Fares & Fare Collection

by

Does Toronto Have a Vision For the TTC?

With a new year, and the TTC 2025 Budget coming imminently, where is our transit system headed?

Back in September 2024, as the TTC began to seek a new permanent CEO, Mayor Chow wrote to the TTC Board with her vision for the TTC’s future. The word “imagine” gives a sense of the gap between where the TTC is today, and where it should be.

Imagine a city where a commuter taps their card to enter, paying an affordable fare, and then takes a working escalator or elevator down to the subway platform. The station is clean and well-maintained, the message board is working and tells them their train is on time. People aren’t crowded shoulder to shoulder waiting to get on the train, only to be shoulder to shoulder during their ride. If while they wait they feel unsafe, there’s someone there to help them. And they can rely on high quality public WiFi or cell service to chat with a friend or send that important text to a family member.

Imagine a system with far-reaching, frequent bus service. Where riders aren’t bundled up for 20-30 minutes outdoors, waiting for bunched buses to arrive. Where transfers are easy and reliable. Where there is always room to get on board. Where people can trust their bus to get them to work and home to their families on time.

This is very high-minded stuff any transit advocate could get behind, if only we were confident that the TTC will be willing and able to deliver. This is not simply a matter of small tweaks here and there – a bit of red paint for bus lanes on a few streets – but of the need for system-wide improvement in many areas.

Reduced crowding depends on many factors including:

  • A clear understanding of where and when problems exist today, and the resources needed to correct them.
  • A policy of improving service before crowding is a problem so that transit remains attractive. Degrading standards to fit available budgets only hides problems.
  • A bus and streetcar fleet large enough to operate the necessary service together with drivers and maintenance workers to actually run them.
  • Advocacy for transit priority through lanes and signalling where practical, tempered by a recognition that conditions will never be perfect on every route.
  • Active management of service so that buses and streetcars do not run in packs.

None of this will happen without better funding, and without a fundamental change from a policy of just making do with pennies scraped together each year.

Funding comes in two flavours: operating and capital. Much focus lately is on capital for new trains, signals and buses, but this does not add to service. Replacing old worn-out buses with shiny new ones has little benefit if they sit in the garage.

A Ridership Growth Strategy

For decades, the TTC has not had a true ridership growth strategy thanks to a transit Board who thought its primary role was to keep subsidy requirements, and hence property taxes, down. This began before the pandemic crisis, although that compounded the problem. There is little transit advocacy within the TTC. Yes, there is a Five Year Service Plan, but it is a “steady as she goes” outlook. Only minor changes are projected beyond the opening of a few rapid transit lines.

What might Toronto aim to do with transit? What will this cost? How quickly can we achieve change? Strategic discussions at the TTC could lead to informed advocacy by both politicians and the riding public, but that is not what we get.

Astoundingly, the TTC Board does not have a budget committee. The Board never discusses options and goals, or “what if” scenarios. Board members or Councillors might raise individual issues, but these are not debated in an overall context. If one survives to “approval in principle”, it will be something to think about “next year” if there is room in the budget. In turn, Council does not have a clear picture of what might be possible, or what is impossible, because TTC does not provide information and options.

Whether it is called a “Budget” committee or a “Strategic Planning” committee, the need is clear, although the name will reflect the outlook. “Budget” implies a convention of bean counters looking for ways to limit costs, while “Strategic Planning” could have a forward-looking mandate to explore options. Oddly enough, billion dollar projects appear on the capital plan’s long list with little debate, but there is no comparable mechanism to create a menu of service-related proposals. A list does exist within the Five Year Service Plan, but it gets far less political attention or detailed review.

A further problem lies in prioritization of operating and capital budget needs. With less than one third of the long-term capital plan actually funded, setting priorities has far reaching consequences. The shopping list might be impressive, but what happens if, say, half of that list simply never gets funding? Everyone wants their project on the “must have” list, while nobody is content to sit on the “nice to have some day” list.

Even worse, a recent tendency inherited from Metrolinx views projects in terms of their spin-off effects. For every “X” dollars spent “Y” amount of economic activity and jobs are created. The more expensive the project, the more the spin-off “benefits”. This is Topsy-turvy accounting. Either a project is valuable as part of the transit network in its own right, or not. Spending money on anything will generate economic activity, but the question is do we really need what we are talked into buying?

On the operating side, an obvious effect is on the amount of service. Toronto learned in recent years the cost of maintenance cuts on system reliability and safety. Budget “efficiency” can have a dark side. Strangely, we never hear about the economic benefits of actual transit service, and the effects of improving or cutting it. The analysis is biased toward construction, not operations.

The populist view of transit is that fares are too high, and this attitude is compounded by nagging sense that today’s fare does not buy the same quality of service riders were accustomed to in past years. After the pandemic, we forget that TTC had a severe capacity problem in the past decade that was only “solved” by the disappearance of millions of riders. Toronto should not be aiming to get back to “the good old days”, but should address the chronic shortfall between expectations and funding.

Mayor Chow wrote:

Transit is essential. It has to work, it has to work for people. A safe, reliable and affordable transit system is how we get Toronto moving. It’s how we create a more fair and equitable city, where people can access jobs and have more time with family, no matter where they live. It’s how we help tackle congestion and meet our climate targets. In so many ways, it’s the key to unlocking our city’s full potential.

These high principles run headlong into fundamental issues:

  • The TTC metric of vehicle service hours does not reflect actual service provided to riders because it does not account for slower operation (congestion, added recovery time) and other factors (mode and vehicle changes). Getting back to pre-pandemic hours does not mean providing the same level of service. Riders want to see frequent and reliable service.
  • Recent success with federal funding for new subway trains hides two problems: there are many other much-needed capital projects, and the new funding does nothing to address day-to-day operations and maintenance.
  • Even the subway car funding will not show its full benefit for years. Service growth on both major subway lines will be constrained over the next decade by past deferrals of needed renewal projects.
  • Signal problems exist on both Line 1 (new equipment, used world-wide) and Line 2 (old, must be replaced). Management should clearly explain the sources of problems, and their plans to improve reliability in the short-to-medium term. Signal issues are only one example of the decline in infrastructure and fleet reliability that the TTC must address.
  • New eBuses may give Toronto a greener fleet, but at a substantial cost premium that adds to long-term capital requirements. The main environmental benefit of transit is to get people out of their cars, but without more service, without the money to operate more shiny new buses, service quality will discourage would-be riders.
  • Low fares are politically attractive, but absent other funding, they are a constraint on transit growth. It is ironic that fare freezes are a common political “fix”, but targeted benefits such as the “Fair Pass” program languish because they are “unaffordable”.

Toronto thinks of itself as a “transit city”, but must do more to address service as riders see it.

Continue reading →
by

TTC Board Meeting Dec. 3, 2024: Follow-Up

This article is a follow-up to TTC Board Meeting: December 3, 2024. The following items are covered here:

  • Accessibility Plan and Family of Services
  • Work Car Hydraulic Leak Incidents
  • Seasonal Prohibition on Lithium-Ion Battery Powered E-Bikes and E-Scooters
  • Retirement of Legacy Fare Media

See also:

Continue reading →
by

June 1/25 the Earliest Date for Eglinton/Finch says TTC Chair (Updated)

At the TTC Board meeting on December 3, Chair Jamaal Myers proposed a motion to extend the validity of legacy fares (tickets, tokens, day passes) to June 1, 2025 for the “conventional” system, and to December 31, 2025 for WheelTrans. This was adopted by the Board.

After the meeting, in a press interview, Myers was asked “Why June 1”?

He answered that June 1 was the earliest possible opening date for Line 5 Eglinton Crosstown and Line 6 Finch. Those lines have no fare collection support for the old fare media.

This puts Metrolinx in a bind: either they announce an earlier date, something they have been loathe to do for months, or they acknowledge that we will not ride these trains until late Spring, maybe. If Doug Ford holds an election as expected, there will be no ribbon cutting for him to tout his great works.

Updated Dec. 4/24 at 6:10pm: In today’s Star, Myers qualified his statement:

TTC chair Jamaal Myers told the Star on Wednesday that the TTC is preparing to operate the Eglinton Crosstown and Finch West LRTs using an internal target date of early June next year — though he was careful to note that he does not speak for Metrolinx, the provincial agency in charge of constructing both beleaguered light-rail lines.

Myer added that the June target date was set separate from Metrolinx’s construction timeline, and was solely for the TTC’s internal preparations to take over operations once the LRT is ready.

He said TTC staff are using June 1 as a target date to train the LRT drivers and it includes a 30-day “revenue service demonstration,” which will see trains run along the full track of the LRT. The internal target dates were partly created for financial planning purposes and are not specific to the LRT.

by

TTC Board Meeting: December 3, 2024

The TTC Board will meet on December 3 with several items of interest on their agenda.

  • CEO’s Report and Key Performance Indicators
  • Notice of Motion: Proposed deferral of legacy fare retirement
  • Financial and Major Projects Update
  • Easier Access Program Update

In a previous article, I reviewed the report on subway work car hydraulic leaks. See:

After this agenda was published, the Federal Government announced its one third support for the purchase of 55 new Line 2 subway trains. See the Major Projects Update below for more details.

Continue reading →
by

TTC Contemplates Fare Evasion (Updated)

Updated July 22 at 11:10am: A section has been added at the end detailing the discussion and actions taken at the TTC Board meeting of July 17.

At its meeting of July 15, the TTC’s Audit & Risk Management Committee considered a staff report on the efforts underway and proposed to deal with the problem of fare evasion. This report, with amended recommendations, goes to the full TTC Board on July 17.

The debate video goes on for nearly three hours, and it revealed some troubling issues with the ARMC:

  • There is an overwhelming emphasis on recovering “lost” revenue with little sense of what target might actually be achieved, or the cost of reaching that level.
  • At least one member of the committee, a Commissioner since early 2021, does not know how the “Fair Pass” program for low income riders works.
  • In response to a question about how the Two Hour Transfer works, something any Board member or transit rider should know, management provided incorrect information about riding past the two hour line. In turn, that interpretation appeared to justify actions by Fare Inspectors that violate TTC policy.
  • There was no acknowledgement that the TTC Board, when it acquired vehicles with multiple entrances (including articulated buses and streetcars) and implemented Proof of Payment (aka POP), was quite aware of the tradeoff between vehicle utilization, service efficiency, labour costs and potential fare evasion. Some Commissioners act as if they just discovered this problem.
  • It was quite clear that some Board members have little sense of the dynamics of passenger movements on TTC vehicles, notably problems with congestion at the front of buses due to baby carriages, shopping carts and other impediments, and the need for centre door loading simply to allow riders onto vehicles.
  • There was also no acknowledgement that some riders do not tap immediately on entry because they do not have their card at hand, but do so after they have boarded, and not necessarily at the location where they entered. Discussions about ways to increase payment rates through constrained entry and monitoring were based on a faulty view of actual passenger behaviour.

Overall, the level of day-to-day knowledge of the transit experience was poor, and management was not particularly helpful in correcting assumptions made by Board members.

Continue reading →
by

“Educating and Training” The TTC Board

The TTC Board will hold a special meeting on Tuesday, April 2. The announced agenda includes only one report TTC Board Orientation, Education and Training Session which includes several topics:

a. Overview of the TTC, its Governance, Safety and Communications
b. Code of Conduct and Municipal Conflict of Interest Act
c. Being an Effective Director
d. Key TTC Strategies and Plans
e. Strategy Training Exercise

Although the agenda page advertises this as a public meeting and invites public deputations, the report states that it will be held in camera as permitted by the City of Toronto Act (S. 190.3.1). The report recommends that the “training materials” be publicly released after the session, although this could be amended. More importantly there will be no public record of the Board’s discussion.

The first three topics should be familiar to most of the Board as they have been in office for some time. Only three Councillor members changed with the arrival of Mayor Chow, and the existing Tory-era Citizen members are still in place except for one who resigned late in 2023. His replacement has not yet been appointed by Council. Training on how the TTC works should be an orientation session for new members, not a topic consuming a full Board meeting that could be spent on overall policy discussion.

Some years ago, the TTC Board attempted to arrange an agenda-free meeting to discuss general policy, but this was hijacked by management with a dog-and-pony show on their own accomplishments and the duties of the Board. This could be a repeat performance.

The time is long overdue for the Board to ask hard questions of management, of each other and of the City about the TTC’s future. We got a sense of what is possible at the recent Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting. Board members Saxe and Osborne grilled management who, frankly, were not fully prepared to answer questions about the Fare Inspection audit report. We have also seen an accumulation of issues regarding infrastructure maintenance and priorities that require informed debate and direction.

Probably the largest overall issue is budget, service and maintenance planning for 2025. In December 2023, the TTC Board wanted to establish a Budget Committee, but this has not yet happened. The motion was couched as a request to staff to report on the idea in Q2 2024 rather than as direction to “do it now”. By the time Q2 ends, it will be too late.

A Budget Committee must exist before the budget is locked down to allow a proper debate about options. For too many years, the budget has landed on the Board’s desk at the last minute with no scope for review of any but the most trivial parts.

As a matter of history, the TTC Budget Committee has not existed since January 10, 2019. Even then it had been moribund since November 2017 thanks to lack of interest by its members, a less than sterling example of good corporate governance.

The fundamental questions are what should the TTC be doing, and what can it do. Starting with the attitude that “we can’t afford it” is an abdication of the Board’s responsibility.

Toronto should know what might be possible and how much this will cost, and only then make decisions about what we choose to afford. The past decade plus of Ford/Tory tax policies precluded this approach, but with a new administration, it is time to seize control of the transit debate.

Here are questions I would ask were I on the TTC Board. This is not an exhaustive list, but then the “education and training” meeting is only scheduled for one day.

Continue reading →
by

Fare Evasion on the TTC

Updated Mar. 20/24 at 11:15 pm: The URL in the link below to the Fare Compliance Strategy has been corrected.

Updated Mar. 21/24 at 2:45 pm: A section about children’s Presto cards has been added at the end of this article.

On March 19, 2024, the TTC’s Audit & Risk Management Committee considered a presentation from their Internal Audit group and management’s response regarding an updated Fare Evasion study conducted from April to October 2023. See:

The fieldwork was conducted on weekdays and weekends between 6:30am and 1:00am with a total of 25,730 observations. The intent was to update findings from the 2018 and 2019 studies to post-pandemic conditions. One addition to the scope was a review of underpayment of cash fares. Two items remained outside of the scope: illegal entry to stations via bus loops, and fare evasion on Wheel-Trans and night services.

The Committee is small with only three members, of whom only its chair, Councillor Dianne Saxe and citizen board member Julie Osborne were present. They both had time to ask many questions, and it was clear that the report’s findings took them very much by surprise.

The headline number is an estimate that fare evasion costs the TTC $123.8 million annually, and that 11.9% of riders (on a weighted basis across the three modes) do not pay. This is about double the rate found in 2019. A further $17.1 million is lost to underpaid cash fares.

Lurking behind this entire discussion is the question of Special Constables and Fare Inspectors. The higher the purported loss, the greater the political pressure to regain the missing revenue through enforcement. I will not impute a motive behind the audit study, but observe that finding $140.9 million “under the cushions” every year will get Council’s attention. Whether enhanced enforcement will lead to productive staffing decisions and a real increase in revenue is quite another matter.

Continue reading →
by

Ontario Confirms Co-Fare Restoration for TTC (Updated)

Updated Feb. 5, 2023 at 6pm: Metrolinx has clarified aspects of the One Fare operation on Presto. See the end of this article for details.

Updated Feb. 5, 2023 at 6:30pm: The TTC has an extensive FAQ page about One Fare.

On February 5, 2024, Ontario announced that it will extend the co-fare arrangements between GO Transit and local municipal transit systems outside of Toronto to the TTC. The branding for this scheme is “One Fare”.

As of February 26, any trip including GO Transit will be discounted by the removal of local transit fares at either end of the journey. Trips beginning or ending on a local system will only pay the GO Transit fare.

Trips using only local systems (such as TTC+Miway) will pay the local fare on the system where they begin, but will transfer free onto any connecting system.

This arrangement corresponds to “Option A” in the Metrolinx Initial Business Case Final Report detailed in a previous article here.

Timed transfers will be valid for 2 hours for trips starting on a local system, and for 3 hours for trips starting on GO Transit. The Metrolinx announcement is not clear about whether a trip beginning on local systems but shifting to GO gets the expanded 3 hour window from paying a GO fare. In effect, does the tap on to GO “top up” the remaining transfer time with an extra hour, or does starting on a local bus fix the transfer window at two hours. I have asked Metrolinx for a clarification.

Update: See the end of the article for further information on the transfer window.

The new fare scheme will be funded by Ontario and local systems will be reimbursed for the foregone fare revenue. The anticipated ridership growth is about 8 million per year.

The anticipated saving for riders, on average, is $1,600 per year. That corresponds roughly to two local transit fares per weekday.

There will be no change in fare payment procedures. Riders will only tap on to the local systems, but must tap on and off for the GO Transit portion of the ride where the fare is distance based.

The provincial press release states “The government will continue to work with municipal partners to identify opportunities to make transit more seamless for riders by harmonizing discounted fares and other measures.” What this will actually entail remains to be seen.

Update: Metrolinx Clarifies One Fare Issues

The following responses were provided by Metrolinx in response to my queries.

On transfer windows:

The initial two-hour window begins when the customer first taps onto the local transit service. When a transit rider transfers and taps onto GO Transit, a new three-hour window begins. For example, a customer who takes an HSR bus (local transit) and then transfers to GO Transit starts with a two-hour window upon their first tap on the HSR bus. When they tap onto GO Transit, a new three-hour window begins. 

On the monthly pass: 

PRESTO transit passes for TTC, Brampton Transit, Durham Region Transit, MiWay and York Region Transit are eligible under Ontario’s One Fare Program.  Please note, customers transferring to GO Transit using a transit pass will not receive any additional discount using a transit pass.

On concession fares: 

Customers also benefit from concession fares through Ontario’s One Fare program because the second fare is always free on local transit, or reduced on GO Transit. For example, in the case of a senior, if the customer begins their journey on the TTC and they transfer to YRT, they pay only $2.25 (the TTC fare) because the second fare is free on local transit. This saves them $2.40 on the trip.  On a TTC to GO Transit trip, in the case of a senior, the GO fare would be reduced.

Metrolinx Media Relations Email of Feb. 5/24

It is possible that the GO Transit fare is less than a TTC fare, for example for a short GO trip by a senior where the TTC fare is $2.25 and the GO fare (using Union to Long Branch as an example) is only $2.13.

The TTC FAQ clarifies that the UP Express is not part of One Fare due to technical constraints. It is not clear when or if this will be fixed.

Thanks to reader Adam Chojecki for providing the link to the TTC page.

by

The Vanishing Business Case for Regional Fare Structure

Anyone who deals with Metrolinx from the outside knows that getting information can be a real struggle, but every so often the veil of secrecy lifts, although not always intentionally.

The implementation of “regional fares” is supposed to happen in March 2024, but this will be on a fairly limited scale, at least according to anything published so far. The TTC will come into the same arrangement as the 905 systems with recognition of each other’s fares across the 416/905 boundary, and the reinstatement of a GO Transit cofare.

Like the elusive Toronto sun of recent weeks, a report appeared, and then disappeared on the Metrolinx website called Regional Fare Structure Initial Business Case Final April 2023. This is not a draft, but gives a sense of Metrolinx thinking on the subject and how little some of their fare objectives have changed over the years.

To be blunt, fare planning at Metrolinx has always eyed the Toronto subway as a “regional” facility and its riders as potential cash cows who will help fund other parts of the system. I wrote about this back in 2017-18.

A major problem with earlier proposals was that the Toronto subway was treated as a premium service, like GO, where riders should pay more for the speed and comfort compared to the surface system. This utterly ignored the fact that the TTC system is designed as a single network with subway lines as the backbone and feeder/distributor surface lines. The underlying reason for pushing up subway fares was to make the model revenue-neutral, in effect, to subsidize the elimination of extra fares for cross-border trips with more expensive subway rides.

That scheme would have seen any trip longer than 10km charged an extra fare, and that would have affected the vast majority of suburban commuters who already complained of long bus+subway trips to get to work and school. This idea appeared to die off, and with the ascension of the Ford government in 2018, nothing more was heard. Ford concentrated on large-scale capital projects, not on tinkering with fares.

In the Final version of the business case, the subway fare proposal has changed so that it would only apply to cross-border trips of 10km or more. This would have the effect of undoing part of the supposed benefit of the pending 905/416 fare boundary elimination where riders will not face an extra fare for the subway portion of their journey.

Future Richmond Hill riders look forward to a single fare to central Toronto, but this scheme might not be attractive as a 10km ride will only get them to roughly Yonge and Sheppard (8km for the Yonge extension, plus 2km on the existing subway). In the tariff modelled in the Final Report, the fare to Union Station would be $7.50. Similar issues face trips in other parts of the future rapid transit network.

Removing of the 416/905 fare boundary so that the TTC’s relationship with systems in the 905 and with GO becomes the same as every other system remains an option, but it is presented as the least attractive choice. The clear intent is to pave the way for higher subway fares for “regional” travellers while preserving the flat fare, for now, within Toronto. The political considerations are obvious, but so is Metrolinx’ intent to move forward in their implacable way. Both the Draft and Final versions of the report speak of a path from the current fare arrangements to a totally “integrated” future, albeit one that is not clearly defined.

Options with further levels of “integration” perform well as riding stimulants because they involve significant reduction in GO fares at a time when service will be increased through the GO Expansion program.

A major barrier to fare-by-distance on the subway is the need to “tap out” from the subway fare zone. This is not simply a question of putting Presto readers on the “inside” face of every fare gate, but of establishing fare lines between the surface and subway portions of stations. This has a substantial cost and creates a barrier to free flow for the vast majority of trips that would still pay a flat TTC fare, Moreover it would be a Trojan horse making future conversion of the subway within Toronto to a separate fare zone much simpler.

This is not a “fare integration” scheme, but rather a plan to increase GO rider subsidies while also setting the stage for subway fare increases. The idea of a revenue neutral change in the tariff has been abandoned, at least for now. The historic pattern emphasizing GO capacity for longer trips has been turned on its head to give GO rail a larger part in local travel within Toronto.

In order to sell this concept, Metrolinx now includes rebalancing the GO fare structure under the “integration” rubric. This is a completely separate issue and it should have been addressed years ago on GO independently from the cross border fare problems.

An intriguing caveat in all of this is that the Ministry of Transportation is listed as a “partner” in the study, and its conclusions will be referred to MTO for review. One has the sense of Metrolinx being on a short leash.

It is not surprising that this report was pulled from public view, but it is worth discussing because it reveals Metrolinx’ thinking. A document does not become a “Final” report, even if it is only a “Final Initial” version, without a lot of policy signoffs along the way.

Note: In this article, I use Draft and Final (capitalized) to refer to the two versions of the Initial Business Case.

Continue reading →
by

TTC Board Meeting: December 20, 2023 – Part II

This article continues the series about the December 20, 2023 TTC Board meeting with details of the budget discussion.

Items discussed here:

This article deals mainly with the Q&A session at the Board meeting as I have already written about the 2024 budgets in detail elsewhere.

The 2024 Operating and Capital Budgets

A major problem with TTC budget “debates” is that they are quite perfunctory compared with the size and importance of the reports, and the spending involved. There has been no TTC Budget Subcommittee for years, and even when it existed, it rarely met. The idea of at least part of the Board doing a deep dive into budgets seems to be utterly beyond their idea of “good governance”, at least until the recent change in the Mayor’s and Chair’s offices.

Commissioner Ainslie asked that the Chair work on creation of Budget Committee with a report in 2Q24. He observed that agencies with much smaller budgets than the TTC have budget committees, and the TTC should too. The Board asked staff to report in Q2 2024 on the establishment of a Budget Committee.

It should not be for staff to report on creation of such a committee, but for the Board to say “we need this” and immediately canvass members for their interest. An informed committee will be essential for review of the 2025 budget priorities before the budget is struck. The budget should not come to the Board as a fait accompli based on discussions at the staff level. Moreover, the Mayor’s Office should have visible input to the process. If the level of so-called review by the Board amounts to a once-a-year dog-and-pony show by staff, there is no opportunity for Board input and queries about the underlying policies, assumptions and options available.

Some TTC Board members are strong in their belief that the role of the Board is to provide policy and oversight, and of management to manage. That is a great model provided that the Board actually engages in its role, but for many years there was no sense that the TTC Board actively developed policy, let alone held management accountable.

By the end of the budget debate, Board members were very concerned about the financial status of the TTC, even though quite complimentary about the detail of work presented by staff. Some of these members sat through the years when Mayor Tory ran the show, and the primary message was “everything’s just fine”. They bear some responsibility for problems that have festered for years.

After the staff presentation on the two budgets, there were many questions from the Board. The items below have been consolidated by topic. Illustrations are taken from the presentation deck.

Continue reading →