[gibsonm]

Exactly.

Unless the RER fare is the same as the standard local fare, it will be a monumental waste of money. It will infuriate people having the province spend billion on a two-tiered transit system built for the wealthier. Unless RER is a standard fare, it will be nothing more than a service that most can't afford.

Yes. Basically the city can't justify such an expenditure to supplement an overpriced GO system that's an additional fare. I can see only two possibilities: Either ST functions as a de facto subway line, integrated within the TTC network, having the same fare and transferability or TTC and GO (and all GTHA transit systems) are amalgamated into a single distance-based system. What I predict and think should happen is that the former scenario is phase one (as some of the electrification comes online) and the latter scenario is phase two (when the planned RER electrification work is completed). ST will take five years. The second phase will come five years later around the time the Ontario Line is done. Good thing too, because the regional population will desperately need that volume of transportation infrastructure.

 

[Southcore]

if Line is these five plus union, would these estimates sound about right?

St Clair/Weston (5 mins) Blansdowne (5 mins) King LV (5 mins) Union (6 mins) East Harbour (10 mins)-Kennedy

Basically like 15 mins from either terminus to union?

 

[robmausser]

Yes. Basically the city can't justify such an expenditure to supplement an overpriced GO system that's an additional fare. I can see only two possibilities: Either ST functions as a de facto subway line, integrated within the TTC network, having the same fare and transferability or TTC and GO (and all GTHA transit systems) are amalgamated into a single distance-based system. What I predict and think should happen is that the former scenario is phase one (as some of the electrification comes online) and the latter scenario is phase two (when the planned RER electrification work is completed). ST will take five years. The second phase will come five years later around the time the Ontario Line is done. Good thing too, because the regional population will desperately need that volume of transportation infrastructure.

The latter plan needs to happen as what were previously TTC lines are pushed out into neighboring districts. The Line 1 extension to Richmond Hill, the Eglinton West extension to Mississauga, the existing extension to Vaughan on the Spadina Line.

The 3.25 you pay on the TTC is not revenue positive. Its subsidized by the city of Toronto, and the further you take the system, the more that 3.25 is being backed up with subsidy. Why should Toronto be paying for someone to ride a train thats not even in Toronto? At a certain point, there will have to be a rethink and restructuring of how the fare system on the TTC works, and will most likely align with a fare-by-distance program for all transit systems in the GTHA.

 

[rbt]

Does smart track still use the same ttc fare. I know that was the pitch. But for years that part of the plan was never confirmed and almost brushed over. As of this year is their any current evidence which suggests that smart track will indeed be the same as ttc fare.

Rumblings about Metrolinx consolidating fares across the GTA have returned, hinting at a desired train-fare by distance and fixed-fare local bus configuration. Officially Smartrack stations will not have special fare treatment from the rest of GO services.

My guess is operators for both GO Expansion and Ontario Line are expected to bill the province on a passenger-km basis (similar to REM).

 

[afransen]

Rumblings about Metrolinx consolidating fares across the GTA have returned, hinting at a desired train-fare by distance and fixed-fee bus. Officially Smartrack stations will not have special fare treatment from the rest of GO services.

My guess is operators for both GO Expansion and Ontario Line are expected to bill the province on a passenger-km basis (similar to REM).

How could they make this work, if many trips use bus + train?

 

[sixrings]

Rumblings about Metrolinx consolidating fares across the GTA have returned, hinting at a desired train-fare by distance and fixed-fare local bus configuration. Officially Smartrack stations will not have special fare treatment from the rest of GO services.

My guess is operators for both GO Expansion and Ontario Line are expected to bill the province on a passenger-km basis (similar to REM).

I feel like this is going to end up like condo fees. At the beginning they start low and within a few years they skyrocket after the government has cut all its ribbons and taken their credit or a new government takes over.

 

[rbt]

How could they make this work, if many trips use bus + train?

There's the London way: £1.50 for a bus (any distance) which is entirely separate from the zoned train fares. No free transfers.

You can also include a "base" component in a trip. Say $3 for unlimited bus distance + 7km of train distance, after which train is 30 cents per km. Of course, are streetcars bus or trains? Are BRT routes "trains" or bus? Surely GO buses are still buses but billed by distance. Perhaps it's base-fare + fare-by-distance for rapid services regardless of mode, and base-fare-only for local routes.

Worth noting, many of the Presto agreements hit their 10 + 3 year extension limits over the next few years. An entirely new mechanism might be imagined. Presto cards are stored value but that value doesn't need to be 100% accurate if the customers sees a backend calculated value nearly every time; card values can be regularly adjusted (typically credited) by more complex logic in the backend.

 

[gibsonm]

A zone distance-based system really does seem in broad strokes to be the answer on fare integration. I would keep it simple. Having multiple fare structures for different modes, in my opinion, adds too much complexity. It has to be easy to charge a ticket and/or cell phone code based on the number of zones traveled. Travellers should be able to decide between a variety of routes and be given an indication of the fastest route at the ticket terminal and/or on a phone app. A Presto card or cell phone QR code may give a discount for frequent travellers, but a simple paper ticket should be available alternatively for purchase anywhere in the system by cash or credit. There will have to be entrance/exit readers for the Presto/cell phone/paper code image throughout the system. Building that infrastructure and integrating the GTHA transit systems will take time, so a phased approach seems reasonable. Timing full implementation with the completion of RER seems sensible. In the example below, one base fare covers two zones, which means for Toronto only one base fare is needed for a one way trip anywhere in Toronto.

 

[gibsonm]

"Perhaps it's base-fare + fare-by-distance for rapid services regardless of mode, and base-fare-only for local routes."

Something like that makes sense if adding some kind of premium for rapid transit is necessary to recoup added costs for subways and heavy passenger regional rail, but that's also why running Smarttrack as a first phase experiment will be instructive. If ST is treated like a standard subway fare, will it be too poor on cost recovery? Will ST become overcrowded and significantly shrink subway ridership? I don't think so, but if it did Metrolinx would factor that into the way it sets up a regional distance-based fare structure when RER is completed.

 

[sacred]

We absolutely have to leave mode-specific fares behind. That's a nice little neo-liberal way of looking at things, but everyone should have equitable access to all transit modes.
Also, if there's plenty of capacity on the trains, they'll run empty if they're not accessible by all socioeconomic backgrounds.
Personally, I think that if service improves by a lot, fares should be able to increase too (especially since transit can save people 10k+ a year on a car), but with appropriate pricing for low-income people.

 

[Tuck]

I don't know why they keep dragging this out like its still a thing. Better to let people forget about it rather than keep bringing it up in more and more reduced forms. Its an continued embarassment. Some of the new stations are nice ideas, but its clear that smart track as it was originally proposed is long dead, so leave it that way and move on.

 

[allengeorge]

Mode-specific fares seem to be a step backwards - at least in the city. Why should I suddenly pay by distance when I switch from a bus to (subway,LRT,streetcar) within Toronto? I’d much rather have the zone-pair system the TRBoT suggested.

Dollars to doughnuts if that is done you’ll see a ridership drop in Toronto.

 

[gibsonm]

Mode-specific fares seem to be a step backwards - at least in the city. Why should I suddenly pay by distance when I switch from a bus to (subway,LRT,streetcar) within Toronto? I’d much rather have the zone-pair system the TRBoT suggested.

Dollars to doughnuts if that is done you’ll see a ridership drop in Toronto.

If the government of Ontario is serious about improving transit, keep the same zone-based fare structure no matter which mode people use. The regional population will only grow. Bus and light rail lines won't suffer just because more people take ST and RER. The whole point is to make transit more convenient, rapid, and affordable.

 

[Rainforest]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

A GO platform is like, 2x the length of a TTC subway platform.

ML has indicated in the GO expansion IBC that they intend on having something like 7-10 minute frequency, excluding express services, on most lines.

On the double track lines, if we just ran 12-car single level trains every 5 minutes, that would already be basically the same capacity as Yonge or B-D subway currently.

With some signal upgrades and higher frequencies, plus double decker trains if it were really necessary, we could fairly easily 2.5x or 3x that capacity if it were needed.

On the quad tracked lines, ultimate capacity is even higher (obviously).

Well, if the demand would rise as high as you suggest, isn't that a success story? Where these are exclusive GO ROWs, can't we just add more trains and provide more service?

Seems like a good problem to have! And I imagine it would help to ameliorate concerns about Yonge overcrowding and the sufficiency of Ontario Line.

Great if so. But I see more than a few problems with that:

1. The load / unload speed. Just look at the GO car door layout, and compare to the subway car door layout. The GO cars are a lot less efficient, and the double deckers are the worst. That's not a big problem when the trains run once in 30 min or even once in 15 min. But try going to every 7 min or every 5 min, and you might not be able to pull the next train into a busy station because the previous train is still sitting there unloading.

2. Platforms at Union: do we have enough of them for all services?

3. Stairs / elevators at Union. Compare them to the subway stairs; the latter are a lot wider. Can the Union stairs handle the subway scale loads?

4. GO trains require full break tests every time they change directions. Perhaps we can organize the frequent GO lines in such a way that none terminates at Union / all run through Union, that should help. But they still need to terminate and turn back somewhere; can they do that trick while maintaining a 5-min frequency?

5. Track conflicts between services. Yonge subway tracks and Bloor subway tracks do not cross each other at grade, obviously. But today's GO trains use routes / tracks that cross each other. Again, fine for 30-min frequencies, tight for 15-min, not suitable for 5-min. Can grade separation be added at every place where needed? Not sure again.

Now when I see a Metrolinx report, vetted by the engineers and stating that yes, we are going to 20,000 - 30,000 pphpd capacities on the major lines, then I'll happily throw all the above concerns into a garbage bin. But before that, forgive me for being a little skeptical

 

[afransen]

If it is just a matter of investment to get up to those 20k-30k/hr capacities, would it not make sense to pursue them? I mean, we can wait 50 years for a subway to do the same job, or try to fully leverage our rail ROWs. I don't think Metrolinx has said we will continue to use the same type of rolling stock for the higher frequency electrified service.