[gweed123]

I like this idea, I'm not too sure what the exact % of ridership is based on area, but if most ridership is crossing three borders than this can work. if the data does in fact show that a majority of trips are done locally then I think this may be a money-looser.

My rationale is (and admittedly I haven't run the numbers, but I was thinking of using an origins-destinations survey that hopefully breaks it down by travel mode) is that the combination of: increased fares for long distances (an extra $0.50 for long haul trips), increase in the cash fare to $3.50, and increased local travel within zones will make up for the loss of some of the short trips subsidizing the long ones. The 1 zone trips may be paying half of what they're paying now, but if double the number of short trips are made, it works out to the same. And of course you'd get the occasional person who forgets to tap off and ends up paying more than double what they should have paid.

I personally think the biggest jump in transit use that we would see would be off-peak short haul trips in the inner suburbs.

Id prefer either 2$ for your first entrance to any TTC vehicle, then 1$ for each additional transfer...

I would think that it would be easier to do a voluntary reduction in fare than ask people to pay an extra $1 after they've already paid their fare. Getting a reduction afterwards has the psychological effect of "alright, I got money back!". I don't think that asking people for money once they've already paid would go over very well.

 

[Mapleson]

I've often thought about how to more equitably structure fares.
One idea that I've been toying with involves Presto using a tap on, and voluntary tap off.
5) One thing this would necessitate though is Presto machines at the back doors of all buses and streetcars, as well as at the front door.
This would give people a definite incetive to start using Presto, especially if you're doing short to medium range trips. It also keeps it simple for people who want to pay cash: you just pay the maximum fare.

The bus tap off would be an issue due to the extra readers necessary, but you could change it that you tap on/off of the subway and any bus route is considered a single zone journey.

I'd prefer either 2$ for your first entrance to any TTC vehicle, then 1$ for each additional transfer...

So you would charge people MORE for having an inconvient trip? I'm thinking specifically people that bus it to Don Mills, Sheppard subway to Yonge, Yonge subway to downtown, and a streetcar at the end.

My rationale is (and admittedly I haven't run the numbers, but I was thinking of using an origins-destinations survey that hopefully breaks it down by travel mode) is that the combination of: increased fares for long distances (an extra $0.50 for long haul trips), increase in the cash fare to $3.50, and increased local travel within zones will make up for the loss of some of the short trips subsidizing the long ones.

That's sound methodology that I'd support. The one issue with lower prices in the core is that it increases loading when we already are at crush loading for a quarter of the day on some lines.

I'd like to see time-based billing. If you travel daytime off-peak you get a discounted fare and if you travel nighttime you pay a surcharge to run the vehicles emptier but for longer.

For example, trips started:
6:00am-9:30am - $3.00
9:30am-2:30pm - $2.00
2:30pm-6:30pm - $3.00
6:30pm-9:30pm - $2.00
9:30pm-6:00am - $5.00

 

[gweed123]

The bus tap off would be an issue due to the extra readers necessary, but you could change it that you tap on/off of the subway and any bus route is considered a single zone journey.

How much does each reader cost? I don't suspect they're so prohibitedly expensive that installing a second one on each bus would be a deal-breaker. Most GO stations have multiple Presto machines. I would think that if they were really expensive they would probably have fewer of them.

That's sound methodology that I'd support. The one issue with lower prices in the core is that it increases loading when we already are at crush loading for a quarter of the day on some lines.

Hopefully with the new streetcars some of those ridership contraints will be reduced. But I do agree that an increase in short-haul trips may be harder on the system to handle, especially during peak periods. I would think it would raise revenue in non-peak periods though, because people would use the system more for discretionary trips.

I'd like to see time-based billing. If you travel daytime off-peak you get a discounted fare and if you travel nighttime you pay a surcharge to run the vehicles emptier but for longer.

For example, trips started:
6:00am-9:30am - $3.00
9:30am-2:30pm - $2.00
2:30pm-6:30pm - $3.00
6:30pm-9:30pm - $2.00
9:30pm-6:00am - $5.00

I don't think that's something I'd be in favour of. People who are riding the late night buses are usually doing so because they don't have many other options. I don't think charging people more to pay for an infrequent service is the way to attract customers.

EDIT: I may be in favour of reducing the zone fare discount during peak periods though. So for instance between 7-10am and 4-7pm the Presto fare for 1 zone is $2.00 instead of $1.50 (or pick your numbers). Something that charges peak period (choice) users more, or offers less of a discount compared to non-peak period usage.

 

[sixrings]

how about 2$ to use the subway anywhere. 1$ to use a bus or streetcar.. You could do it by presto but either way it would calculate how much your trip is worth. I never thought someone whose on the sheppard bus and has to transfer to the sheppard subway would have to pay 2 fares. Thats one exception i can make in the system because its on the same street. Ideally there shouldnt even be a transfer there anyway.

 

[gweed123]

how about 2$ to use the subway anywhere. 1$ to use a bus or streetcar.. You could do it by presto but either way it would calculate how much your trip is worth. I never thought someone whose on the sheppard bus and has to transfer to the sheppard subway would have to pay 2 fares. Thats one exception i can make in the system because its on the same street. Ideally there shouldnt even be a transfer there anyway.

But see that still 'punishes' people who aren't fortunate enough to live within walking distance of a subway line. And it still doesn't solve the problem that you're asking people to pay twice, which they would never want to do.

 

[sixrings]

Like you said you could make it apart of presto so they dont fully feel the effect of paying twice. PLus any fare by distance is essentially punishing someone, one way or another. My model would make it cheaper for all sorts of people who just need to use a bus and not use a subway. It also would make sure that subways and their vacinity would be naturally the first place to be developed as it should be. I dont understand how much of bloor and the danforth have avoided concos but yet we have buildings randomly at Finch and kipling or Lawrence east of Brimley.

 

[Mapleson]

How much does each reader cost? I don't suspect they're so prohibitedly expensive that installing a second one on each bus would be a deal-breaker. Most GO stations have multiple Presto machines. I would think that if they were really expensive they would probably have fewer of them.

The cost per machine isn't too high, it's just that Toronto has 2160 buses. Costs from the system installed to date wouldn't really reflect what a second mobile reader would be, but if it's over $10,000 for modifying each vehicle, it's an extra $22m. Not beyond reason, but not chump change either.

Hopefully with the new streetcars some of those ridership contraints will be reduced. But I do agree that an increase in short-haul trips may be harder on the system to handle, especially during peak periods. I would think it would raise revenue in non-peak periods though, because people would use the system more for discretionary trips.

For sure.

I don't think that's something I'd be in favour of. People who are riding the late night buses are usually doing so because they don't have many other options. I don't think charging people more to pay for an infrequent service is the way to attract customers.

How about just weekend nights then Friday/Saturday night have a surcharge, but keep the subways open until after the bars/clubs close? I was thinking of charging more on the "night life" crowd than shift-workers, who are often the most limited in options.

EDIT: I may be in favour of reducing the zone fare discount during peak periods though. So for instance between 7-10am and 4-7pm the Presto fare for 1 zone is $2.00 instead of $1.50 (or pick your numbers). Something that charges peak period (choice) users more, or offers less of a discount compared to non-peak period usage.

Anything that increases revenue from the bulk users is useful. However, this might have the unintended consequence of reducing the viability of late-night routes viewed in isolation.

how about 2$ to use the subway anywhere. 1$ to use a bus or streetcar.. You could do it by presto but either way it would calculate how much your trip is worth. I never thought someone whose on the sheppard bus and has to transfer to the sheppard subway would have to pay 2 fares. Thats one exception i can make in the system because its on the same street. Ideally there shouldnt even be a transfer there anyway.

Ideally, there shouldn't be buses driving on top on the Sheppard subway. What about people that live in, say Willowdale, and would take the bus down to Yonge/Sheppard and get on a bus there? Would they be charged for a bus and subway?

Would Eglinton be a $1 or $2 ride? Or would it cost more after Kennedy?

 

[BMO]

How about just weekend nights then Friday/Saturday night have a surcharge, but keep the subways open until after the bars/clubs close? I was thinking of charging more on the "night life" crowd than shift-workers, who are often the most limited in options.

People who go partying or clubbing only take the subway because it's cheap, especially if they've blown all their money buying drinks. The well-off plastic girls and built guys all drive down and zoom around in their BMW and ACURA. I think this would be punishing the wrong ppl IMO. Anything that pushes a larger cost on party goers for public transit is never good. You want more people to be enticed to use it, and reduce dumb drunk drivers. Parking typically costs $15 for the entire night. split between 4 or 5 ppl is comparable to the existing transit fare.

 

[gweed123]

Like you said you could make it apart of presto so they dont fully feel the effect of paying twice. PLus any fare by distance is essentially punishing someone, one way or another. My model would make it cheaper for all sorts of people who just need to use a bus and not use a subway. It also would make sure that subways and their vacinity would be naturally the first place to be developed as it should be. I dont understand how much of bloor and the danforth have avoided concos but yet we have buildings randomly at Finch and kipling or Lawrence east of Brimley.

But my point is people won't tap twice if it means they have to pay more the second time. Really the only way that people will tap off is if a) it'll charge them the full fare if they don't (like Presto currently works with GO if you don't have your default trip set), or b) if it means they'll be getting money back at the end of it.

And I'm still not too keen on the idea of having people pay extra to have to transfer. Land values and rents are much higher around subway lines, which usually means that poorer people who are captive riders are forced into areas where there isn't a subway. An extra payment required to transfer would hurt these people most. At least with a zone-based fare system it's based on geographic distance travelled, not your proximity to the subway.

 

[gweed123]

People who go partying or clubbing only take the subway because it's cheap, especially if they've blown all their money buying drinks. The well-off plastic girls and built guys all drive down and zoom around in their BMW and ACURA. I think this would be punishing the wrong ppl IMO. Anything that pushes a larger cost on party goers for public transit is never good. You want more people to be enticed to use it, and reduce dumb drunk drivers. Parking typically costs $15 for the entire night. split between 4 or 5 ppl is comparable to the existing transit fare.

I agree completely. If you want to charge a premium, charge it on the rush hour crowd. You'd have a much larger pool of potential riders to pull from, allowing you to generate the same amount of revenue from a much smaller fare increase per person. If the goal of the premium is to subsidize the night buses, would you rather have 1 person paying an extra $2, or 20 people paying an extra $0.10? I would think the latter would be much easier to implement. I'd rather see the zone fare go up by $0.10 in peak periods than have the night bus fare increase by $2.

 

[Mapleson]

People who go partying or clubbing only take the subway because it's cheap, especially if they've blown all their money buying drinks. The well-off plastic girls and built guys all drive down and zoom around in their BMW and ACURA. I think this would be punishing the wrong ppl IMO. Anything that pushes a larger cost on party goers for public transit is never good. You want more people to be enticed to use it, and reduce dumb drunk drivers. Parking typically costs $15 for the entire night. split between 4 or 5 ppl is comparable to the existing transit fare.

You are never going to capture the top end of the market, so it doesn't really matter what they do. I was just looking for a way of funding night subway operations with night usage, rather than closing the subways as we do now, making people choose drunk driving, taxis, or overcrowded buses. People that are truly poor aren't regularly going out drinking, but drinking at home or not at all. If more service were offered because of a price premium, I think this would reduce dumb drunk driving more than the premium might increase it. We'd need much better data to say for sure one way or another.

On a side note, where is convient to park downtown for $15 for the evening? I rarely drive downtown for entertainment because I figure parking makes it more expensive and less convient, so I don't know any of the good spots.

 

[lead82]

There are city owned Green P parking lots all over. After 6pm, they charge $6 for the entire night. Similarly on weekends it is generally only $5-6. Near the entertainment district there is a parking lot under city hall, and under University and Front street. Also, some streets west of Spadina offer free parking after 9pm or after midnight. This is why you see the heavy traffic downtown. Many people drive down since the TTC is a lot more expensive and is inconvenient after hours. This is especially true for anyone living along Yonge street on any day except Saturday when the line shuts down at 1230am. The night bus is very slow and usually packed to the brim. I rode it once and will never do so again. I will either park at Downsview or just drive downtown.

 

[Dan416]

Yeah if I go dt on a weekend to go clubbing I park at the Green P across from Wellesley and it's $6.

 

[Palma]

I think it should be based on distance

 

[Palma]

would this really improve transit ridership or be a detriment? If transit ends up costing more to suburbans, where's the "money saving" incentive of taking transit? Add -on the fact that if it is indeed much cheaper in the downtown core, there would be a lot fewer cars, and ultimately just more space for suburban vehicles to move in and consume.

Well then there would need to be some sort of tolls put on these cars. In London and Stockholm drivers pay big congestion charges for entering the heart of the city. Reduce on street parking and parking in general. In Italy (I forget which city) has a method based on license plate, For ie cars beginning with whatever their licenses start with can drive into the downtown core on particular days of the week and not other days. Another method is on Sun no cars are allowed. But they provide incentives on Sun such as free admission into a museum etc.

In Vienna, Munich and Copenhagen streets or blocks of streets have been closed to cars. In Zurich, red lights have been closely spaced and their trams can turn traffic lights in their favour as they approach forcing cars to stop. In Lowenplatz, a busy square in Zurich, cars are banned on many blocks and where they are permitted the speed limit has been greatly reduced to a snail's pace, crosswalks and crossing signs have been removed giving people on foot the right to cross anywhere they like at any time. Their chief traffic planner says that "driving is a stop and go experience". Basically, all these places are doing what they can to make it more difficult to drive a car into the city and it is working.