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 
I found the the comments of the people you responded to much easier to understand than your response.
LikeLike
A flat fare is ridiculous given the design of the transit system. We have a large streetcar system that is best for short-range, local travel and a fare system that discourages short-range, local travel by charging the same for any two points in the city. So it makes zero sense for you to argue that fare-by-distance will somehow discourage transit use. The one and only good point of flat fares is that they are convenient given the TTC’s reliance on antiquated fare media. However, this is no longer an issue with Presto.
Steve: Where do you live, and how long is your typical transit journey? Are you prepared to pay more, possibly substantially more, to eliminate this “ridiculous” fare system?
LikeLike
I am a low income downtown dweller without a car. My property taxes pay for road infrastructure that I do not use so people from the outskirts and surrounding areas (who have not negotiated transfer payments for the roads they use) can drive into town. I often debate going out because of the transit fare when bike weather is not in season. The cost of living downtown is higher and distances to travel are shorter, but the cost is the same. Those living on the outskirts live with less expense and higher travel costs, except they don’t: they count on me subsidizing their travel with my higher living costs and taxes. I don’t see this aspect of balance anywhere in the discussions of equity, although I really appreciate that you recognize the incongruence of offering reduced fares to students and not those with low income.
In the long run, I don’t think that zones within the City are right, our transit should cover the City. Transfer payments from surrounding areas to support their load on our roads and transit make more sense; taxes are how we pay for roads and transit to properly spread the debt load across everyone. Even if you never drive or take the transit, you benefit from both systems being top-notch and in good repair. Work out a system that encourages all who benefit from our systems to support their functionality regardless of where they live; negotiate transfer payments from the areas that use our core facilities regularly and let individuals pay their one fare for access regardless of where they live if they are in Toronto ~ all our property taxes pay for the system.
LikeLike
Would you go as far as to advocate for a flat fare across the entire GO service region? On the one hand it seems absurd to suggest that someone travelling from Peterborough to Kitchener ought to pay the same fare as someone going from Union to Queen on the subway. On the other hand, if the good folks of Rexdale are deserving of a flat fare to downtown as a “social service”, then why not those in Port Credit or Concord? If we are to have zoned fares, lines must be drawn somewhere, and there will be winners and losers.
Steve: No, I would not, but that is a reductio ad absurdum argument which I could take to its logical extreme by advocating that the TTC fares be amalgamated with VIA, and that I be able to travel to Vancouver on my Metropass. There is no question that there is a pressure to reduce the combined fare of crossing the 905/416 boundary, and that means either higher subsidies for the affected transit systems, or higher fares for people who don’t make cross-border trips. If we start to look at distances travelled, there are parts of the 416 that are further from downtown or from each other than. From Yonge & Major Mackenzie to King Street is about 25km, slightly shorter than the distance from Port Union & Kingston Road. A trip across town via Finch from Highway 27 to Morningside is longer. I won’t even get into the distinction between distances on a network that forces people to follow the street grid (typical TTC routes) vs “crow fly” distances along diagonals.
The question then is whether those very long trips, regardless of whether they start inside or outside of the 416 should pay the same flat TTC fare we now have (one could argue that folks in Richmond Hill would be entitled to it based on distance), or if fares for the long trips should go up. This is not a question of providing a social service to Rexdale, but to anyone regardless of their economic status (see again Richmond Hill) to whom we give the option of travel by transit as an alternative to car ownership. Indeed, the folks in Richmond Hill may get a subway, something those in Rexdale could only dream of. Who is getting the “social service”?
An unrelated thought I’ll throw out: What contribution do flat fares have (if any) to urban sprawl? Is there a “social benefit” to using fare-by-distance as a means of encouraging a more compact urban form and reduced GHG emissions by shortening commutes? I wonder if the family considering a cheaper home in the outer 905 vs a more expensive property in the 416 would weigh the costs of transportation vs the additional mortgage costs. Or perhaps the 2-3 hours on a GO train each day is enough of a disincentive, and the ticket price doesn’t do much to change the balance of the equation.
Steve: If we actually had a widespread transit network in advance of the 905 buildout, I might agree with you, but sprawl seems to be happening regardless of the availability of transit. We have never attempted to build a more compact city, and the development industry makes sure that land for low-density suburbia has all the political support they can muster. Transit and transit fares have nothing to do with this. GO might sustain the growth of Toronto’s core and bedroom suburbs, but it does not cause it. And, of course, GO uses fare-by-distance.
LikeLike
“Where do you live, and how long is your typical transit journey? Are you prepared to pay more, possibly substantially more, to eliminate this “ridiculous” fare system?” … says the guy who accuses his opponents of ad hominem attacks. And yes, I would pay more.
Steve: I just want you to belly up to the bar before you ask others to pay more.
LikeLike
Steve – there are a couple of points that I would like harp on
1. If we are going to talk about altering the transit payment scheme to fare by distance, we need to remind ourselves, that we are also giving an extra push onto the roads of those who will use the most of them!! Congestion when it is across a very broad area – like it is in Toronto – is really about lane km of road available, versus that being used. Push a 25 km transit trip onto the roads, and well you are likely using an extra 25km worth of lane slots that are already at an extreme premium. Those of you who are drivers, are you ready for an additional 20, 30, 40, 50 or even 60 thousand extra road users (assuming a 1-4 % reduction in transit usage)? What will the impact on your commute be? Remember these will likely be most heavily represented from those who currently have the longest TTC trip. What will the impact be on the choice of location for employers? What will be that secondary impact on traffic (would be willing to bet this will be an amplification of negative effect).
2. If we are going to look at the subsidy to transit, we need to remind ourselves, that we provide one to roads, and this does not relate well to gas tax or any other user fee, and we come nowhere near collecting the incremental cost of providing additional roadways especially at peak with any tax that relates to usage.
3. Many decisions in terms of locations and employment have been made on the basis of the existing scheme – and any substantial alteration will create a great deal of anger, angst, and disruption.
When we look at systems like London, we need to remind ourselves, that they have much higher fuel taxes and have on top of that implemented congestion taxes, in order to balance that system. When we compare to US system, we need to ask ourselves, if we are in a position to support (and do we want to go there) that level of road usage.
It is easy to complain about spending money on transit, however, we need to remain aware of where else we spend money, and the carry on impacts (second and third order) of altering the decision matrix of users, and employers across the city. Toronto cannot build the required additional roadways to support further scattering employers, but if you reduce the incentive to be near transit – that will be the effect.
LikeLike
I found this piece hard to follow in general, and the argument relating to 905 especially so. For instance, of course Kitchener to Union has a cheaper-per-distance cost than Rexdale, since there are fixed costs irrespective of distance, different station spacing, construction in areas of different densities, different technology, etc. Steve knows this, so what was that sentence really trying to say?
Steve: My point is that the “problem” of the extra fare at the 416/905 boundary, which is behind all of the talk of fare integration and hence fare by distance, came much later, historically, than the extension of a single fare throughout the 416 as a policy of tax and service equity for what were then considered as relatively affluent suburbs.
GO is not truly “fare by distance”, and if you attempt to figure out the underlying formula as in “X fixed cost plus Y per km”, you will find that it doesn’t work because “X” is much larger for short trips than for long ones as a matter of GO’s policy. For many years GO was very open about discouraging short trips so that it could preserve capacity for long ones, and their fare structure reflects this. It would be like the TTC deliberately filling up trains at Finch because those boarding at Eglinton were not worth the bother.
This is a discussion about TTC fare structure, but to be meaningful it must also address a future that likely includes the physical integration of RER and TTC, and possibly fare integration with the rest of GO and the local 905s. In such a world, how do fare-by-distance and timed transfer compare and possibly mix?
Steve: Yes, that would be a meaningful discussion, but we are not having it.
It strikes me that the GTA as a whole ends up with a zone system, simply because it has multiple transit authorities. The TTC operations within 416 could be a single zone (or not). Even with a single 416 zone, how do we deal with TTC’s increasing operations outside the 416? At first blush, gates and exit taps for TYSSE would seem to be required, and perhaps that’s what the 2015 order for gates is for.
Steve: The TYSSE was always sold to York Region (and a future Richmond Hill line by implication) with the idea of a single fare from any subway station to downtown. Nobody has talked about changing this. Indeed part of the attraction of a subway to Richmond Hill rather than better GO service is that riders will save money on the TTC.
I’d appreciate a stab at examining the pros and cons of:
1) single zone for all TTC
2) 416 in a single zone, TTC 905 in another zone
3) multiple zones within TTC
In all cases, RER/SmartTrack/TTC integration needs to be considered, and an explanation of how rest-of-GO/905 fare integration might look like.
LikeLike
I always found it a bit peculiar that one could theoretically travel from Long Branch (on the boundary with Mississauga) to Port Union (on the boundary with Pickering) on a single fare, yet a trip up Yonge Street past Steeles Avenue necessitates an additional fare. That said, I understand the arguments on both sides and your points are well taken, Steve.
I may have my facts wrong, but wasn’t the elimination of the TTC’s zone system in the 1970s originally tied to the formula whereby the province picked up half of the TTC’s operating subsidy, an arrangement that was subsequently cancelled in the 1990s? With the TTC so dependent on farebox revenues compared to other major systems, can the flat fare continue to be sustained? I’m interested to get your take.
Steve: The zone fare disappeared because the suburbs objected to supporting the TTC’s costs, but paying a higher fare for travel. Provincial subsidies at the 50% level came along after the zone fares had been eliminated.
The TTC is dependent on farebox revenue because governments don’t want to pay more, except for big capital projects, not for operations. The flat fare has other benefits as I have discussed, and eliminating it would open a huge political can of worms in the suburbs vs downtown battle. “Sustained” is a question of what we want to pay from general revenues, not some insurmountable fiscal challenge.
LikeLike
Thank you.
I am continuously shocked at how people who like me are right of centre fiscally and prefer money to be spent wisely do not get how fiscally wise it is to regularly fund transit and charge fares for the common good, as against supporting one group over another.
Fare by distance will hurt people in the inner suburbs who have no choice but to live within the city in order to access transportation to and from home to get to anything. Suggesting people move to the 905 just shows some people don’t actually look at realities. Unless you live in a few narrow and expensive to rent bands along Yonge Street or Highway 7 or Hurontario, It is simply not possible to live in the 905 and rely solely upon transit to get anywhere. Forcing people to move out of the inner suburbs through transit increases would do serious harm to our economy as a lot of the lower paying jobs would go unfilled. i.e. It makes no long term fiscal sense to go to fare by distance with the understanding that the working poor will move out of the city.
Transit in a city this big is a public economic necessity, not a social service. It is more vital then the 401 and the airport combined.But, because a lot of people take transit only when they choose to, they don’t see transit as something that is a necessity to keep people working at the jobs that make this city, area and country fiscally viable.
Just as worryingly, I am seeing a huge creep towards a two tier transit system in this city:
UPX.
RER based on 1/2 hour service at a premium.
A ham fisted Presto implementation that doesn’t take into account that people losing a Presto card is like losing your debit card (i.e. no its not just like losing a token or your Starbucks Card).
And now talk of fare by distance.
All are or will be creating barriers between those who have and those who do not.
We go down this route at our peril. I have seen first hand the social strife caused by barriers between those who have and those who do not in this city. The cost of adding to those barriers will be way more then the supposed savings/efficiencies created through Presto and fare by distance.
Again, this makes no long term fiscal sense.
LikeLike
I think it is critical in the case of TYSSE that we get off on the right foot. I think we should not structure fares in a manner that is punitive, there needs to be a point at which there is a reasonable divide. The contribution for rides from York region, needs to cover the probable cost of delivery, that would include rides on the balance of the TTC system, and the likely cost of changes that may result from attracting them, or changes that cannot be made due to these rides being on the TTC.
If we cannot increase bus service to the Spadina line or build additional BRTs or LRTs anchored by it, or redirect transfers to it either from the Bloor or Danforth side of the BDL, there are very real cost associated in capital and operations, beyond simply directly serving those rides. If TYSSE attracts a substantial ridership from Vaughan, and any decent percentage of this incremental load is core bound, it will prevent riders from the Bloor and Danforth line from bypassing Yonge by using St George or Spadina stations. It will essentially force the requirement of a DRL into play earlier, by preventing riders from going around.
The GO fare needs to be competitive, and trips to core from Major Mackenzie need to remain on GO. That may mean that the GO fare needs to be reduced somewhat, but it also means the TTC fare from there needs to be more than from within the 416, or York region needs to be prepared to make substantial transfers to cover the full cost of a TTC ride.
LikeLike
Have you tried to board a train at Eglinton in the a.m. rush lately? They are pretty full when they leave Finch right now. People are complaining of the wait to get on a train at Eglinton now. Extending the line to Richmond Hill will only make the problem worse.
Since I believe you said the current TTC subsidy is $0.82 per rider perhaps all the governments that want the TTC to accept their transfers so their residents can ride into Toronto for a lower fare should pony up and pay the $1.64 per day subsidy that their residents are getting when they ride the TTC AND let the TTC keep all the fare revenue. That might explain the true cost to them of a single fare system. I know that many businesses in Toronto rely on workers from the 905 so Toronto should absorb some of the subsidy.
Toronto has the lowest subsidy rate of any urban transit system in North America but it is easier to have a higher subsidy when you only run 13 routes with 15 buses on a one hour headway from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 6 days a week in an area with a population of 400,000 people. I spent two weeks in this American dreamland of public transit 4 years ago. Peterborough has much much better service with one tenth the population. Following this model the TTC would run about 90 routes and 110 buses, plus spares.
Metrolynx and the province will not subsidize the TTC to the same rate that they do other transit service for riders going to GO because too many people in Toronto would use it, GO would require much better service and the costs would be too high. No one system is perfect. Fare by distance is easy to implement on a service like GO but very difficult on the TTC. A flat fare is easy to use on a local transit agency and some cities outside Toronto will allow through rides on one fare but the ridership that uses this is very low. For people crossing into Toronto the numbers are very large and the revenue losses would be very high.
The problem with any change is that there will be winners and losers. No one minds being a winner but watch out for the anger of those who think that they are losers. One complaint that deserves looking at is for those who take a short ride that crosses the 905/416 boundary. These people do have a legitimate beef in my view. Many cities in the 905 will accept transfers or the Presto equivalent for cross border riders but the numbers are relatively small.
Perhaps Toronto should adopt an outer zone 2 that extends 2 to 3 km in from the outer border. The cost to ride anywhere in the 416, i.e. zone 1 and 2 would be a single fare but people who crossed the border but stayed in zone 2 would not pay the full TTC fare. In order to do this you need to implement tap on tap off, at least in zone 2. The default would be that you were assumed to ride into zone 1 if you didn’t tap off. No one system is perfect and even a mixture, FBD on GO, zone and flat fare on the rest, timed transfers whatever someone wins and someone loses. The trick is to try to pick the fairest one or should that be farest, but they will all require a higher rate of subsidy than exists now. Where is King Solomon when we really need him?
LikeLike
As my post spawned this article, I look forward to the thoughtful debate and discussion about fare policy and thank you for the responses/engagement.
I don’t know too much about fare policy in general (although Bob Brent is trying to teach me), and while I am very much undecided, the point that hits home the most is regarding how we have a flat fare within Toronto system in place already.
A lot to think about. I’m enjoying the comments already.
LikeLike
I’m truly astounded some transit fans and so-called activists would push for an unequal and confusing system like fare by distance or zone fares.
I have not heard one good argument for FBD other than “fare’s fair.” What so fair about a system that hurts people who have to travel long distances to work? Some “activists” try to dodge this by claiming short trips would be encouraged and cheaper. That’s rubbish. You can make short trips cheaper by implementing a timed transfer system, and eliminating the need to pay two fares.
And to Andrew97, Yes. FBD will discourage transit use, because fares will increase. That typically discourages transit use, and add the frustration of a system that charge various fares, people will find driving is the better option.
One question I’d like answered is how you can implement FBD on a system that is largely bus based?
Steve: It is possible, but it requires tap in/out for every leg of a journey which is a major pain in the butt on a system that was never designed for it.
LikeLike
I couldn’t agree more. Malcolm, it was nice to see you at the gay pride parade this past weekend. Also I would like to say that instead of experimenting with the HOV lanes during the games, could not we have experimented with tolls instead? I drive a 5 seat car and I have 4 dummies seated with me usually unless my boyfriend is on board with me in which case there are 3 dummies and one boyfriend and the one remaining dummy goes in the trunk as the boyfriend won’t fit there. I have never been fined for beating the HOV lanes with my very realistic dummies.
Steve: The infrastructure to implement tolls is substantial and does not lend itself to a “trial” period. And, btw, a belated Happy Pride to you too!
LikeLike
For me, the first step in any change to the fare system is for the TTC to finally wake up and join the rest of the world in allowing for time based transfers. For me, if I am only taking a short trip, I can do a return trip in less than two hours. However, the TTC charges me two fares for this, despite the fact that another person who started out at the same time from the same stop could still be travelling on the TTC in the time it took me to do my round trip and they only had to pay one fare.
For me start with this, and it will be no big deal once PRESTO is fully functional as the card will pick all this up and automatically charge you again on the first trip outside the two hour point.
But it would be interesting to see what would happen if we went to a fare by distance option – although I think it should only be done after implementing the time based transfers.
Of course, if the province really wanted to do something to encourage transit use, then using a PRESTO card means that I can transfer between two (or more) local transit systems while paying only a minimum amount (if any at all), sort of like with the GO train. For example, if I start out on the TTC and then transfer to Mississauga Transit, I’d pay one fare for the TTC (either the current flat rate or an amount based on the distance I travelled on the TTC), and then only another 60-70 cents when I get on the Mississauga Transit bus.
Also, another option is for a lower PRESTO rate for lower income users – or perhaps the ‘normal’ rate of $2.80 is applied if you travel anywhere on the TTC, but a lower fare (such as $2.00) if you only use the TTC in small area (i.e. 5 km) on a regular basis. With PRESTO, I am sure these options only require a programmer to change the software that PRESTO uses as PRESTO currently can keep track of how often you travel in a given month and give you a larger discount for using the same route on a minimum number of trips per month.
LikeLike
It’s pretty simple: if some riders pay less — for short trips, or cross-border trips — then other riders must pay more, or there needs to be more subsidy. It’s a zero-sum game.
The only way it wouldn’t be a zero-sum game is if riding increased a lot, without the requirement of more equipment/labour. This would mean more fares coming in, same expense for operations and maintenance. I see no evidence that this would be the case. The typical “I just take a short trip” ride would be on already-busy “downtown” routes, and would require more streetcars and possibly even more subway service. However, these overcrowded services would see less — potentially much less — fare revenue. The King car is already packed to the trolley-catcher at a $3 fare; how many more potential riders will you fit if you charge say a $1 fare for a couple of kilometres (which would take you, e.g., from Spadina to Sudbury)? Not enough to make up for the reduced value of fares collected.
Where there is extra room, on the outer ends of suburban collector routes, is where we’d see the minimum number of extra short-distance rides. Those suburban riders would be paying considerably more to make the same length of trip as they do now; in the meantime, the so-called downtown elite would have much cheaper fares for their short hops, but unfortunately what few vehicles we could afford to run at these cut-rate fares will be packed so they can’t get on.
The only way I can see fare-by-distance working at all well is if the overall subsidy goes up, way up. I bet Byford and McQuaig aren’t going to talk about that.
Steve: For the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the King car, Sudbury (the street, not the city) is just east of the railway underpass for the Weston GO corridor, a distance of just under 2km. Ed is not proposing an extension of the 504 to northern Ontario.
LikeLike
Having lived in FBD jurisdictions, I wonder about the operational impacts of implementing in Toronto.
For example, there is very little appetite to do anything that would increase congestion in the city. Forcing a “Tap off” will increase dwell time on any LRT/Streetcar and effectively block the road for a longer period of time. It’s hard to sell the idea of implementing something that will both increase congestion while making a streetcar ride even slower.
Or another example, what would the default rule be for folks who forgot to “tap off” (or there was some type of reading error)? Presumably this would default to maximum fare possible. Of course, over time the city will adapt, but in the short term the rash of complaints will overwhelm TTC customer service, the newspapers will be in an uproar, politicians break out the blamethrowers and city staff will be yelled at. Anti-transit crusaders will have a field day.
Another question is how this operates with Pass Products or capped fares as FBD natively works well with stored value cards in which epurse balances are deducted. It’s a pretty simple decision for a TTC rider today to determine the best product for themselves (some combination of convenience vs break even). With FBD, it will become more complex as riders will likely need to factor in monthly trips by zone for any pass product. This may discourage trips on “out of zone” trips. I imagine it becomes even more uncertain as to how a cap would work.
Of course, the real question is “what do we hope to gain”? If it’s about new sources of revenue, then offering off peak products via a 2 hour Transfer or loyalty points seems a better prospect. If it’s to better cover the costs of expensive modes, then maybe we should just charge a premium on users of the Sheppard Line. If it’s to achieve “equity” then maybe it’s worth recalling that every rider is subsidized, not just those coming in from the periphery.
This brings up an alternate intriguing fare model: Premium Fares for Express modes. Why not include in this debate the idea of forcing a tap into all subways (including those with Free Transfer points) and charging a premium fare for that mode. Everyone seems to love “subways, subways, subways”, so maybe we should get them to fully cover their operational cost and allocate a greater percentage of operational subsidy to plain old buses. All those folks taking the TYSSE [or the line] from Richmond Hill will be thrilled.
LikeLike
Allow me to put on my big S socialist hat for a rant of my own. I feel those that benefit from transit should be its benefactors. And that of course is everyone. One could not live, work or be at leisure in the city without it. So I am for a flat fare: zero.
Costs should be covered 100% from taxation where issues of social equity or even political pandering to a particular segment of society could be done much more easily.
It’s a model that’s worked quite well for the road network.
LikeLike
1) For those who believe in the user pay model for transit, would distance be the only factor used to calculate fares? Should we not factor in service frequency and density? (By density I mean the number of transit options available within a set distance from one’s house.) Why shouldn’t people who are provided with many transit options in terms of number of available routes and high service frequency pay for it? If you can determine the dollar value of distance you should be able to price quality as well.
2) For those who believe in fare-by-distance/a consumption model for paying for public transit, would you also support fee-by-use for hospitals or schools? If not, why not? As a supporter of PUBLIC transit I’m trying to understand the argument that says the cost of the service should be born by the rider when we don’t accept that line of thinking for other public services. I don’t pay my doctor based on the complexity of the illness he treats. I don’t pay my public school for the number of (imaginary) children I send there. Heck, if we are going to a user pay model for transit, why not just privatize it and be done with?
Why is there this fixation with funding transit with a user pay-by-distance model instead of an insistence that government just subsidize transit properly? Why are we trying to price people off of transit? Should we not be pricing the system to encourage use?
(Here’s hoping that this post has fewer typos than my last.)
Steve: I fix them all, if I spot them, unless I think the writer is a complete idiot in which case the typos add “charm” to the unvarnished text.
LikeLike
This is confusing.
My wife and I travel elsewhere, in Europe and Japan for starters. We see Zoned fares all over the place and we have no problem with it. Neither do the locals. This applies to Subways, SBahn’s, RER’ etc.
In these overseas cities, they do have Presto Card equivalents. In TO (GTA) what works everywhere else, will not work here.
Metrolinx is not an evil entity.
Steve: How many times do I have to say this: over 40 years ago, the fare system in Toronto was changed from zones to a single fare because the (then affluent) suburbs didn’t want to pay extra to ride the TTC when their taxes began to help support it. Today we would call this a “tax revolt”. Now, people who live outside of the old City of Toronto expect to pay the same fare as people inside it, and for trips of any length. Indeed the fare system and route structure is designed around this.
Of course lots of cities have various forms of zone structure. I invite you to explain to a group of suburban Toronto dwellers that they should pay more to ride the TTC just because other cities you have visited use zone fares. That dog won’t hunt.
As for the rest of the GTA, fares are for the most part not based on distance travelled except on GO Transit. It does not matter how the fares are collected, and Presto can be used for any fare scheme.
LikeLike
Transit authorities like the TTC issue ID for obtaining passes, and PRESTO does for concession fares.
I propose that PRESTO use the same system to offer ‘concession’ fares for residents on their own local transit. So Toronto residents pay the current fares on the TTC, but residents of other municipalities bear the full cost via the farebox (probably about the same as the cash fare).
Obviously this means more admin since PRESTO ID services would now be processing a lot more users. But aside from that, would that not solve the 416/905 border problem? It would also be handy for determining how much York Region has to pay the TTC for use of the TYSSE.
On another note, would it be possible to implement tap-off on buses and trains only at stops outside the 416? Essentially, the 905 is Zone 2, and tap-off is only required in zone 2. Obviously, failing to tap off has to be subject to enforcement.
LikeLike
I think the easiest thing is to propose actual numbers and see if they would work …
Let’s say:
Zone 1 is South of Eglinton, Pape to Ossington … anyone in that zone pays $2 – (Steve and I are happy)
Zone 2 is the rest of Toronto – 2$ to travel within your zone, $4 to get downtown … everyone who works in that zone is happy, everyone who works downtown is pissed (the majority)
Zone 3 out to Oakville, Mississauga, Ajax, Vaughn – 6$ to get downtown – probably about what they are paying now – 2$ locally (their transit systems are pissed), 4$ to come into Toronto a bit (maybe a bit of a savings)
Zone 4 out past Hamilton/Kitchener/Whitby – 8$ to get downtown – Go is pissed, 2$ local – their transit systems are pissed.
Even if you switch it to an actual fare by distance vs zone it works out to probably the same values … and nobody outside of people who live and work in the same area are going to be pissed (this is the minority, and so it’s not politically feasible to make this change).
LikeLike
Speaking as a professional Accountant, this is a description of what are known as “non-refundable tax credits.” In other words, as soon as tax is reduced to zero, further tax credits become worthless. Obviously, this benefits wealthy people who would otherwise be paying higher taxes.
It does not have to be this way, and there are many examples of where it is not … and the sky did not fall.
In my opinion, the TTC should be in the transportation business. It is too blunt an instrument for poverty relief. Steve is absolutely right that many university students are members of the upper classes. Why should they get a concession?
The tax system can do a much better job of distinguishing between rich and poor and delivering benefits to those who need them.
LikeLike
Several years ago, I put out this proposal for an integrated fare system in the GTA (it hasn’t been updated since July 2012). The proposal was intended to spark discussion and be revised in various ways resulting from points that I hadn’t thought of, but so far I have not received anything of that nature. I have seen all sorts of discussions about fare integration that dwell on points that my proposal would make a good effort at alleviating.
In an attempt to balance the short-distance traveler with longer distance travelers, It contains five points. The intent was to keep the existing zones (Toronto and each other GTHA municipality single zones each, while York Region would maintain its existing three zones), but breaking up any existing zone into more than one zone could be possible. The only change to the existing zones (with the exception of York Region’s zones) is that boundaries would be about 1 to 2 km wide (point #2), meaning that there is an overlap region between two zones.
Not covered in the proposal is the use of a farecard such as Presto. It would NOT be necessary to tap off of a local transit agency vehicle (GO would still require the tap off). Continuing a journey into a new zone would be charged when tapping on to a new route in the new zone.
The lack of needing to tap-off in a multi-zone environment currently exists in York Region, however it is not currently implemented as automatically as it should be. On YRT, one is supposed to pay the zone supplement (and additional $1) before one enters a second zone. This can be done at the time of initially paying one’s fare, or it can be done further in the journey before the second zone is reached. If one does not pay the supplement and then taps on a vehicle in the new zone, the system charges a full one-zone fare instead of just the supplement when an existing one-zone fare for another zone is still valid. This is something that should be changed, as it should be as transparent to the user as possible.
LikeLike
I am having trouble with the concept that a core dweller is paying a “high” price for multiple short trips. Wouldn’t a person who uses transit for errands and entertainment as well as work simply buy a MetroPass and benefit from the multiple “free” trips and the corresponding drop in the average cost per total trips?
Steve: Certainly they would, assuming that they used enough trips in a month to break even, or maybe with a slight loss offset by convenience. The problem is that many people do not have this type of riding pattern, or do not have enough money that they want to set aside, in advance, the value of a monthly pass. They pay as they play, and may even pay cash fares rather than buying tokens. Even with a Presto card, there has to be money “somewhere” to automatically reload it. Out in the suburbs, some people also make several relatively short hops by transit even as the level and quality of service conspire against this being an efficient use of their time. Again, if their use of transit or economic situation does not lend itself to advance, bulk fare purchase, then a pass does not help them.
LikeLike
I think the issue is that many fare by distance models have the assumption that the rail company and the bus company are different. For example, the Hong Kong rail system and the bus system are totally different companies, and the implementation model would be simple as each has their own cost recovery models. The TTC has a very integrated transit system where the convenience to transfer between trains and buses makes it hard to determine the cost recovery model for the integrated system, and the flat fare simplifies the cost recovery model. As Steve said, it would suck if everyone had to tap off the bus at Finch station and had to tap on the subway mezzanine again. It would make the lineups at subway stations even worse that what is happening now.
Instead of fare by distance, I would push for David Soknacki’s model: fare by demand. Prices are highest when demand is highest (e.g. rush hour fare would be 3.50 because of high demand and 2.80 off peak). The need for transit infrastructure is based on highest demand and we should price our transit that way to encourage off peak use so demand does not overwhelm the system.
As for travel within the 905. Jarrett Walker said it best:
If you build squiggly lines for your subdivisions and make walking distance to major roads far, don’t expect transit to work for you without a huge operational investment.
Steve: I have some problems with Soknacki’s model in that the capital cost of infrastructure to provide peak service is not recovered through fares, but through general taxes at all levels of government. Many riders have no choice as to when they travel, and this scheme would penalize them for a lack of flexibility not of their own making. Flexible work hours tend to be available more to people in relatively affluent, white collar positions.
Should we force schools to change their hours so that all travel would be off-peak? What would this do to the workday schedules of parents?
It is very, very important that fare structures be examined for their secondary and tertiary effects rather than simply for their supposed operational advantages.
LikeLike
I don’t really have strong feelings about fare-by-distance, so I’ve just got a few general comments:
1. A handful of people have brought it up, but the elephant in the room is GTHA-wide fare integration. The question of what fare structure the TTC should use, but regional integration is an important related question, and it’s impossible answer either question in isolation from the other. My sense is that most of the interest in fare-by-distance is because it’s relatively easy to imagine how the TTC under that fare structure would integrate with GO and the other local transit operators, although this motivation often isn’t stated explicitly. When advocating any particular fare structure, people should indicate how their preferred system fits into the broader regional context.
2. It seems like many opponents of fare-by-distance (including our gracious host) are conflating the effects of fare-by-distance and a fare increase. Fare-by-distance discourages longer trips and encourages shorter trips, with a net effect that’s ambiguous. A fare increase discourages transit use in general. Maybe there are political reasons why you expect that a change to fare-by-distance would be accompanied with a fare increase, but I haven’t actually seen anyone make that argument.
3. A number of people in this thread have suggested that fare-by-distance would disproportionately harm people with low incomes, but I actually have the opposite intuition. I suspect the average income of the people who ride the subway from Scarborough to downtown is much higher than the average income of the people who ride the buses within Scarborough itself. But that’s just a hunch–I’d love to see a study done with real data.
Steve: Mainly replying to your second point — unless someone is prepared to pony up more subsidies, any consolidation of region wide fares must be a zero sum game. Politically, the whole process is driven by a desire of people who now pay a 905 fare plus a 416 fare to have a consolidated, lower fare for their travel. If their fare goes down, something else has to go up. The total cost of carrying someone on both a 905 system plus the TTC is substantial especially considering the level of subsidy received by each 905 rider.
So far, our friends at Queen’s Park have refused to provide a co-fare arrangement between GO and TTC because it would cost too much, but they are happy to provide this for 905 transit riders because it saves on the cost of building parking garages. There is no corresponding offset for a TTC/GO fare link.
However, the discussion of fare by distance does not confine itself to 905+416 travel, but also gets into long and short trips within Toronto. For a moment, pretend that the 905 does not exist. Why would we change the arrangement now in place within Toronto? It is a statistical fact that poorer people are concentrated in the outer 416 and that they travel further to work than those who can afford to live downtown. They get worse service (the entire RoFo call for subways turns on the premise that this is the only way to bring “transit equity” to the suburbs), and for this they should pay more?
Finally, I have to get a bit territorial here: if Queen’s Park were actually making a substantial contribution to the operation of the TTC, not just announcing a megaproject here and there, one might argue that “regional” funding demands “regional” equity. They are not. The total contribution to the TTC operating budget from Ontario in 2015 will be $91.6m on a total of $1.695b, much of which comes from riders’ fares. Even that small amount comes only because Toronto chooses to direct over half of the provincial gas tax revenue to operations rather than capital. That 5.4% does not buy much credibility.
LikeLike
This kind of argument I am usually completely in agreement with. But I have two quibbles and a larger problem with it.
First quibble: very few students are from the upper classes, because there are very few people in the upper classes as usually defined. Most are ‘middle class’, but your argument should be made for the middle class, so from now on I’m going to discuss the middle class. The problem is that most middle class families since the mid-90s can no longer afford to pay for their children’s university education. Unlike most countries, we no longer have a cheap public option in Canada outside of Quebec.
Second quibble: Students typically have larger negative cash flows than the poorest of the poor. The education finance game has been increasingly geared towards loading down young adults with debt since the late 90s, and making it back up through the tax system credits, rather than income contingency. Because tuition has risen so much faster than inflation, most students (since they are middle class) have large negative savings rates, putting them in worse financial shape than even the poorest households, at least temporarily. The tax system isn’t trying to address this situation, it’s exactly geared to create it. To address the need for public transit for citizens with the worst negative cash flow, concessions are required for students or else for everyone with low income.
My larger problem is treating students, who are adults, as financial adjuncts of their families. The provincial loan systems are terrible about this, assuming students have parental support, which they often don’t. This is despite the fact that our tax system is generally geared towards taxing individuals rather than households (the new Family Tax Cut notwithstanding). Ironically it should be the other way around: the loan system should not assume parental contribution, and income taxes should be based on households.
The tax and loan system has cracks, and having transit authorities also assume students have parental support just widens the cracks.
For my own part, I came from a middle class family but headed to school at exactly the time my parents lost their incomes. I did not qualify for loans. I learned to pay my own way through school, away from home, and it was a good lesson. Meanwhile, tuition jumped 150% in 4 years, and what I had accomplished in the first year would no longer be possible for a new high school graduate by my final year. The situation has since only worsened.
I was fortunately able to live within walking distance of campus. But otherwise my situation would have potentially been a lot more challenging if not for student concession fares.
Steve: My point about student fares was to illustrate the difference between support based on actual need, and support based on status such as being a student or a senior (something from which I benefit, although I could easily afford to pay adult fares). Students are only one group who may be in a difficult financial situation, and they are not uniformly so, any more than the groups of “all working adults” or “all seniors” are.
One could equally argue that despite the demographics of outer Toronto where incomes are lower than the city average, “all people” in those areas are not poor. However, if the effect of a change in the tariff is to disproportionately affect people who travel long distances to work within Toronto, the burden will fall more on those areas.
LikeLike
The myth of the short trip. I lived at Broadview and Danforth, and I would not take the subway over one station to Pape when doing grocery shopping. Instead I would walk on one side of the street shopping, then back on the other side of the street, a loop. Having lived in downtown Toronto as well, I can’t imagine using the TTC to go over one or two stop, it wouldn’t be worth the wait or the hassle of being on a crowded streetcar/subway. Besides, my route was always circular to take advantage of stops I have to make. Short trips in the downtown are a myth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
100% agree. Affordable access to main employment hubs should be affordable to all. It’s sad enough we have severe inequality in our infrastructure making it difficult enough for many low income residents outside the core.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The issue is how would you implement it, right now on a regional basis we have zoned fares, compare for example the Condo that is 3 blocks North of Steeles, versus the apartment just south, one pays double the fare, even though they are separated by a single stop.
How about fare by time. For example $2 buys you 1 hour, then it’s 25¢ per quarter hour to a maximum of $4. With Presto this would be easy, you ride a bus for 20 minutes, switch to a subway and are on it for 30 minutes, then 15 minutes on a streetcar, total trip is 65 minutes or $2.25. If the gap between swipe off of one vehicle and the swipe on of another (which you don’t pay for), is less then say 30 minutes, it’s considered part of the same trip.
LikeLike
Worthy of note: in many American school districts, schools do pretty much EXACTLY this. The school opening and closing times are staggered massively, and they’re structured around the design of the school bus travel schedule. With no concessions to the parents’ work schedule, what’s healthy for the kids, or really anything else.
So it’s not actually an unheard of idea to structure the school schedule around the transportation. Odd though it may sound.
LikeLiked by 1 person
At the risk of being “Well, actually…”
“Even London UK, that oft-cited bastion of fare-by-distance, uses flat fares for its surface system with time-based transfer privileges.”
There are no transfers on London buses at all. Changing buses is a brand new fare. Getting on a train is a wholly separate fare system. There is daily and weekly capping, or you can get a weekly or monthly pass that covers buses/trams, or buses/trams/trains.
London in general is a poor comparison as the history of urban development is so different from Toronto’s, from commuter operations on mainline rail services that were only united fare-wise with “London transport” in the last decade, to a non-grid bus system that sees a ton of buses travel into central London in a largely radial system in an attempt to replace the old streetcar system (and serves as an informal cheaper-but-slower second-rate-commuting option).
—
I must say complaining about time delay from tap-off is farcical in a system that mandates bus entry single-file through one door only. If you want to worry about bus stop dwell time, all-door boarding must be first order of business (and buses with more doors the second).
Steve: Sorry, I misread a statement on TfL’s website about free transfers which applies only to certain connections, not to the entire network. Apologies.
As for all-door loading, Toronto is moving in that direction. My comments about tap-out delays are in the context that we would undo the benefits of this change. In any event, London does not tap-out for surface routes. The capping approach at least provides an equivalent to a daily or weekly pass, something Toronto should implement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would actually argue that one of the major issues that is being felt in Canada and the US right now – is that there are substantial issues with having the road network being paid for 100% through taxes. There is not enough of an incentive not to travel – until congestion becomes a substantial issue, and people will not bother to really plan trips, as they do not see enough of the cost of making them.
I would agree however, that drivers arguing that taxes should not support transit is a little rich, however, that largely comes from a failure to really appreciate the cost of providing the road network. Having said that – more support for transit is going to be critical to making the city work, and increasing the incentive for people to make longer trips by car – by increasing the cost to people who are making these trips by transit now – will be a congestion disaster.
LikeLike
Has there been any discussion of a fare by mode scheme? I’m all for preserving the flat fare throughout but it seems there’s no political will to do so. Say you add $1 to ride the subway on top of your bus fare which would be otherwise flat throughout. You can get on the bus with your subway transfer or for free in a fare paid zone. We already have two types of transfer. They could issue the subway transfer on bus routes to speed up debarking at the subway ends. You’d need more turnstiles in some stations that are bus termini to handle the directional traffic although some stations I believe are already set up for this type of scheme since the days of zone fare. The subway transfer could be input directly into the turnstile. Technology which existed for quite some time in Montreal since there are no fare-paid loops.
Or you could do all this with presto money?
Steve: The problem with fare by mode is that Toronto’s system since the 1950s has been designed on the basis that the subway replaces bus routes, and there is no attempt to preserve more than token service in parallel with these lines. That’s behind the station design with free, open transfer movements between surface and subway.
A large proportion of trips taken on the TTC involve the subway. Do we want to have a fare increase for them? Do we want to make an offsetting change in surface fares to keep this revenue neutral? How much upheaval in the network’s operation (thinking of passenger flow at stations) do we really want to impose?
What would be the political effects of telling would-be riders on new subway lines that they would have to pay more? What is the Crosstown LRT — a “subway” or a “surface” route?
LikeLike
What do we think the fare should do? Should it cover most of the operating costs as it does now? Should it drive ridership (encourage use of transit, discourage use of transit, shift riders to ride at different times than they are currently, all of the above, none of the above?) I don’t think we can answer the question of what we should charge until we figure out the purpose of the fare. I’d be quite interested to hear what the group thinks transit fares are/should be for.
LikeLike
It needs to be set so low that for many more people it is more effective to ride transit than drive. In a perfect world you would also encourage people to travel more off peak, however, there are some potential social justice issues surrounding this. If we only provided a seniors discount off peak? Only gave the kid’s trip away in the summer off peak?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with posters who believe that there should be no fares, just like roads, transit should be paid from general revenue. It would simplify funding arrangements and planning discussions. We could all focus our energies on having a great transit system.
Could not help but think about perceptions. I remember in secondary school I was taught that the Roman Empire had their legions build roads to help the legion, but also trade and that it was paid for by taxation. Some of these roads still exists.
In the 19th century and early 20th century, most if not all transit services were offered by private corporations. I am beginning to think that for too many people, there is this idea that it’s ok for the state to pay for roads. But because at one point transit was offered by for-profit corporations, the fact that transit systems are now in public hands is for some a temporary situation. Hence why there is a drive for ever higher farebox recovery.
Steve: It is worth noting that when the private companies no longer felt that transit was profitable, particularly when faced with investment for expansion or major renewal, they walked away from their responsibilities. That’s what happened in Toronto with public operation ever since 1921. New York was originally private, but then moved into public hands, and the story is the same in many other cities. The private sector is happy to own systems when they can make money, even better when the transit system can be an adjunct to real estate development (a common situation). For the public good? Not a chance.
I believe that this drives most of these discussions about fares. If it was clearly stated and accepted by all that a publicly owned and operated transit system is not just a social service (which it is) but an economic necessity in cities, then I think (perhaps naïvely) that these discussions would go away.
In 2018 in Ottawa, we will have to have a discussion of sorts, when many if not all so-called “express” routes disappear and local routes will connect to the LRT system. The “express” routes are anything but. What happens is in the former suburbs local routes that off-peak connect to the Transitway (BRT system) continue to centretown offering a one-seat route.
I was not a resident of Ottawa prior to amalgamation, but I suspect that the “express” routes and fares were put in place instead of a zone within the former Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, not unlike Metro Toronto. Problem is, we need more buses and drivers than if the users had to connect to the Transitway. So I think that the extra fare is a wash.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the city presents the new fares and the new system.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is that proportion? I’m curious. Do we want to have a fare increase for them? Call me a cynic but I feel like a fare increase is inevitable since no one at QP/Fed seems inclined to turn on the tap. Charging fare by mode could raise revenue throughout the whole city without solely taking it out on the suburb-core commuters. I think a slick transfer system could reduce blockage on the flow. Although I realize that the extra fare will discourage ridership.
Steve: These are all valid questions. The problem I have is that in the face of an explicit request from the controlling political body — the TTC Board — as well as open interest from members of council, TTC and Metrolinx management appear to be paving the way toward a pre-ordained system without debate that will simply appear as a fait accompli as the outcome of a Metrolinx study.
I look forward to politicians at Queen’s Park and at City Hall disowning this just as they walked away from proposals for higher taxes and other “revenue tools”.
LikeLike
The thing about creating a mode specific fare increase, is we do not actually offer alternatives in the current structure. The bus routes in many areas are designed to take people to the subway and drive transfers via the subway – not bus to bus (Scarborough route design to Subwway and RT). This raises the question whether the operator would be in effect raising the cost of operations, if the system were more destination neutral? From an operations side now, can we look at the modes as really separate, given the way service is actually delivered? Would this not really very nearly another version of a zone system (given how hard it is to actually make your way through the system for longer trips without subway)?
The other questions immediately becomes what would the impact be of the change in incentive to ridership of this be, and how well would can the system actually adapt to the likely change in ridership patterns?
While government has been growing at a decent clip in the last decade, transit has not really shared in the growth to the extent it needs to. Part of the solution to the issue provincially is a question of focusing less on the rules for industry, and growing the number of mandates, and focusing more on basic services.
LikeLike