Proof of payment fare collection has been in place, officially, since 1990 on the Queen route. All riders are expected to have a valid pass or transfer and in return they can board at all doors. Riders who pay a fare when they board are given a transfer in case a POP inspector comes by.
This setup allows all-door loading at major stops, shortens the time lost to boarding and gives a better distribution of passengers through the cars. This is important on the ALRVs which ply Queen Street.
In practice, this does not happen very often. Moreover, many operators don’t open all doors at most stops and the benefit of POP is lost.
A report on the TTC’s agenda discusses the history of POP, the benefits of the system and its future on the TTC streetcar system.
Here are the highlights.
- The Commission is asked to confirm the use of POP for Queen Street services and the requirement for dedicated staff to perform fare inspections. Two new full-time staff are to be hired for this purpose.
- New streetcars are expected to have a floor design that precludes the current “Pay As You Enter” (PAYE) system, and POP will expand to routes as the new vehicles are introduced.
- Using POP has a cost both for inspection staff and for increased fare evasion, but this is offset by reduced capital costs for vehicles (fewer are needed for the same effective capacity), faster trips and lower delay impacts of surge demands. Single door loading of an ALRV at major stops would consume about 3.6 minutes, and any delay holds up the entire queue rather than only one doorway.
- POP lessens the opportunity for fare disputes with the operator because fare media are checked by ticket inspectors (special constables) rather than by drivers.
This report contains an important statement:
“Passenger boarding time is one of the most-significant causes of delays and service disruptions on the major east-west streetcar routes in the system. These routes (501 Queen, 504 King, 505 Dundas and 506 Carlton) carry large volumes of passengers which require streetcars to be scheduled every two-to-five minutes at peak times. However, these routes frequently provide poor and unreliable service due to a combination of:
- variable passenger boarding times in the range of two-to-four minutes at the subway transfer points and other busy stops;
- traffic signal delays of one-to-two minutes;
- general traffic congestion;
- disruptions due to turning vehicles, delivery trucks, emergencies, etc.
The passenger boarding time problem becomes most severe when operating ALRVs that carry more passengers and take longer to load. It was for this reason that the proof-ofpayment system was first implemented on Queen STreet, and this fare-collection method continues to be required to allow the provision of a reasonable quality of service … on the 501 Queen route. The TTC’s current high-capacity ALRV streetcar fleet cannot be operated effectively unless all-door loading is provided at major stops.” [editorial amendment only to correct for duplicate wording in the original]
This is a major change in the way that transit operations, especially for streetcars, have been presented by the TTC. At long last, we have an acknowledgement that passenger loading is one of the “most-significant causes of delays” and, by implication, anything we can do to reduce this time will speed and improve service. Some riders might question whether the current service on Queen is of “reasonable quality”, but at least the TTC is no longer seeking only total lane reservations as the only way to deal with quality problems.
New cars, when they arrive, will also have low-level floors. There will still be a step up into the vehicle, but not the high, steep entrance of the CLRV/ALRV which, moreover, is designed to constrict free-flowing passengers in aid of PAYE fare collection.
An Aside About Multiple Unit Operation
The TTC is considering operation of CLRV-equipped routes with two-car trains and claims that traffic simulations show that this could improve the operating characteristics of the St. Clair and King lines with improvements from 9% to 14%. Bluntly, I do not believe these numbers.
First off, the St. Clair line is now being rebuilt with a private right-of-way and, allegedly, transit signal priority. Any simulation based on current conditions is meaningless.
Second, a 14% improvement in running time cannot possibly apply to the entire route, only where it is most congested. We already know that loading is a major source of delay, and where there is no congestion, it will be the only significant and unavoidable delay unless we change the fare collection scheme. On a hypothetical route with a 60-minute one-way trip, a 14% saving amounts to 8.4 minutes. However, that has to be carved out of the time when the streetcar is not stopped for passengers or conflicting traffic which accounts for at least half of the total trip time. The achievment of this magnitude of saving over an entire route is not credible.
Third, the current level of service on both routes is such that if it were coupled in trains, the resulting scheduled headways (never mind what we would get with disruptions) would be much wider than riders on major routes will tolerate. Waiting time influences a passenger’s impression of the convenience of service at a factor more than double the time spent onboard. Since the average trip segment on a streetcar route is about 20 minutes [if anyone really cares where I got this number, I will discuss that separately], saving 14% of the trip gives us 2.8 minutes. However, the average wait time for a car will double. On King in the PM peak, the rise from 4 to 8 minute headways would more than offset the best possible saving in running time even before we consider that the wait “hurts” the passenger more than the faster ride “softens the blow” once they are onboard.
This is a harebrained scheme, and TTC would do well to avoid it. (There are also implications for headways with the new larger streetcars.)
Financing POP’s Implementation
The report notes that in order to save $75,000 in reduced POP inspection, the TTC gave up $200,000 through increased fare evasion. Assuming that the reverse will hold true, hiring more fare inspectors actually is revenue-positive, and I am surprised that only two are recommended. Based on a survey of “best practices” in fare inspection by York Region Transit, the TTC should have four inspectors to achieve a 5% inspection rate on Queen, the typical target rate on other systems.
Given the potential for confusion, the report suggest it is likely that the entire streetcar system would convert to POP in a single move when the new streetcars enter service. Implementation of POP throughout the streetcar system could see fare evasions rise even with more inspectors, but the lost revenue and additional staff would be offset by savings in operating costs and fleet size.
The report puts this argument very conservatively, and I sense the hand of the TTC’s bean counters who have never really liked POP or passes or any mechanism that simplifies the way fares are collected. Slowly, painfully at times, our fare system is evolving into something that attracts rather than discourages riders and encourages more transit use.
Convenience of use and quality of service must be the hallmarks of our transit system. Yes, they have a cost, but the cost of not having them is that transit will only be a poor second choice to driving for all who have the option.
Steve Munro 
Steve
One thing I notice getting the 504 at King west of Bay about 5pm is the lines of cabs at either side of King outside BMO in particular — has the city considered enforcing their removal, at least at peak, so that cars need not use the streetcar allowance?
Steve: You may have noticed the decorative signs hanging from the overhead about the reserved lanes on King Street. When this was introduced, the TTC had a huge problem getting the police to enforce it. After a few blitzes, the effort collapsed. There are two problems here:
Nobody wants to take on the taxi industry. In fact the only way to deal with the situation between the bank towers is to make it a transit mall where “transit” includes taxis as they are a form of public conveyance.
TTC staff do not have the right to issue traffic tickets to people abusing transit lanes. This is a jurisdictional problem peculiar to Ontario and the way that the relative powers of police and others like parking officers and special constables are allocated.
LikeLike
POP is a one concept that trades revenue for time. Fare evasion is quite high under such a system. Even at a 5% inspection rate, it means that for every 20 times I board the tram, my fare would be inspected once. This in itself is not a deterrent. 50% inspection rate is much more of a deterent. However, at that level, it would be very intrusive. Despite being a transit fan, I am no fan of subsidizing someone else’s ride.
Steve: What makes a 5% inspection rate a deterrent is having a very substantial fine for abuse. Getting caught one time in twenty is not worth the price.
The question the TTC should be really asking is how to improve service without loosing revenue. On route like Queen, the TTC should be investing in some infrustructure. Platform loading is the only way to go with articulated trams. With this, a collector at the platform would be able to collect the fare before the train arrives. This will mean the tram remain at station for less than 20 seconds even with a crush load. This is how the Enoshima Dentetsu operates. You can see pictures here. Notice also how when the tram crosses a road, it has complete priority. A railroad crossing barrier is lowered. Service is every 12 minutes per direction and it actually adhere to the schedule very well.
Steve: Note to anyone following the link, the page is in Japanese but there are lots of pictures. What is quite clear is that this line is completely different from the way the Queen car actually operates. There is no place to put stations and fare control in the middle of a four-lane road. Also, as I have mentioned in other posts, as we move more and more to bulk purchase of transit fares through passes, the proportion of riders for whom fare evasion is even worthwhile will drop.
On less heavy routes, the TTC should be running smaller trams and operating them more frequently. This means less people to pick up at the station each time. The city of Hakodate uses 60 to 80 passenger trams on their electric railway network. Passengers still march past the driver in a single file. However, since there is less to pick up each time, [the tram] usually does not stay at a station for more than 25 seconds. It also operates in mixed traffic as well. You can see pictures of it here.
These two examples are typically how tram systems are run in Asia. Many operators are private companies and they are in no mood to give people free service. POP allows for that possibility. While transit should not be a profit maker, it should at least make sure that no one [rides free on] the system.
LikeLike
Steve – thanks so much for the article(s). I’m a relatively recent move to Toronto (Spring 05), and the culture of the TTC and its bean counters is something I find irritating but at the same time fascinating.
I’m trying to figure out if it’s always been that way, if it’s a recent development, or if it’s just a thing that plagues large transit authorities in their dealings with the public and various levels of government — e.g. MTA, CTA, SEPTA, STM.
Steve: Yes it has always been this way. The TTC is a very conservative organization whose motto for decades was “it won’t work here” when faced with any attempt to revise the fare collection system. Part of this is financial conservatism and part is the arrogance of large organizations (public or private) who think they are the best of breed on the planet.
As for POP on Queen — I’d like to see it work, as the cars just seem to crawl between Spadina & Church.
Steve: We have a big problem with the uneven use of POP and the fact that the operators are not supported with adequate POP inspectors or ground crews (fare inspectors at major loading points). It’s a lot cheaper to pay someone to inspect fares than to buy more vehicles, and service runs faster as well. However, those who measure budgetary success only by headcount don’t understand this concept.
However, dangers are going to have to be solved with the union (because there will be some person not able to pay and will do something life-threatening). If there were problems with the drivers, I’m sure that Kinnear could make this a large molehill as well.
Steve: Actually, the POP inspectors are Special Constables, not operators, and they tend to work in pairs. There is a lot of bad blood between the ATU and the non-union constables, and the recent proposal to have the constables blitz TTC locations and ticket smokers, including TTC staff, has widened this gap. Just at a time when the TTC needs to be showing that it wants to help protect its staff, it is driving wedges between the constables and the operators. I’m no fan of smokers, but as a labour relations exercise, this is yet another small disaster.
LikeLike
I couldn’t resist throwing in an experience with another transit system using POP. I strongly agree with the POP method of payment — not only does it speed up boarding times but it can make transit much more convenient to uses. You no longer have to dig out the transit pass with every ride, just when you are being inspected. But seriously, if they think that having two inspectors will have a positive impact on the POP fare collection system in Toronto, the TTC had better start looking at the experience of other jurisdictions. If my experience on the Zurich, Switzerland transit system (the ZVV) is any indication, fare evaders on the TTC will be streaming out the doors as soon as a TTC transit inspector comes into sight.
The entire Zurich transit system — local trams, local buses, inter-city trains — is POP. When I first moved to Zurich, it was almost funny to see the fare inspectors at the next stop. A wave of whispered comments would travel through the tram as the tram approached the stop and always there would be a few passengers who would leap up, run to the back doors and leap off as the inspectors boarded at the front. Ah, another fare evader escaping being caught.
But the ZVV was paying attention and within a few months of my arrival the system was changed. Under the new rules the ZVV had two inspectors for each door — one to ask for POP from each disembarking passenger and one to start working the crowd inside the streetcar. No one was allowed to escape by running out the back door. The inspectors accepted little in the way of excuses (friends of mine tried every version of “but I’m a tourist who just arrived in the city and don’t speak enough German to understand that a ticket was required” — and as long as you remembered to carry out the charade of not understanding German, it worked about 10% of the time). While I sometimes went a whole month using the transit system without seeing inspectors, I would inevitably see them a few times in the next month. There were still some who figured it was a game to try to avoid the inspectors but the majority of riders viewed the ZVV approach to POP — frequent inspections, lots of inspectors — as meaning that this was a serious thing and acted accordingly.
The ZVV inspectors registered the offence electronically — citizens are required by law to always have proper identification on them at all times — and collected fines on the spot. The ZVV had initially set fines as equal to the cost of a one-month transit pass (approximately $CAN70). After a few years at these fine and inspection levels, the ZVV realised that fare evasion was still at an unacceptable level. The odds of being caught (riders travelling through the core of the city were inspected relatively frequently, riders who avoided the core and the most popular routes were typically inspected less than once every one or two months) were such that there were quite a few people, my ‘tourist’ friends included, who calculated correctly that the odds of being caught and fined on their trips meant that it was not worth their while to purchase the monthly pass. They rode for free and seldom were caught in the inspection dragnets.
Once the ZVV clued into this — and it took a couple of years for the experience to build up and be understood, the system was changed again. The level of inspection was increased and inspectors no longer travelled their previously predictable inspection routes. Inspections started to happen more frequently outside of the downtown core and even on the feeder bus routes. More importantly, the structure of fines was changed drastically. The fine for fare evasion was no longer considered a single fine but was seen as a cumulative offence. For a first offence, the fine remained the cost of a monthly pass. A second offence was doubled to the equivalent of two monthly passes. And for a third offence the fine was tripled to three times the cost of a monthly pass (approximately $CAN210). I never did see any information for more frequent offenders … I guess the ZVV just assumed that one wasn’t necessary.
The message for the TTC is that POP is a very workable method of fare collection if they think it through and set it up properly and specifically for the Toronto experience. This includes:
teams of inspectors large enough to preclude jumping off a vehicle to avoid inspection;
frequent enough inspections to show everyone (payers and fare evaders alike) that payment of a fare is the way to go;
a fine structure that works with the frequency of inspection to mean that the gamble of trying to avoid payment will not pay off.
LikeLike
For POP to work, not only do operators have to open all doors at all stops, but people have to know they can board at the rear. I don’t think the little POP stickers on the ALRVs have done the trick. It’d be great if there were signs at the major transfer stops telling people with passes and transfers to board at the rear doors. Or, if POP were in effect on ALRVs regardless of which route they were on, you could actually put the signs on the vehicles to label the front door “Cash Fares Only”.
Steve: One big problem with POP is that it is so inconsistently used. Only the regulars know about rear door loading, and even they are often frustrated by waiting for the doors to open at common POP stops like Yonge, only to have the operator force everyone to board at the front.
Speaking of fare collection schemes, have you noticed the pay-at-Union system on Queen’s Quay seems to run slower than collecting fares because of the number of people confused by it? One older woman, seeing the farebox covered with a plastic bag, kindly deposited her ticket on the operator’s dashboard, and had to be called back to the front to retrieve it.
Steve: Fare collection on Harbourfront is a real challenge especially in the summer because there are so many tourists. At Union, the connecting tunnel can be quite crowded with people queued up to present their fares. This will be even more interesting in the new Union Station design where the Harbourfront loop opens directly onto the Yonge platform of the subway.
LikeLike
Why can they not have entrance though the rear doors only with the use of a token or metropass? Surely there is a way to do this.
Steve: For passes and transfers, rear door loading is a no-brainer. However, until our fleet is substantially low-floor, the rear doors are not actually set up for ease of entry. The door panels open outward in a more constrained fashion than the front doors, the grab rails are designed for exits, and for buses there is a higher chance that the door will not be aligned with the curb at stops. That first step up is a long one.
Rear door loading implies either groundsmen at the stops inspecting passes and transfers, or a significant POP implementation.
LikeLike
I’m not a fan of POP because I hate watching people evade it on crowded vehicles. But the other reason I dislike it is that it precludes charging for transfers. I like how Chicago keeps their fare price lower by charging 25 cents for a transfer, regardless of whether you’re on a bus or the el.
Steve: The entire TTC system is based on the idea of a free transfer, especially the design of bus/streetcar/subway interchanges. Requiring people to have and show a transfer simply does not work in this arrangement.
As I have said before, as we move more and more to passes or, generically, charge for transit on a bulk basis rather than nickel and diming as we go, the usage of transfers drops off. People with passes already have their POP. Indeed, it is impossible to tell a cheater boarding at the centre doors from someone who has a valid pass or transfer but does not need to show it, at least not to you.
LikeLike
Part of the problem of the POP system is that it is meant to be implemented only during rush hours (if I recall correctly), but it isn’t advertised very well. I’ve been riding every day for three years and only found about this in January.
Even regular transit riders don’t seem to know about this specification and when they wait at back doors that never open, this causes friction and further delays as people must stream back to the front doors.
LikeLike
POP has been in effect on the Queen line since 1990; surely that’s long enough to see either that it works or that it doesn’t. Gloria (above) is right that a lot of people don’t know about it, largely because it applies on only one line in the entire city.
If it works and is deemed beneficial, spread it across all of the routes in the downtown core, or maybe right across the city. If it doesn’t work / can’t be enforced effectively / is impractical for whatever reasons, then abolish it.
Steve: The problem, of course, is that some people in the TTC know it works and want it expanded, indeed know it is inevitable with the next generation of streetcars (that’s what they say in their report). However, others at the TTC see only the expense of the inspections without allowing for the improvement in speed and vehicle utilization that POP brings.
LikeLike
So, POP is still in use?! Now, I don’t use Queen St. every day, but it has been years since I have seen the rear door(s) open.
I think I’ve even seen the POP stickers by the rear doors peeled off.
Steve: Yes, officially it’s still in use at major stops during the daytime. In practice, it’s very spotty and passengers can find themselves waiting for a door that never opens. An excellent way to build good public relations while slowing down the service.
LikeLike
In my opinion the POP here in Toronto sucks compared to York region with their Viva transit. The TTC should have established a full system of POP for the streetcars, with validating machines in each of the cars and have Inspectors get on randomly.
Steve: They know that expansion to the rest of the streetcar network is inevitable, but part of the TTC is fighting it because they will “lose money”. Someday, we may see a cost comparison of how many extra vehicles and how many operators we have to pay just to retain pay-as-you-enter fare collection. You can eat a few percent increase in lost fares if you save significantly in boarding delays.
LikeLike
In my experience riding both VIVA and the TTC, I believe that POP only makes a real difference when there are 10 or more passengers waiting _to board_. Only when that number climbs to 20 or more is the difference *really* appreciable.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t these situations fairly predictable in terms of time and location? If so, it seems to me that a pre-set POP system, like the one at Queen and Yonge seems rather appropriate.
Steve: In fact, for a while, the convention was that major transfer points were POP stops, but that slowly died off because there was no official policy.
IMHO, the POP effect would be most useful during high-volume times at high-volume transfer points like the previously mentioned stop, as well as others of which I’m unaware. Having a limited POP system like this in place not only limits fare-skippers to riding one streetcar, but also severely limits their departure points and times as well.
It may work out wonderfully for the devious traveller who lives at Queen and Yonge and always travels to a Queen St destination during high-traffic times… but I have to ask: how much loss is that really preventing? Is it worth the cost of preventing?
Steve: This is one of the major problems we have had with the TTC bean counters. All they see is the “lost” revenue, not the cost of reducing the evasion rate. The service delays and hence costs in dollars and service quality are not part of their equation.
At low-traffic times and places the fare collection could continue as it always has, supervised by the operator. Board at the front, exit at the rear. It’s an elegant system, and better still, _it works!_
The only real problem I see remaining is the inconsistent user experience – waiting for the door that doesn’t open. That would be frustrating! Maybe that could be solved as easily as fixing a green/red toggle light over the back doors to indicate accessibility? Given the right graphic design I’m sure it could be made to be fairly intuitive.
Subway collection gates in many cities use this type of graphic to indicate turnstile direction. Consistency is also of paramount importance – people taking the same route at the same time must be able to expect that the rear doors will either always open or not.
Am I way off base? I haven’t even had my coffee yet.
Steve: The problem is the frustration when three distinct groups form waiting to board an ALRV and suddenly two of them (who expect to get on really quickly) discover that they picked wrongly. A stop that is going to use POP must always be a POP stop, possibly with special signage, a coloured band on the pole, or something. This way, it’s not something that depends on the operator remembering when and where to do it. I agree that the system must behave consistently because otherwise, regular riders will assume that waiting by the rear doors is counter-productive and they will never get a seat, or even get on at all.
LikeLike
The Globe and Mail ran an article critical of the Spadina Reserved Right of Way. They claimed that the Bathurst Car was faster and that the streetcar was no more efficient than the old Spadina Bus. Based on my anecdotal experience this in not true, but of course the “figures never lie”. It seems to me that the efficiency gain is being lost due to loading time on this heavily used route. Spadina should be a prime candidate for POP.
Steve: I agree. Bathurst southbound in the AM peak is fairly lightly loaded and has short dwell times at stops. Spadina, by contrast, is serving the UofT campus and is very busy. Also, at that time of the day, Bathurst does not have difficulties with the congestion that builds up north of Bloor in the afternoon and on weekends.
LikeLike
I recently took a trip on Viva and was very impressed. The TTC could model fare payment on the entire streetcar system on Viva quite easily.
Passengers would purchase a special ticket with an expiry time (effectivly a time based transfer) with cash, a token or a ticket from a machine located a each stop. Passengers would then board at any door, and fare inspectors would deal with any attempts at fare evasion. This would separate drivers from fare disputes.
The only real expenses would be the fare inspectors and the fare machines. New printed media would probably not cost more than printing subway transfers. I admit that it would be expensive to install an electronic fare machine to every single streetcar stop, but it would greatly improve the quality of service. Preferably the fare machines would be on platfoms in the street next to the tracks, but that would not be practical in some places such as most of the stops on Bathurst Street. Perhaps they could be located in a in a box similar to a newspaper box right under the sign that marks the stop with a small canopy to keep it dry.
It could also be a starting point for some of Viva’s other features such as an actual schedule and live updates on when the next streetcar is arriving.
It could also advise of delays. A highly sucessful model already exists.
Steve: I have said before that my overwhelming preference is for prepaid bulk purchase fare media like passes. If we are going to provide for limited-time, validate when used media, we have an equally valid, and much longer-lived example in GO Transit. The ten strip ticket is purchased in advance and cancelled by the rider when they use it. This approach means that the cancelling machines can be onboard vehicles rather than at stops, and there is no monetary transaction with equipment scattered all over the city.
As for distribution, this would be handled by an increased network of ticket agents — corner stores and the like — rather than a bunch of vending machines. The stores are already there and they handle cash, and to a growing extent debit and credit cards.
What bothers me about Viva is that someone did a very good job of selling York Region a bunch of expensive buses and fare collection equipment, but underneath everything, we have buses running in mixed traffic on fairly wide headways. I would have been happier with more service and more of the capital budget spent on reconfiguring roads for transit priority.
Too much of what we do in transit these days is oriented to letting some system proponent sell us their hardware rather than on making really useful improvements in transit.
LikeLike