A recent article, The Flirtation With Fare By Distance, has sparked a debate in the comment thread about the relative merits of flat vs distance-based fares, and the whole issue of how we choose to subsidize some groups of riders versus others. In a recent reply, I took strong issue with some of the concepts advanced by writers, and the thread of my argument is strong enough that it deserves to be seen in an article of its own.
There are two related comments, and I will reproduce them here to set the stage:
Rishi (@PlanGinerd) wrote:
Fare-by-distance is a tricky one that I’m not yet firmly decided on. It clearly works on many large systems worldwide, and I have tons of friends and family who live in Zone 4 or Zone 6 in London who while they do complain the Tube is expensive, they still take it daily and never ever drive or take a cab or a regional train into the core. Perhaps it can only be coupled by changing the economics/costs of driving?
I am 100% sympathetic that FBD benefits those who can afford to live closer to the core, whilst disadvantaging those who live within the borders of Toronto but farther out. I haven’t done enough research yet, but I always think about why someone who lives so far from the City of TO core, would still choose to live within our borders vs. in Peel, York, or Durham regions. Is it really the cheap access to the TTC or is it other services? In other words, what incentives are there to convince them to live in “expensive” Toronto in the first place?
My friends deep within Metrolinx and TTC are also torn. They feel that it is not the role of the operator to handle the social equity, but the role of the province through transfers and tax breaks. I ask Steve and the community, if the province was to pair FBD for all GTA transit agencies and truly integrated fares, with a tax break to help those disadvantaged, would that change your mind?
It reminds me of a conversation I had last week on Twitter with Moaz RE how social programs that give out free TTC fares would cope without tokens. I see Presto tech. as enabling if done right, and it would be easy to give out cards with balances on them, or a periodic reload to help with fares, whilst also giving valuable O-D and usage data.
Maybe I’m too much of an optimist but things like this, and exiting fare gates are commonplace and the norm in cities everywhere. Yes local context is critically important, but I think we have to get away from the nay-saying that Toronto is always different and every other best practice could never work here.
Jonathan C wrote:
Flat fares are a very ineffective way to reduce inequality as the benefit is not well-targeted to those who need the help. There are plenty of people making long trips who could afford a higher distance based fare, and plenty who struggle to pay the flat fare for short trips or end up walking long distances because they can’t justify the cost. In most cases everyone would prefer better service. If you want to help those in need then push for an increase in the low income tax credits, don’t try to use the transit system as it is a very blunt instrument.
In a way the flat fare leads the poor to live further from the core as only those who are better off can afford higher housing costs plus the flat fare. The poor service to far-flung locales also pushes commuters into cars, while those who can’t afford to drive end up trading their time for a lower fare.
My replies:
This discussion seems to be taking place as if we were proposing to introduce flat fares as a net new subsidy that would benefit people who don’t need it. If that were the case, I could certainly understand arguments for targeted rather than broad-brush subsidies.
We are not. The discussion is of the potential effect on a wide range of transit users who now have a common fare no matter how far they travel compared to what they pay today. If you want to talk about actual need, then let’s expand the debate to free fares for all children, or reduced fares for all students and seniors. During the whole debate over cheaper fares for university students, I was struck by the absence of advocates for the truly poor saying “hey, what about us”, and the hand-wringing extended to a group that on the whole comes from relatively affluent backgrounds.
I have yet to hear a cogent argument for distance-based fares beyond “other people are doing it”. Well, no, throughout much of the GTHA, “local” fares are flat. Even London UK, that oft-cited bastion of fare-by-distance, uses flat fares for its surface system with time-based transfer privileges.
Correction: London does not have time-based transfers on its surface routes, with very limited exceptions. [July 2, 2015]
The question of flat fares vs fare by distance has nothing to do with “nay-saying” or “best practices”, it is a political and social choice the city has made. If we want to talk about fare collection technology, or the best way to operate a transit system, those are fair game for criticisms of the “not invented here” syndrome so common in Toronto.
“Equity” as Toronto defines it may well mean a flat fare. Don’t forget that the pesky border with the 905 is a comparatively recent phenomenon, and problems of low market share for transit within 905 systems (i.e. for local travel in York Region, or Durham, or Mississauga) have nothing to do with fare by distance, but with built form and the relative lack of competitive transit services. Fare by distance will only “solve” the problem for trips that are now cross-border by giving them a (presumed) discount. It won’t add better bus service unless there is a substantial jump in revenue to offset costs, net costs that are higher in the 905 because of the much richer per rider subsidies.
Where people choose to live is a product of many factors including income and service (broadly defined) availability. Try living without a car out in the 905 — the TTC for all its problems is a damn sight better, and it can certainly be argued that there is a stronger, longer history of community support services within Toronto than elsewhere even if these are stronger in the “old city” than in Toronto’s suburbs. Some of this is also historical — the 905 suburbs simply didn’t exist when many families moved to the outer 416, or they were aimed at a very different demographic. Markham is not noted for its large pool of social housing.
When we speak of transit discounts as a “social service”, this is usually in the context of truly disadvantaged groups who for mainly economic reasons are deemed worthy of additional social supports. There is a big problem with arguments that they should be funded through alternative means to transit fares such as tax rebates. Social subsidy programs are chronically underfunded and have exclusionary eligibility tests. Tax credits are a wonderful thing, but they are almost always structured to benefit those who have a taxable income in the first place, and can even disproportionately benefit the well off.
If we start talking of flat transit fares generally as a “social service”, we miss the whole point that encouraging people to use transit has an economic benefit for the city by avoiding pressure for more road construction, and a general benefit to all residents by reducing the need for one or more cars in their families. This is the sort of thing that would show up in any full accounting of costs and benefits. The hidden subsidies to motorists are not subject to the same scrutiny, nor are they regarded as some sort of social service. We also build roads for the economic benefit of the trucking industry and all of its clients. Maybe we should start thinking of that as a “social service” too because it is a form of job creation.
It is very easy to characterize things we don’t want to spend money on as “social service” or even worse “welfare”, while the things we prefer (often for political and ideological reasons) as “investments”.
Any scheme that discourages transit use relative to what is and has been in place for decades is the equivalent of a “disinvestment”, almost like asset stripping where dividends are more important than the health of a company.
If you want to call me a “nay-sayer” for that attitude, you have that right, but it’s a pejorative term, an artificial, ad hominem argument that does not engage in debate of the basic principles.
I would remind you that the “nay-sayer” epithet was used by John Tory during his campaign against those who criticized SmartTrack, and we now know what a bag of crap that proposal was.
The availability of vast amounts of travel data is routinely cited by those who would move us to fare by distance. Dare I remind readers that distance-based fares have existed for much, much longer than the ability to collect this data, and they are a product of political and business decisions about pricing service, not a means to collect O-D info.
The next time you go shopping and someone makes it harder for you to get through the store because they want detailed data about your buying habits, be sure to co-operate fully.
The TTC does not, repeat, not need a mountain of O-D data to provide better service. You can find out where the riders are simply by looking at the buses and streetcars, and broad network demands can come from O-D data in the TTS survey.
They already have a mountain of data documenting the behaviour of their vehicles, and after many decades are finally starting to analyze it in ways similar to the work I have published. Problems with vehicle bunching and poor headway management contribute a great deal to crowding on the TTC. Even with this documented in excruciating detail, little is done to fix problems of “TTC culture”. This is even a double-edged sword in that with all this data, some claim that all we need to do for more capacity is to improve management and schedules, not to actually operate more service. This is a variation on the “efficiency” argument that neatly avoids an actual commitment to better service.
Let us have a debate on fare structure by all means, but let it be a real debate, not simply a fait accompli that shows up because Andy Byford and Bruce McCuaig decide to impose fare-by-distance on us all as a matter of simplicity for Presto’s implementation. The technology should serve what we, collectively as cities and a region, want to help transit achieve, not get in the way or penalize riders who happen to live in the wrong place. Let’s talk about GO Transit’s uneven handling of short trip fares and the discount structure that makes travel from Kitchener to Union Station far cheaper, by distance, than travel from Rexdale. Let’s talk about what is needed to make transit service in the 905 truly attractive so that more people will want to use it, and transit will have political support for spending on more than a few subway extensions and GO improvements.
That would be a real debate. What we have today is an utter sham.
Steve Munro 
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
LikeLike
You are forgiven my son. Go and sin no more.
LikeLike
Yes, I understand that you were kidding. But, as Steve points out, there are a lot of people who think that way.
I myself am a fan of “nudge economics”.
Which is why my “kidding on the square” proposal for the Sheppard Stubway is to cut it back to end at Leslie, with the GO Richmond Hill line station being moved up the track to the same station. Then build the Sheppard LRT the rest of the way through Scarborough.
This provides a strong “nudge” for people going downtown to get on the GO train. If someone has to change trains anyway, why not only do it once? Thereby providing relief for the Yonge line.
Yes, I know, we don’t live in a rational world. And suggesting that a subway line be cut back yields a “Burn the Heretic” response in today’s politics. Sigh…
LikeLike
Source? Real economics professors tend to believe just the opposite. They believe that dense mega-cities yield the highest economic returns.
Once again, what is your source?
I suspect that your source is engaging in the “average fallacy.” For example, suppose Bill Gates walks into a bar. On average, everyone in the bar is now a multi-millionaire.
The health consequences due to people in Toronto being poisoned by car drivers fall disproportionately upon children. The death of a child tends to shorten the child’s life by several decades.
LikeLike
These are the two reasons for my previous comment with regards to drivers not paying for the roadways in a way that relates well to their usage.
A C-Max uses as much road as a F350 – but clearly pays a lot less gas tax and HST. Also while the CAA will ascribe gas tax and associated HST entirely to roads, is that appropriate? Should this not be ascribed at least partially to an environment tax?. Further the average does not speak to the marginal road use, the impact on other drivers for driving at peak is not reflected in any current road charge.
When it comes to nudge economics, there are huge problems when we look at how we ask drivers to pay for roads, resulting in a huge issue of peak overuse, with payment and usage and its impact on others not relating well. A driver working the midnight shift and counter-commuting pays very nearly as much gas tax & HST as the day shift worker who is adding to excess peak use.
My personal reaction to shortening the Sheppard Stubway is that we would need to ensure that service in the Richmond Hill ROW was very frequent, so that the transfers were regarded as equivalent. If we could run it on a near LRT headway (5 minutes or less), with equivalent fares I suspect the vast majority of core bound riders would transfer, as would most core bound Finch East bus riders. However, the radical improvement in service on Richmond Hill would be a prerequisite and likely the dominant effect. This would require alternatives at the north and south end of the route, to make really short headway viable.
LikeLike
@Kevin Love:
If you want another take on transit service look at Jarrett Walker’s Human Transit comments section about choice that are being made in Los Angeles. The comment section quickly changes into a study of the TTC service standards with some comments about other cities.
LikeLike
Want people to work, well make it so there are jobs, and an incentive to work. Start with a guaranteed income support, and tax people as they earn income (or rather start by reducing the support at the same rate as tax), that way working will always be better off (and more work always results in higher net income)- because they are keeping the lions share of their earnings – not mostly losing support. We need to aim directly at what we are trying to achieve, and stop creating additional costs by coming around through the back door. We need to focus on the incentives of users (program recipients). The problem is incentives – too high a minimum wage makes it harder to justify hiring, too little support in moving to work from welfare (or other income support) means people have a hard time getting off. Take too much income support away when someone starts working then guess what – set the wage for a low contribution job too high – and it will disappear (although too low – also means people get non jobs and useless experience). Direct taxes broadly based taxes are generally better than indirect ones.
We need to support transit, because of the impact of people driving, and the fact that we need to encourage good behavior. Ideally we should have special road tolls for peak use, but well that will never fly so. We need to focus on the incentives – what is the impact of fares, quality of service, cost of parking, instant price of roads directly to users etc. We want to drive growth to transit then the incentives need to align.
LikeLike
TTC Deputy CEO Chris Upfold has suggested in an article published in Metro that we are more likely to see fare by speed of travel rather than fare by distance implemented. Perhaps the decades of flat fare are coming to an end?
From Metro:
Steve: I think Upfold (or whoever he is citing) is very misguided on this. What is “fast”? Is it a GO train? Is it the subway (provided it’s not crawling from station to station packed with riders)? Is it a fastr suburban bus late at night? Is it the SRT?
This has all the earmarks of someone trying to come up with a “merged” TTC/GO fare by charging more for the subway (and by extension, for SmartTrack which everyone expects to ride for a standard TTC fare and transfer). The problem is that our network is designed as a single entity, not one with premium services (except for a very few squeaky wheels who almost always had a Councillor advocating their case making their routes “untouchable”).
I cannot help feeling that TTC riders are being railroaded into a new fare system simply to keep GO/Metrolinx happy with some bastardized form of integration.
LikeLike
I think this is a very dangerous route. I really hope that all realize that there is a fundamental need to improve service, and increase service availability to make the city and region work. Increasing fares will drive the marginal rider off transit. There needs to be a drive to create real capacity and draw ridership – not push it away. If growth is to be sustained, it needs to be transit oriented, and that means making sure that transit is the most attractive option. Create a real – simple form of fare integration.
LikeLike
I read Upfold’s remark to equate fast trip with ‘higher order’ transit defined as express bus, LRT on reserved ROW, lines 1-4, Eglinton Crosstown, RER, GO bus & rail services + whatever the morrow may bring. (Turbo charged swan boats also, subject to regulatory approval).
Interesting TTC management has shown their hand absent any fare policy discussion by the Commission.
If a premium fare is required for higher order transit, the price sensitive passenger will opt for lower order services when possible. Will TTC improve the lower tier of service or will it offer not just slower but overcrowded, infrequent, uncomfortable, unreliable service?
Business class or steerage?
It’s surprising to find us moving toward the provision of 2-tier public services
The adoption of universal fare cards and POP systems often mean the removal of fare gates & turnstiles, yet the TTC is prepared to spend multi-millions on fare control barriers.
Upfold doesn’t indicate if Presto can accommodate the TTC’s complicated transfer rules currently in place or whether transfers necessitate a timed fare.
This news is beginning to smell badly.
LikeLike
By speed-based fare I think it is more likely he means premium downtown express buses and RER/Smart Track. It would cost more for the TTC to provide bus based alternatives to the subway and LRT then to let everyone ride them.
Steve: If it’s only for the Premium Express and Smart Track, it will address only a tiny part of the system, and in the latter case would violate the claimed “TTC fare” platform the Mayor ran on. Public speculation has its problems when a better tactic would be to actually publish a full set of proposals for debate. The worst thing we could see is a report that discards options even before we debate them.
LikeLike
There are a number of basic questions that need to be asked:
1. Are we designing a system just for the 416 or for the entire GTHA?
2. If it is for the GTHA will the province and the suburbs pay part of the subsidy for the cross border trips?
3. While the subsidies per passenger in the suburbs are a lot higher than in Toronto a lot more people ride in the 416 so the subsidy paid per taxpayer, not rider, is a lot higher. Is it fair to ask city dwellers to pay all of the subsidy for suburban (905) riders in the 416?
4. Is it the responsibility of the TTC, and Toronto, to operate and cover the losses for subway service into surrounding regions? I think that the TTC got taken on the Spadina extension.
5. Should there be a regional agency consisting of elected representatives from the area municipalities with the authority to impose taxes and make decisions about cross border service and subsidy? This is not the current version of Metrolinx.
6. Should there be a two tiered fare structure, one for local services and one for regional express services?
7. Should there be a reduction in the fare for those who use two different carriers and who should be responsible for paying the extra subsidy?
These questions need to be answered before we get into what fare structure the TTC, or other “city” transit operations will have.
LikeLike
Wait ’till the Eglinton Crosstown line becomes a separate, premium fare. “We spent a whole lot building this, and we’re running it, so you’re paying extra” sez Metrolinx. Opens a whole new can of worms.
LikeLike
I must disagree with his points #3 and #4. It has been pointed out many times that the TTC has one of the lowest, if not the lowest, operating subsidies of any major urban public transit system. For the sake of argument, let’s say the TTC has a 90% fare-box costs recovery.
Steve: Actually, it’s more like 68% farebox, 3% miscellaneous (advertising and contract services), 29% subsidy.
If the TTC has more passengers than transit services in the 905, how is the subsidy per taxpayer higher in 416 than 905? It would seem that a higher proportion of all residents, many of whom are taxpayers directly or indirectly, are using public transit in Toronto, yet the per ride subsidy is the lowest of all.
Steve: There is some confusion in the argument here as to whether we are talking about 416 taxpayers paying subsidy for rides taken within Toronto, or 905 taxpayers paying subsidy for rides taken in the respective regions. The rubsidy per rider is much higher in York than in Toronto, but there are many fewer riders so that the total dollar value is comparatively low and is spread over many taxpayers. The high taxpayer:rider ratio in York dilutes the higher subsidy:rider ratio there.
The standard TTC cash fare is $3.00 per ride, but most riders pay less by buying Metropasses, tokens and tickets, student & seniors discounts, free rides for kids 12 and under. Whatever the average fare, the TTC recovers 90% from fares.
Steve: The average fare is running at $1.99 as of the June 2015 CEO’s Report.
What the TTC is putting into York Region is a subway. Within Toronto, the subway is not exactly stand-alone. It has a feeder system of buses, with that 90% fare recovery. That feeder system has its own costs of operation, which are substantial.
In the 905, that same subway is not connected to TTC’s own feeder system. So anyone entering the subway pays the TTC fare, regardless of how they arrived. But, minus the cost of the feeder system. At this point, maybe would the TTC be enjoying a better than 100% cost recovery?
Regarding taxpayer subsidies, compare Highways 401 and 407. The first is free to travel, the second is a toll road. The toll isn’t exactly cheap; I often pay $26 round trip. They run parallel, and are of comparable width and length running through the GTA. The 407 does have a few extras built into the toll, such as corporate profit and toll collection costs, but otherwise, the costs of operating both highways is similar. There’s maintenance and clean-up, winter snow & ice removal, signs, repairs, upgrades, depreciation of assets, etc. However, taxpayer subsidies to drivers are not limited to Highway 401, it extends to all roads. Yet the taxpayer subsidy to public transit is much much smaller in comparison.
Therefore, logic would tell us that in order to reduce road congestion in the GTA, and the $billions it costs us annually, we need to reduce the road subsidy and increase the transit subsidy. Without the political will and an informed public, this is not happening anytime soon.
Finally, to answer Robert’s point #7, I would say “no”. Each transit system is independent. There is no system for York to compensate Toronto, nor is there a need for York to have to compensate Toronto, or vice versa. This now becomes a good example of fare-by-distance.
Steve: Actually, there is talk of the TTC not getting a “Toronto” fare even though they were supposed to in the “deal” for the cost sharing on the route. This was mentioned in passing at the last Metrolinx Board meeting. TTC’s estimated annual loss for the Spadina line, an estimate which is now several years old, is over $10m, and that includes fare revenue from York Region passengers. That’s new money someone has to pony up just to keep the trains running. The TTC has not produced an updated estimate, in part I suspect because it would be too embarrassing.
Fare by distance is not what York voters signed on for — they expect a one seat ride to downtown on one TTC fare, and look forward to a similar arrangement whenever the Richmond Hill subway is built. The most common complaint I hear when saying “why aren’t these riders on GO Transit” is that “GO is too expensive”.
As for “independent” systems, there is a contract between York and Toronto, such as it is, heavily biased in York’s favour. York got away with minimal contribution to the subway’s operating cost, and Toronto got all of the revenue, such as it will be. Now we may even be screwed out of that.
LikeLike
Hopefully if the contract is opened – it is opened. If it is actually renegotiated (as opposed to dictated by the province) then both sides should have a real opportunity to get what they need. Failing that it would be fare gates – for a Toronto determined fare – at the dividing line between the systems.
LikeLike
Thank you Steve and Malcolm for replying and correcting my factual errors and assumptions.
That the TTC subsidy is 29% and not 10% (a number I picked on a whim) does dilute my arguments a bit. But not entirely.
About York taxpayers enduring an overall smaller transit subsidy per taxpayer is very plausible and reasonable. But, the other side of the coin is that York taxpayers must be enduring a much higher road subsidy than Toronto taxpayers.
Continuing with the theme about my complete lack of facts, I have noticed that my country property in Caledon draws a much higher municipal tax than properties assessed at twice as much within Toronto. There is virtually no public transit here, though most everyone wishes there was. (Bolton needs an LRT down to T.O.)
Steve: Caledon must provide its own range of municipal services to far fewer people than in Toronto, and it does not have the industrial/commercial base that Toronto has to carry a goodly chunk of the load. Assessed value has nothing to do with comparisons beyond acting as a relative yardstick for all other properties in the same municipality. If there are X properties and $Y in costs, then the average tax is $Y/X (I am really oversimplfying here but you get the idea). A related problem is that an assessed value is no indication of the ability to pay, especially for long time owners who bought before inflation struck.
Steve: TTC’s estimated annual loss for the Spadina line, an estimate which is now several years old, is over $10m, and that includes fare revenue from York Region passengers.
Again, mouthing off without all the facts, it does seem that a $10 million annual shortfall on the Spadina subway line seems like both a large amount AND a reasonable amount. I do not know what is included in that $10 million, what amortization of capital costs including new trains, train storage, signalling – the big stuff beyond the costs of electricity, operators, attendants, and station cleanliness. And does the $10 million include the entire length of the line from Highway 7 to Union Station? How did they split off the continuation of the line up to Finch?
Steve: No capital amortization is included because the construction and equipment for the line are all paid for by government subsidy. This is operating cost only, the marginal cost of providing service north of Steeles and of maintaining the infrastructure. This is fairly easy to work out based on train hours, track/tunnel length and station count.
Regardless, I suspect that the subway line extension into York will not be an onerous cost to the TTC.
Steve: The point is that it will require $10m in additional subsidy either from Toronto riders at the farebox (about a 1% increase), or from property taxes (about 1/3%), and that’s an ongoing cost.
I do have a question. Can the TTC charge extra for subway rides originating in York? Maybe $3.50 flat rate, but then allow you to return back to York from 416 on a regular TTC fare?
Steve: Yes, they could presuming a complete conversion to Presto and the presence of fare gates at the 905 stations (including the 905 “side” of Steeles West / Pioneer Village). That’s the mechanical side of “can they”. The political side is quite different because York Region has been expecting standard TTC fares to downtown from any station north of Steeles, just as in the old days, subway stations north of Lawrence, east of Main and west of Jane were physically in “zone 2” but charged a zone 1 fare.
LikeLike
I would put to you that – regardless of cost – I would only buy a maximum amount of house and property. Caledon has many fully detached homes for under 500k, how many decent full sized homes can be had in Toronto for that. The cost of provision of services is not that different, therefore the mill rate will be inversely related to the price of a house. Lower density will also increase the cost of service provision. The fact is in some markets in Ontario – the price of a Condo will get you a nice house, and 400k will buy you more house than you want to clean – but that is not the case in Toronto, of course this is one reason Toronto has so many more condos. The city needs to clear the roads, even if the average price of a home is 250k, and that has a huge frontage.
LikeLike
Hmmm. Ok, so the $10 million (an old calculation) applies only to the portion of the subway operating in York, and excludes capital costs amortization, only incremental operating costs.
And the deal at the time was to stick this cost to the TTC, thus in turn to 416 residents. (“You take this cost, we, the Ont. gov’t., pay for the subway.”) That has to be worth something!
In my opinion, in fairness, though, it should be picked up by York. This would require re-negotiations between York and Toronto councils and also perhaps the Ministry of Transport.
So, unless there is a re-negotiation, or unless the TTC can politically increase the “zone” fare, this cost will be hanging on for a long long time. Or, maybe in 20 years, Toronto’s boundary gets extended northwards, and suddenly the subway is completely in Toronto?
LikeLike
I’m very wary of fare by distance.
First, there are some myths. The main one being that someone who rides further is costing the TTC more, so they should pay more. There is simply no such thing as a cost/km in a transit system. That subway is going to run from Finch to Union every few minutes regardless of who is on it. It costs the same if the subway is at 100% capacity or completely empty.
The subway needed to built. The drivers, cleaners, maintenance workers… all need to be paid.
There is nothing ‘natural’ about charging you more money for travelling further on the TTC anymore than there would be about charging you more money to access a website that is further from your home 😛
What we’re really talking about is incentives.
I can understand this. There are times on the weekend, I grudge about paying the full fare when I’m only going two stops and the train is half empty. But I do it anyways as if I drove, I’d have to struggle or pay for parking anyways. Heck, maybe the TTC could actually take it more money if it provided a discount for such trips in off hours to get a higher load factor. I have no idea.
Or there’s the social equity argument. If FBD is going to mainly benefit those rich people living downtown, then what’s the point of it? Or are you going to start charging poor people who live further away more money? Again, given that FBD has no direct relation to the cost of the service delivery.
I’m against FBD for our current lines as their cost has already been paid for.
If we were constructing a new line, I could see an additional ‘toll’ as it would go towards the cost of constructing the new line that would end after a specified time. That’s about the only case I’d see as valid.
LikeLike
We need to get over the misguided belief that the people who live downtown are all wealthy and the “poor” live in suburbs. In fact, the wealthiest neighbourhoods are North of the downtown core.
Many who live downtown are employed at subsistence wage jobs and living in high cost rentals, paying other people’s mortgages; a good chunk are students. People in cooperative/social and subsidized housing on fixed incomes live downtown; MTHC has created pseudo ghettos of people relying on social services and ODSP for survival. Some of us have been here from earlier days when costs were not so high and jobs more abundant, and cannot afford to move or live anywhere else while remaining under- or unemployed. The homeless live downtown because that is where services exist. People with two incomes and/or larger families tend to move where there is more land to utilize, something downtown homes lack.
Many of us downtown walk or bike, at least during good weather, to avoid the costs and crowds of public transport, although the majority of the funding comes from property taxes of those who chose to live close to where they want to be specifically to reduce reliance on/need for any other transport.
In a City as large and diverse as Toronto it is a huge presumption (and error) to suggest that there is any kind of homogeneous consistency in the wealth of people who live “downtown” when the truly wealthy live where they have larger homes and more land … typically in the out-skirting suburbs, near preferential resources (like the Beaches), or nearby commuter areas (like Oakville).
LikeLike
The social justice angle is a little strange. I’ve always thought that the reason for Fare-by-distance schemes was that this was the fairest way to price usage of the transit system. You are consuming more of the resource (transit capacity), hence you pay more. Just like you’d pay more, if you took a cab longer, or you’d pay more in fuel and wear and tear, if you drove your own car further.
The problem with flat fares is that it discourages short-haul trips. And subsidizes long-haul commutes. In the long run, Toronto would benenfit immensely if all modes of commuting were priced closer to their true cost. The preference for living closer to work would increase.
What Toronto needs is a sort of hybrid system. A basic flat fare that would cover buses, streetcars and LRTs where fare-by-distance would be impractical. And then either a zonal charge system or a specific supplement based on distance (or number or stations) travelled on the subway system.
For example. Say the base fare was $2. This could cover short trips (ie. to get groceries for example). This could also allow a lower income resident to actually cross the city using the Eglinton LRT. But if someone wants speed, they could spend an extra distance based charge (say 4 cents per stations as an example) to use the subway.
There’s even the possibility of expanding on this fare system to allow for transfers to go. Either add a small flat surcharge for GO and/or a distance based fare (say per km….). This would open up the possibility of taking TTC buses to GO stations for travel, at a decent rate. True integration.
Steve: The problem with this thesis is that if we started from that premise decades ago, and the city grew around it, then it would be just “the way things are”. However, we have a city where the flat fare was a political decision made to appease suburban voters who had to travel further, on less reliable service, and yet still subsidized the TTC through their taxes. More recently, the outer suburbs of the 416 have become home to many less well-off people for whom the combined effect of a long commute and a higher fare would be regarded now as punitive.
It is important not to assume that people can “just move closer to work” as many factors affect their choice of both home and work location. People out in the suburbs are not all sitting in expensive houses getting a fat, unjustified subsidy for their long commutes.
Also, we are trying to encourage those people for whom cars are really, really attractive as an alternative to transit to get them off of the roads. That has a value, although it does not show up in the transit budget.
LikeLike
@Steve. This is my point. I’m not proposing a higher fare for everyone. Everyone here seems to be fixated on the short trips of downtowners who suffer the burden of a high fare. What about the old lady, living in the burbs who has to pay $3 to take a bus to the grocery store?
My plan creates options. Cheaper fares for short-haul. And a cheap flat fare for crossing the city if you have the time to do it with surface routes. Don’t have the time? Spend the cash and take the subway for a little more.
Incidentally this is not such a foreign idea (or rather is a fully foreign idea…). A lot of places where different transit operators fall under fare payment schema, end up working this way. For example, London with flat fares for buses paid by Oyster card.
The other point is that the bar is now lowered for TTC/GO transfer. So now it’ll cost $2 to access/reach a GO station vs. $3 (or $2.70 depending on how you want to look at it). This will actually provide suburbanites with the option to have an even faster commute with GO.
A hybrid system encourages more short-haul trips because of that lower base fare. Not just downtown, but in those supposedly transit-barren wastelands known as the burbs. A lower base fare with a common fare payment medium with the TTC’s fantastically frequent bus service will really be a challenge to the car for short-trips in the burbs.
The long-haul trips don’t have to be made much more expensive either. The modal or distance-based component can be adjusted so that the ramp isn’t overly steep. For example, what if it were implemented today with $2 base fare for all surface routes (Bus, streetcar, LRT) and say 3 cents per station (calculated by the shortest path). For most people that would be close to the amount charged by Presto for their commutes on flat fare today.
The question is, what do you want to do with the fare system? For me. I want it to maximize revenue for the transit system while simultaneously encouraging transit usage as much as possible. The only fair way to do that in my mind is by building in some component of the fare that is either based on time or distance usage of the system. Bascially, you can’t do this without basing some of the fare on some measurement of consumption of service.
Finally, a hybrid system also allows for discounts. Offpeak: 50% off base fare. Seniors, Children, Students: 50% off base fare all the time. Would the suburbs be mad if grandma was paying $1 to go to the grocery store while the kids were at school and adults were at work?
Steve: You make the assumption that someone has a choice of which mode to use in crossing the city, but someone in Scarborough who wants to travel to the west end anywhere south of Eglinton more or less is forced to use the BD subway for which there is no alternative. Ditto someone travelling from Finch and Yonge to downtown. When the Crosstown opens, does it become a rapid transit line? Toronto has always integrated its subway network into the fare and service scheme rather than providing parallel nets at different costs. GO Transit, a system originally designed for suburban, peak period commuting, is the anomaly in the GTHA, and moreover its fare structure is not strictly distance based as the cost/km is much higher for short trips than for long ones.
Another important consideration is the “consumption of resources” by a rider and the assumption that this is a function of distance travelled. The big cost of having the subway is simply opening the stations and having an army of staff to operate them and maintain the infrastructure for the trains. The marginal cost of a ride during many parts of the day is zero, especially considering that as a matter of policy subway trains operate every 5 minutes, at worst, whether they are needed or not. It is simply not possible to devise a fare structure that captures all the nuances of costs, and I don’t think that should be its intent in any case. Maximization of fare revenue is only one possible goal, and the provision of service and the ability for people to move around the city is at least as important. That’s what subsidies are for.
LikeLike
Hmmm.
As a rider, when I get on one of the new streetcars, I would prefer it was loaded to about 30 percent of 100% crush capacity, because above that, I can’t expect to be able to find a seat, and sit down, and read a book, or read a paper. That is one thing to be said for fare by distance, under a system that captures fare by distance data, shouldn’t one be able to expect that one is generally going to find that vehicle frequency has been increased, so that vehicles AREN’T running at 100% crush capacity?
As for running routes when the vehicles are completely empty — I think Steve, and others, have explained why routes, or at least certain important routes, should continue to run all night, even if they run empty.
The last time I took the all night Yonge bus, after the subway had stopped running, was decades ago. As I recall, it wasn’t very frequent — about half an hour, but it was running at about sixty percent full for most of its route. Should it have been run every five minutes, at about ten percent full?
Steve: Having the data (whether it be from the fare system, automatic passenger counters, or simply from looking at passing streetcars) will not guarantee additional service — that’s a budget and service policy decision. The TTC is moving to a new standard that the target load for all lines (not just the infrequent ones) is a seated load outside of the peak period, but this is constrained by how many drivers they have (or are allowed to hire by headcount-averse budget hawks).
As for the Yonge night bus, it’s a lot more frequent than half-hourly. A common complaint, especially on weekends, is that there aren’t enough of them.
One important question in all this is just what do we mean by “10% full”. There is a big difference between the peak point, peak direction loads (and crowding) and what we see on the outer ends of lines or in the reverse peak direction. No transit route will ever run at 100% capacity both ways over its full length.
LikeLike
Actually, there is an alternative: the bus. You could take buses across the length and breadth of this city to get anywhere. And should somebody choose to do that and incur the time penalty involved (over choosing the subway), they should be compensated for it with a lower fare.
How can the marginal cost be zero if the system is basing off-peak service on expected off-peak loads? Were off-peak loads to increase (say because of fare policy), then expectedly, off-peak service would increase (say subway frequency goes to every 4 minutes). Would this service increase not have a cost?
Steve: Let’s try to drum this into you again: there is a policy about the level of off peak service that results in more, at times considerably more, service being operated than is required for the actual demand. Moreover, unless someone’s trip actually passes through the peak point, it does not contribute to peak crowding and does not require any additional cost to serve. I did not say all trips have a zero cost, but many of them fall in that category.
For now. But clearly GO is evolving into a more proper suburban rail service. And the TTC’s services and integration with GO should also evolve….
Steve: I am not convinced that GO and its fares are actually “evolving” because their mechanism for rebalancing short-haul fares will not produce meaningful change to levels relevant for urban travellers for years, probably decades. I do not accept the premise that the TTC should change it fare structure just to “integrate” with GO. It’s the tail wagging the dog.
LikeLike
As much as I agree with Steve that there are big problems with it, I’ve expected for some time that fare integration meaning by distance on the subway but flat rates on surface routes will be the only politically feasible option, and is almost inevitable.
Filling gaps in surface routes really seems the least of the problems … An infrequent Danforth Bus isn’t a terrible idea anyway, but figuring out surface zones, rapid/surface transfers, differentiating the subway and GO and figuring out how and where LRTs fit will be something of a nightmare. Methinks the end result will be just as overcomplicated as today, but somewhat friendlier to short trips and GO/TTC transfers.
LikeLike
Happened upon an AngusReid survey (sorry no link) for PRESTO. Proposing a scheme where you would get a credit card & PRESTO card from one of the 5 big banks, with a reward scheme on credit card 1% on purchases, 1.5% on PRESTO purchases & extra bonuses for registering PRESTO card, auto top up, etc.
My question would be who is paying for the PRESTO rewards? Why is this needed to promote PRESTO if all GTHA transit authorities adapting PRESTO anyways?
Suggestions for rewards were funny if not disheartening: $ off driver licence and/or plate renewal, free weekend GO travel, GO parking, GO wifi, LCBO discounts, …
While I don’t see millions signing up for new credit card just to get PRESTO points, how much is this marketing going to cost if adapted? and how much time and effort has METROLINX wasted on this? How is this improving fare recovery?
LikeLike