At its meeting on November 17, the TTC will consider a report on the implementation of the Presto smart card system.
I will comment further on this matter after the meeting and whatever material is presented there.
Fares & Fare Collection
Those Vanishing Tokens
Today the TTC announced that token purchases, originally limited to 10-per-customer in the face of a coming fare hike, would now be limited to 5-per person. If a station collector has run out of tokens, you will pay the cash fare of $2.75.
This has to rank among the more bone-headed moves the TTC has made.
The TTC has a fetish for collecting money, and the more it can get, the better. In the name of eliminating bogus tickets, the TTC got rid of them for adults. Ooops! That was the fallback medium everyone used in the period when tokens vanished before a fare increase, but now it’s gone.
Some people may try to switch to a Metropass rather than taking a chance on token availability during December. Indeed, some regular pass users who switch to tokens for that “short” month (from a commuter’s point of view) may stay with the Metropass. Will the TTC have enough? Don’t count on it, and it’s far too late for them to order more. If you’re planning to buy a pass, don’t wait until November 30th.
Paying that cash fare doesn’t just hit riders for one direction on their trip. Someone commuting home via the subway with a bus or streetcar at the end of their trip may try, but fail, to get tokens on their outward trip. The next morning, they still won’t have tokens and will have to pay cash again for the inbound journey.
If the TTC had wanted to be the tiniest bit generous, it would have lowered the cash fare to $2.50 for the period leading up to the fare hike, at least trying to meet riders half way. But, no. The problem the TTC itself created will cost riders 50 cents more per trip for the next seven weeks.
Behind all this lurks the question of smart cards on the TTC. Once fare collection is automated, the amount of fare can be changed on a whim, with no lead time, and no possibility of hoarding. However, a lot comes along for the ride with the technology.
The original estimate for implementing Presto! on the TTC was $140-million, and the TTC got Federal funding (CSIF) to pay for it. There was a small problem. The estimate ballooned by another $277-million with no money in sight. (This is one of those many “below the line” projects in the Capital Budget, hidden, but lurking.)
There are many unanswered questions about Smart Cards for Toronto.
- What is so expensive about bringing them to the TTC?
- Why is there no public report with details of the new, higher estimate, only a few pages buried in the capital budget (page 1,533 for dedicated readers)?
- How much will it cost to operate and maintain the new system compared to the existing one, even allowing for the supposed reduction in fare evasion?
- How much real enforcement will the TTC put in place?
- What fare structure is contemplated?
- Is the system designed with an expensive, complex back-end to aid in detailed trip tracking and billing? What will be the marginal costs and benefits of such a system?
- What is the role of credit/debit cards as the “smart card” medium rather than a dedicated system?
- Who will own and maintain the system? The TTC or Metrolinx?
The world-wide embrace of smart technology shows us that this is hardly something new, something Ontario and Toronto have to develop from scratch. What’s the problem?
A huge, hidden issue has nothing to do with technology, but with subsidies. Everyone talks about getting rid of fare boundaries, and there are many ways to slice that pie. (Please, readers, don’t send in your proposals yet again, I will delete them.) But switching the fare revenue around inevitably means that some will pay more so that others pay less.
“Paying more” can be achieved by raising some of the fares, but it can also be achieved with increased subsidies. These are tradeoffs nobody wants to talk about.
To both TTC and Metrolinx: Stop hiding this debate behind closed doors and start talking about how fares might be collected in a unified system. How will fares be used to attract both the long-haul commuter and the casual, short-trip rider? How will boundaries between systems, including those with GO Transit, be eliminated? When will fares and service be treated as tools to encourage people out of their cars, to support local and regional planning ambitions, not just nuisances to be debated every year at budget time?
TTC Proposes 2010 Fare Increase (Updated)
Updated 11:10 pm November 4:
The TTC has confirmed that existing Metropass subscribers will not pay at the new rate until their renewal comes around. For example, if your annual renewal is in June, you will pay at the old rate up to and including the May pass. If your renewal date is January, then you will get the increase as soon as it comes into effect.
New subscriptions are now being taken effective January 2010, and so they will be at the new rate, whatever it winds up being.
Original post:
TTC staff propose that fares rise effective January 3, 2010.
As expected, the Metropass takes the brunt of the increase. Passholders will see their prices go up 16% on Monthly Discount Plan (MDP) subscription, slightly less otherwise. The token rate will go up only 11.1%.
I am sure that we will hear that 11% figure a lot in the coming weeks even though the primary way adult fares are collected today is by passes. Any politician who tries to duck that 16% figure deserves to be called out for misrepresentation.
This change represents a triumph of the bean counters, who have always hated passes and regard them as a drain on the system, over equitable increase in TTC fares. Reducing the fare multiple (the number of token fares represented by a pass) was an integral part of the Ridership Growth Strategy, and the TTC is now moving backward.
Metropass users are loyal, and those who have subscriptions don’t have the option of changing quickly anyhow. The “elasticity” of this market, as modellers like to say, is quite favourable to the TTC, at least in the short term.
How long into 2010 will it take for staff to tell us that they have still underestimated the use of Metropasses, that the average fare is below their projections, and that for 2011 we must again raise the multiple? After all it started out at 52 for everyone (there was no MDP in 1980). Why not just turn the clock back 30 years?
I have no doubt the Commission will endorse what the staff have proposed. We have been softened up for this announcement for weeks, and the TTC would not issue a press release about it without fair cartainty that the proposal would go through.
There is no question that the TTC needs a fare increase to balance its books. However, there has been no public discussion about changing the long-range policy of bringing the pass price down relative to tokens. What other parts of the Ridership Growth Strategy will we abandon next?
We will get a perfunctory debate at the TTC’s November 17 meeting. There will be much hand-wringing, but in the end I expect the very Commissioners, the “left wing”, are more likely to support their Chair and the staff proposal rather than talk about “fairness” in the fare structure.
Maybe Admiral Adam can explain on his new TV program starting tomorrow night (November 5, 8 pm on CP24) why the TTC will bump Metropass fares so disproportionately. His constituency should be the people, the transit riders, of Toronto, not his management staff.
The War on Metropasses (2)
The TTC’s November Commission meeting has been moved up from the planned November 25th date to the 17th, and an item sure to be on the agenda will be a fare increase for 2010.
There are two questions:
- How big an increase will the TTC need?
- How evenly will the increase be applied to different fare types?
As I already reported, TTC management has been up to its usual tricks of blaming heavy use of Metropasses for its financial woes. For months, they have been preparing us (and priming Commissioners) to tell us how we are losing too much money on passes, and their value, relative to tokens, must go up.
We have heard this song for years, but through a period when lowering pass pricing was an integral part of the Ridership Growth Strategy, it was ignored. Now, the TTC wants more money, and Metropass holders are convenient, dedicated transit users who can be counted on to cough up almost any increase.
What would, what should a fare increase look like? Continue reading
The War On Metropasses (1)
The National Post reports that the TTC is going to spend $1.5-million to install fare validation equipment in stations and vehicles.
The devices will be similar to the metropass slide readers currently in use at subway stations and will be mounted on top of fare boxes. If a fake pass or token is swiped or dropped in, the devices will beep and a screen will tell operators that a counterfeit has been detected, said TTC Chair Adam Giambrone. The machines will spit fake tokens, he said. [Full article]
The TTC never rests in finding new ways to slow down service. One huge advantage of the Metropass is that one simply waves it in the general direction of an operator. They may nod or say “thanks” or just go about their business, but people can pile onto a vehicle. Imagine if each pass holder has to swipe their card on entry. Pay-as-you-enter slows TTC service enough, but Metropass validation?
What will they do for all door-loading at busy stops? What will they do once streetcars board at all doors and fare handling is self-service?
By the way, the project cost according to the Capital Budget (page 1,179) is $5.368-million, of which a smaller amount is budgeted for 2010.
The TTC may save money on counterfeits, but how much will they lose in service delays? Do they even care?
If the TTC is looking for cuts in their Capital Budget, this is a prime example.
The TTC Responds: TTC Times 2 / Riding Around Loops
Recent comments in the thread regarding the split operations on 501 Queen, as well as a reported incident where an operator was unaware that GO Transit could be used as a “bridge” between two TTC routes, led me to send questions for clarification to the TTC’s Director of Corporate Communications, Brad Ross.
Here, with my comments, are the replies. The questions have been slightly reformatted so that they can stand outside of the context in which they were written. Continue reading
TTC Ridership, Budgets and Those Pesky Metropass Users
This week, the TTC announced that it has record ridership for the past twelve months of 470.8-million. This continues an upward trend from last year, and indicates that TTC demand may be insulated from the effects of the economic downturn. Possibly a shift from auto to transit riding is offsetting any reduction in employment or recreational traffic.
The Chief General Manager’s Report for the first quarter of 2009 notes that although ridership continues to grow, revenue is below budget. Why? More Metropasses were sold than expected in January-March, and this trend is continuing into the second quarter. The TTC had budgeted on a higher average fare-per-ride, and the more who travel with passes, the lower this average falls.
Rumours of budget related service cuts started to surface a few weeks ago, and one change effective June 21 is explicitly listed as being due to budget. (I will report on that in a separate post on June service changes.) This is an odd state of affairs considering that there is a buffer for service growth on the TTC”s budget, and there has been no report to the Commission of pending service cuts (or of deferred service improvements).
Moreover, in a separate report, the TTC plans to launch an ad campaign seeking organizations to be part of a Metropass Affinity Program where pass holders would receive discounts to products or events. The intention is, wait for it, to sell more Metropasses by making them even more attractive.
The TTC has a long-standing love-hate relationship with the Metropass going right back to its origins 29 years ago. Each pass is seen, by some, as a loss of revenue, a loss of individual fares that might otherwise be collected. Of course, a pass is also an incentive for users to ride the system and get all those “free” extra trips, exactly the sort of mindset an auto driver operates in every day.
Those 260,000 monthly pass holders are now responsible for over half of the adult trips on the TTC. Budgets and fare policies must recognize that there is a demand for flat rate purchase of transit services, and that this market will grow both through pricing incentives and improved service. Cutbacks because too many people buy passes are a laughable, but unfortunately predictable response to what should be a transit success story.
Fare By Distance: How Much Would We Pay?
In the thread about new streetcars, part of the discussion turned on the question of fare collection. I’ve been thinking about this for a while and planned to write about this topic, but when I actually started, realized that there’s more here than will fit in one article.
One major topic in all discussions is the question of flat fares versus fare-by-distance, and this inevitably gets pulled into questions about “equality” in the way that we price transit so that riders are not penalized by things like zone boundaries and operator service territories. However, any fare system brings its own benefits and problems. We may solve problems for one group of riders, and create a new set of problems for others.
This article considers fare-by-distance by analogy to the existing TTC system. It is intended as a “back of the envelope” calculation to give readers a general sense of the numbers and is not intended to be a prescription for any particular implementation. What is important is that anyone talking about fare structures cannot simply wish away problems of any system by saying “everything will be fixed with Presto!” or similar, simplistic bilge. Continue reading
My Ride on the King Car
A few days ago, my travels took me to Parkdale for a presentation near Jameson Avenue in the early afternoon. The obvious route for someone like me living near Broadview Station was the King car. That journey gave several examples of how service can be delayed that have nothing to do with traffic congestion, and illustrate the changes that will be possible when the TTC moves to low-floor cars and all-door loading.
Just south of Danforth, we picked up a load of students from Moncrest School on their way to Thomson Hall. They filled up the back half of the car. Just loading them all took a while, and I wondered to myself how the TTC will handle fare collection for this type of group when they move to self-service. Now we were slightly late.
By the time we were westbound on King, the car was filling up. A man had boarded with a shopping buggy, and he took a single seat just ahead of the rear vestibule on the left side of the car. This started a plug in the aisle that worsened when a group of five boarded. There were not enough seats for all of them, and they wound up partly seated and partly standing right across the aisle from the shopping buggy. Needless to say they were not going to “move to the rear”.
At Sherbourne, we passed up the first group of would-be customers even though there was still room in the rear vestibule. This continued at Jarvis, Church and Victoria.
At Yonge, the crowd turned over, but the car was now quite late and we still didn’t manage to fully use the capacity. By University we were again leaving people at the stops. The students piled off the car at Simcoe, and by Spadina the car had cleared out reasonably. All the same, we left an unhappy customer running for the car at Bathurst because getting back on time was more important than waiting, and the next car was only a block behind us.
While this may have been a particularly bad example of how service can be screwed up by loading delays, it’s not uncommon. The combined effect of many factors interferes with the travel time of TTC vehicles, and this has nothing to do with whether they are in a private right-of-way.
Loading delays caused by inadequate service can cause a downward spiral where line capacity drops even as ridership grows because cars spend longer at stops and onboard crowding slows or blocks movement of passengers. We hear far too much about traffic congestion as the root of all evil. Yes, it exists, but it’s not the only problem.
Fare By Distance? Not When It Suits GO (Updated)
Today, GO Transit implements a 25-cent across the board increase in all fares. Writing in the Star, Tess Kalinowski reports displeasure among commuters who have been slapped with higher relative increases for short trips than for long ones.
This isn’t the first time GO increased fares disproportionately, but the cumulative effect sets a pattern.
One commuter who travels from Old Cummer to Union complained that:
… the flat-fare hike means riders who live in Toronto are subsidizing passengers travelling from places such as Hamilton and Barrie.
“Over the last five years, I’ve seen my fares go up 27 per cent. Somebody from Barrie has seen their rates go up 9 per cent, Oshawa 14 per cent, Hamilton 10 per cent,” he said.
In response, GO replies that many costs have nothing to do with how far someone travels:
Transit officials defended the increase, saying many of the system’s costs, such as snow removal, station improvements and communications, are fixed and have nothing to do with distance. They also worry about discouraging riders from farther afield by pricing them out of the system.
Strange, that argument. It’s precisely the one for which I, among others, have been villified when suggesting a flat (or at least flatter) GTA-wide fare policy. Long distance riders are subsidised with free parking, new make-work garage building, and proportionately lower fares relative to the resources they consume. Why? Because we don’t want them driving to and from work. The costs — both physical to provide and maintain infrastructure, and social to consume so much land with unproductive roadways and a low-density lifestyle — are greater than what it takes to subsidise their commute by GO.
As regulars here know, I have a big problem with parking construction as an alternative to improved local feeder bus services. This issue will only grow as GO becomes less of a peak period carrier and more of an all day regional rapid transit system. That’s one of the many areas Metrolinx, in its less than infinite wisdom, chose to ignore. We won’t have “Mobility Hubs” complete with soaring interiors and palm trees as Metrolinx envisions if stations are surrounded by parking garages, and those who cannot afford to dedicate a car to all-day storage at a GO lot will still be isolated from regional transit services.
Finally, those who advocate for fare-by-distance as a “benefit” of the “Presto!” card (or whatever technology is eventually adopted) should compare notes with the folks at GO for whom high costs for long trips are a very bad idea indeed. Queen’s Park and its agencies don’t seem to have a consistent view of how we should price transit. There is no perfect system, and all of them will distribute benefits and rewards inequitably.
Metrolinx could do everyone a big favour by looking at the impact of various options for fare structures, including the wider issues of local service funding and the broad social value of mobility for everyone. Will they will have the fortitude to take on this issue (and revenue tools in general) rather than studying only infrastructure we may never be able to afford to build and operate?
Update 1, March 14 at 3:50 pm: Andrew Salmons of Milton has created an online petition requesting not only a reversal of today’s increase, but a lowering of GO’s cost recovery ratio so that fares could be reduced.
