In the thread about new streetcars, part of the discussion turned on the question of fare collection. I’ve been thinking about this for a while and planned to write about this topic, but when I actually started, realized that there’s more here than will fit in one article.
One major topic in all discussions is the question of flat fares versus fare-by-distance, and this inevitably gets pulled into questions about “equality” in the way that we price transit so that riders are not penalized by things like zone boundaries and operator service territories. However, any fare system brings its own benefits and problems. We may solve problems for one group of riders, and create a new set of problems for others.
This article considers fare-by-distance by analogy to the existing TTC system. It is intended as a “back of the envelope” calculation to give readers a general sense of the numbers and is not intended to be a prescription for any particular implementation. What is important is that anyone talking about fare structures cannot simply wish away problems of any system by saying “everything will be fixed with Presto!” or similar, simplistic bilge.
For 2008, the projected revenue (almost entirely fares) for the TTC was $887-million for a ridership base of 466.7-million. That gives an average revenue per trip of $1.90. Note that this stirs together all the fare media and classes of riders including:
- Monthly, weekly and daily passes
- Adults and concession fares
- Token and cash fares
- Other income such as advertising
Worth noting is the average per-trip subsidy of $0.65. That translates to a $303-million subsidy requirement. Any change in subsidy arrangements (higher/lower per trip) must address this very substantial funding line in the TTC’s budget.
In looking at fare-by-distance, we must first determine how much to charge based on current riding habits. This is rather challenging because we do not have average trip length information. Some trips are quite long, others, especially those taken with passes where there is no marginal cost, are extremely short. For the sake of argument, I am going to use Canadian Census commuting information.
The Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (which includes a lot more than Toronto City proper) has a median commuting distance of 9.4 km. The map linked here shows that this value is much higher in the outlying areas and much lower downtown. The median commuting distance for the City itself is only 7.5 km. (The median, as opposed to the average, is the value where half of the commutes are above and half are below.)
If we take these median values as the average trip length (that’s a big leap, but I have to start somewhere), then the revenue per kilometer is $.253 (if we use the Toronto City median) or $.202 (if we use the CMA median). One caveat here is that the distances reported by Statistics Canada are “crow fly” values and the actual commutes will generally be longer. This would tend to lower the revenue per kilometer based an actual trip paths.
That range from 7.5 to 9.4 km is interesting from another point of view. If we draw a circle around Queen and Yonge with an 8 km radius, the east and west boundaries are almost exactly the old Queen line, Neville to Humber. The north boundary is Lawrence Avenue. This area roughly duplicates the old TTC zone 1 which was mainly the pre-amalgamation City of Toronto. In other words, the median commute distance is roughly on the scale of the old City measured outward from downtown.
What this would mean is that on a purely fare-by-distance model, fares would likely be lower within the old zone 1 and higher outside of it. For example, the distance from Queen and Yonge to Steeles is 16.6 km, and a strictly fare-by-distance calculation would expect to receive $3.80 (plus subsidy) from such a trip. Distance to the outer corners of the 416 are even longer. Going north to Richmond Hill adds another 5 km, for a trip that is close to three times the median value. I am quite sure that the residents of Richmond Hill and environs expect to pay one, standard TTC fare to get downtown, not three.
By contrast, the GO Transit fare from Richmond Hill to Union is $4.78 based on a 10-trip ticket, or about $4.30 for a monthly pass. Therefore the revenue GO gets from such a commuter is in the same ballpark as TTC fare revenue redistributed on a distance basis.
I repeat that this is a rough estimate for the purposes of discussion, but it’s a discussion nobody wants us to have. Metrolinx and Queen’s Park buried any questions about revenue tools, and by extension fares, well into the next decade. If there is to be any integration of regional and local systems, the question of fare levels and structures must be addressed.
Fare-by-distance inherently penalizes the long-haul rider. Yes, in theory, they pay the cost of using more service to make their trip, but the larger issue is that this fare may deter them from moving from auto to transit. Many discussions of cross-boundary fare integration have, at their core, an implicit assumption that fares for cross-border riders will go down. This would be true for short commutes, say from the southern 905 into the northern 416, where the trip length is lower than, say, 8km.
However, the long trips would pay more, and fare-by-distance would allow the TTC to charge suburbanites, who have been highly subsidized in their travel to downtown, a fare proportionate to the length of their trip. This is quite likely completely contrary to the planning goals Toronto and Queen’s Park have for moving more people onto transit.
How you collect the money — the technology, the inspection regime — is immaterial to this discussion. I don’t care if the fare card is GO Green or TTC Red, the question is how much I will have to pay to use it. This is the sleeping issue in regional transit integration, and it will be the transit equivalent of road pricing for politicians.
We need to understand and agree first on the nature of GTA fares and the social goals we hope to achieve by increasing transit use. Can we justify a higher subsidy on the basis that the alternatives — driving those who can afford it into cars, and penalizing those who live on the outskirts but must commute by transit — are more expensive than improved subsidies and service?
Once we answer these questions, then we can turn to specifics of the technology. What we don’t need is a razzle-dazzle show that employs armies of consultants and technicians to build a “solution” to what is really a political, policy question.
Steve Said: There’s a teensy-weensy problem here. I buy a Metropass and my effective fare per trip is less than $1.50. Why should my fare go up to subsidize folks in the 905? Your remark that we would need more subsidies is only part of the issue.
At the risk of sounding like a jerk, and someone rude. The majority of people live outside of the downtown core. It is politically tough with so many people on the inside of the core demanding to pay less for transit because they live right downtown. That is a very ignorant method of looking at it IMO. How many cars come from outside of the core, and the 905 belt? My cousin comes into downtown Toronto from Trenton everyday for work! These people don’t pay Toronto property taxes, so why are they clogging out roads and highways with needless congestion. In fact thats my view for people in the 416 as well. I think it’s time Ontario step in and invest the money needed to maintain and expand all systems and merge into a super system designed to leave the car in the driveway or in the plant. Don’t get me wrong theres a ton of ignorance in the 905 belt, but we have to cater to everyone. If we can increase the model split in the 905, the GTAH as a whole will be better.
Robert Wightman writes:
“….GO….should not be providing cheap fares to the residents of the 416 area. GO has a limited capacity, especially at Union Station, and cannot serve as the backbone of fast service with in Toronto except as a premium service. If you want it to provide a cheap service within the city then GO is either going to haul a lot of empty seats across the GTA or it is going to put in a local service within Toronto. It does not have the capacity for either of these at the moment nor do I think it ever will, especially in the rush hour. ”
There’s plenty of space in the hourly off-peak trains on Lake Shore, especially later in the evening.
If the GO fare from Mimico to Long Branch was the same as a TTC token ($2.10) instead of $3.95, I’d happily take the GO train home after an evening at the Blue Goose, instead of gambling that a Long-Branch-bound car will appear after I’ve taken the (significantly longer) walk to Superior and Lake Shore.
Once the service frequency on Lake Shore is increased, GO will be ignoring a very large potential market if it continues to charge twice-TTC fares for travel within the City of Toronto. The number of empty seats will just increase.
(Now that the weather is better, I just ride my bicycle, which is effectively free and about as fast as the GO train if I include time to, at, and from the stations.)
Ed Says:
May 26th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
“There’s plenty of space in the hourly off-peak trains on Lake Shore, especially later in the evening.
“If the GO fare from Mimico to Long Branch was the same as a TTC token ($2.10) instead of $3.95, I’d happily take the GO train home after an evening at the Blue Goose, instead of gambling that a Long-Branch-bound car will appear after I’ve taken the (significantly longer) walk to Superior and Lake Shore.”
This is an incentive based fare to increase usage in the off peak and I have no problem with that. London Transport does it also. Just don’t expect to make the ride in the rush hour for that amount.
Just my two cents: there needs to be some sort of zone fare system in the GTA, and the City of Toronto should be subdivided into several zones because it is just too big. The current fare system (zones follow municipal borders, more or less) is unfair for many reasons: 1. The City of Toronto is just too big to be in all one zone – it spans over 40km from the Mississauga to the Durham boundaries. 2. It penalizes trips which cross municipal boundaries. A trip that doesn’t cross municipal boundaries is much cheaper than one that doesn’t. For instance, Union to Rouge Hill (by TTC) is about the same distance as Union to Mississauga City Centre (by TTC+MT), yet the latter costs about twice as much. Rouge Hill residents are getting a bargain. 3. It penalizes use of GO Transit. GO fares are higher than TTC fares for the same distance, and there is no integration between the two systems. For instance, while Rouge Hill residents who use the 54 Lawrence East get an absolute bargain, those who use GO and transfer to/from TTC are ripped off.
My proposal is to subdivide the entire Toronto area into zones. All modes within a particular zone cost an equal amount, i.e. GO, subway, streetcar and local bus all cost the same amount (with a small exception – see below). Express modes (like GO) should not cost more, because although some might be willing to pay more, many will not and will thus cram into local buses which are inefficient for long distances and expensive to operate. All GO trains and buses, Transit City streetcars and subways would be subject to the zone system and would require “tapping” in and out. Major bus routes (i.e. Lawrence, Finch East…) would be POP, and would also require tapping in and out, and would be provided with some sort of validation machine at stops. However, as an exception, minor bus routes would be exempt from the zone system and operate on a flat fare, integrated with the rest of the system (though transfers to another bus in another zone would require an additional fare) – since most of these only operate within one zone, little revenue would be lost. Presumably passes would cover a certain number of zones, and zone supplements would be available for
As for the issue of low income individuals: Metropasses should be provided to them at little or no cost on a means-tested basis. However, those who can afford it should be expected to pay more when travelling longer distances, as they are making more use of the service.
Fare zones are already “fare by distance” except that the distance increments are very abrupt and exist only for political reasons and are easy to implement using simple accounting. But, as an example already noted, why should a York U student pay double fare to go only one or two stops, just because of passing under a political boundary?
Perhaps an equitable fare by distance would be to start with a base fare (50 cents?) and add some cents per km travelled or stops passed. The distance amount could vary by route (cheapest increment, even zero, for slow bus routes, more for LRT, even more for Subway or GO) and if being ambitious, could rise or fall based on time-of-day.
Distance-based fares are really a taxi-cab-like system, and people are already familiar with that.
Of course, flat-fee passes need to be accommodated and a zone basis would be difficult and should not be used there either. However, maybe the discussion of fares-per-ride is moot if most riders would use monthly passes and would hence bypass the distance issue. For the remaining “non-pass” ridership, maybe it would simpler all-round just to stick with a flat fare everywhere if the numbers are not likely to be significant.
What is the proportion of trips by metropass vs individual token or cash?
Are downtown short trip takers more likely to use a pass and also are more frequent riders, thus negating the “more costly short-trip” argument? Maybe we need to look at total distance travelled per rider in a month, not their average trip distance. One rider taking a few long trips versus lots of short trips, for the same monthly pass cost.
Perhaps the best way to “sell” any fare system would be to offer discounts, rather than add-ons. Example, pay a fixed high fare amount when entering, get some back when exiting, ensures that everyone uses the future farecard on exit. It gives the appearance of getting a rebate for a short distance rather than that of paying more for a long trip.
A comment on the future Yonge extension and relationship to Zones. As there are many park and ride 905 commuters now using Finch, who are expected to park north of Steeles in future, would a higher fare north of Steeles sway more parking to south and leave the Yonge line underutilized to the north?? With all those buses removed from Yonge, driving to Finch might even become easier for them. (unintended consequences abound here)