News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

I recently read Steve Munro's discussions around the lower TTC passenger counts in 2016. I was very interested that it assumes a Metropass rider uses 73 rides a month as part of the count. This has been constant and I don't think has changed over the years. Crazy that they have not monitored via a sample or some other method.
They do change the number, over time, based on counts. That was the justification for the extra Metropass increase for 2015, is that the number had increased.

I think you need around 50 rides before it is economical.
Depends how you do the math. 44 if you use cash, and don't claim the tax credit for the passes. 49 if you use tokens and don't claim the credit. 42 if you use tokens and claim the tax credit for the pass. 38 if you have the cheaper MDP (annual) pass, and claim the tax credit, compared to tokens (34 compared to cash).

Though now that Presto is tax deductable, that changes again, once it's everywhere.

Personally my magic number is 38; and I'm usually around 60 or so rides. No brainer. Heck, took 3 rides already today; stopped at bank on way past (had to sign some papers) and then went into a store on Yonge to grab something, before re-entering the subway and doubling back to the office.

I don't take more than 2 rides every day, but even if I did, and only worked 19 days a month, it breaks even - and the rest is gravy.
 
I recently read Steve Munro's discussions around the lower TTC passenger counts in 2016. I was very interested that it assumes a Metropass rider uses 73 rides a month as part of the count. This has been constant and I don't think has changed over the years. Crazy that they have not monitored via a sample or some other method.

They do monitor this. A tiny number of TTC riders are paid to keep journals of their trips; time, date, where from, where to, connections, problems encountered, and IIRC purpose of the trip.

These journals provide much of the information TTC uses for this kind of thing. Large trends (changes in trip count versus revenue) are compared against journal data.

Obviously having the entire customer base tap in/out on each vehicle would be best but a random sampling of customers is statistically sufficient for a broad look.
 
They do monitor this. A tiny number of TTC riders are paid to keep journals of their trips; time, date, where from, where to, connections, problems encountered, and IIRC purpose of the trip.

Does the TTC randomly choose people or do you have to sign up to participate?
 
Does the TTC randomly choose people or do you have to sign up to participate?
Random.

Though is there any self selection and bias in those that choose to fill it in rather than ignore it? Is someone who is obsessive enough to fill it in, more likely to take more short trips?

The Presto data should help understand that more.
 
Motion passes unanimously at Toronto City Council regarding revenue sharing for fare integration. Primarily motivated by suspicion that Metrolinx is trying to raise TTC fares.
 
Doesn't basing it on time rather than distance double punish people who live in areas not served, or underserved, by the more rapid forms of transit? If you are pushed onto the slower forms of transit but travel the same distance as someone who has more/better access to more rapid transit, you are more often going to go over your 2 hour time limit.
and what about traffic delaying a bus and then passenger gets punishes? By distance is the fairest thing. Its done with taxis, airlines for flights. Its basic common sense
 
Motion passes unanimously at Toronto City Council regarding revenue sharing for fare integration. Primarily motivated by suspicion that Metrolinx is trying to raise TTC fares.
so is it good the motion passed then? What was the alternative and if Liberals are out in next election, I know that Metrolinx is suppose to be "neutral" with "no interference from gov't" but can the PC push things in another direction (not like Harris) but perhaps think metrolinx should stick with GO and leave the other agencies (cities) to manage their transit.

And regarding the issue that Metrolinx is trying to raise TTC fares - is that because when /if Metrolinx takes over, more revenue to pay for that bloated agency?
 
if Liberal is out in 2018, my guess is that electrification of Milton line and Richmond hill line will officially be dead, and DRL and Yonge North will be prioritized which was originally the Hudak platform anyway. Spadina extension will be open in the end of 2017 so we definitely will see how subway fare to be re-structured before Liberal is out.
 
if Liberal is out in 2018, my guess is that electrification of Milton line and Richmond hill line will officially be dead, and DRL and Yonge North will be prioritized which was originally the Hudak platform anyway. Spadina extension will be open in the end of 2017 so we definitely will see how subway fare to be re-structured before Liberal is out.
but why would the P.C stop GO electrification especially because the party is rural based? Other than when people hear electrification not sure they understand it, where as, as someone mentioned elsewhere on this forum that with SmartTrack, the way it was branded people were able to understand what it meant and the additional stops. Perhaps maybe all this talk of trains every 15 min and electrification is unfounded on faulty data if there is any - aka UPX projections
 
There's some press on this in the National Post today.
Nothing we don't already know, but it's interesting that the media is catching on.

Chris Selley: Integrating fares across GTHA is easily the biggest Toronto transit issue we aren’t talking about

Even before it launched, the Union Pearson Express (UPX) was raising questions about how much faith we should put in Metrolinx, the ostensibly arm’s-length provincial body overseeing many billions worth of transit projects in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). Before UPX fares were halved in February, the airport-to-downtown link was attracting half of its 12-month ridership targets, which were in turn well short of the break-even point.

It was exactly what most people, expert and non-expert, had predicted. Now, thanks to documents released to media after a two-year battle, we know Metrolinx had several expert studies confirming it was simply too expensive. In future, taxpayers may be on the hook for subsidizing this service, which was designed specifically for people who can regularly afford airline tickets.

It is a famous cock-up, but to be fair to Metrolinx staff, everyone knows it’s not just on them. Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca, the guy ostensibly at the other end of the arm, took it upon himself to announce the fare cut. We all know transit planning is filthy with politics. But that doesn’t make it any less of a problem.

In June, Metrolinx will issue recommendations on a vastly more complex costing exercise: integrating public transit fares across the entire GTHA. In the near future there will be no more cash, tokens, Metropasses, paper transfers or stickers. One charge to your Presto card will take you from Hamilton east to Durham and north to York, with Toronto and the TTC in the middle.

It is an unambiguously good idea. “We know that the fare structure is creating barriers for people,” says Leslie Woo, Metrolinx’s chief planning officer. “Trying to get to something that’s more simple and consistent across the region is the key objective.”

But “the devil,” as TTC chairman Josh Colle says, “is in the details.” What will that single fare look like? How will it be calculated? How will each GTHA transit agency’s fare structures mesh with the others? This is easily the biggest Toronto transit issue we aren’t talking about, and the politics of it makes UPX look like a day at the beach.

Metrolinx staff are considering three basic concepts; two are fraught with peril. One would carve up the GTHA into zones, as in London and many other cities: cross into a new zone, pay more. Another would differentiate fares by the type of ride. Fares for “rapid transit” (subway and LRTs) would increase by distance for “medium” journeys (seven to 15 kilometres) and “long” journeys (more than 15 km), while “local” transit options (buses and streetcars) would stay at a flat fare.

To policy wonks, either might sound reasonable: if you’re willing to make a journey by slow bus instead of fast train, shouldn’t you get a discount? But in the real world, it’s a bomb ready to go off in politicians’ faces. In Toronto specifically, it would mean the end of nearly half a century of flat-fare TTC service.

“This opens a rat’s nest of issues,” says transit advocate Steve Munro. “The system was designed around a flat fare where once you get to the point where you need more capacity, you change the mode.”

So imagine telling residents along Eglinton Avenue that the years of construction hell they’re enduring to replace buses with an LRT will come with a fare hike. Or imagine telling Scarborough residents that their hard-won subway will come with a 50 per cent fare increase to get downtown. The Kennedy-to-Scarborough Town Centre extension would be almost a “medium” journey on its own.

“There’d be riots in the street,” says Scarborough Coun. Glenn De Baeremaeker. “You can’t do it.”

De Baeremaeker thinks the politics alone makes this a non-starter, and he might be right: Scarborough’s Liberal MPPs are nearly as heavily invested in that subway as its councillors. But it’s not inconceivable the scads of money Queen’s Park has poured into Toronto transit in recent years might come at a price.

For Colle, the issue is that “Toronto is kept financially whole.” He notes other GTHA municipalities’ transit systems are subsidized far more heavily than the TTC. Asked if he has a “line in the sand,” he says the system “can’t be punitive financially for Toronto so that other jurisdictions’ fares can be artificially low.”

Colle suggests a zone-based system might fly if all of Toronto is “Zone 1.” That could still facilitate regional transit. It’s plausible, if not necessarily fair, and there is no reason to think Metrolinx won’t recommend it. But another UPX-scale miscalculation could lead to a transit battle even more bitter than we’re used to.
And there's a lot of debate on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/jm_mcgrath/status/723113477909274625
(John McGrath is extremely opposed it seems)
 
Good points were brought up in that thread. I am very concerned about Metrolinx's focus on improving regional travel through fare integration. The vast, vast majority of trips in the region are within municipalities. It's a mistake to make these trips more expensive to subsidize regional trips.
 
I'm also concerned about the disproportionate impact fare integration will have on the lower income. The schemes proposed thus far will lower fares in Old Toronto and outer suburbs (905), ares that tend to be more wealthy, at the expense of raising fares in the inner suburbs, which are less wealthy. This is a great way to perpetuate systemic poverty. Any system that perpetuates systemic poverty must be rejected. I don't think any of us wants Toronto to become a city where transit is too expensive for individuals of lower income to use.
 
I'm also concerned about the disproportionate impact fare integration will have on the lower income. The schemes proposed thus far will lower fares in Old Toronto and outer suburbs (905), ares that tend to be more wealthy, at the expense of raising fares in the inner suburbs, which are less wealthy. This is a great way to perpetuate systemic poverty. Any system that perpetuates systemic poverty must be rejected. I don't think any of us wants Toronto to become a city where transit is too expensive for individuals of lower income to use.

Studies in other cities have actually concluded the opposite. In LA for example they determined that transit dependant users are generally more poor and non-white. They use transit to make more non-work trips (e.g. to get groceries or visit friends) which are generally shorter than other passenger groups who primarily use transit for work (and then drive at night). They also generally make the work trips (if they have one) out of peak (i.e. shift workers or part-time work).

I think this is very true in Toronto as well. In fact, since there are more people better off using transit in Toronto (vs LA), these people can further help subsidize the shorter trip requirements of the less fortunate. Anti-poverty groups should actually do a study and not just use antidotal evidence to prove the point. Most less well of people are not working 9-5 jobs downtown and that is their only trip.

Our system also perpetuates poverty by the Metropass. Finding $100+ at once is not easy for the poor. A monthly cap significantly helps the cash flow.

By lower the base fare in Toronto ($1 for up to 2 km), adding distance based fares, a prime-time surcharge, a downtown surcharge (to address your concern about those in Old Toronto) and adding monthly caps (variable based on distance travelled) I think this will HELP those who are transit dependant.
 
Studies in other cities have actually concluded the opposite. In LA for example they determined that transit dependant users are generally more poor and non-white. They use transit to make more non-work trips (e.g. to get groceries or visit friends) which are generally shorter than other passenger groups who primarily use transit for work (and then drive at night). They also generally make the work trips (if they have one) out of peak (i.e. shift workers or part-time work).

I think this is very true in Toronto as well. In fact, since there are more people better off using transit in Toronto (vs LA), these people can further help subsidize the shorter trip requirements of the less fortunate. Anti-poverty groups should actually do a study and not just use antidotal evidence to prove the point. Most less well of people are not working 9-5 jobs downtown and that is their only trip.

Our system also perpetuates poverty by the Metropass. Finding $100+ at once is not easy for the poor. A monthly cap significantly helps the cash flow.

By lower the base fare in Toronto ($1 for up to 2 km), adding distance based fares, a prime-time surcharge, a downtown surcharge (to address your concern about those in Old Toronto) and adding monthly caps (variable based on distance travelled) I think this will HELP those who are transit dependant.

The fare-by-distance proposal would be of great benefit to wealthier transit riders within Old Toronto. Their commutes are shorter, thus their fares would be lower.

The fare integration proposals would also disproportionately benefit regional commuters, who are of substantially higher average income, since we'd be subsidizing their transfers onto other systems. And remember, these wealthier than average regional commuters are already the most subsidized transit users in the region by a long shot. GO's subsidy per rider is somewhere in the ballpark of $8/rider, compared to just $0.70 on the TTC. I'm not particularly interested in subsidizing these riders more than we already are.
 

Back
Top