[TheTigerMaster]

The solution to fare integration is simple:

1. Have a discounted fare for crossing into the TTC from the 905. Metrolinx will have to subsidize this.
2. Lower base fare of GO rail

I would be very happy with this arrangement.

 

[dunkalunk]

Another thought regarding zone fares. You can get rid of some of the impact that smaller zones have by making the first zone crossing free.

For instance, Say someone is travelling from Union to Guildwood which is 4 fare zones away. They'd pay the base rate (let's say $2.50) plus 2 zone fees (say $0.50 per zone). The trip would come out to $3.50 instead of $4.00.

Comparatively, let's say that passenger gets off at Gerrard Square which is in the zone adjacent to Downtown. That passenger would only pay the base $2.50 fare.

Doing it this way would largely eliminate the penalty for living next to a fare zone zone boundary, but still allow for longer distance trips to recoup some costs.

 

[DKsan]

The solution to fare integration is simple:

1. Have a discounted fare for crossing into the TTC from the 905. Metrolinx will have to subsidize this.
2. Lower base fare of GO rail

I would be very happy with this arrangement.

1. It should be vice-versa. I know there's this perception that people don't commute into the 905 via transit, but they do.

 

[kEiThZ]

Everyone gets hung up on the cost of subsidising bus service in Toronto while completely ignoring the billions put in by the province for capital expansion. Personally, I have no issues giving up control of the subway network to the province if Queen's Park is willing to put in the money for network expansion.

 

[kEiThZ]

Whatever system is deployed, the key has to be simplicity. This is why I wonder if zone fares (especially if zones are not contiguous to current municipal boundaries) are really feasible in Toronto.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Whatever system is deployed, the key has to be simplicity. This is why I wonder if zone fares (especially if zones are not contiguous to current municipal boundaries) are really feasible in Toronto.

I don't think so. There was a reason we abandoned fares in the 70s, and the forces opposing it are even stronger now.

One of the smarter things Metrolinx could do would be to brand the current municipal boundaries as being fare zones. Create a simple map showing the surcharge for crossing into each zone, with the surcharge being set by local operators. It's a small change that makes the GTHA fare systems much easier to understand.

 

[Forgotten]

@TheTigerMaster

You are assuming that both components would be separate agencies. They could still be part of the TTC but cross-subsidized as they are today.

Think of it like this:

1) We are constrained by the current fare to cover a typical suburban commute (say Agincourt to Downtown).
2) We want to allow growth in total revenue.

So we start as follows.
1) Base fare $2 flat. Covers all bus routes and access to the subway network.
2) Max subway fare differential from SC to Union set at $1. Say maybe 4 cents per km.

Over time we allow the subway component to rise at a faster rate than the base fare. This actually increases revenue over time. It also improves utilization and increases ridership. It's now cheaper to ride the bus and the subway more frequently.

So if I live at Victoria Park and Eglinton I have to pay extra for the privilege of using the subway for one stop to get to my local mall? Tory is finished.

 

[wopchop]

Forcing riders to pay more based on a "higher order mode" is incredibly inequitable. They would be exacerbating the old stereotype of the bus being for all those poor people, and creating an perfect election issue of "trains for the wealthy".

 

[dunkalunk]

Playing around with fare zone boundaries, I came up with the following which seems like it would be a fair way of carving up Toronto.

As you travel further from Downtown (bound by Bathurst, Bloor, the DVP, and the Lakeshore), the zones get larger. Generally, the zones get less dense as population density decreases. In agencies that are not the TTC, because the entire system is in the same zone, It's possible to travel throughout the same agency and transfer to the next one for free on a bus. For geographic reasons, the Etobicoke zone has been extended westwards to Cawthra, otherwise the zone would be too narrow compared to other densities (and to stop this nonsense of TTC routes arbitrarily ending at Etobicoke Creek and having poor service levels.)

The dividing line between what counts as local transit and rapid transit way too muddy. For instance, what is the St. Clair streetcar right-of-way when compared with the at-grade section of the Eglinton Crosstown through Scarborough?

For demonstration's sake, the following rules would apply to both local and rapid kinds of trips. GO/RER would have different base and zone fares, but such a system would work well for them as well.

• Local Base Fare $3.00
• Zone Fare $0.50
  
• First Zone Boundary Crossing: Free
  
• Trips Along Along Boundaries (such as the Eglinton Crosstown or Bloor-Danforth Subway) are counted in as few zones as possible

For many local trips, the fare is comparable to today' TTC Fare ($3.25), but there is still a premium if you want to travel long distances or through Downtown to more accurately reflect the cost of providing the service.

Some example trips:

• Kennedy to Pearson via Eglinton Crosstown
  • 2 zone crossings = $3.50
• Kennedy to Pearson via Bloor-Danforth Subway and Airport Rocket 192
  • 3 zone crossings = $4.00
• Eaton Centre to Pearson via Yonge Subway and Eglinton Crosstown
  • 3 zone crossings = $4.00
• Financial District to The Beaches via 501 Queen streetcar
  • 1 zone crossing = $3.00

 

[TheTigerMaster]

In the 60s, people would route their trips around these fare zones to avoid paying extra fare.

 

[Catenary]

Playing around with fare zone boundaries, I came up with the following which seems like it would be a fair way of carving up Toronto.

As you travel further from Downtown (bound by Bathurst, Bloor, the DVP, and the Lakeshore), the zones get larger. Generally, the zones get less dense as population density decreases. In agencies that are not the TTC, because the entire system is in the same zone, It's possible to travel throughout the same agency and transfer to the next one for free on a bus. For geographic reasons, the Etobicoke zone has been extended westwards to Cawthra, otherwise the zone would be too narrow compared to other densities (and to stop this nonsense of TTC routes arbitrarily ending at Etobicoke Creek and having poor service levels.)

The dividing line between what counts as local transit and rapid transit way too muddy. For instance, what is the St. Clair streetcar right-of-way when compared with the at-grade section of the Eglinton Crosstown through Scarborough?

For demonstration's sake, the following rules would apply to both local and rapid kinds of trips. GO/RER would have different base and zone fares, but such a system would work well for them as well.

• Local Base Fare $3.00
• Zone Fare $0.50
  
• First Zone Boundary Crossing: Free
  
• Trips Along Along Boundaries (such as the Eglinton Crosstown or Bloor-Danforth Subway) are counted in as few zones as possible

For many local trips, the fare is comparable to today' TTC Fare ($3.25), but there is still a premium if you want to travel long distances or through Downtown to more accurately reflect the cost of providing the service.

Some example trips:

• Kennedy to Pearson via Eglinton Crosstown
  • 2 zone crossings = $3.50
• Kennedy to Pearson via Bloor-Danforth Subway and Airport Rocket 192
  • 3 zone crossings = $4.00
• Eaton Centre to Pearson via Yonge Subway and Eglinton Crosstown
  • 3 zone crossings = $4.00
• Financial District to The Beaches via 501 Queen streetcar
  • 1 zone crossing = $3.00

I like your map and fare scheme. It's hard to find a trip where one routing is cheaper than another routing, except for trips through downtown, which is generally a good thing. Elaborating on the muddiness between rapid transit and local transit, I think we need to look at where it is feasible to tap on and off and where it is only feasible to tap on. Generally, I draw the line at whether or not the reader is offboard or onboard the vehicle. For this reason, buses and streetcars would be tap on only, while LRT, subways, heavy rail, and GO buses are tap on and off. For subway stations with bus connections, the tap out of the subway is accomplished by tapping onto the bus.

This creates some issues. Most surface routes in the suburban areas only travel through one or two zones, so the customer would rarely get more than the one free zone crossing they would get if they were switching. Problems arise with routes through downtown though, where a surface route may easily pass three or four zones. As a simple example, what happens when someone taps onto the 501 and rides almost the entire length? They have traveled across multiple zones, but only paid the base fare. Is the time penalty compared to future RER service worth the savings? I just don't see how we could make riders tap off while still onboard the vehicle effectively, though apparently Vancouver wants to try.

Another idea, since you had issues with the western Toronto zone being too small and narrow, might be to have two different fare classes of zone. For example, high density zones would have a $.50 upcharge, while less dense 905 zones would have a $.25 upcharge, but be made smaller to compensate. With smaller zones, the existing GO fare-by-distance model could be more easily adapted to a zone model, though GO would of course cost more.

 

[dunkalunk]

Elaborating on the muddiness between rapid transit and local transit, I think we need to look at where it is feasible to tap on and off and where it is only feasible to tap on. Generally, I draw the line at whether or not the reader is offboard or onboard the vehicle. For this reason, buses and streetcars would be tap on only, while LRT, subways, heavy rail, and GO buses are tap on and off. For subway stations with bus connections, the tap out of the subway is accomplished by tapping onto the bus.

You make a really good point here. It's not all that feasible to tap off from a vehicle with multiple exists that only has a Presto reader at the front. So, either you install multiple readers (which is a significant startup cost) or run the risk of losing some revenue. It's comparatively easier to install presto readers at LRT platforms or Subway Stations. You would incentivize tapping off a subway or light rail vehicle the same way it's done on GO, by defaulting to the longest-length trip on that route.

This creates some issues. Most surface routes in the suburban areas only travel through one or two zones, so the customer would rarely get more than the one free zone crossing they would get if they were switching. Problems arise with routes through downtown though, where a surface route may easily pass three or four zones. As a simple example, what happens when someone taps onto the 501 and rides almost the entire length? They have traveled across multiple zones, but only paid the base fare. Is the time penalty compared to future RER service worth the savings? I just don't see how we could make riders tap off while still onboard the vehicle effectively, though apparently Vancouver wants to try.

This is where installing additional Presto readers comes in. The new streetcars are getting Presto scanners installed on all doors, so tapping off won't be an issue here. As for buses, it may not be economical to install readers at the back doors, however some revenue capture will still exist through transfers to Subway, LRT, Streetcar, etc. Perhaps on express bus routes (since Presto knows which route you're boarding), a zone fare surcharge could automatically be applied to make up for the loss?

Another idea, since you had issues with the western Toronto zone being too small and narrow, might be to have two different fare classes of zone. For example, high density zones would have a $.50 upcharge, while less dense 905 zones would have a $.25 upcharge, but be made smaller to compensate. With smaller zones, the existing GO fare-by-distance model could be more easily adapted to a zone model, though GO would of course cost more.

There's merit in keeping the system simple with one class of fare zone, but I do like the idea of having Downtown cost more. I'm honestly not sure where to make the divisions in the suburbs with smaller zones. Perhaps other people have ideas?

 

[Catenary]

You make a really good point here. It's not all that feasible to tap off from a vehicle with multiple exists that only has a Presto reader at the front. So, either you install multiple readers (which is a significant startup cost) or run the risk of losing some revenue. It's comparatively easier to install presto readers at LRT platforms or Subway Stations. You would incentivize tapping off a subway or light rail vehicle the same way it's done on GO, by defaulting to the longest-length trip on that route.

The charge maximum fare for failure to tap off method seems to work well, both on GO and elsewhere.

This is where installing additional Presto readers comes in. The new streetcars are getting Presto scanners installed on all doors, so tapping off won't be an issue here. As for buses, it may not be economical to install readers at the back doors, however some revenue capture will still exist through transfers to Subway, LRT, Streetcar, etc. Perhaps on express bus routes (since Presto knows which route you're boarding), a zone fare surcharge could automatically be applied to make up for the loss?

It sounds like TTC buses will have rear door readers fitted, for rear door boarding at subway stations. This doesn't solve the tapping off problem though, which is that forcing people to tap off would negatively affect the speed of service. It would take longer for passengers to alight, and cause bottlenecks at the front door as that one passenger getting off has to tap against the flow of incoming people. If a rider was walking away from the stop and realizes they forgot to tap off, the bus is gone, unlike LRT where the readers are on the platform and they can just go back.

I don't know how to handle express buses. For other express services, such as the downtown express buses and GO, we could choose to vary or multiply either the base fare or zone fare, or both. For example, a TTC downtown express bus could charge a 1.5x base fare, but the same zone fare, if we can solve the tap off issue. GO could charge a 2x base fare, and a 2x zone fare, since GO always knows about tap offs. Either way, linking the "premium" fare services to a multiple of either the base or zone fare, or both, allows the customer to easily calculate fares for their travel, rather than having regular and premium fares completely unlinked.

Another issue is cash fares, which cannot be ignored. The traditional solution is to sell tickets from vending machines, and let the customer select their start and end points before their trip begins. This is difficult on buses, where we likely don't want the driver to be different value selling tickets. Ottawa is installing PRESTO faregates with scanners for barcode/QR code tickets, since the transfer printers on their buses can print those codes. Could the TTC and other GTA agencies use similar system? Should passengers starting on a bus/streetcar and making a transfer to the subway obtain a transfer and then use it as credit towards the cost of a multi-zone ticket, purchased at a machine in the subway station? If not a barcode/QR code, how could transfers be validated? The TTC does have the benefit of already having the metropass magnetic stripe readers present, which could be used to read single-trip tickets vended from machines.

There's merit in keeping the system simple with one class of fare zone, but I do like the idea of having Downtown cost more. I'm honestly not sure where to make the divisions in the suburbs with smaller zones. Perhaps other people have ideas?

I don't know the geography and environment well enough to place zones, but I thought that having the option of some smaller, cheaper zones might make it easier to draw boundaries. The Metrolinx presentation this week shows the benefits of smaller, more granular zones making smaller "steps" in the distance/fare chart. If we size these steps for the suburbs, we would end up with many tiny zones covering the downtown though, hence the thought of two different classes.

Thinking about GO, the fare zones will likely end at the boundaries of the existing municipal transit systems. GO can then price the stations past those lines however they want, as they currently do, or they could lay some zones over the outlying cities they serve.

 

[kEiThZ]

So if I live at Victoria Park and Eglinton I have to pay extra for the privilege of using the subway for one stop to get to my local mall? Tory is finished.

You didn't get my point. $2 is the base fare. Base fare covers unlimited use of surface routes and entry into subway. You pay an additional distance based fare to use the subway. If you don't go far on the subway, that could work out to less than the cost of a token today. And you could limit your cost to $2 by sticking to surface routes.

If the distance based fare was say $0.005 per km. Would you be upset at paying $2.10-$2.20 to reach your local mall?

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't think so. There was a reason we abandoned fares in the 70s, and the forces opposing it are even stronger now.

One of the smarter things Metrolinx could do would be to brand the current municipal boundaries as being fare zones. Create a simple map showing the surcharge for crossing into each zone, with the surcharge being set by local operators. It's a small change that makes the GTHA fare systems much easier to understand.

In the 60s, people would route their trips around these fare zones to avoid paying extra fare.

Zones result in perverse incentives to avoid the most direct route to your destination. This is why I think that we need an easy to administer system. And best I can suggest would be fare by mode with a differential for services that are faster and/or more comfortable. Moreover, creating zones inside the 416 would be really controversial if the zones are smaller than the boroughs and there are no zone crossing discounts.

Broadly speaking, we need to look at what the goals of the fare system. Is it max cost recovery? Is it max utilization? Is there a balance point in between we're aiming for? The goals will dictate the fare system. For example, maybe instead of zones we might want to consider time-of-use flat fare pricing instead. $3.50 during rush. $3 for mid-peak. $2.50 for off-peak.