[TheTigerMaster]

You can call ST anything you like, but it shouldn't be called GO. GO is an expensive distance-based premium service. You may have to pay a bit more for ST than TTC because it will run more like an express service, but I hope it's fare structure more closely resembles TTC than GO. It's never been fair that a rider from Port Credit pays over $7.50 for a GO fare plus $3.25 for a TTC fare to get to the same midtown location as someone traveling from east Scarborough who has only paid a $3.25 TTC fare, even though the distances traveled are the same for both users.

The problem with this logic is that mainline RER style commuter services are generally more expensive than inner city transit services (such as TTC) to operate on a per person basis. That's why their fares are generally more expensive than the rest of the transit system. So we would have to find a way to reconsile this disparity in operational costs before any kind of fare parity can be achieved (essentially, making RER cheaper to operate). Otherwise, we'll be making the trips of the 1.5 Million TTC commuters more expensive, to make the trips of 14 thousand anticipated SmartTrack users cheaper.

Were there any cost estimates on how much it would cost Metrolinx to operate the SmartTrack concept per passenger?

 

[steveintoronto]

Excellent piece up at this site by David Brake. I'm still reading and digesting, very well written and captures a lot of the zeitgeist in this string;

[...] Whether commuters inside Toronto would be able to board SmartTrack and/or GO-RER trains and ride with TTC-like fares as Tory originally promised remains unclear. The City of Toronto's latest policy statement on fares says that GO Transit's "price structure discourages Toronto-based trips from using GO Transit, even when the GO network may be the most efficient or logical choice", suggesting a new lower GO base fare and a higher distance-based component. The city's policy statement also calls for a co-fare program to be initiated between GO Transit and the TTC (which would enable GO train commuters to purchase TTC tickets at a subsidized rate at the end of their train journey). While the report says, "The City's transportation model suggests that ridership performance on SmartTrack improves with fare levels consistent with a TTC fare", it does not make this a recommendation. [...]

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/06/smarttrack-what-will-it-cost-build-operate-and-ride

At the end of the day, I can only see total integration. Half-measures will only complicate matters, albeit real-politik demands compromise. Whether some posters think that greater track utilization is going to happen or not (I think it's inevitable, it has to be) the real issue is how this is paid for, and flat fare and pay per distance are not compatible.

Same applies to autos! They're going to have to start paying by *distance* for licensing fees, or some will always be paying others' share.

Edit to Add: Bingo! My shortcoming displayed by posting too soon before reading the whole excellent piece:

[...]More extensive changes to fare structures, however, it said will be "complicated to implement". It suggests fares set by distance should continue to be considered longer-term as they would enable fare decreases elsewhere to be offset. This might mean higher GO fares for longer distance travel, but it could also imply a move away from a flat TTC fare for all distances within the city, which the TTC has previously said would be difficult to implement because of the way its network and stations are structured.

Models for this already exist in many cities in the world, and a good number of them English speaking. Fares become seamless, *even with private and public systems mixed!*...but the 'farebox recovery' is divided up by *rider number audits* to see who is carrying the most, and thus gets proportional income from the collective farebox.

It will be somewhat Draconian to implement, but at the end of the day, it's the only way efficient delivery of service will be rewarded and nurtured.

Remember, *most operating subsidies* let alone infrastructure grants come from the Province anyway (even Fed money is *usually* channeled via the provinces, albeit the last tranche of infrastructure grants went directly to municipalities...for political and technical reasons superfluous to the gist of the point.)

The Province had best make this a case and make it now. Put this out front where it belongs for discussion. As we're seeing right now, *OUR* money is being thrown around in a game of political grandstanding of smoke and mirrors...and Wynne, as much as the others are even less popular...is now at her lowest popularity ratings ever!

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Excellent piece up at this site by David Brake. I'm still reading and digesting, very well written and captures a lot of the zeitgeist in this string;

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/06/smarttrack-what-will-it-cost-build-operate-and-ride

At the end of the day, I can only see total integration. Half-measures will only complicate matters, albeit real-politik demands compromise. Whether some posters think that greater track utilization is going to happen or not (I think it's inevitable, it has to be) the real issue is how this is paid for, and flat fare and pay per distance are not compatible.

Same applies to autos! They're going to have to start paying by *distance* for licensing fees, or some will always be paying others' share.

Excellent write up by David, and I agree with what you've said as well.

I'm not opposed to a flat fare in principle, but we really do need to see a breakdown of Metrolinx's operational expenses for the proposed SmartTrack service. For example, how much more does it cost to move someone between Kennedy and Union, then between Unilever and Union? Is the operational cost escalation per passenger on the scale of pennies, or several dollars, for trips of longer lengths. These are all questions that need to be answered before we can make intelligent decisions about fare subsidies for SmartTrack.

My ideal circumstance: We know the average amount the City of Toronto subsidizes TTC trips. For purposes of this discussion, lets say it's $1.00. To calculate fares, we'd look at how much it costs Metrolinx to operate the service, and subtract the City's average TTC subsidy from that (in this case, $1.00). So, if a trip from Unilever to Union costs Metrolinx $2.50 to operate, the commuter would be charged $1.50; if a trip from Kennedy to Union costs $3.00 to operate, the commuter is then charged $2.00. The benefit of this setup is that the City won't be spending a disproportionate amount of money (relative to our subsidies of TTC transit services) to subsidize SmartTrack trips. SmartTrack riders would get the same $1.00 subsidy as all other TTC users.

Also, if operational expenses for SmartTrack does not increase significantly as travel distance increases, SmartTrack could be a flat fare, to simplify the fare system.

 

[steveintoronto]

At first glance they look like they would have far higher capacity than the single level trains but they have consistently shown that it is not the case. Double-decker trains are great for standard commuter rail but not for systems that will have more frequent stops and less distance between the stations. Essentially people are just going to one main station such as Union so there is little on/off traffic between the stations on commuter rail.

Excellent post! And all very true, and an ongoing discussion in the US rail/commuter blogs, which goes even further in the 'platform height' debate, but the same mechanics of loading/offloading rate. Further to your point, I add an even more debatable aspect: Use of LRVs (run by GO variants of the cross town LRTs), dual voltage/current versions of the Flexity series (or competitors), as used now by Adelaide, Paris, Karlsruhe and other cities. MDrejohn is up on this discussion too. We need action from the regulators though, albeit there's some question as to whether this is Fed (Dept of Tranport) or Provincial (Min of Transpo) and how the tracks are configured.

Models for this already exist in many cities in the world, and a good number of them English speaking. Fares become seamless, *even with private and public systems mixed!*...but the 'farebox recovery' is divided up by *rider number audits* to see who is carrying the most, and thus gets proportional income from the collective farebox.

London (and the UK in general) are an excellent model of how to do some things, how not to do others, but when competing *private operators* do the same run, the same issued ticket must be honoured (well, with complications, but we won't got there)...so one wonders: Then how do they get paid? And the answer is the audited traffic assays. I'll Google later and offer a link to describe that, it's an important device that is going to be needed for cross-boundary distance based fares. (Presto software might make this very simple, in fact)

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Excellent piece up at this site by David Brake. I'm still reading and digesting, very well written and captures a lot of the zeitgeist in this string;

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/06/smarttrack-what-will-it-cost-build-operate-and-ride

At the end of the day, I can only see total integration. Half-measures will only complicate matters, albeit real-politik demands compromise. Whether some posters think that greater track utilization is going to happen or not (I think it's inevitable, it has to be) the real issue is how this is paid for, and flat fare and pay per distance are not compatible.

Same applies to autos! They're going to have to start paying by *distance* for licensing fees, or some will always be paying others' share.

Edit to Add: Bingo! My shortcoming displayed by posting too soon before reading the whole excellent piece:

Models for this already exist in many cities in the world, and a good number of them English speaking. Fares become seamless, *even with private and public systems mixed!*...but the 'farebox recovery' is divided up by *rider number audits* to see who is carrying the most, and thus gets proportional income from the collective farebox.

It will be somewhat Draconian to implement, but at the end of the day, it's the only way efficient delivery of service will be rewarded and nurtured.

Remember, *most operating subsidies* let alone infrastructure grants come from the Province anyway (even Fed money is *usually* channeled via the provinces, albeit the last tranche of infrastructure grants went directly to municipalities...for political and technical reasons superfluous to the gist of the point.)

The Province had best make this a case and make it now. Put this out front where it belongs for discussion. As we're seeing right now, *OUR* money is being thrown around in a game of political grandstanding of smoke and mirrors...and Wynne, as much as the others are even less popular...is now at her lowest popularity ratings ever!

People advocate for fare-by-distance because it appears to be a more fair way of charing people: the more service you use, the more it costs to run, and the more you pay; pretty simple. The problem with that is that in multimodal systems, such as the TTC, distance travelled doesn't necessarily correlate to the amount of money the system paid to move you that distance. This is because different modes, heck even individual routes, have unique operational costs per passenger per kilometre. For example, a trip on the 94 Wellesley from Ossington to Yonge can cost the TTC significantly more than a trip from Ossington to Victoria Park on the Line 2 subway. Under a fare-by-distance model, the 94 Wellesley (Ossington t0 Yonge) rider would get a significant fare discount, even though they cost the system more money (perhaps several times more money) than the Line 2 (Ossington to Victoria Park) rider.

Fare-by-distance is most fair when applied to a single modes or lines; once throwing other modes into the mix, the fairness of it all becomes muddled.

Ultimately it needs to be recognized that fare-by-distance is not an intrinsically more fair fare system; it's just one of many methods of obfuscating the true costs of running the system.

This isn't to say that fare-by-distance is a poor choice of fare system, but we need to be careful about defining our goals for the fare system. Is our goal "those who take more, pay more", building a less car-dependant city, anti-poverty, encouraging suburban transit use, encouraging densification in, etc...?

 

[Euphoria]

Okay, I think we're on the cusp of bringing together a number of threads, including DRL, ST, fare integration, Transit City, and so forth under one real banner that integrates GO, TTC, and perhaps some Via HFR and HSR: Zone based, tiered transit for the region. While I'd also prefer a flat fare for ST and retention of existing transit systems with a universal transit discount, I think it's worth considering what a distance-based zone system would look like for the GTA (think London, England), in which case, where would you place the boundaries for the zones?

Don't forget that, within the core Zone One, fares are essentially flat. You pay more as you enter more zones. Now, that's a crude system compared to a truly distance based smart system that could calculator distance traveled station to station, what Presto seems to make possible. No doubt we'd all want a big Zone One, say Don River to High Park, Lake Ontario to just north of St. Claire? Ha ha, see the problem? Suddenly the Yonge and Eligible (Eglinton) crowd are screwed, not to mention Danforth, Riverdale, Beaches...

 

[crs1026]

There is a difference between an urban transit line, where the same seat may empty and refill more than once on a run, and a regional feeding-to-center line where seats fill as the train nears the city center, but never turn over.

We don't really want a seat on a Kitchener-bound GO train occupied by a Union-to-Liberty commuter. If the seat is vacant (ie available to a Liberty bound rider) leaving Tornto, then the train may be too long. (I understand that there is growing traffic not tied to downtown, but it's far from the modal situation). Hauling the empty seat all the way from Liberty to Kitchener is inherently inefficient.

The good thing about ST (did I just say that?) is that we have potential for seat turnover, and we have no long haul of empty seats. So the economics can be quite different. A TTC-integrated fare or even free transfer to TTC might cover costs as well or better than the base GO fare.

I'm all for co-fare between TTC and GO, but we can set ST fares without ever considering what GO may charge. Maybe the ST trains need a red stripe to differentiate themselves after all.

- Paul

- Paul

 

[Euphoria]

I'm with you, Paul, on keeping that simple distinction for ST, a sort of hybrid between GO and TTC, ideally with a flat fare either the same as or a bit more than TTC. The bigger question of fare integration and perhaps distance-based fares for the whole region is a complex one that has to price in the variety of modes, which are not created equal. We need to get to some form of that eventually. GO RER opens the door for change.

The simplest solution in the interim, since it doesn't dismantle any local or regional transit systems or modes, is to implement a universal transit discount, a set transfer discount that allows you to transfer between any systems in the region by using the first ticket you buy as a coupon that provides a discount on the next fare you pay. This already exists transferring from GO to some bus systems outside Toronto, but it needs to also apply in reverse and to work across the entire GTA. Metrolinx can play a key role here in the implementation.

 

[andrewpmk]

There is a difference between an urban transit line, where the same seat may empty and refill more than once on a run, and a regional feeding-to-center line where seats fill as the train nears the city center, but never turn over.

We don't really want a seat on a Kitchener-bound GO train occupied by a Union-to-Liberty commuter. If the seat is vacant (ie available to a Liberty bound rider) leaving Tornto, then the train may be too long. (I understand that there is growing traffic not tied to downtown, but it's far from the modal situation). Hauling the empty seat all the way from Liberty to Kitchener is inherently inefficient.

The good thing about ST (did I just say that?) is that we have potential for seat turnover, and we have no long haul of empty seats. So the economics can be quite different. A TTC-integrated fare or even free transfer to TTC might cover costs as well or better than the base GO fare.

I'm all for co-fare between TTC and GO, but we can set ST fares without ever considering what GO may charge. Maybe the ST trains need a red stripe to differentiate themselves after all.

- Paul

- Paul

This can be solved using express-local service. Trains to Kitchener run express from Bramalea to Union and local trains run from Bramalea to Union stopping at all stations.

If capacity becomes a serious problem then a western extension of the DRL is needed.

 

[crs1026]

This can be solved using express-local service. Trains to Kitchener run express from Bramalea to Union and local trains run from Bramalea to Union stopping at all stations.

Yes. We don't need three layers to the shell - Long Distance GO, Bramalea GO, and SmartTrack. Seems to me that we could combine the Bramalea GO and Smarttrack.

The solution may be more practical than anything - what can we get built first? If we build the fourth track Union to Bramalea, and electrify, the Kitchener trains can roar through (perhaps stopping at Bloor) and the inner zone GO can make the ST stops (with the ST fare model applying throughout). If we go cheap on the new stations (the original GO stations were downright primitive.....because no one was sure the service would succeed) then it's not a big deal if some aren't needed when DRL reaches maturity.

- Paul

 

[Euphoria]

Question: Will a Spadina and Front station be part of ST? The new GO RER plans include a station there as part of the Barrie line, but I thought the City ruled it out for ST.

 

[M II A II R II K]

SmartTrack is essentially a short turn GO service thrown on top of the future GO RER service.

 

[TransitBart]

Without the GO RER initiative, perhaps "Now it's more like 'adding a few GO trains'." is accurate. But there's GO RER.

While "SmartTrack" is a brand-name liability, these are NOT your grandfather's GO trains.

View attachment 79555

These trains will come frequent enough (In some sections of the route, as frequent as 5-10 minutes) that the core central section of the GO map will deserve to now be included on TTC subway maps, as part of an integrated 416 transit network.

But yes, I agree, the SmartTrack "branding" is a liability.

To me, SmartTrack is just really the name of an umbrella initiative (like "Big Move") that consists of Eglinton Crosstown West, and a bunch of very reasonable and much-needed municipally-funded enhancements to GO RER. The marketing of "SmartTrack", however, is definitely understandably barf-worthy.

I dunno about anyone else...I can see the new trains are 4 car consists hitched. Count the passenger cars in the top drawing and damn I think there are 13! I could be blind.

 

[ssiguy2]

Whether you love ST or hate it, one thing that Tory has done by proposing the idea is that it has forced Metrolinx and GO to realize {and implement} service for Torontonians. If it wasn't for having to work with Tory and ST, GO & RER would still be a primarily 905 service as even Metrolinx stated in it's last release.

ST has put GO on the Toronto map and is forcing GO to rethink their fares which are disproportionately geared against anyone travelling in the city and that alone has made ST a success.

 

[interchange42]

Question: Will a Spadina and Front station be part of ST? The new GO RER plans include a station there as part of the Barrie line, but I thought the City ruled it out for ST.

Front and Spadina will be for the Barrie line only, apparently, so no, at the moment it's not a SmartTrack station.

42