[gweed123]

Tolling has two primary purposes: to generate revenue, and to encourage mode shift. Tolling now would be very effective for #1, but would be a pain for #2.

Prior to COVID, GO was operating pretty much packed to the gills during peak periods. Unfortunately for GO, options to increase capacity by increasing frequency are very limited without first investing in necessary track upgrades to remove pinch points or remove conflicts with freight. A lot of those projects are funded at this point, but are still a ways away from becoming reality, or are under construction (see: Stouffville Line double tracking, Barrie Line double tracking, Barrie Line viaduct, Stouffville-Lakeshore fly-under, LSE 3rd track from Guildwood to Pickering, etc).

With the GO system still operating at its maximum theoretical frequency on many parts of the system, adding the necessary capacity to handle the mode shifters that tolling would generate is a tall order. This is especially true for the Gardiner, which serves many coming from Mississauga. The Milton Line in particular would need billions in investment to make it a viable AD2W alternative to driving. Even during peak, there isn't much room to handle the natural increases in GO ridership due to population increases, let alone the spike that would happen if tolling were to be implemented.

TLDR: Tolling is good, but you need to make sure that the modes that people will shift to have the capacity to handle them.

 

[ssiguy2]

The proposal is not for time-based fares, but zone-pair-based fares.

I know but I read Steve Munro's commentary and he seemed to prefer time-based.

As for tolls, I disagree with them unless they are on brand new pieces of infrastructure. They are patently unfair as someone going just 2 km pays the same as someone going 20 or even 200 and they penalise people who just happen to live on a toll roadway they have to take. Someone commuting from Quebec City to Windsor everyday can do so toll free but God forbid you have to take the Gardiner for a few KM as you will be paying thru the teeth. They also have a habit of pushing cars onto other routes which happened in Vancouver.

 

[afransen]

I know but I read Steve Munro's commentary and he seemed to prefer time-based.

As for tolls, I disagree with them unless they are on brand new pieces of infrastructure. They are patently unfair as someone going just 2 km pays the same as someone going 20 or even 200 and they penalise people who just happen to live on a toll roadway they have to take. Someone commuting from Quebec City to Windsor everyday can do so toll free but God for you have to take the Gardiner for a few KM as you will be paying thru the teeth. They also have a habit of pushing cars onto other routes which happened in Vancouver.

Tolls don't have to be fixed. We already has ETR technology in Ontario to automatically toll based on distance and time of use.

Fair has nothing to do with it. It's about allocating a finite resource. The current approach is soviet breadlines.

 

[asher__jo]

I know but I read Steve Munro's commentary and he seemed to prefer time-based.

As for tolls, I disagree with them unless they are on brand new pieces of infrastructure. They are patently unfair as someone going just 2 km pays the same as someone going 20 or even 200 and they penalise people who just happen to live on a toll roadway they have to take. Someone commuting from Quebec City to Windsor everyday can do so toll free but God for you have to take the Gardiner for a few KM as you will be paying thru the teeth. They also have a habit of pushing cars onto other routes which happened in Vancouver.

I hope we can shift the narrative to its unfair NOT to toll roads. The sooner we do that the sooner we incentivize more sustainable transportation methods. Really the only logical reason to support a freeway on prime waterfront land is to have it serve transportation trucks. But we know the majority of freeway traffic is one person per car.

 

[ssiguy2]

It not that I am against tolls "per-se" but rather the inequity of them. Why should someone be able to go from QC to Windsor toll-free and yet the poor slob who bought 20 years ago near the Gardiner/DVP has to pay for a couple km? It is patently unfair. You can't punish certain people simply for living in an one particular neighbourhood. You can do this with the 407 because it was a brand new piece of infrastructure that people did not have the option to use before.

If the city wants tolls then EVERYONE should have to pay as opposed to tolls on just 2 route where the people who have to drive them end up subsidising everyone else. If tolls, then tolls on ALL the freeways both in and entering the city so the burden is shared. For those who never use a toll road like someone in Rosedale who works downtown, then at the end of the year every registered vehicle that has not been charged with a set amount of tolls against them have to pay a flat fee of $50 so no one can avoid the "toll".

 

[asher__jo]

It not that I am against tolls "per-se" but rather the inequity of them. Why should someone be able to go from QC to Windsor toll-free and yet the poor slob who bought 20 years ago near the Gardiner/DVP has to pay for a couple km? It is patently unfair. You can't punish certain people simply for living in an one particular neighbourhood. You can do this with the 407 because it was a brand new piece of infrastructure that people did not have the option to use before.

If the city wants tolls then EVERYONE should have to pay as opposed to tolls on just 2 route where the people who have to drive them end up subsidising everyone else. If tolls, then tolls on ALL the freeways both in and entering the city so the burden is shared. For those who never use a toll road like someone in Rosedale who works downtown, then at the end of the year every registered vehicle that has not been charged with a set amount of tolls against them have to pay a flat fee of $50 so no one can avoid the "toll".

Yes, that makes sense. I really think the whole 401 should be tolled

 

[afransen]

yet the poor slob who bought 20 years ago near the Gardiner/DVP has to pay for a couple km? It is patently unfair.

Poor slob with million dollars in equity? The tiniest of violins are played for him.

Fairness has nothing to do with it. Next you'll be saying it is unfair he has to pay for parking downtown, when in downtown Wawa parking is free.

Tolls on highways should not be about raising revenue, they are about allocating a scarce resource. And yes, the 400 series should be tolled as well. True tolling on city streets is challenging without requiring intrusive GPS tracking. but a per km 'toll' or road fee is probably coming with the advent of EVs disrupting fuel excise tax base.

 

[sche]

It not that I am against tolls "per-se" but rather the inequity of them. Why should someone be able to go from QC to Windsor toll-free and yet the poor slob who bought 20 years ago near the Gardiner/DVP has to pay for a couple km? It is patently unfair. You can't punish certain people simply for living in an one particular neighbourhood. You can do this with the 407 because it was a brand new piece of infrastructure that people did not have the option to use before.

If the city wants tolls then EVERYONE should have to pay as opposed to tolls on just 2 route where the people who have to drive them end up subsidising everyone else. If tolls, then tolls on ALL the freeways both in and entering the city so the burden is shared. For those who never use a toll road like someone in Rosedale who works downtown, then at the end of the year every registered vehicle that has not been charged with a set amount of tolls against them have to pay a flat fee of $50 so no one can avoid the "toll".

We're not communist. Price should depend on demand and supply. More congested routes should get tolled more than less congested routes.

 

[Reecemartin]

Really happy to talk to the authors of the recent fare integration report to hear more of what inspired their ideas and what the potential benefits in terms of capacity and network organization would be with a better fare structure:

 

[afransen]

Great interview.

 

[Reecemartin]

One last video on Fare Integration for the year summarizing their report!

"In case you never read the *awesome* TRBOT Fare integration report: "

 

[asher__jo]

Zone based fare is the "easiest" to implement with current technology, however I think the future of fares is time/distance-based fares. One way this could be implemented as a pilot project is having users opt-in to sharing location data with their smartphone. Eventually this could be implemented system-wide where users have a choice between this system or a more simple zone based system relying on users physically tapping their Presto card.
*This idea would be possible to be implemented with the "COVID" API where it relies on Bluetooth and proximity to others, but information about actual location is not disclosed to anyone.

 

[ARG1]

Zone based fare is the "easiest" to implement with current technology, however I think the future of fares is time/distance-based fares. One way this could be implemented as a pilot project is having users opt-in to sharing location data with their smartphone. Eventually this could be implemented system-wide where users have a choice between this system or a more simple zone based system relying on users physically tapping their Presto card.
*This idea would be possible to be implemented with the "COVID" API where it relies on Bluetooth and proximity to others, but information about actual location is not disclosed to anyone.

What exactly do you mean by time based fares? Also requiring location data through a smartphone to pay fares? Wouldn't a top on/tap off system be infinitely easier?

 

[asher__jo]

What exactly do you mean by time based fares? Also requiring location data through a smartphone to pay fares? Wouldn't a top on/tap off system be infinitely easier?

Exactly that, similar to the idea of a time based transfer: you would be charged based on the amount of time you are riding transit. The reason this is currently not possible is many parts of the system are not configured for a tap off (ex. There aren't readers at the backdoor of a bus). The reason I propose a location based idea is it would allow more seamless transit usage and may eventually eliminate the need for faregates.

 

[ARG1]

Exactly that, similar to the idea of a time based transfer: you would be charged based on the amount of time you are riding transit. The reason this is currently not possible is many parts of the system are not configured for a tap off (ex. There aren't readers at the backdoor of a bus). The reason I propose a location based idea is it would allow more seamless transit usage and may eventually eliminate the need for faregates.

The issue with time based fares is that you're basically punishing people for not living next to rapid transit, people who live in transit deserts would have to pay a similar fare for a shorter distance than people who live next to an RER line and travel a longer distance. Just cut the "time based fare" part of the equation.