|
|
|
- Thread starter RedRocket191
- Start date
ksun
Senior Member
No. I was simply pointing out that riders and taxpayers are not the same people.
The rationale is income should not be a consideration for the fare system whatsoever. It is ridiculously to ask someone who travels 3km to pay the same fare as someone who travels 25km. As Palma mentioned many times, it unfairly punishes short distance travellers, and you guys act as if only the long distance travelers matter because they are supposed to be "poor", which is a horrible justification.
Zones shouldn't be set at Steeles, but rather Eglinton for line 1 and keele/woodbine for line 2. Or roughly 6km.
JayBeeGooner
Active Member
Yes they are. Riders pay taxes, just like drivers.
Income definitely should be considered, considering many people cannot afford to live near work. "Punishing" short distance travelers who have other options is better than punishing long distance riders who may have no choice but transit.
As someone who used zoned fare systems, I can tell you it's frustrating keeping track of the zones you're in. I've had to top up a few times in the Underground.
This idea that transit usage should be made more complex because some dude downtown thinks he pays too much for transit is absurd. Don't like paying for that short trip? Ride a a bike. At least they have that option.
The zone boundary should be at Bloor St.
Income definitely should be considered, considering many people cannot afford to live near work. "Punishing" short distance travelers who have other options is better than punishing long distance riders who may have no choice but transit.
As someone who used zoned fare systems, I can tell you it's frustrating keeping track of the zones you're in. I've had to top up a few times in the Underground.
This idea that transit usage should be made more complex because some dude downtown thinks he pays too much for transit is absurd. Don't like paying for that short trip? Ride a a bike. At least they have that option.
The zone boundary should be at Bloor St.
ksun
Senior Member
Except it is not complicated. What the rider needs to worry about is simply to tap on and off. That's it. If you HAVE to know the price in advance, it is very easy for TTC to post a fee schedule. Plenty of cities do that. So how hard is that? We have only 2.5 lines! That the riders may find it complicated is not a good excuse not to implement a more sensible fare structure. Is the fare system more complicated than our tax regime? Hardly, but we don't charge a flat tax rate so that people find it easy to follow, do we?
And no, we shouldn't punish any riders, let it be short or long distance. I fail to see charging a fair fare to those to use more of the system constitutes "punishment". Is charging a family more money for buying more food a punishment just because this family is poor? It doesn't pass basic logic here.
As to affordability, it should be reflected in their tax return based on income, because a lot of long distance riders don't really need to be subsidized as they are not poor by any means. By charging a flat fee, you get a lot of free riders who should have paid more, and forced many riders to pay more than the service they get.
"Fairness" doesn't mean charging a low fare for all and the distance of commute in no way reflects people's need for transit subsidy. It is anything but fair. And I am saying this as someone who takes the TTC no more than 4 times a month.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
That's actually interesting, to see it quantified. But I wonder what it really means. As it is, TTC is "inheriting" a lot of riders who would otherwise be on YRT, so that number could even be low. What if either YRT or TTC - whoever comes first - could pick up riders waiting for a bus on the south side of Steeles?
I guess what I'm saying is, is how much of that $40M is REALLY TTC's and how much is them "stealing" from YRT? Are they only making that much money because York Region riders are avoiding getting on their local service, even as we simultaneously criticize YRT for not supporting local bus routes? Are we robbing Peter to pay Paul or are we removing an inequity from the system that negatively affects TTC's bottom line but helps riders travel seamlessly (in which case Metrolinx is merely Robin Hood)? If (hypothetically) it was all one transit system, would that $40M be a real barrier or is it created entirely by the fact it's the point where 2 separate systems converge? The latter, I suspect, but I don't know.
1% of the property tax IS a lot. But it's harder to empathize with a council determined to keep with below-inflation increases. It's harder to empathize when the system is already one of the least subsidized anywhere (though, yes, not just by the city but all levels of government.) I guess all I'm saying is that it's not a simple black-white equation.
This is a bit like transit fantasy maps; we can all devise imaginary zones and fares without any actual travel data and modelling. If I was spitballing, I'd say to have a base fare of $2.50 or something and then add $1.25 for crossing zones. Have the core zone as Bloor to the lake, Don River to Dufferin and then go north to Eglinton, then 401, then Steeles....but I'm just making it up based on my own sense of things. In theory Metrolinx knows more.
At the end of the day, you can't change the current system without someone winning and someone losing. Over time that should even out. It shouldn't be TOO hard to come up with something reasonable but TTC's general intransigence, combined with their legit fears of losing $ in the deal, combined with Metrolinx's spotty record of late, combined with the last few years of increasing city/suburb tension (both within the old Metro and 416/905) have made it all a big old mess to deal with. In theory, that's why we have Metrolinx in the first place but they haven't been given enough authority - or earned enough respect - to be taking it all on their shoulders.
EDIT: Just to add I think Ksun captures something important. People think the flat fare is "fair" primarily because they're used to it. They then argue, with a straight face, that it's "fair" for someone to pay the same for traveling Etobicoke to Scarb as a person traveling from Union to Bloor - and less than someone traveling from Highway 7 to Sheppard - as if this does not create its own inequities.
People in "World Class" cities like New York and London don't complain about zones and buses being cheaper than trains because they're used to it. Our transit system used to be at the forefront of innovation but they're not anymore. We need to catch up to everyone else and part of that is accepting where we've fallen behind. Fare integration is definitely high on the list.
Last edited:
ksun
Senior Member
True, but having losers doesn't mean it is a bad thing. Maybe it is only because they are forced to pay what they should now, instead of being subsidized by others, so what's wrong with them losing?
People tend to make this false argument "but the long distance riders are more vulnerable" - completely illogical argument because
1) a substantial percentage of long distance riders live far from work not because they can't afford to live closer. Let's all look at people we know who do so and you get the idea. There is no evidence that suggests a vast majority of long distance riders live far from work BECAUSE they are poor. It may be because of a variety of reasons.
2) what about those short distance riders who are poor? Do we assume they are all wealthy? Other options, really? I don't expect some 50 year old worker riding a bike for 5km to work every day including the -15 winter days. Plus, how many of our roads are friendly to bikers?
Canada allows a tax deduction for transit costs. Why not consider transit costs for low income people in their tax returns? It is 100x smarter than lumping everyone together and naively just assume those who take 2 hours to work must be poor. I know half a dozen people who travel more than 1.5 hours to work on way every day, and none of them is low income. They do so because they bought a large house and don't want to live in 700sf condos. I am not saying that applies to everyone but a significant portion are like that.
No matter what system you have, someone is going to benefit from a change and someone is going to be hurt by it. That's just the way it is.
I've seen the "social inequality" justification thrown around a few times on here, meaning the belief that moving to a zone fare system will be detrimental to less affluent citizens. The most common form of this is "Most poor people live in the outer 416, and would be negatively affected by zone fares." A few points to refute this:
1) There are also poor people who live in the inner city, who would benefit. Why is making poor people who live far away from their work pay more a bad thing, but making poor people who live close to their work pay more a good thing?
2) Not all poor people who live in the outer 416 are destined for downtown. Someone at Jane & Finch may live just as far away from their workplace as someone at Parliament & Gerrard. In fact, they're less likely to work downtown than more affluent people, since the majority of less affluent people work service sector jobs, which don't really have a centralized commuting location. It's generally more affluent people who commute downtown, since that's where the majority of the office space is.
3) Poorer people are disproportionately reliant on transit for trips other than just commuting. They use it to do their shopping, get to appointments, visit friends and family, etc. Many of these trips are local trips, and thus would benefit by a lower "one zone" fare. That needs to be factored into this as well. Looking at this fare structure through only the commuter lens doesn't give you the full picture, especially when you're using poorer people as the justification for rejecting it.
4) There are more efficient ways to address income inequality than through transit fares. Yes, it's ok to offer fare classes for children and seniors, but the entire fare system shouldn't be predicated around removing perceived inequalities based on travel patterns. If a poor person is being negatively affected by a new fare structure that charges people more equitably for the distance they actually travel, then address it through a separate fare category, or address in on the back end at tax time.
I've seen the "social inequality" justification thrown around a few times on here, meaning the belief that moving to a zone fare system will be detrimental to less affluent citizens. The most common form of this is "Most poor people live in the outer 416, and would be negatively affected by zone fares." A few points to refute this:
1) There are also poor people who live in the inner city, who would benefit. Why is making poor people who live far away from their work pay more a bad thing, but making poor people who live close to their work pay more a good thing?
2) Not all poor people who live in the outer 416 are destined for downtown. Someone at Jane & Finch may live just as far away from their workplace as someone at Parliament & Gerrard. In fact, they're less likely to work downtown than more affluent people, since the majority of less affluent people work service sector jobs, which don't really have a centralized commuting location. It's generally more affluent people who commute downtown, since that's where the majority of the office space is.
3) Poorer people are disproportionately reliant on transit for trips other than just commuting. They use it to do their shopping, get to appointments, visit friends and family, etc. Many of these trips are local trips, and thus would benefit by a lower "one zone" fare. That needs to be factored into this as well. Looking at this fare structure through only the commuter lens doesn't give you the full picture, especially when you're using poorer people as the justification for rejecting it.
4) There are more efficient ways to address income inequality than through transit fares. Yes, it's ok to offer fare classes for children and seniors, but the entire fare system shouldn't be predicated around removing perceived inequalities based on travel patterns. If a poor person is being negatively affected by a new fare structure that charges people more equitably for the distance they actually travel, then address it through a separate fare category, or address in on the back end at tax time.
Palma
Senior Member
Whats absurd is someone who does not think its absurd that some dude downtown pays too much for transit. Try taking a taxi or Uber and see if the fare is more from bloor to front vs sheppard to front st. I live south of Lawrence and north of Eglinton so if I pay more than someone who lives near bloor it will not matter to me because I understand the logic
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Yup.
It's true that right now there are a lot of vulnerable people and neighbourhoods on the "fringe" of 416. I get that - but you're right that it's an excuse. There are ways to offset that with fare programs, tax incentives etc. And it assumes everyone travels from a suburb to downtown and, as you point out, it's a symptom of larger inequities that need to be addressed. The current system is "unfair" to someone who lives in Scarborough and commutes to Markham to work at Tim Horton's but Toronto pols and TTC don't care about that person because they have transformed themselves into a "regional rider." If YRT wants to charge that person $4.00 for the second half of their trip (even if that "half" is going from Steeles to Highway 7) too bad so sad. It's a systemic problem and it's a subset of other systemic problems.
I've said it here and on other threads but if you looked at our existing infrastructure on a map, you would never create the agencies and fare structures now in place. They ARE in place, so it's hard to do the mental exercise but if you can start by looking at how people actually move around and forget about taxes and funding - just as a starting point - it's easier to devise something that does more good than harm. I think the problem is that TTC isn't even open to that discussion. ANY change is bad for them because they care more about the transit system - or their own, substantial piece of it, than the people who ride it. The rest is just rhetorical smoke.
Markster
Senior Member
And just look at the economics this person faces. Working full time at a Timmy's up the road, (but across a border,) means 40 double-fare trips a month. That's $232! Who in their right mind is going to spend that much just on commuting to a minimum wage job on the bus? This person is going to buy a car! A cheap car. A used car. A car that will likely bite them later with maintenance costs. Only people are literally unable to drive are going to take transit for this.
Whatever happens, the penalty for crossing a line in the sand needs to be made much less than 100%. And it's not like Canada is without example! Vancouver has had a zone boundary right in the middle of its urban area at Boundary Rd. It didn't cost double to cross it, it cost $1.25 (in most cases), which is eminently fair. Of course, they've since made all bus travel 1 zone, which is even better for those on the border! People worry about a 2-tier pricing system (bus vs. rail) meaning the surface network will overload with people seeking a cheap ride downtown; well has that very apocalypse happened in Vancouver yet?
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Something that I apparently missed is that the TTC is already paying tens of millions of dollars annually to subsidize 905 riders.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
The ironic counterpoint to the TTC being so barely subsidized is that every time a 905 rider gets on, they're paying 80% of their own freight. If Toronto properly funded their transit system, the degree to which they're subsidizing "foreigners" would be more notable. Since the TTC is only paying about 60 cents per rider, if they're losing 10s of millions that actually goes to show the huge degree to which 905ers are using the system and how impossible it is to act as if it can operate as if the situation is otherwise. Indeed, at 60 cents per trip to downtown it's possible that the commuting 905er is actually a net gain to Toronto's economy, but no one looks at that math, if it can even be calculated.
But to go back to my "Scarberian working crappy job in Markham" hypothetical, that person is probably living so far from their job because there's so little affordable housing (especially apartments) in Markham. Housing is bad in Toronto, but there's still more cheap housing there than in most of the 905. But it's all one commutershed, no matter which way people are going. And one job market and one real estate market and, in short, one economic unit. That's why the more we can do to make it easier to cross "borders," the better.
TTC's had a rough ride, at least since Harris gutted their funding. They should use this an opportunity to address their funding issues, by all means, but not to pretend the flat fare system doesn't have any losers of its own or that making things easier - for all riders, no matter which way they're going - is detrimental to Toronto, overall. You'd think the inevitably of RER alone would make it obvious why integration is a necessity. Instead we get the umpteenth Steve Munro rant about how SmartTrack won't REALLY be a TTC fare since they're changing how TTC fares work. Yeah, Steve - Sinatra ain't in the Top 40, no one's wearing poodle skirts and it otherwise isn't the 1950s anymore.
muller877
Senior Member
This may be news to some but commercial and retail stores pay property taxes. The TTC is here to serve both residents of Toronto AND shoppers/workers who live outside of Toronto but want to spend money here.
This 905 - 416 resident divide is a fabrication in the TTC debate. If you want only TTC subsidies for 416 residents I'm sure the commercial building would be more than happy to shift their tax burden to residential properties.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Nobody said that was an issue.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
How much will timed based transfers cost the City to implement?