clair to Eglinton?
Most European cities adopt zone fares, such as London and Madrid. Asian cities such as Tokyo, Taipei, Singapore and Shanghai are all distance based, which I think give better results
1) it is more fair and doesn't involve arbitrary "boundaries" - cross one particular street and you pay an additional fare although the distance is shorter than many trips within the same zone. There is no justifiable reason for that.
2) in reality, it results in much higher fare recovery rate (100-200% vs. 40%-90% Europe)
A flat fare is the cheapest way and gives the worst result.
Many cities including Vancouver impose an additional charge to get to the airport. I think Toronto should too. It is not outrageous to charge $6 to get to Pearson from Scarborough.
Most of Toronto, aside from the far eastern part of Scarborough, would be within 3 fare zones of downtown. That means for the vast majority of Torontonians $3.50 max if you're using the TTC.
That would be 2 zones, but it would be included in the $2.50 2 zone base fare. I'll post my fare zone map when I get home.
And that's true, it can't overcome the arbitrary boundary, but I find by having decent sized fare zones and a relatively small extra amount, it minimizes the impact of being around a fare zone border. And like I said, if your trip is a local one that happens to be around a fare zone border, your $2.50 base fare covers 2 zones anyways, so it isn't really an issue.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Fare by distance is far better than fare by boundary in my opinion. But if I had a choice I'd opt to keep our current fare structure. I don't want people to have to pay more to get to their jobs just because they happen to live far from downtown. If my fare has to be a little higher because of it, then so be it.
The only changes I want to see made to our fare structure is timed transfers and discounted fares for very short trips.
The only changes I want to see made to our fare structure is timed transfers and discounted fares for very short trips.
Markster
Senior Member
The base fare being a 2-zone pass is the key ingredient for getting rid of the boundary line penalty.
At worst, even if you live near a boundary, you still have to travel to the far side of the neighbouring zone (6km+ away) to get hit with a price jump.
When drawing the zones in this case, you just need to try to avoid a 4-corners scenario, where the zone kitty-corner is a stone's throw, but 2-zones away.
At worst, even if you live near a boundary, you still have to travel to the far side of the neighbouring zone (6km+ away) to get hit with a price jump.
When drawing the zones in this case, you just need to try to avoid a 4-corners scenario, where the zone kitty-corner is a stone's throw, but 2-zones away.
ksun
Senior Member
if the base in 2.5 and the max is 3.5, that really kills the purpose of having fare zones. Essentially it stills means you pay $2.5 to travel from Queen to Bloor, yet a buck more from STC to YYZ, which is I don't know how many times the distance.
ksun
Senior Member
I agree. I think people are being punished for taking very short trips.
Trips shorter than 2km really should be a lot cheaper, like half the current price. It might encourage people to take the TTC off rush hours and bring more revenue than less, and it is good for business too.
ehlow
Senior Member
Yes it makes sense. If it's off peak then it benefits the TTC since they're running half-empty vehicles anyways.
Here's the fare zone map I was talking about, hopefully this will clarify a few things: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43869799/GTA System Map - To Scale - Version 2.pdf
The purpose of having fare zones isn't necessarily for the TTC, it's to unite the entire GTHA under a common set of rules. So that you know that travelling from Burlington to Yonge & Bloor is operating under the same set of rules as traveling from the Eaton Centre to Yonge & Bloor.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I'd even be okay with these rides being free on non-peak hours and discounted during peak.
This would be targeted at people who are only going a few blocks to grab a bag of milk or something. I'd hope that it would encourage more people to leave the car at home for these trips.
PL1
Active Member
Actually, Translink only charges a $5 premium for single fares purchased on site at one of the 3 YVR (Vancouver airport) stops to leave the airport/Sea Island by Canada Line Skytrain. Previously purchases bulk tickets/passes are exempt.
ksun
Senior Member
not only the cars, but also the fact that people might not go out to shop/eat at all just because transportation is too expensive. For example, for me to get to Yonge/Bloor, the distance is too close for a $6 return fare yet too far for walking, especially during bad weather. So I just stay at home not spending a cent either on transit or retail. However I wouldn't mind paying a buck to get there (a 6 or 7 minutes ride) to spend $25 on a meal.
I think the TTC is very narrow minded to think that giving riders some sort of break would lead to decreased revenue, without considering demand might be flexible enough to induce more rides and higher revenue. I honestly think discounted fare for short trips would bring in more demand and more money for them. The subways are like 80% empty most of the time during off rush hours.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
$2 base fare with 15 cents for every km above the first 2km is what I like. Travelling 7km would get you a regular TTC fare but travelling 30km like most GO users do would still get you up to around $6.
Metrolinx is currently considering lower off peak fares to try and reduce peak demand levels.
Metrolinx is currently considering lower off peak fares to try and reduce peak demand levels.
Last edited: