[kEiThZ]

Just wait until people in North York or Scarborough find out that it's going to cost them $4-$6 to get downtown instead of $2.90 (or less if one currently has a Metropass).

That's why you start with a scheme that sets the fare at the same level as now for most people's commutes. Once you split the fare, growing one component over another becomes easier.

Think about it. Would councillors really vote against lower fares for users inside their boroughs just because the lower proportion of downtown commuters might eventually pay a little more?

 

[kEiThZ]

Except for the 4 Sheppard subway. The ridership on some streetcar and bus routes make more money than on this line.

I honestly believe it's a myth that bus routes lose money. More like some routes lose money. I sincerely doubt that routes on most of this city's major avenues, which pack articulated buses lose money.

I doubt routes on Finch, Sheppard, Eglinton, Bathurst or McCowan lose money. By contrast, maybe the local Nugget or Neilson bus in my neighbourhood is less likely to be profitable.

 

[W. K. Lis]

There is also this problem of the operating budget. The Toronto property taxes subsidize most of the operating budgets, and we get zero from users from the 905. Same for the roads (except for the 400 series of highways) within Toronto, it's paid by Toronto property owners, and not the users from the 905.

 

[jeffreym]

That's why you start with a scheme that sets the fare at the same level as now for most people's commutes. Once you split the fare, growing one component over another becomes easier.

Think about it. Would councillors really vote against lower fares for users inside their boroughs just because the lower proportion of downtown commuters might eventually pay a little more?

Really, I expect that it's people downtown that will end up with cheaper trips since it's much more likely that a given user's destination is close to home. Plus, it's not just downtown bound commuters that'll be paying more. Heck, it's further to go from Scarborough Town Centre to York U than Finch to Queen. The point being, there will be a lot of suburban-based commuters that'll be paying more money and a lot of downtown-based commuters paying less. That's the nature of any fare by distance scheme.

Also, as Steve Munro points out in his article, the fact that Toronto's a rectangle means that some trips from southern York Region to points downtown will be shorter than trips within Toronto. That'd make their trips cheaper than some trips within Toronto. If Toronto is continuing to subsidize the TTC's operating budget to the extent that it is today then I don't see how that'll fly. As I said before, if the province steps in with a subsidy to ensure that most people's trips won't cost more then that'd be one thing, but unless that happens then I don't see how council would support that.

 

[muller877]

That's why you start with a scheme that sets the fare at the same level as now for most people's commutes. Once you split the fare, growing one component over another becomes easier.

Think about it. Would councillors really vote against lower fares for users inside their boroughs just because the lower proportion of downtown commuters might eventually pay a little more?

The next phase of the study might solve all of these problems between downtown and the 'burbs. They are looking at high pricing of fares during rush hour. The 'burbs may have a very low rush hour premium while the downtown core will have a very high premium. Will make the seniors who vote and have time to complain favoured for the system.

For example, a $2 base fare. Outside of the downtown during rush hour (7:30 to 9:30, 4 to 6:30) it goes up 25% but downtown it goes to 100%. Basically the locations and time that constrain transit will cost more.

Core could be Bathurst to Sherbourne, Queens Quay to Bloor (plus up to Yonge & Eg for the Yonge line only)

And then you compare the volume so the average fare is $2. Assume 33% of the travel is in rush hour. This would result in a base fare of $1.75 outside of rush hour and maybe $2.20 in rush hour ($3 for downtown core).

So the 'burb residents who commute downtown will be the ones really out of pocket (specifically the white collar who have to be at work for 8:30). Those on shift (e.g. cleaners) would not have to pay this premium

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Except for the 4 Sheppard subway. The ridership on some streetcar and bus routes make more money than on this line.

Yeah for sure. It varies by route, but in general the busses cost more to operate per user.

 

[kEiThZ]

@muller877

I like that system. The biggest problem is coming up with a system that's easily explainable to the general public and won't automatically come across as a scam to the burbs. Charging them more also means that more will be demanded in terms of service.

 

[Megaton327]

I've long argued that there's a way around this. Split the TTC. Into the surface and heavy rail network. Surface routes go on a fixed fare. Heavy rail goes fare by distance.

This way, they could theoretically lower fares for those who want to take a bus in their neighbourhood. Imagine the base TTC fare going down to $2. And then charge a distance based top-up on the subway network.

Such a proposal would split the public in the suburbs. Lots of travel inside the suburbs themselves.

They would absolutely not slash the fare to $2. Maybe cut it $0.25 cash/$0.05 token or presto the year that it's introduced, but go back up at least the same amount the following year with regular fare increases. Absolutely no way they're taking a minimum $1.25 (more, potentially, by the time this happens) off it. If they change to a mixed flat/zone/distance fare, it WILL take the form of the current fare being the "flat fare", and any other options solely existing to charge riders more.

 

[ssiguy2]

Under no situation should they charge different fares for different technologies ie busses/streetcars are cheaper than subways/GO.

FIRST. Metrolinx doesn't know you. If you want to get from A to B you are the one who knows how to do it. You are the one who knows the best and fastest way to get to your destination so you should be the one deciding what that route is. Metrolinx's only goals should be getting you from A to B as safely, efficiently, quickly, and affordably as possible but whether you decide to take that trip on a pavement, streetcar tracks, subway tracks, or standard railway tracks should be completely irrelevant.

SECOND. Using mode as a way of determining fares is an exceptionally poor use of infrastructure and operation costs. People are price sensitive and will pay lower fares when they have to often out of sheer necessity. GO is, of course, the best example where it's ridership levels in Toronto are very poor due to it's high prices. Even when people live right near a GO station and the service is decent people will not take it. The result?.......packed buses, streetcars, and subways running above capacity but GO trains running below capacity.

Due to this you have a person from downtown taking the Yonge, the Bloor, then SRT then bus to get back home to Malvern as opposed to taking one trains from Union to Malvern. A shocking waste of infrastructure and labour costs.

THIRD. Charging more for rapid transit {subways, LRT, RER} is an excellent way of making sure that they NEVER get built. Expansion will be seen as a gift to higher income earners and a deliberate attempt to hurt low income earners who can't afford the higher fare. When rapid transit expands down a road it is natural that the local buses will be cut back due to that expansion. If they charge more for the subways then the buses you will be spending billions to make transit easier for wealthier people and yet reducing service to those who rely on it the most. If they decide to keep the local bus service on the subway route the subway route will not be getting near the ridership it should making it a drain on operational costs. Charging more for rapid transit is also a disincentive for TOD.

 

[Palma]

They would absolutely not slash the fare to $2. Maybe cut it $0.25 cash/$0.05 token or presto the year that it's introduced, but go back up at least the same amount the following year with regular fare increases. Absolutely no way they're taking a minimum $1.25 (more, potentially, by the time this happens) off it. If they change to a mixed flat/zone/distance fare, it WILL take the form of the current fare being the "flat fare", and any other options solely existing to charge riders more.

the way to do it, is the most for Toronto, would continue to be $3.00 or 2.90 (whatever it is) but the other fares would drop. For i.e if zone fares, then from 1 zone to another could be 2.00, next zone, 2.50, and the next zone $3.00. Fare are not going up but would be going down for those travelling short distances. It makes sense. Everything else taxi, flight are distance based. The further you go the more you pay. Other cities do it. in London they have such a system. Vacationing there 2 years ago I forget if it was distance abased or zone based

 

[rbt]

Yeah for sure. It varies by route, but in general the busses cost more to operate per user.

Until you include capital renewal programs (also largely from property tax), then I suspect (because TTC didn't publish this kind of information when it did the bus/streetcar combined costs per operating hour) it becomes a whole lot closer.

The main argument for 5 minute service up to 1am is that subway trains running on the track is a small fraction of the cost of the actual subway cost.

 

[jeffreym]

the way to do it, is the most for Toronto, would continue to be $3.00 or 2.90 (whatever it is) but the other fares would drop. For i.e if zone fares, then from 1 zone to another could be 2.00, next zone, 2.50, and the next zone $3.00. Fare are not going up but would be going down for those travelling short distances. It makes sense. Everything else taxi, flight are distance based. The further you go the more you pay. Other cities do it. in London they have such a system. Vacationing there 2 years ago I forget if it was distance abased or zone based

It'd be nice if that was what was happening, but there's almost no chance that's going to be the result. If short trips are cheaper and long trips cost the same as they do today there'll be less money. That means a subsidy has to come from somewhere. I seriously doubt that'll happen.

Some people will pay less it seems, but that has to be offset by others paying more.

One other concern is that if Metrolinx sets our fares (I expect that that'd be necessary for the systems they're proposing?) then any service improvements will have to come from increased municipal subsidy rather than increased fares or a combination thereof (since we wouldn't be able to raise fares to cover some/all of our costs). It's be our system to run but theirs to set the funding levels for.

On that note, would Metrolinx also be able to dictate what fare products the TTC sells? Would the TTC be able to (for example) modify the day pass to allow 2 Adults/6 Children on any day of the week should it so choose? Would the TTC still be able to sell a product similar to the Metropass? What if the TTC came up with another fare product it wanted to implement?

It's not that our flat fare system is perfect, but as long as most of the TTC's subsidy comes from Toronto's operating budget then ultimately Toronto needs to make sure that any changes are to the net benefit of it's citizens and that this isn't a giant shell game that makes cross border travel cheaper for residents of York Region and Mississauga at the expense of higher fares for Torontonians.

 

[Steve X]

I honestly believe it's a myth that bus routes lose money. More like some routes lose money. I sincerely doubt that routes on most of this city's major avenues, which pack articulated buses lose money.

I doubt routes on Finch, Sheppard, Eglinton, Bathurst or McCowan lose money. By contrast, maybe the local Nugget or Neilson bus in my neighbourhood is less likely to be profitable.

It really depends of the time of the day.

Most people ride with the demand so they see tons of people so they don't see the whole route. Take the 199 Finch Rocket for example. In PM rush, it's packed from Finch Station but by Kennedy it lost half it's passenger. By McCowan, there are seats. On the westbound run, STC to Finch is pretty empty. The bus doesn't fill up until Kennedy. Kennedy to STC and back is a long distance of no profit. Also, the 199 being such a long route, it doesn't get a lot of fares from riders along the way. On weekends, it's worst.

Routes like 35 Jane and 36 Finch West are better. Buses are packed but there are people getting on and off at almost every stop. So it carried more people over the course of the trip.

Feeder routes like the 131 or 133 you mention have much lower demand in the counter direction. That's where it looses money. When the TTC say it looses money when ridership is higher, it's true since only one direction gains riders. Until buses can teleport, TTC will still be in the reds.

 

[gweed123]

It'd be nice if that was what was happening, but there's almost no chance that's going to be the result. If short trips are cheaper and long trips cost the same as they do today there'll be less money. That means a subsidy has to come from somewhere. I seriously doubt that'll happen.

The hope would be that there would be an increase in the number of people taking short trips. If a 1 zone trip was $2 instead of the current $3, more people may take it. Every 1 extra rider that you capture for a short trip that wouldn't have captured otherwise balances off 2 riders who were already taking short trips who are now paying $1 less each.

It should also be noted that those short trips don't have to occur solely in downtown. They can be short suburban trips to the grocery store as well.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The real problem is we act like we're reinventing the wheel here, as if ever "World class" municipality doesn't have a more sensible fare structure than we do.

Steve Munro, as always, makes some good points and, as always, runs into this precise wall. He can never see past where we are now and what we have now and is entirely Toronto-centric and too hung up on technical minutiae to deal with how people actually get around.

We all have in our own heads roughly what makes sense. It seems to me that a combo of zones and time-based fares makes sense and then it's just quibbling about where to draw them, how big etc. I agree with those who say the mode should be beside the point. Peak vs. Off-peak fares make total sense, especially on GO.

As I see it the main challenges are:
1) TTC carries so many more riders than everyone else, so their needs have to be addressed so they're not getting the short end
2) Saying someone who travels further pays more is entirely fair, but not to the point of discouraging them
3) The penalty for crossing a border - municipal or a fare zone - should not be onerous

It would be nice if things are structured so taking a 5 km trip that crosses a municipal boundary doesn't cost much more than a 5 km trip within a single municipality. Right now it can be more than double.

I feel like Munro particularly resents Metrolinx because they're doing what he thinks his job is; unilaterally telling Toronto how to run their transit system.

But fare integration has got to happen at some point. RER and even the Spadina subway are fundamentally altering the outdated "TTC is for 416, GO is for 905, everyone else can make due with their local system," dynamic. Presto was the proverbial Barbarians at the Gate and now fare integration is the end game. How to do it is tricky, but that's not because an integrated fare system is so tricky, it's because we have so many preconceived notions and such a fragmented system already in place (in terms of operations and especially funding!) that we're trying to reverse engineer something that will please every constituent, and it can't be done.