Metrolinx is running a survey of “fare integration”, whatever that might mean to you, until November 30, 2015.
This survey is striking in the way that it reinforces options and viewpoints commonly seen in Metrolinx analysis of fare systems. It is quite 905-centric both in the types of questions and options, and the view of how people might use a transit network.
The survey begins by asking about someone’s “typical trip” to establish an origin-destination pair. Of course, many riders within the city have many regular destinations, especially when their travel (like my own) is not dominated by commute trips to work or to school. After one gets through that section, another comes up asking about non-commute trips but with no attempt to quantify them or ascertain where they might occur.
Cross-border and multi-carrier travel figure prominently in the survey, something by which, self-evidently, a regular TTC rider using only that system is not affected. The following list of fare options reappears in different guises elsewhere in the survey. As a piece of design, it fails because some questions are in the “I can …” format while others are “would” or “should” questions. It is unclear how an “I can” question can have anything beyond a “yes” or “no” answer. Does Metrolinx want our opinion on paying one fare for all of a local transit system, or asking if I can already do this?
There is a big problem in that some options interact, but there is no provision for this. Metrolinx is obsessed with the idea of paying more for “better” service which could mean anything from a GO Train or a Highway coach, to a local express bus, the subway or even a new LRT line. One might agree with a premium for the GO train (although that would also relate to distance travelled), but not for other types of service. There is no option to distinguish between these.
The ideas reappear as a list of challenges to transit travel. For a monthly pass holder, many of these options don’t really apply although one could certainly complain about the cost (high fare multiples) and the fact that on some parts of even the TTC, transfers can be a big headache thanks to unreliable service.
Another set of options requires the choice of a top three issues and ranking them rather than using the 1-to-9 scale for all of them.
Later the survey asks about co-fares between systems including local-to-GO and local-to-local transfers, but is silent on the question of how new co-fares might be funded, indeed on the whole question of regional fare revenue and subsidy sharing. Similarly, questions about distance or zone-based fares give no hint of what the effect might be for different journeys. Time based transfer and return trip privileges are nowhere to be found, typical for Metrolinx that only grudgingly acknowledges them as an option within local systems, not for the network as a whole.
No doubt the results from this survey will be trotted out to support whatever fare scheme Metrolinx comes up with, but it could be strongly biased to “typical” Metrolinx riders who have a very different view of the transit world and fares than their (much more numerous) “local” network cousins. It would be amusing to see what a similar survey carried out for the population within Toronto would yield. The survey includes a request for one’s postal code, and so at least there should be some idea of the distribution of responses across the GTHA.
Steve Munro 
I just completed the survey and the one thing I mentioned was the need for a single fare across the GTHA with Toronto as the center of the GTHA (I say this because Everything is surrounding Toronto such as Oshawa, Oakville, Vaughan, Markham etc).
In order to have truly seamless travel across the GTHA you need to have a single fare. Multiple fares across multiple systems only complicate things.
We need one fare for the GTHA and another for areas more distant such as Niagara, Barrie etc. It is only fair given their distance.
LikeLike
There was a free-form text box that asked for one’s understanding of fare integration. My answer was
LikeLiked by 2 people
It betrays their biases as you have noted Steve. Several things are jumping at me:
I suspect that the silence about where the funding for fare integration will come is that it will come from users themselves. The loaded questions about paying for premium service (which will be nothing of the sort) leads me to that conclusion.
I am working from my own experience in Ottawa but also I used to live in the Montréal area which does have zones if you are not using the main systems (Montréal, Laval and Longueuil).
In Ottawa, municipal politicians can say with a straight face that we do not have a zonal fare system. However in rush hour, in the former cities which were amalgamated, your local bus which normally would drop you at a Transitway (BRT) station will continue all the way downtown. Those routes are called “Express” and their fare is higher.
Coming from Montréal where for a regular fare, they do have real express service (the express will skip many stops), it’s impossible for me to not see that the city of Ottawa is scamming their citizens into thinking that there are no zones. It is not an express, in many cases it would be faster to take the local and switch to the BRT with both the local and the BRT on a higher frequency. But having “express” routes allows OC Transpo to charge a higher “express” fare, hence higher revenue for the system.
From the few questions Steve highlighted in this post, I suspect that to make users swallow a substantial fare increase Metrolinx and local operators will offer “premium” services at a “premium” fare just like in Ottawa. That’s where the money will come from. You won’t have a choice as your local bus (towards downtown or connection to the subway/BRT/LRT) will not run only the premium service at premium fare. But hey! You now have fare integration.
Good luck
LikeLike
For me, fare integration (or the ‘co-fare’ offered between GO Transit and most regional services) is beneficial. I have the option, when going downtown, to either take the faster GO train, or the slower TTC option. I don’t mind the higher GO Transit fare, but at the same time, if I need to take the subway from Union, I’d benefit from a co-fare. However, I’ll walk on a number of occasions because of a lack of the co-fare. So, the TTC ends up losing revenue.
Also, I’d support a combination of a fare by distance and zoned use. What I dislike by a zone is if it is a short trip from one side of the zone border to the other side. Better to offer a reduced cost. And this could work easily – just have a PRESTO machine at the exit of a subway station and by each door on a bus or streetcar. For a short trip, the fare could be less than $2.80 – but if you forget to tap off, the full PRESTO fare is charged.
LikeLike
Germany seems to have ideal fare integration at least in 2 regions. For example, there are tariff unions such as RMV in the Greater Frankfurt area, and VRN in the greater Mannheim/Heidelberg area. A ticket is good for any combination of bus, tram, S-Bahn, U-Bahn, DB regional trains to complete a trip between towns A and B within the tariff area. There is no price differentiation by vehicle mode but rather by destination. Ticket costs vary depending on whether one travels within a town or to nearby towns. One could buy an out-of-town ticket at a local tram stop, and it would be valid for both tram and regional travel.
LikeLike
I completed the survey and found that it was limiting in the choice of responses that one was allowed. As you say it seems to be biased towards a certain outcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did my part to muck with their obvious biases in questions – one fare covering entire fare systems and regardless of mode I choose, please.
LikeLike
The survey asked if I take advantage of co-fares between GO and my local transit agency. When my local transit agency is the TTC, there is no co-fare available because GO unfairly compensates some agencies but not all.
LikeLike
Any notion, however, of fare-by-distance, implemented in any city in the GTA, would be a disaster.
LikeLike
Perversely enough, it is possible to answer this survey honestly and have the answers interpreted in exactly the opposite way that the respondent intended. For example, suppose I tick the box:
And I tick the box because I believe that the fare is too low or because I believe that GO should always charge fair market value for car parking (which I do!).
This will, of course, be interpreted in exactly the opposite way I intended.
Also, it is using unnecessarily sophisticated language. Why not have a box,
Steve: The ambiguity in how answers can be interpreted shows that whoever constructed this survey had distinct view of what transit travel is like, very much a GO mindset, and was completely unaware that a local TTC rider might interpret the same questions in very different ways. It is a sad example of how Metrolinx is out of touch with the region it serves, and shows just how dangerous any provincial takeover of local transit would be.
LikeLike
Also, the most offensively crazy question is this one:
When I am Supreme Dictator, whoever came up with that one will be sentenced to write 100 times on the blackboard:
LikeLike
Steve, I find your response to be a bit cynical, but not cynical enough. While Metrolinx might have their head in the sand, consultants can’t afford to do the same. I view the survey as carefully crafted in order to provide a predetermined result by allowing misinterpretation of some responses. So long as Metrolinx has a heavy hand on the outcomes that they prefer, no “study” or “survey” is going to reveal contradictory results.
@Kevin Love, yes, it should be “motorized vehicle”.
Steve: When this survey is reported to the Metrolinx board, it will be interesting to see how the responses are interpreted.
I am amused to be accused of insufficient cynicism!
LikeLike
The survey infuriated me, but the question that got on my nerves was this one:
Only two options were provided. Charge by zone or charge by distance. Uhmmmm….who said I agree with the premise that charging a premium for riders to travel further is right?
The other thing that bothered me was Metrolinx’s ridiculous assumption that GO is a premium service and should charge more than TTC does. In London, when I travel between two stations that are served by the tube, National Rail and/or London Overground, there is no difference in fare because of the mode I select. I don’t understand the Metrolinx obsession with having travellers pay more for riding on their precious GO trains. A trip from Kipling to Union station shouldn’t be more expensive on GO than it is on the subway just as a trip from Victoria to Richmond isn’t more expensive on a National rail train than it is on the tube.
LikeLike
So was I, but Mapleson is correct in his assessment of the situation and there are a lot or lurkers who do have not a full appreciation of irony. One can never underestimate the stupidity of some members of the general public. Fortunately most of the people who respond are intelligent, if mistaken when they do not agree with you and me.
LikeLike
I fail to see how Presto/Metrolinx can even get this off the ground if the roll out on TTC is a boat full of holes.
Metropass should of been an option for this from the time that 50% of vehicles are running with this!
The Presto card readers do not talk to each other.
My first time using this “Ontario Make Work Project” was buying a pass from a TTC vending machine at 12:15am from Union Station on Wednesday NOV 18.
I tap to get into Union Subway Station, walk to the streetcar, board the 510 north. After a minute of being on the LFRV, a detour is announced I tap for a transfer, none to be provided as it’s says I haven’t tapped on. Fair enough. “Tap ON”, get my transfer and continue on my way.
I go online to load more/register my card and notice I have been charged twice for the same trip. $2.80 small peanuts I know. However having the kinks and scenarios worked out that a card tapped twice in the predetermined time limit (timed transfer?).
Calling Presto resulted in a shrug and try “TTC customer service”.
TTC customer service offers to refund but says that the issue is Presto’s and they are different organizations. (incredibly helpful, shockingly)
Don’t even try to use Presto’s “contact us” form online if you want to use the letter “I” or “,” or even a “$” because the email form will not accept those special characters.
See for yourself
The brains behind this Presto rollout certainly didn’t burn many neurons getting this up and half-assed running.
Steve: The implementation of Presto on TTC today makes no allowance for transfers. It is strictly a one tap, one fare arrangement with the ability to get a paper transfer on a streetcar. On the subway, you would take a paper transfer. On a bus or an older streetcar, you would get a transfer from the operator.
None of the transfer rules are built into the system yet, and with some luck and intelligence (not always forthcoming) the TTC’s byzantine rules about transfer eligibility will evaporate.
LikeLike
@Kevin Richardson,
This is a recent development in London and the result of a couple decades of lobbying and devolution of power to the City itself. Bus/tram still have different pricing rules to trains/subways.
London Underground/Overground do fares by zones and time of day.
LikeLike
I’ve been following this fare integration project with some interest, and Steve, really appreciated your earlier background on the importance of a flat fare within Toronto.
It seems inevitable that we’ll end up with some form of a fare by zone or by distance across the GTA, but I had been thinking about whether this model can possibly work with with a flat Toronto fare and also with time-based transfers. Then I realized that the fare system in Lausanne where I lived for some time actually had all of these components (zones, time-based tickets, and flat fare in the main city). I threw down some thoughts on what that could look like in a Toronto context.
Steve: Thanks for your interesting outlook and comparison to the “Toronto” problem. Given that our city has been described, inaccurately I feel, as “New York run by the Swiss”, this is obviously an area that still needs some work.
Something I think needs some basic research is the behaviour of travel “across the boundary” between the 416 and 905. I have a gut feeling that there are two different types of trip, and yet the political motivation for a consolidated fare treats them as one.
The first is the sort of short trip you describe where someone lives not far from the boundary (which side is immaterial) and commutes across the line. The total mileage is shorter than a typical commute into the core, even from within the 416, but it costs much more. This is the “poster child” for an “unfair” double fare.
However, the second is a long commute into the core from the 905 followed by a short hop on the TTC (likely, but not necessarily the subway) to the final destination. This is a much longer trip and should be priced accordingly, but it runs into the basic problem that a trip from Rexdale or Malvern to downtown (all within Toronto’s single fare) is actually longer than a trip from the southern part of York Region. Toronto is rectangular, not square, and so the single fare zone is inherently off kilter in one dimension.
When people talk of “fare integration”, they generally mean “get rid of the double fare”, but this has different effects depending on just what that means, and especially on where one draws boundaries that trigger extra charges.
Too much of the discussion from the “official” side of the fence turns on GO’s view of what a “good” fare system looks like — i.e their own — and the deep desire to avoid any scheme that would strip revenue from or add additional demand to the GO system, and hence higher cost for Queen’s Park. That sort of pre-requisite skews any discussion and brings us into bizarre debates about “fairness” when the underlying goal is to justify the status quo, at least for one operator.
What is clear in the Swiss model is that the primary goal is the provision of transport by a network with only a coarse attempt to scale fares to distance travelled, and with costs treated as a system-wide function, not an exercise in preserving the existing fractured financial scheme.
LikeLike
I think I’m willing to accept some distortions in the fare zones to accommodate the political reality of our situation. While it isn’t necessarily fair that someone traveling from Rexdale to downtown would pay less than someone from Langstaff, we can at least reduce the degree of unfairness by moving to a more rational regional fare structure. I may also consider it unfair that someone travelling from Union to Queen station pays the same as the person coming from Rexdale, but I’m willing to accept this injustice if a flat Toronto-wide fare is viewed to be for the greater good. A well-structured system would smooth out these sorts of distortions over distance; e.g. while we may have some unfairness at the periphery of Toronto, I would expect a trip of 50 km to cost about the same in any direction from the core.
Steve: I cited the two separate types of trips to illustrate that making a “TTC-905 co-fare” has different effects depending on where the transition between systems occurs.
LikeLike
Are there examples of fare systems elsewhere that attempt to reconcile the problems of pricing travel by distance or zone with the issue of effective and abundant transit being in the core where incomes are higher and trip lengths are shorter? Will Toronto have to charge for transit by distance and just forget about the fact that poverty in Toronto has been pushed out of the centre or will flat fares remain and Toronto will just have to forget that distance matters?
I know this is just a rehash of the whole debate but my question really is this: has any other region found a good way to reconcile these competing interests or are they irreconcilable? I was thinking that other than making planning changes that incentivize creating jobs closer to wear people live and building transit in those areas, (a process that’ll likely take decades) I have no idea how these competing interest would be resolved so I wanted to see if others had any solutions.
LikeLike
James Schofield’s “Modest Proposal” is an excellent analysis of the fare integration problem. I would disagree with his recommendation of having 3 zones for Toronto, though. My reasoning is this: Toronto is currently one fare zone, and basically, there is one transit operator, the TTC, and the public expects this as a single zone virtually as a right. I do not think that it is politically feasible to split Toronto into 3 zones.
Furthermore, I would expect a single TTC fare for the entire subway system, including that portion which will go to Vaughan.
Steve, thank you for the “heads-up” regarding the Metrolinx survey. I did it the other day, and yes, it did seem to me to be slanted towards methods to extract a costlier fare from passengers.
Fare Integration to me means paying one fare to get to my destination (and return), regardless of transit provider.
I do not think that it is fair to price fares based on the mode of transport – whether heavy rail or microbus. The mode of transport should be commensurate with the passenger load. (SSE proponents, are you hearing this?)
However, “premium” transit services, such as express buses and UPX can legitimately charge more. I’ve seen this in Europe, too.
Steve: I think that the problem with the way Metrolinx views things, is that a “premium service” could by extension also include the subway and maybe the LRT network. Where a parallel option to travel at a “standard” fare exists (as with UPX), having a premium option is not a problem (beyond the question of whether it is actually cost effective).
James discusses the pros and cons of zone size, the granularity:
Myself, I would approach it differently. Reciprocity. Sort of like free trade between countries. For example, commuters arriving by VIVA bus at the subway would get a free transfer. For example, if I paid a GO fare, that would give me a free transfer to TTC or MiWay. But reciprocity only in horizontal or downward service level; no free transfer “upwards” from TTC to GO train (but with a credit towards the full fare). Transfer to GO bus would be free. A bus is a bus, after all.
My reasoning here is, just like Metrolinx sees it, GO trains are a premium service.
Steve: That would be a stretch for Metrolinx, to be sure, recognizing that their buses are not “premium” services.
Toronto Mayor John Tory’s SmartTrack is a plan to use GO train lines as local service. That implies TTC fares, and free transfers. The GO train parallel to the King streetcar should be considered SmartTrack, too. I support this idea.
Of course, I would immediately drop the idea of building SmartTrack rail along Eglinton West; go with LRT like originally planned. Tory does not have the clout at City Hall nor Queen’s Park nor Parliament Hill to get the $5 billion needed for this segment. The idea is overkill, anyway.
I want to clarify about zone granularity. With reciprocal free transfers, all local transit becomes one zone. This is the ultimate fare integration. It is simple and it is fair. The local transit operator would collect the full fare initially, at the operator’s usual fare schedule/rate. GO rail could continue with fare zones, pay for distance, and premium services would continue to charge extra.
And, I agree with the idea of implementing a parking fee at GO lots, but only to offset fare increases.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, I am late posting to this thread, so my post isn’t going to get much attention; opinions for or against, other considerations.
Steve, you are correct, Metrolinx is not going to support fare reciprocation. Neither will any other local transit provider. Everybody will want to protect their fiefdom, claiming costs out of control, unfairness, etc.
Metrolinx should take into consideration that, if I begin my journey by boarding a GO bus in Bolton, and pay an $8 fare, GO gets their full fare regardless of what other bus I get on subsequently. However, the return trip is another matter, GO collects nothing. There will be a period of adjustment, with fares being rejigged, passengers modifying their routes and usage, transit providers adjusting equipment deployment. Eventually, though, a balance will happen, providers’ budgeting will be much like today.
That $8 fare might become $12. I will have to take that into consideration when I travel. On the other hand, maybe passenger load doubles, so GO won’t have to change the fare. The GO bus to/from Bolton is virtually empty today, and the service is next to useless. What if I want to go to the airport anytime or the city in midday, or return in the evening? No such bus. Back in the old days, PMCL used to come through Bolton hourly, every bus went right to Toronto.
Fare reciprocation will have to come from the top, from Queen’s Park.
Steve: The real challenge will be a trip that uses three carriers with GO being the middle link. They would never “collect” a fare because someone would always be transferring from a local system. That sort of situation (quite common actually when you consider the co-fares already in place plus TTC at the “city” end of the trip) needs to be sorted out.
LikeLike
Hi Peter,
Better late than never. One issue with your idea of “Reciprocity” is the average fare. If the “GO” one-way fare was $8 and they need to assume you’ll be making a round trip, the fare would double to $16. However, if you use the same logic with the TTC and fares double from $3 to $6, it would make more sense to go out of your way to catch local transit first. Thus, you need TTC fares to be comparable to GO fares at $16.
One alternative as the system currently works is co-fares and equality payments. GO gives a portion of your fare to the local transit system and you pay a bit extra. The TTC doesn’t yet have any agreements like this, but everyone else in the GTA does. The main issue being one of size.
Higher fares aren’t going to increase usage or frequency. The bigger area the basic “flat fare” covers, the higher the base fare needs to be.
LikeLike
Steve and Mapleson, I appreciate your input very much!
It seems to me that essentially you both have the same argument, but stated in different words and examples.
Let’s look at GTA transit at a macro-economic level. Every day, there are x dollars spent by commuters on transit. Some of it is payment for using more than one carrier. I would guess that this amount is quite a small percentage of the total. What do you think? I would estimate certainly less than 25%, maybe in the 10 to 15% range, if that. Maybe in the 5 to 10% range. Perhaps Steve has a handle on the data?
The overall fare under Fare Reciprocation across all carriers will not increase, but the double-fare will get built into the base fare. The same x dollars will be spent every day. No way every carrier doubles their fares, because there is no justification to do so.
Sure, some people will complain if their fare goes up by 10%, but on the other hand, their $3.25 ($3.50) cash fare in the TTC fare box will take them to Newmarket or Square One.
That $8 fare in Bolton might go to $12, but certainly not $16.
Mitigating this, by making public transit more efficient, it will encourage increased transit use. Therefore, in the long run, there might be a zero real fare increase.
So, instead of x dollars spent on transit daily, the amount might be greater, which is very good, and should be encouraged.
I am looking at the map of GO routes. I see a GO bus running south from Newmarket through Richmond Hill, to Finch subway. I have taken this bus. GO is the “middle link”, as Steve points out. The whole route is within York Region (except south of Steeles Ave.), so why shouldn’t York’s VIVA take over this route? With Fare Reciprocation, GO will walk away from this route, as it should.
Now, over to Orangeville. There is a GO bus running south on Hwy 10 to Brampton Station on the Kitchener GO rail line, site of the recently cancelled LRT. Unless I am mistaken, there is a local bus service in Orangeville, running sporadically. So, Orangeville Transit (if there is such), will grab the whole fare. Well, perhaps not. This is an example where co-fares and equality payments might come into play. I’m saying, some “agreements” might be in order.
Further comments welcome!
LikeLike
I’m going to focus on Toronto and the TTC in my response, as they have the best data available. For 2014, there were 534.8M riders and of those 6.1M (1.1%) bought weekly GTA passes. Breaking it down, 52.6% used monthly passes, 3.0% more used weekly passes and 2.1% used daily passes, while 42.3% paid single fares.
Using 2014 fares, with $2.70 TTC tokens, $6.70 single-ride GO, and $2.90 Mi-Way fare or $0.80 Mi-Way/GO co-fare:
A round trip would cost: $20.40 (with the Co-fare) or $24.60 (with a full fare)
With current GTA pass usage rates: +$0.20 to +$0.25 on TTC fares
With double GTA pass usage rates: +$0.40 to +$0.50
With 5% usage: +$0.89 to +$1.10
With 10% usage: +$1.77 to +$2.19
With 15.3% usage: +$2.71 to +$3.35
The first issue is that TTC-only users are now paying more to supplement non-resident users.
The second issue is that of capital-cost capacity. The high ticket price for GO is countered by the high usage rates. This would essentially provide “free GO” for the GTA by buying local transit tickets, and thus encourage more urban sprawl. However, there isn’t that much physical capacity for the existing system (GO can’t run more trains to Union, TTC can’t house more buses). This means a supplemental price increase (or tax or debt) to expand the system, if the operational supplement doesn’t also increase, then there is another ticket price rise to cover that portion as well.
The third issue is where does the efficiency come from? It’s not in changing the colour of the transit vehicles. If more transit is being operated, then it’s not in overhead. If less transit is being operated, then it’s from service cuts.
Viva already operates a $4.40 Presto/$5.00 cash route along Yonge between the Newmarket GO Terminal and the Finch Subway Station. A GO bus costs $7.07 Presto / $7.85 cash, but trips 36-40 are only $0.96 and free beyond that (making the turning point between 57 and 58 trips). Why would GO “walk away” when it would mean less revenue and reduce their destination footprint? Would Viva run more service at a lower price point or raise the price for everyone else to match the GO level? If the Viva Blue line isn’t overcrowded, it would mean having 4 buses per hour instead of 5 (4 Viva + 1 GO).
The fourth issue is the transitional period. How many years would it take to find the new balancing point? How will it affect the local Councils’ choice to provide more subsidies? Right now the TTC needs to increase their fares when the City of Toronto doesn’t increase their subsidy in proportion to ridership costs. What happens then when YRT increases their subsidy at a different rate?
The main issue is the difference in sizes of the organizations, service levels, and subsidy levels.
Overall, as an alternative, I’d prefer to upload all the GTA transit systems under an umbrella Metrolinx and slowly merge the companies into a mega-TTC (standardized planning, service levels set to GTA standards with additional service provided by municipal supplemental funding, standardized fares).
Steve: The inevitable problem is that the Metrolinx service standard would be nowhere near as good as Toronto’s, and we would lose the local ability to encourage transit use with more attractive service. I do not trust Metrolinx to run a system as big as the TTC, nor do I trust Queen’s Park to fund it properly. If you want to kill transit in the GTA, or reduce its importance, just give it to Metrolinx.
LikeLike
That’s why I had the line about municipal supplemental funding, i.e. if Toronto wants more frequent buses on Don Mills, they could pay the incremental operational/capital costs.
I expect that a system as big as the TTC would end up running Metrolinx, and I don’t think any level of government is going to fund transit properly because there isn’t the political will to do so. Mostly this was a better alternative to the “pay once” form suggested by Peter.
LikeLike
Bahahahahahahhahaha Mapleson … TTC running Metrolinx? If the TTC was charged with running transit across Ontario we would be screwed. Service in Toronto would likely decrease to half hour at best and there would be little to no investment in the system. Fares would be increased substantially and we would have nothing to show for it.
Leave it to the province to run regional service and leave the local service to municipalities. The TTC is so big it is hard for the city to maintain and manage with existing funds. How do you expect Toronto to pay for all this extra burden?
LikeLike
@Richard, if you’d read my comments above I’d said about uploading the costs back to the province, but that if Metrolinx swallowed the TTC and other local transit, they would eventually end up being overrun by the TTC. As we already pay for all these services, it’s not as if there will be substantial new costs beyond the billions in capital spending that have continuously been pushed into the future.
LikeLike
Question: Who would run the service? If it is two different systems then each system only gets a fare when the passenger starts with them. This would cut the revenue to the TTC from those riders in half, but would not reduce the need for the service. Toronto already subsidizes every 905 rider by $0.75 to $1.00 per trip depending on which type of payment they are using. You would now add $3.25 subsidy per inbound trip for cash fare as the TTC would not collect it.
How does the double fare get built into the base fare without increasing the base fare for everyone who rides that system? if the “(t)he same x dollars will be spent every day” it will not be the same for every passenger, some will pay more and some less. How do you justify this to the person travelling from Yonge and Eglinton to Yonge and King that they have to pay more to stand so that a person going from Main and Danforth to Square One can pay less and probably have a seat for most of the trip? If this is not the case then you need to present your case more clearly. The advantage of the GO buses over the local buses on the routes that you mentioned is that they run with a lot fewer stops and generally have more comfortable seating. This results in a premium fare. Perhaps we should extend the 501 Queen Car to take over the Lakeshore GO service and run it at a lower fare. Sure it might take an hour or two longer but it would be at lower fare. This is a reduction of the argument to the absurd level.
In a subsequent line you say,
Is this greater per passenger or for the whole and who provides this money? Is it “(t)he same x dollars” per day or a “..the amount might be greater.” Methinks that you need to rethink your argument and explain it better.
What is with the “Bahahahahahahhahaha?” Given the lack of funding by all levels of Government the TTC still manages to run the third most heavily used system after Mexico City and New York City with lot less subsidy. Metrolinx runs a very good commuter system but they have many inefficiencies from huge layover times for trains and buses in order to keep regular schedule.
@Everyone
There is no simple change to the fare system that will keep cost down and improve service until the two senior levels of government increase their capital and operating subsidies. Every choice will involve trade offs and they will never please everyone.
LikeLike
I’m a bit late to the conversation but what about creating a Greater Toronto Transit Coalition just to start? Get representatives from Metrolinx, TTC, and the (10? 11?) transit agencies from the 905 that Metrolinx works with, all forced to meet together publicly to discuss fare integration and service.
Or make it even more interesting … just get one representative per region/county and give Toronto a couple of seats. Instead of 11 or 12 representatives it becomes 7 and the 5 transit systems in Peel and Halton are forced to cooperate.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: This sounds a lot like “Metrolinx 1”, the board Queen’s Park got rid of because it could not control the politicians. I have a problem with a board of staff reps, as opposed to pols, because none of them can do anything without political input. We do not need a room full of Andy Byford, Bruce McCuaig and their equivalents from other agencies.
The idea of forced co-operation presumes that this can be done from the bottom up, and completely avoids the issue that it is provincial policy that makes for a lot of problems, notably in fare and service integration.
LikeLike
@Moaz,
Beyond the issues that Steve pointed out, “Metrolinx” would still have veto power as Queen’s Park is the one that sets the rules of engagement and the municipalities need to play along. Beyond that, it’s not in favour of Toronto politicians favour to integrate (raising prices/taxes on residents to support better non-resident access), and vice versa for many of the surrounding communities (a large segment if not majority of YRT users continue their trips onto the TTC). A few of the minor systems like Burlington Transit might not directly benefit from the TTC losing revenue, but they would receive the knock-off effect. Thus, if you do it by transit authority, municipality, area, or population, the “fringe” would unite and out vote/voice Toronto. Thus, Toronto/TTC would have no real reason to reasonably participate in such a forum unless Queen’s Park were willing to underwrite the whole endeavour.
LikeLike