The agenda for the TTC Board’s meeting on January 28, 2014, includes a report on time-based fares. The report cites many advantages for a shift to this form of fare including:
- ease of understanding by riders and clarity for enforcement by operators and fare inspectors;
- simplicity of implementation on PRESTO;
- simplicity for routes using all-door loading where transfers would not be inspected on entry;
- compatibility with fare policy on most other transit systems.
The downside, such as it may be, would be a loss of revenue relative to the current fare structure of up to $20-million annually (a bit under 2%). There are additional concerns related to a transitional period before PRESTO takes over the overwhelming majority of all fare transactions, such as the increased value of transfers issued freely in the subway which would become limited time passes.
Management recommends that time-based transfers be considered as part of the 2015 budget. This would leave a final decision on such a change to the next Council and TTC Board. Other proposed changes include discontinuing time-based transfers on St. Clair if a system-wide policy is rejected, and formulation of a policy for locations where time-based transfers would be allowed in future as an offset to major local construction activity (e.g. on Eglinton).
This is quite a refreshing report about TTC fare policy because it proceeds from the basis that this is something that can be done, that many other cities already have implemented, and which has benefits and costs that should be weighed as part of any decision. We do not hear about all the money the TTC would be wasting on people who would obtain more transit for lower fare. The contrast with the typical portrayal of Metropass users is quite astounding.
The report notes that only about 10% of existing trips on the TTC involve the use of a paper transfer because more than half the riders use passes, and many trips involve connections where there is no fare barrier and therefore no need for a transfer as proof of payment. Trips that now involve multiple fares (e.g. a short there-and-back trip, or a multi-legged trip with stopovers) would be cheaper for those riders who do not now use passes, and who do not already organize their journeys to optimise transfer use. (As someone who has used a Metropass since they were introduced in May 1980, I still miss the challenge of getting the most out of one fare.)
An obvious point the report completely misses is that a time-based fare would give the single fare more value in that it would buy a few hours of unlimited riding rather than a single connected trip. This is particularly important for people who tend to pay their fares one at a time.
Another effect would be that Metropass users, now portrayed as taking an almost embarrassingly high number of “rides”, would be seen as using far fewer “fares” because some trips now counted as separate would now be part of one connected journey. The concept of “lost revenue” to passholders would become even more difficult to justify in an environment where the right to use transit was sold by time, not by trip segment.
Indeed, the TTC will have to recalibrate how it counts “riders” and “fares”.
Transfer abuse is estimated to be the single largest source of “lost revenue” today. I put that in quotation marks because transfers, and the inventive ways riders use them, have been around for over a century, and the “loss” was never money the TTC might have collected in the first place. It is part of the cost of doing business, and indeed is a “cost” brought on by the obvious incentive riders have to maximize the return for their fares.
The TTC claims it loses almost $15m to transfer abuse each year, but that is not real money they could recoup without a large investment in enforcement. The lost fares represent under 1.5% of the annual total (7.6-million fares out of 540-million).
The cost for a two-hour, unlimited use fare is estimated at $20-million annually. This would have to be made up by additional subsidy (less than 5% over the current operating subsidy level), by an extraordinary fare increase (about 2% based on $1-billion in annual fare revenue) or by some combination of these.
Modified schemes with more restrictive policies would cost less, but they have drawbacks:
- a shorter time period such as 90 minutes would catch more riders and trigger second fares;
- restrictions on where a transfer could be reused would be confusing and would not completely eliminate arguments between staff and riders about transfer validity.
One aspect the report does not mention is the problem of delays and short-turns. What happens if someone’s trip is pushed beyond the time limitation because of erratic TTC service? In the case of manual fare inspection, there is at least a chance for a conversation to explain the circumstances, but where the fare check is automated, this is much more difficult. Should riders be penalized with extra fares because of poor TTC service?
Time-based fares will be essential for regional fare integration. A rider should be able to “buy” the ability to ride transit and change between routes regardless of which company operates the bus. There could be a premium for including GO trains in a journey, but it should not be a full additional GO fare. (This would make system-wide the existing co-fare practice between various 905 transit systems and GO.) All of this is comparatively simple (from the technology, if not the political perspective) with a smart card fare system, and all but impossible with the TTC’s current transfer rules and fare collection.
Discussions of time-based transfers go back almost a decade. The report includes excerpts from studies in 2005 and 2009. The 2003 Ridership Growth Strategy looked at fare-by-distance and at time-of-day-based fare discounts, but not at transfers as short-term passes.
This is not a new idea, but one that until now has always been sandbagged by the combined effects of “we can’t afford it” arguments and an attitude that any fare reduction is “lost money” for the TTC, not an improvement in the system’s quality and attractiveness for riders.
A thorough discussion of this is long overdue and, but for the Ford interregnum, we might have seen this a few years back as part of the TTC’s concept for smart fare cards even without PRESTO.
The shift to time-based transfers, in effect to short-term passes, would complete the TTC’s move away from a one trip, one fare model. This would increase transit’s attractiveness for casual or irregular users whose travel is penalized, compared to pass holders, by that outdated model.
Mayoral and Council candidates would do well to consider the benefits of this system, and look to implementation in 2015 at the latest.
Steve Munro 
So if we’re not considering time based transfers until 2015, how is Presto going to work on the new streetcars going into service this fall?
Steve: The Presto machine is supposed to give you a fare receipt that will work like a transfer for routes that are not yet Presto equipped.
LikeLike
The TTC says on their website “Eventually, tickets and tokens will be eliminated as the TTC moves entirely to the PRESTO farecard or cash to pay your fare.” Though I, like you, enjoy the challenge of making a trip on one ticket, I wish they would move to timed tickets tomorrow. As TTC seems to have problems with change it might be best to bring in this long-overdue change as part of the PRESTO roll-out.
LikeLike
Glad to see this brought up. This will help for situations such as short turns for buses and streetcars, and shuttle buses for streetcars and subways if something goes wrong.
LikeLike
Hamilton uses time-based fares and a Presto card. All the buses have the technology to accept Presto.
It seems to work well.
LikeLike
You now have me confused. (easy to do)
I thought with PRESTO card, ALL paper/old plastic (tickets/transfers/ day passes/ metropass etc) would all be obsolete? (No subway collectors/no contact with operators and so on)
So now there is still going to be paper transfers, time based or not, we will still have metropasses?
Brad Ross tweeted we will not have to tap on/off with Presto.
Or is all this still up in the air?
Steve: As an interim step before the system is completely changed over, the Presto readers have to issue fare receipts that will act effectively as transfers for routes that don’t yet have Presto technology. This is only for the transitional phase.
Metropasses won’t disappear until the system conversion is completed.
The whole tap in/out businesses waffles back and forth in discussions because some folks want the wealth of rider tracking info this would provide even though it is not strictly required simply for fare collection. This would be a classic case of the convenience of the management taking precedence over simplicity for the riders.
LikeLike
There was an unintentionally humourous line in a Star article today:
Which is not my experience at all. In fact, it took me 2 hours just to get downtown from Long Branch this morning!
I swear, every time I take the TTC, they make me regret it.
LikeLike
Here is where I find the report is lacking. The major stumbling block appears to be the $20M/y revenue loss. But there is very little to say where that particular number comes from. The only text I can see is on page 7:
Surely there must be more information that can provide context about where that number came from. Maybe it is based on conservative assumptions. For example, perhaps it was assumed that every stopover or return trip on a time-based transfer replaces an existing two-fare trip on the TTC. If so, that is a very conservative assumption. I know when I was using tokens, I would rarely make stopovers unless I was sure I could fit it in without getting caught — either I wasn’t making the stopover at all, or I was trying to do it (illegally!!) on the same fare. And why not, when there is no additional cost to the TTC? If I get off the subway at 5:30 and get on a 5:45 bus instead of a 5:35 one, it’s not like I am using more service than I would otherwise. (A motorist would not think twice about pulling off for a few minutes to stop into Shoppers Drug Mart, and there is no disbenefit to the road network … on the contrary, it is a good thing that means less vehicle travel if you can combine two trips into one!) The only thing that has happened is that it has made my trip more useful and has made my transfer a little easier — a good thing for a system that is designed to encourage (if not require) transfers.
The report talks about the possibility of not allowing passengers to re-board the same route on which the transfer was issued (as a way of curbing a potential lucrative black market in used transfer sales??), but I hope this restriction is not enacted — it misses the point that the whole goal is to make a rider’s transit fare more useful and valuable by enabling them to make quick stops and then continue back on their way. It shouldn’t matter if the stopover occurs where you were going to transfer anyway, or at a point halfway along your regular route.
Steve: Let’s try a quick-and-dirty back-of-the-envelope calculation.
About 60% of fares are paid with passes, and so the remaining 40% account for (540m x 40%) or 216m rides. I am not entirely sure where 4.5% came from, but that gets us down to 9.72m rides. At $2.70 each, that’s about $26m. OK, at least the math gets us to the right ballpark.
The 40% of non-pass rides include cash fares but also concession fares such as children and seniors who already pay less than the token rate and so $2.70 might be high. Then there are the extra fares received because a single fare is now more attractive.
$20m sounds reasonable although the exact calculation isn’t set out in the report.
The most important issue, as you say, is that it must be a truly unlimited use transfer with no restrictions on where a rider can reboard the system within the two hour limit.
LikeLike
Though I am in favour of “evidence-based decision making” it seems to me that the TTC does not make use of the facts and figures that they now gather and appear to ignore the work of people like you who extract and then crunch the numbers that can be extracted and prove where problems exist (and suggest fixes.) If the TTC sets up a system that will collect PRESTO numbers (even if it makes use a bit more cumbersome) it is essential to be sure these numbers will then be analysed. We have probably all worked in jobs where elaborate statistics are collected at a great cost in time and ease of operation only to discover that the person who requested them has either been retired for decades or has decided they are not really of any interest!
LikeLike
Let me kick some of these numbers around a bit:
Transfer abuse comes in two basic forms: those who use a transfer “creatively” for a multi-point ride that would be under 2 hours, and those who just use outdated transfers for a new free ride. The second group might just be several hours old, but there are those that go further. My wife tells me of stories of when she was in high school and the number of people who would keep all sorts of transfers around for re-use on an appropriate future date. This goes back to the days when a surface route transfer only showed “Friday January 24” as the date, and eventually this would be repeated. When the day of the year appeared on transfers, this made it somewhat more difficult to do, but when boarding at a busy stop where the operator cannot closely monitor every transfer flashed at them, the exact date is a little moot.
If we say that half of the transfer abuses are the first group, then I believe it is safe to say that $7.5m of “losses” that currently exist will be part of that $20m “cost” of time-based transfers. This makes the additional cost of implementing time-based transfers to be only $12.5m.
This figure must be offset by an estimate of new revenues generated by short out-and-back trips that are currently not taking transit because of the high cost of paying for two fares. I believe that a conservative estimate of this new revenue in the first year of implementation would be at least $2.5m, but it would grow a little over the first few years as people become aware of the ability to make use of transit for short trips on one fare that used to require two fares.
$10m per year is a small cost for something that adds several benefits.
LikeLike
I found the section discussing that the existing system could be implemented on Presto interesting, through the use of transfer tables.
I’m not sure how that would work. On a system that’s all surface routes that never vary, I can see it.
But how would transfer tables work with the following scenarios:
1) 75 Sherbourne bus detouring north Sherbourne, east King, north Parliament, east on Gerrard. Riders transfer from 75 to 65 Parliament at Dundas. (or even to a 505 Dundas at Parliament).
2) Rider who transfers from 506 west to 504 at Broadview/Gerrard. When there’s no 504s coming, walk to Queen, and take a 501/502/503. Basically walking an entire leg.
3) Rider who takes 4 legs, 1 being on the subway. For example, start near Gerrard/Woodbine, take 92 north to Woodbine. Subway to Pape. 25 to York Mills. And then the 95 York Mills west to Leslie. This is the route recommended by the TTC Trip planner. If the only previous tap on was on a 92 north at Gerrard, how does it possibly know the transfer from the 25 to 95 at Don Mills/York Mills is valid? (given we know that there is no plans to purchase and install enough Presto machines for everyone to tap on at subway stations).
These (and many others) are all realistic situations I’ve encountered.
I take issue with the claim that Presto can support the existing transfer system.
LikeLike
Brent pointed out:
In order to implement this sort of restriction, there needs to be a way of identifying where the transfer was issued. Currently, this is done by printing different transfers for most every surface route, though this can be accomplished using a print-as-needed method as is done at subway stations and with Presto terminals.
It strikes me that printing separate transfers for each route, and for each day, must be more expensive than printing only ONE transfer that is issued by every route, and the date is indicated by a punch that is made when a stack of new transfers are restocked by the operator. This would also eliminate most of the waste at the end of the day as transfer stock is useable for the next day (except for the few already punched with the current date). I have often wondered just how many pounds (tons?) of unused transfer stock the TTC must dispose of on a daily basis.
A small benefit of one stock of transfers is that if an operator is running low, they can get some from ANY other operator they meet up with, not just the other operators on the same route as they are.
Of course, all this goes out the window when Presto terminals will begin issuing the paper transfers. I’m just pointing out observations I have made from using YRT, which used a single stock paper transfer well before switching to time-based transfers in 2005.
LikeLike
That’s because of the high ratio of Metropass to token price. If a Metropass costs “x” times a token, that means all Metropass users are making “x” or more rides per month. So whatever the multiple is, the average user will will always make more rides than that multiple … so apparently TTC will then raise the multiple even further. It seems TTC can’t grasp this basic logic.
For “transfer abuse” – I wonder how much of this is people who genuinely think they have a valid transfer, but don’t (because of the arcane and complex rules).
LikeLike
Moaz: Although it was not the TTC’S decision to cancel the Scarborough LRT with the assumed $85 million in cancellation costs, that $85 million would cover the loss of revenue for 4 years (over the period of PRESTO implementation) … and while the money is coming from different budgets at the end of the day it is still money poorly spent.
Moaz: I understand the need for consistency across the GTA here … perhaps Metrolinx can direct some of that proposed $300 million for local transit towards fare simplification.
Also … I believe that statistically there will not be as great a loss as TTC predicts. Anecdotally, people whose trips last more than two hours are unlikely to cut their trips short because their transfer is expiring.
Moreover how many people who would not use the TTC (maybe don’t even have $2.70 tickets/tokens/PRESTO Card on hand) would be willing to toss $3 into the fare box to take a 2 hour trip that they would not have taken in the past (when the trip would cost them $6)? TTC would probably look at that scenario as $3 in lost revenue (because the passenger is not paying for a second trip) rather than $2.70+0.30 in additional revenue (from each extra non-regular passenger).
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Kevin’s question:
I am rather curious as to why you did not take the GO train. From Long Branch to downtown is less than 1/2 hour.
Was it because GO’s much-vaunted all-day 30 minute headway doesn’t actually apply during the morning peak times at Long Branch? Still, you do get to wave at all the express GO trains from the 905 that are not stopping at Long Branch as you wait for longer than 30 minutes for a train that you can actually get on.
Or is it because of the connection between the TTC and GO? No wayfaring from the streetcar loop which can’t be seen because there is a building in the way. No disability accessibility. Disjointed concrete/asphalt/curbs to walk around that building which sends a clear message that nobody really thought about this transfer.
Or perhaps it is because after passing the IQ test to figure out the transfer and waiting forever for a train that actually stops at Long Branch, that train will be packed to the gills. And you don’t really feel like paying a premium fare for standing-room-only.
So just curious. Why didn’t you take the GO train?
Steve grins and chortles quietly in the background.
LikeLike
So if the TTC is selling a mobility service – and thanks are due – how much lost time is there from all the congestion/slow downs from a few private cars and how much does all that time cost? A single streetcar full of people is space efficient (though there is an element of road hog to this tech vs. bus) – and how much is all that time worth?
At least there’s a considerable degree of user pay for the transit – too bad we don’t get the same degree of user pay from the private mobile furnaces, as costly as they are to run/buy, and as convenient as they can be for many.
LikeLike
I went to the TTC’s website and ran a trip plan request, just to see what it will generate for me for time. From Humber College (North Campus) to the Toronto Zoo, one option (only buses) shows the trip would take 140 minutes. That’s 20 minutes over the 2 hour limit option. I hope one does not get charged for an extra fare while still riding on a bus.
Tried to get a time estimate from the Long Branch loop to the Toronto Zoo, but it timed out.
LikeLike
I would think that clever, broke young people would have some good strategies for transfer abuse. Say, half a dozen friends are at Dundas Square and want to go west. One of them pays a single fare and rides the subway to Queen; picks up 6 transfers from the machine, crosses over and rides back to Dundas. Hands out the transfers, and everybody gets on the streetcar. Six for the price of one.
Steve: And they can do this today. The TTC estimates the effect of a new system on the presumption that everyone behaves angelically today and will turn into complete scofflaws tomorrow.
LikeLike
It’s great that they’re willing to talk about changes to fare policy. However, it sounds like they’re setting it up to confuse riders. In 2015, they might implement time-based transfers. Presto will be rolling out soon. Some lines will be also switching to POP. The TTC should make all the changes at the same time, so that they avoid confusion.
LikeLike
Let a while tell you a story…
About 10 years ago when in high school, I took a few buses to my part time job. I took a Yonge St. bus south to 16th Ave, a bus across 16th to Woodbine, and down Woodbine about a kilometer. Note that this is also before York Region implemented a 2 hour transfer, and had similar rules to the TTC.
The bus on Woodbine came every half hour or so at the time, and was contracted to the TTC. For a while it came on time as scheduled, but then one rainy day it was running late. It only goes up one side road North (Major Mackenzie) before returning south, I decided to ride it around the loop. After all, you can do that with the subway.
Well this driver was threatening to throw me out of the bus if I didn’t pay an extra fare for riding through the loop. Nevermind the fact that it was raining. Nevermind the fact that I was now 3km away from my stop. Nevermind the fact that if I had come across on Major Mackenzie my transfer would have been valid. He wasn’t going to leave until I paid an extra fare. He said it was my responsibility to check the website everyday, not the TTC’s to inform me of schedule changes (ie: notices at bus stops or in buses).
So I paid and called the TTC the next day, since at the time their call centre closed at 5PM. The guy said that since it happened in York Region, I had to call York Region Transit. YRT told me to call the TTC. Despite the fact that there was only one bus which operated north of Steeles at a time on that route, because I didn’t have the bus number they claimed there was nothing they could do. After playing a bit of telephone tag, I settled for the “explanation” that there were notices inside the bus (which was clearly false since the TTC doesn’t do this).
In retrospect, I probably should have contacted my local councillor if not the Ministry of Transportation. Maybe the Toronto Sun, because they will print anything.
On topic, if the TTC’s creative accountants claim they will loose $20 million, it is $20 million ill-gotten money. While my sad tale is an outlier, the fact is that the TTC’s transfer policy is not only not customer friendly, it is not designed to human nature! People don’t buy a Metropass because they commute between three separate destinations every single day or to “steal” free rides, they buy one because it is the most economically and convenient way to meet their travel needs. People who don’t have a Metropass who need to make multiple trips will likely drive or find alternative means, so right now the TTC is getting $0 from these people. Likewise someone who generally takes transit 40 trips per month will resent having to do a stop over, and pushes such person away from transit altogether.
But assuming that the TTC will lose an exceptional amount of money, then I would accept a fare increase to create a more logical fare structure (Metropass = +-40 tokens). I also think the city should increase what it gives to the TTC as well, since such a setup could see an increase in business tax revenue since passengers can stop over at their establishments now without getting penalized for it.
Steve: And to cap that all off, it is TTC policy that you can ride around loops for one fare. However, operators who take layovers along the way can get a bit annoying about this because they want a private break. Suck it up guys — it’s called “customer service”.
LikeLike
Another benefit I should mention is with the urban design goals and the need to travel less, as Keesmat mentioned last night at Walker’s presentation. Someone needs to get to a store say 3km away to pick something up. It is too far to walk for most, but if they take transit they will be dinged two fares. Considering the short distance, this would be an ideal transit ride, especially considering how close the stops are on most routes. They only see the value in transit for long trips, despite having the bus stop every couple hundred meters. Instead they end up driving, causing more congestion. They may even decide that since they are driving. they can go further out and go to a store which offers the product for less – since the cost of gas would be less than two fares and the car costs are there regardless if it is driven or not.
LikeLike
2 comments
1) I see the value of origin-destination data high enough that it should justify the minor inconvenience of having to tap out. Systems like Paris and London require you to put in your ticket again upon leaving the barriers (or they did within the last 15 years). Do you see the value in this trade off? Is there anyway of extracting the destination data otherwise?
2) Wouldn’t 90 minutes make more sense than 120 minutes? That seems like a TON of time to be on the system. What happens if I’m on the 501 going long branch to the beaches and i haven’t gotten off, but the trip takes more than 90 minutes? (I use that as an example of a huge route). Being a software guy, this data mining and analysis is easy to get & process, and easy to look at in hind-sight. Would fare evasion enforcement need to increase or decrease under this model? I’m wondering if the 12M & 20M estimate consider all considerations or just the fictitious “lost revenue” ??
Steve: Systems that have a history of zone or distance based fares necessarily require one to tap out to establish the length of the trip just as GO Transit does except for the trip that is registered as your “default” trip. Even GO recognizes the benefits of clearing platforms quickly.
The whole business of data mining is often portrayed by system vendors as a benefit even though it is major pain in the ass for riders and creates a situation where one might be dinged for an extra fare on exit because the trip has gone over the two hour limit, possibly thanks to the TTC’s own operations, not because the rider is trying to work the system.
I remember a presentation a few years back, possibly by someone from Montreal, who observed that most trips are there-and-back-again. One knows where the card was used to enter the system on both trips, and it is a reasonable conclusion that these may indicate endpoints of a round trip. This sort of thing would be further confirmed by data over time that would establish common trips used by a card holder.
Really good data mining would be able to figure this sort of thing out and get a very large sample of all trips without imposing the hassle of forcing people getting off vehicles to tap out. (Please remember that I spent my working life in IT and have seen all sorts of system designs built for the convenience of developers/managers rather than for the users.)
By the way, tapping out works on GO buses only because they have one door, and tend to have very one-directional traffic through that door at stops. The layout of readers on the new streetcars is such that they are not immediately inside the door (typically across the aisle) and tapping out would require riders to go out of their way. If you want to slow down all of the service and piss riders off with the claim that you are getting all this data, be my guest, but be prepared to explain why the service is still no better than before.
LikeLike
Maybe the TTC should introduce a shorter time based transfer of say 60 minutes but also configure PRESTO so that the system would treat your 3rd fare purchase in a day as equivalent to buying a daily pass thus making your 4th, 5th etc trips free for that same day.
LikeLike
W. K. Lis wrote:
If I had a nickle for every time this has to be explained…
When riding a pay-as-you-enter vehicle, the transfer (paper or Presto) need only be valid when one enters.
When riding a proof-of-payment vehicle, the transfer should be valid until the moment you step off the vehicle (or out of a fare paid area). Though hopefully, fare inspectors will give some leeway for just-expired transfers (at least, YRT’s fare inspectors do – having experienced this once in the days of paper transfers and once since using Presto).
LikeLike
Just how may of the “top ten” transit systems in North America use a time based transfer system?
Steve: Well, you could do the work yourself with Google, but as I am interested, I will sit here assembling some info.
Boston: The fare system here is complex with different modes/routes being in different fare zones. However, a bus fare does buy you a two hour window for a transfer, but there are no continuous trip privileges.
New York: Again, this is a city with many overlapping fare systems and free transfers in some places but not others. Free transfers are allowed between bus routes within a two hour window.
Chicago: The CTA charges for transfers ($0.25 for adults) provided that this takes place within two hours of the original fare payment.
Philadelphia: SEPTA charges $1 for a transfer, and it must be part of a trip.
Washington DC: Bus to bus transfers are free within a two hour period and round trips are permitted. The subway is a separate fare zone, but there is a discount for transferring riders. The subway is zone based and so the fare depends on the origin and destination.
San Francisco: One fare buys 90 minutes of unlimited travel.
Los Angeles: The system does not include transfers in the base fare, and there are various add-ons for transfers and other special services.
As a general rule, many fare systems bear the legacy of the manual system that preceded them, or local issues related to multiple carriers and fare zones. The TTC’s fare system is comparatively straightforward, something that has made it hard for vendors to promise immense savings that would really be due to rationalization of fare collection and policy rather than to the new technology per se.
Another common thread on all transit system’s websites is that they encourage use of passes of various types, or at least of preloaded fare cards. Transfers are a holdover from an era when the predominant form of payment was a single cash, ticket or token fare. With an unlimited ride pass, something that already serves over half of all TTC rides and will continue to grow, the need for complex transfer rules dwindles. Comparing the TTC to other cities in this regard must really be done from the point of view that passes (or equivalently cost-capped loyalty programs such as GO uses) will make this whole debate obsolete within the decade.
LikeLike
Time-based transfers are great but wouldn’t just a lower fare be an easier option to implement?
Steve: No. The whole point is to make travel more attractive for people who now pay the most expensive fare format by giving them in effect a short-term pass, and eliminating all of the arguments about how long a transfer might be valid. It is not to simply make the whole system cheaper. Don’t forget that if I can now take two or even three trips for one fare where I previously had to pay two or three, that’s a big incentive for me without giving a new discount to everyone who already has a Metropass.
LikeLike
This is a short term issue as Presto is on the way. The proposed change makes a lot of sense to me, and going back to my token days would have been much appreciated. It should be adopted in the short term.
While I have a Metropass today, I hope that Presto adopts the Oyster Card method of providing multi-use discounts. In London, each vehicle boarding is charged at a full fare rate, but there is a maximum of about 3 or 3 ½ bus fares when everything after that is free. Tube rides are also free after a higher Pound value daily maximum. (I am not sure how many rides – I think about the same – but I prefer the Red Buses.) This is a wonderful system where there is no charge for sick days or holidays, but extended trips to work are subsidised and evening excursions are fully or partially free. Weekend multiple errands also have a fixed cost and a free component. Another thing the TTC could import is the frequency of the Red Buses.
LikeLike
I realise you’re making a rhetorical point – and one which I actually appreciate, even though I _would_ normally take the GO train. (Grumbling about the fare cost, of course, and yet another disproportionate fare increase.)
But at least there are 3 mostly-reliable (allowing 5 minutes late as “reliable”) trains between 8:00 and 9:00, and if I can get there early enough for the 8:12 (which originates at Port Credit) there’s no problem finding a seat.
The past couple of weeks, though, thanks to an injury, I’ve been taking the TTC (which involves, over the course of a day, 3km less walking). And re-discovering exactly why I started taking the GO train in the first place. 😛 (FWIW, when I am able to walk, I can walk to Long Branch, catch a train to Union and walk to work – 1.8km of walking, 22min on the train – in less than 55min door to desk.)
(And on the subject of poor TTC customer service, just try taking the streetcar to Long Branch and using your transfer to get on the subway at Union. Even though the website has an entire page explaining how to do exactly this. Tell me when you do it, and I’ll come watch.)
Steve: Yes, yet another example of bad TTC Customer Service. They have staff who simply do not know what the rules are and can be extremely officious about it. Some of them are supervisors, never mind the folks manning the booths.
LikeLike
Be sure to catch the whole thing with your cell phone camera. Seems being humiliated in the mainstream media is the only way to get policy changed at the TTC.
Anyways, perhaps it is mentioned in the report, but has the TTC looked up how moving to a timed transfer affected ridership and revenue in other systems? More and more systems, big and small, are trending towards this structure, so there should be numerous case studies to see how it turned out.
I’m willing to bet that even for the largest systems, they did not see a $20 million drop in revenue.
Steve: There is no reference in the report to experiences elsewhere. To be fair, the changes in other cities in N. America were not starting from the same fare structure as the TTC, nor did they move to a timed transfer with the same rules as the TTC proposes. On top of these issues, the actual quality of service offered (the attractiveness of off peak travel, for example) would also affect the outcome.
LikeLike
Rishi L (CdnEnginerd) asked:
It certainly does from the point of view of not having experienced time-based transfers.
My first experience with time-based transfers was with Vancouver back in 1996. They had a 90-minute transfer and it made getting around the city easy. Over the next few years, I experienced using a few other systems that had a 90 minute time-based transfer as well.
Fast forward to September 2005 when YRT moved to a 120-minute timed-based transfer. Using it for a few years and then returning to Vancouver for a trip, where their paper transfers changed to franked tickets but kept the 90-minute time, and I found it would either run out too soon or I would find myself cutting it very close.
I suppose it is all about what one is used to. I can recall trips to North Carolina where it was such a novelty to shop on Sundays. In the early 90s Sunday shopping came to Ontario and on our next trip, we were astounded with how backwards they were in North Carolina because stores were not open until 1 pm on a Sunday!
LikeLike
If tapping off was required, how would that be enforced? With GO (assuming it’s not your default trip) the incentive is that you’ll be charged the maximum possible fare. With a flat fare system what would it be?
Re: Timed Transfers – If they only allowed bus/streetcar issued transfers to allow reentry into the subway I can see some really odd ridership patterns popping up. For instance, say you were planning on entering the subway at Finch, going to College, getting on the 506, stopping over, hopping back on the 506 to College and taking the subway back to Finch. If you entered Finch and got an inferior subway transfer you’d need to pay a second fare when entering the subway at College on your return trip. If however you got on any bus one stop before entering Finch (i.e. 10m from the station) you’d have a transfer that allowed reentry onto the subway system. Do we want buses being bogged down like that? Because that’s exactly what we’d be encouraging.
In terms of not allowing transfers to be reused on the route you received the transfer on, it’d seem that’d often benefit long distance riders over short distance riders – the exact opposite of what we want. Imagine someone got on 36 Finch West, travelled 3km and wanted to return home – we’d be asking them to pay two fares. If instead they took 36 Finch West, the subway from Finch to College, stopped over somewhere, hopped back on the subway and then returned home on the 36 that’d only require one fare (since getting back on the 36 would be done at the station where no transfer would be required). Even if we changed the system to require a transfer at all stations (which would seriously slow down loading,) that rider could have picked up a refreshed subway transfer at College to get back on the 36. That doesn’t make any sense.
In terms of the time limit, anything that doesn’t cover a complete end to end trip that’s valid today for the same fare as today is somewhat problematic without a clear understanding of the consequences. For instance, if we moved a 90 minute timed transfer with POP, some people would now have to pay 2 fares for a trip that now requires one fare. It’s easy to say ‘it won’t affect many people,’ but fundamentally that’d be a doubling of the fare for them. Maybe that wouldn’t be the worst thing – in a sense it’s fare by distance – but in an environment where the TTC Board raises the fare $0.05 instead of $0.10 and the cash fare has been frozen at $3 for years because some people ‘can’t afford to pay more’ a doubling of the fare for some people seems pretty crazy.
A separate issue that’s been touched on before is that the time a trip takes isn’t something the rider doesn’t always have control of. Weather-related issues are an obvious example, but what about those that need to use less frequent buses (for instance if you can only use accessible vehicles)? If you need to wait longer as a result it’ll be more likely that you’ll find yourself in a situation where you need to pay multiple fares for a single one way journey that requires a single fare today.
Essentially, we need to decide if we want timed transfers to create a situation where some trips cost the same as today and others cost less, or whether we want to create a situation where some cost more, some cost the same and some cost less. Both are legitimate, but I think this is an important public policy question that shouldn’t result in significant changes in the cost of transit since no one took the time to think about a given scenario.
Regardless, in terms of the length of time based transfers, one option that hasn’t been discussed that’d be feasible with Presto is offering multiple fare tiers – i.e. $2.50 buys 1.5 hours , $3.00 buys 2.5 hours.
LikeLike
I am opposed to systems which make you tap-in and out, for it create worthless dangerous data. As a user I do not board public transit where I want to or get off where I want to but where it’s offered. Which is a huge difference.
The “wealth” of data is dangerous in the sense that many politicians and administrators would rather use that data than do an origin-destination survey. Which is the only way to figure out what your users expect from the system.
Even if you do samples of where users boarded and left the system it does not tell you anything about what those users need. It won’t tell you anything about unmet demand.
I understand of course that transit systems cannot meet all of the demand but it needs to know about this.
I live in Ottawa and politicians and OC Transpo peddle the line that it would have more data to do better planning even though we do not tap out. That argument was rubbished by many in the population. And Presto remains an expensive system which slows boardings considerably. It might matter less on the LRT once it’s in service but will remain a consideration on buses at peak hours.
LikeLike
Has any thought been given to distance based fare systems with Presto?
An example might be: $1.50 to $2.00 for boarding and $0.05 to $0.10/km and/or a declining $/km as the km increases.
Doesn’t have the time issues of certain long trips as well as the time issue if there is traffic or other TTC-not-at-fault delays.
Steve: Any distance based fare requires tap outs so that the system knows the length of the trip you took, and this will substantially add to stop service times. You want a base + distance fare. Well, it’s worth thinking about the effect this will have.
I live at Broadview and Danforth, and my typical transit trip is somewhere in the downtown, Riverdale or maybe to the Beach. A trip to, say, King and Simcoe (I can often be found in Roy Thomson Hall) is a bit over 5km (I am using walking distance along the grid, not diagonally as we don’t offer transit service on that basis). Using your scheme, the fare would be somewhere from $1.75 to $2.50 depending on the options chosen. However, the average trip on the TTC is around 9km (trust me on this), and so the average fare in your scheme would be somewhere between $1.95 and $2.90. You are landing in roughly the same area as the existing $2.70 token fare.
But, and this is an important but, a longer trip, such as a typical suburban to downtown commute, would easily cost twice the present fare or more. This is the inevitable effect of distance based fares, whatever the exact scheme might be, on longer trips, the very ones we are trying to attract to transit, and the ones commonly complained of by people who, for economic reasons, cannot live close to their jobs.
Some time ago I wrote about the effect a fare based entirely on distance travelled would have. If the TTC revenue is reallocated on this basis, the fare from the outer ends of the subway system (proposed) to downtown would be comparable to, maybe higher than, the fare on GO Transit. That is not exactly what the folks in York Region are anticipating.
Fare by distance sounds good in theory, but in practice it adds complexity to the system and penalizes riders who now take long trips at moderate cost. We went through the whole issue of zone fares and how they penalized the suburbs 40 years ago, and that’s why we have a single fare for all of Toronto.
LikeLike
The main problem both David and Ben experienced is that transfers are punched and include direction; in both cases the transfer would be invalid (no doubling back). This is the main reason for loops. Changing to time based would eliminate this, which would best for customers. The only way to cheat the time would be to obtain transfers along the way (which is already done now and part of the “loss” calculations).
LikeLike
I don’t “buy” the complaint reason or economic reason for not having distance-based fares. Complaining is not a good reason to justify giving someone lower fares; also rent is cheaper, food is cheaper, backyards bigger and air cleaner in the suburbs, so those are reasons that suggest they can afford to / deserve to pay more for transit. Poor people live downtown too, so now we are saying poor people in the suburbs deserve subsidized transit and poor people in “Zone 1” don’t. If they are poor give them income tax credits — there are probably rich people in certain suburban sections of Toronto taking advantage of subsidized TTC fares because the value is so great relative to the price.
I do see your point that we want to attract suburbanites to public transit as our highways are congested and congestion kills productivity for all of us. But then shouldn’t the solution be: have everything charged by the km, and if the TTC moves to charging by the km, so should highway or driving (via a gas tax). If we simultaneously started charging by the km on TTC and on highways, then the TTC would still attract riders regardless of the potential higher cost. Sprawl would also be reduced over time and all this could be phased in over say 5 years (i.e. there wouldn’t be much of a difference in the year, and more over time, all regulated/calculated by the Presto system).
This is a tough topic, but there is something to be said about the accuracy and pricing flexibility that fares by the km and possibly time of day would unleash.
Steve: And the resulting battle would guarantee that nothing would change. We cannot afford to be driving people away from the transit system by actively pricing against their journeys. This is all really a moot point anyhow because as more and more riders move to passes (now well over half of all trips), people are playing a flat fare anyhow. We are only debating fares for everyone else, not for the frequent users of the system.
LikeLike
This discussion raises more questions than answers for me.
I am familiar with the Oyster system in London, where entry to Underground or onto a bus requires an Oyster Card with some value on it. I can go where I want, but I am expected to know the rules (on the website) since there is no verification along the way. The system tracks my taps and figures out the fare and charges my card. Fares vary by time of day, distance, zone, and are capped for day and monthly use. The Underground has gates with readers at entry and exit points and buses have readers at entry only. The system is POP and fare police ask for and check that the card was indeed tapped at entry.
Using a time based fare system is not realistic of cost since short journeys effectively subsidize longer/farther ones, thereby discouraging shorter journeys and skewing planning considerations. Presuming that the Presto system is able to calculate fares like Oyster does, then distance based fares might be manipulated to ease in corrective increases over some years for longer journeys to correct this. There is also a longstanding expressed desire to have a lower fare for short downtown one vehicle journeys. Another oddity that befuddles the brain is the Express bus, in which the productivity of both vehicle and driver is enhanced only to be discouraged by extra fare.
The discussion about 90 or 120 minute transfers seems to mean one can go as far as one wants so long as last vehicle is boarded within the time limit. But to allow stop offs and returns is surely challenging logic. To take a 40 minute journey for lunch and back for one fare, but the same journey to go to work for 8 hours and back is two fares. Sounds like a scheme which once started will ‘creep’ toward an all day fare. Not a good idea!
The goal of an integrated fare system with GO seems threatened by time based fares. Your correspondent travelling from Long Branch to Downtown should pay the same for either TTC or GO service should he/she not? GO fare is currently $4.52 and if you need a bus to get to the Long Branch station then add $3.00 for a total of $7.52 ($7.77 in February); is the premium worth it to save an hour?.
Steve: As I replied to a previous comment, the time based fare only applies to those who are using a single fare medium such as cash, a ticket or a token, not to the majority of riders who pay by Metropass. In effect, it makes a single fare more like a pass by giving unlimited riding for a specific time. The idea that we should price transit by distance runs counter to encouraging better system use. It may seem more “fair” if one presumes, as a previous writer did, that folks living in the suburbs making long trips are sitting in their leafy gardens and enjoying a pampered life. That’s not how the suburbs actually work, and if anything it is the folks downtown who are pampered.
You note that the London bus system is tap in only, in other words, there is a flat fare for each leg of a journey, although more may be charged if you transfer. London also has caps on the amount charged so that, in effect, a frequent user will not exceed an equivalent-to-pass pricing rather than being dinged for every ride. The Tube has always been fare by distance, and there was an immense saving in manpower when fare calculations were automated via Oyster — this helped make the business case for the new technology. Fare by distance is a system the city grew up with, it’s well understood and accepted, and people build their travel around it. Changing from a flat fare system to fare by distance would be a huge upheaval for Toronto, and would actually cost more because of the extra expense (in facilities and in rider congestion) of tracking “tap outs”.
Your comment about the Long Branch to downtown trip pricing raises another question: If I travel from Broadview and Danforth to downtown via the King or Dundas car, shouldn’t I get a cheaper fare than if I use the faster subway service? In many cities that is precisely what would happen, but the TTC has been designed around the idea that the subway provides the trunk service as an integrated part of the fare structure. Do you propose that we change this?
Would the good folks in Scarborough be happy to find out that their fares would go up if we gave them a shiny new subway line?
LikeLike
So the TTC is finally going to catch up to Frankfurt, Germany which was selling time based fares in 1971. In 1971 you bought your ticket from the driver, who then stamped the date and a time on it. Your ticket was good until the the time on it. So if you boarded at 11:58 the time punched on the ticket was 13:58. IIRC you could board a vehicle at 13:57 and ride to where you needed to go, even if it meant your ticket expires during the ride. It was only if you got off, and boarded another vehicle, the driver would check you ticket and the time on his ticket machine, if it was after that time, you would need to pay another fare. I think you could buy extra time though, when you bought your ticket, so for an extra $1 you would get an extra hour.
Steve: Even in Canada, in the old days when Vancouver issued paper transfers, they were cut off at the time they were valid until, not the time they were issued. This allowed for different periods a fare could be used for with nights and weekends having extended validity. The technology involved consisted of the operator looking at the time and setting the transfer cutter appropriately. We could have had the same scheme here decades ago.
LikeLike
Some of the cost would be offset by the extra rides that might be generated from time based transfers. Right now, I might walk (either two long walks or one walk as part of a circle), use another transit system in one direction or worse drive, instead of paying two fares for a round trip of under two hours. I don’t like the 90 minute option. With the TTC’s unreliability, especially with long routes like the 501, it can take awhile to get around.
Steve: The report estimates that there would be some revenue offset, although the TTC is criticized in some the peer reviews (see the appendices) for underestimating the amount.
So does Oakville and Mississauga. And both work well too. So, the TTC is really dragging its feet on this.
That is a nice option, but what about the people who only need to make one round trip in a two hour period (to go shopping or the bank for example.) Shouldn’t they have an option for making a cheaper trip? This is why I like the 2 hour option. It is not excessively long, but long enough for a short outing. And it seems to work in other jurisdictions.
Personally, a 2 hour time based transfer is going to do a lot of good for the TTC and may encourage some more usage. The PRESTO system can keep track of the remaining time of the transfer and will only charge the user when they tap on past the time period. When PRESTO is fully implemented, there should not be an issue with people getting extra time with new transfers – those paying by cash, ticket, or token should only get a printed transfer when they pay – afterwards it is too late.
LikeLike
Charging for a transfer is a concept I don’t think we’d ever see in Toronto. Given you can be short-turned numerous times, all on the same route!
It does make you wonder then how other systems run, if they don’t have short turns. Though off-hand, I can’t recall ever being short-turned in Montreal – which is perhaps the most similar system to ours.
LikeLike
Re: Paper Transfers and the Cutter, that is still how transfers are issued by Calgary Transit when you board a bus! Calgary’s been in the process of switching to a smart card system but due to problems with the supplier the launch has been pushed back by a couple of years.
In the meantime, everyone who uses either cash or a ticket from book of 10, receives a transfer printed on the same type of paper newspapers use, that is ripped off by the bus driver, who has adjusted the cutting edge so that it’s within the right 15 minute block! During major events, like the Stampede, you’ll see Calgary Transit staff out with these old style transfers and fare boxes to supplement the ticket machines in the C-train stations.
I get the feeling this system was out of date when Calgary Transit first adopted it and that was before I was born.
I have to admit to having been surprised that Toronto still only allows for one transfer instead of giving a passenger a block of time on Transit. Calgary Transit abandoned that practice in favour of allowing a block of 90 minutes back when I was in High School, and my 20 Year Reunion is now fast approaching, which gives you an idea of how long ago that was. Calgary may have an ancient method of issuing tickets, but that’s better than lagging behind on something like this, which really does undermine the usability of a city’s transit system.
LikeLike
Steve, from an Operator’s perspective, I don’t spend a lot if time worrying about or enforcing the transfer issue. I have learned, over time, to view the farebox as a “donation” box and transfers as a “day pass”! Management, in reality, does not back us in fare disputes! This, by the way, is the experience of many Operators that I know. After the way we are treated by management during fare disputes, we tend to take a “I don’t give a rodent’s behind” attitude! I don’t want to get into a lot of detail here, but needless to say it is definitely not worth the effort for an Operator to enter into a fare dispute!!
On a more important issue; if the TTC does implement time-based transfers, my desire is that the cash fare would rise to $4.00! My wife uses a Metropass (via the VIP programme); it annoys me that the regular, daily Metropass users are ALWAYS subject to the fare increases while the cash fare has been frozen for numerous years! It is fast reaching the point where it will be more economical for my wife to withdraw from the VIP programme and go back to using tokens or even paying cash fares to get to/from work.
LikeLike