News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

everyone is held to that standard and would probably get kicked off a bus for doing some of those things. It's just that those get free transit lose that privilege for bad behaviour.... it's not as if they are banned from using transit. 30 year olds don't get free transit. (unless they are disabled, I guess, but that's something dealt with through their local council as far as I can tell)
 
I really liked the fare system in San Fran...

You pay one fare I think it was about $2.50 US, then you could transfer in any direction for up to 3 hours. So if I was just going downtown to get something I could do it on one fare, or if I needed to make a few stops on my way home, I could without racking up a small fortune in fares.
 
I voted on the closest to what I think would be a fair fare system.

But, really what I think is a fair choice is that you pay for distance (zone) & class (speed and maybe comfort).

Class (lowest to highest):
1. local (bus etc.)
2. Subway
3. Regional Express (Go now).

Basically you are paying for how fast you get there and distance (but all the systems are integrated).
 
I would argue that in the GTA the problem is not encouraging people to take the fastest route possible but rather encouraging transit agencies to provide faster options. A system which makes people pay more to travel on a slow bus across town rewards the inefficient transit agency more than it rewards the passenger.
 
EnviroTO said:
A system which makes people pay more to travel on a slow bus across town rewards the inefficient transit agency more than it rewards the passenger.
Click to expand...

No one should be travelling across town on a slow, rumbling bus that stops every 500 m. Especially if there's a rail line nearby.
 
From CPTDB, a more transit-enthusiast oriented discussion board (38 total votes):

Better Business as Usual - Pay less to cross Steeles and less between GO and TTC. [ 4 ] [10.53%]
Regional Flat Fare - One token gets you unlimited travel on any system, anywhere for 2 hours. [ 18 ] [47.37%]
London Model - GO and Subway use fare-by-distance, buses, streetcars and LRT use a flat fare. [ 12 ] [31.58%]
Full Fare-by-Distance - Fare is from point-to-point, regardless of the agency you used to make the trip. [ 4 ] [10.53%]
Click to expand...

From Urban Toronto, a more diversified discussion board (37 total votes):

Better Business as Usual - Pay less to cross lines [ 2 ] [ 5.41% ]
Regional Flat Fare - One token gets you anywhere [ 6 ] [ 16.22% ]
London Model - Trains use fare-by-distance, buses and trams use flat fare. [ 16 ] [ 43.24% ]
Full Fare-by-Distance - Point-to-point, regardless of the agency. [ 13 ] [ 35.14% ]
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to why Regional Flat Fare was much more popular on CPTDB than it was on Urban Toronto.
 
Maybe we're more realistic? I for one would love if every transit service cost the same, but for any of that to be possible, huge subsidies would be required or the fare would have to be doubled or tripled in order to keep longer trip prices down.
 
EnviroTO said:
I would argue that in the GTA the problem is not encouraging people to take the fastest route possible but rather encouraging transit agencies to provide faster options. A system which makes people pay more to travel on a slow bus across town rewards the inefficient transit agency more than it rewards the passenger.
Click to expand...

Simple, operation of the subway costs more than buses. Operation of GO costs more than subway. Fares have to reflect underlying costs - even if they are subsidized.
 
cacruden said:
Simple, operation of the subway costs more than buses. Operation of GO costs more than subway. Fares have to reflect underlying costs - even if they are subsidized.
Click to expand...

On high capacity corridors, this is not true. Especially on Yonge Street at 5 pm on any weekday.
 
urbanfan89 said:
On high capacity corridors, this is not true. Especially on Yonge Street at 5 pm on any weekday.
Click to expand...

So operational costs are measured during a specific hour on a specific route....

If subways were so efficient from a cost basis point of view, the TTC would not be wary of new subway construction.

Subways are great at getting people to their destination rapidly (especially through dense areas). It would be nice to have a grid of subways / express trains to get people to a destination within the Toronto (and Toronto region) quickly.... but I don't expect it to be cheap.

I am wary of the investment in LRT technology - not because it would not be efficient (and more cost effective) - but because I have very little faith that it would be given the priority needed (route design) to get people around the city rapidly.

I don't want to unduly subsidize someone that moves a long way away from work.... People change jobs, and sometimes the jobs are no longer close, and transit has to be able to handle getting people to their jobs quickly and efficiently.... but there has to be a financial equation to the decision on whether to remain at the current location or move closer.

Unfortunately the current model seems to be focusing on local transit (as opposed to regional transit) - whereby you can travel locally quickly - but getting anywhere a fair distance away - is going to be very slow (but cheaper). If you need to travel "locally" (within 40 minutes walk).... then just walk... Having transit stop at every street corner is just plain inefficient.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Thought you might be interested in the Transport for London 19 page PDF Guide to Fares and Tickets for comparison purposes.
Click to expand...

I attempted unsuccessfully to read it a few months back, and this brings up a really good point.

With flat fares, everyone knows that it will cost X to get from point A to point B, always.

I think most people here agree that some form of fare by distance should be adopted, but it causes a psychological problem of people being weary of taking a trip without knowing how much it will cost. Yes, the smart card would take care of it all, but people don't want to write blank checks.

How can a full or partial fare-by-distance system inform the passengers of the fare in advance when they aren't near a trip planning station (home computer, cell phone, kiosk in station, etc.) - especially on spur-of-the-moment trips?
 
As I mentioned, I was in Japan recently and I never felt the need to price out my travel options ahead of time (in-city options, I mean...not rail travel between cities). I knew that the longest subway ride I was likely to take would cost me $3.50 or so (give or take), and that was good enough for me. As long as people know what the likely maximum price is I think they'll be fine with finding out exactly how much it will cost when they get to the station.
 
METROLINX fares: Make them simple!

Everyone: interesting topic on Metrolinx fares-I feel they should be made simple as possible but with political boundaries this can be problematic.

I feel that premium services like GO Transit trains should have zone fares like they are now but encourage even more integration with transit like the TTC.

A simple fare structure will help riders compared to a complicated one like Boston's MBTA.

Incentive flat-fare monthly passes do work-make them affordable and the riders will purchase and use them!
LI MIKE
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top