Is New York not set up the same way we are? Flat rate across all boroughs, premium fare for express buses, fare by distance for commuter trains, and separate fare for separate systems outside the city (though they appear to honour each other's transfers, including NYCT buses).
Yes. And fares are a symptom of the larger issue which is funding. Like I said, we've fallen behind and no one does things the way we do. New York does do all those things and, as everyone here surely knows, is funded entirely different from the TTC and all those separate systems are under the umbrella of a single transit authority. Plenty of that funding comes from people who don't live in NYC itself. Ergo, they have a shared interest and the rest falls into place after that.
Also, I can't remember the precise year but it must be at least 15 years ago that I traveled there and used a Metrocard the first time. Maybe 20. How's that Presto rollout coming in Toronto? Would Toronto have Presto or its own open payment system if Metrolinx hadn't gotten the ball rolling? We've fallen behind and no one does things the way we do.
Funny, considering I live in Mississauga, pay two fares on my inbound and three fares on my outbound. I don't find any of it "absurd" whatsoever. On the other hand, it would seem York Region in particular has a certain sense of entitlement when it comes to transit while couldn't even manage to break 15% transit modal split.
Whether or not you find it "absurd" specifically doesn't alter my general point. I could say the same about people who live in Aurora and never go downtown not understanding Toronto's issues; it's about mutual understanding of interdependence.
And it's nothing to do with a sense of entitlement. The geography is the difference. Because of the river, the airport etc. on the Miss border as compared to the YR border where the development is entirely contiguous with Toronto.
The evidence speaks for itself - the system may not be perfect, but the modal share for the City of Toronto is superior to most cities in America - and most certainly York Region.
So, Toronto's modal share is better than a suburb that developed a century later? Good to know.
The real point is that while it is factual and admirable, it's less meaningful than it was 50 years ago because the REGIONAL modal share isn't so great because, to repeat myself, we've outgrown the model we built.
It's like how Jen Keesmaat talks about all the great growth downtown in Toronto. it is great! Most cities would kill to have the quality and quantity of development Toronto is seeing. There's nothing to criticize there. But it's also a fact that the vast majority of growth in the
GTA continues to be on the urban fringe. Pulling out the singular trend from the larger picture proves nothing. You can mock YR's modal split if you want, but it's part of the traffic problem in Toronto nonetheless.
I mean, if you really want to talk about other metropolitan areas - quite a few of them also has a metropolitan level of government, a single transit authority, regional funding mechanisms (including taxation) whatnot (never mind other differences such as urban density, etc) - are you suggesting that York Region want to go down that route? ... I mean, if you really want to look into other "world class examples" - just how many actually have each local suburban municipality running their own system?
Yeah, I made that exact point. The two things are obviously interrelated. We're behind how everyone else does things. Our governance and funding don't match up with the "problem" which you can call gridlock or traffic or congestion or whatever. I'm not sure how you think York Region can "go that route" and transform itself into a regional authority on its own but if you're asking whether I think we should have a regional transit authority, I think it's clear that I do.
Did I not make the point that METRO (which was, I'm pretty sure, a metropolitan level of government) coordinated infrastructure growth and it was when the population grew out past Metro that the model fell apart?You don't think that, when Metro was formed, people were talking about the comparably poor modal split in Scarborough or wondering why Etobicoke traffic was a problem Toronto should have to worry about? They achieved common interest through united governance and funding.
Ergo, a single transit authority with regional funding mechanisms would obviously makes this all more palatable and sensible. I'm the last one advocating for a patchwork system where every suburb etc. runs its own system.
Nice try turning this into a riders vs. systems debate - it isn't - it is creating winners and losers among existing riders when you break down an existing fare system.
Thank you. I disagree. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've heard Adam Giambrone and many others talk about it in explicit terms. The fare system ensures that there is no reason for agencies (especially TTC) to care about riders outside their borders, so they don't. The TTC, rightfully, doesn't want to have to worry about Toronto riders losing seats to 905 riders, even though they're all TTC riders. As long as the funding model persists, that will be the case.
Actually, the private sector works by holding onto existing customers first and making sure their needs are served before moving into new market. Those who failed to do so tend to fail as a business.
I forgot there was only one reason, I guess. I neither particularly agree with this nor find it mutually exclusive with what I said. Greater minds than I have long ago observed the lack of a customer service approach to local transit, irrespective of fare integration. Here's one such report, by
Richard Soberman. I'd probably argue that, on a micro level, Andy Byford has made some progress in this regard but larger change requires systemic change.
TTC won't "fail" because it's ultimately not a business. People will ride it because they have to ride it. But people who have a choice won't. The evidence of this won't be the TTC closing shop or even losing ridership, it will just be more people who would like to take transit choosing to drive (or whatever) instead. the fare system isn't the only germane issue, just the topic of this thread, but it is one thing that discourages ridership at the seams. (OTOH, "the built form of the 905" would be a rather more substantial factor, to use an obvious example.)