[sixrings]

I like the map but instead of a jane LRT Id make a Keele LRT and then run the DRL west all the way up to eglinton and keele.

 

[M II A II R II K]

And Dufferin South would be the interchange where the GO lines intersect Queen St.

 

[Johnny Au]

The map looks good. There should be an Eglinton LRT station at Keele (call it York Centre) and Vaughan Station on the Eglinton LRT line should be called Fairbank (to prevent confusion with the city of Vaughan (despite the fact that Vaughan Road is named after the municipality)).

 

[MafaldaBoy]

Thank you everyone for your feedback!

Great map, minor presentation note however. It appears that the Barrie/Bolton/Uxbridge line and the 407 Transitway both use the same line style, black solid line. Unless it's just my pc

Thanks! The Uxbridge/Kitchener Line should be a dark brown colour, as opposed to black on the 407.

On another note, I was contemplating adding fare zones, but I wasn't exactly sure of where they should go. Should they reflect municipality boundaries, or boundaries of current transit agencies?

 

[innsertnamehere]

there would probably be a goodwood stop on the uxbridge line as well.

 

[gweed123]

Thanks! The Uxbridge/Kitchener Line should be a dark brown colour, as opposed to black on the 407.

On another note, I was contemplating adding fare zones, but I wasn't exactly sure of where they should go. Should they reflect municipality boundaries, or boundaries of current transit agencies?

I've been grappling with this same problem too. The thing is the radial model only works for GO because the lines radiate out from a central point. But when you're dealing with an entire system, travelling potentially 30km inside of 1 fare zone while only 5km inside another doesn't really work. A fare zone structure for the entire GTHA that works with both GO, local rapid transit, and local transit is incredibly difficult to do simply, effectively, and evenly.

 

[BurlOak]

I will add another Fantasy map to the list, the main differences being:
1. Many LRT lines replace with BRT. I use a cost of $25M/km, but I think it could be lower where no property acquisition is needed.
2. Timelines for stages of construction are given.


Here are the highlights (the BRT lines are shown in the figures only).

2012 to 2015
Open Spadina subway to York U and BRT to UTS in time for Pan Am.

2016 to 2020
Build Eglinton Crosstown elevated through Scarborough and connected to the SRT.
Complete FWLRT
Begin B-D extension to 427 and DRL construction

2021 to 2025
Complete Eglinton Crosstown and WWLRT

2026 to 2030
Complete DRL east to Eglinton and Eglinton Crosstown to YYZ.

2031 to 2035
Complete FWLRT to YYZ
Begin YUS extension to Richmond Hill, DRL west and Sheppard West.

2036 to 2040
Complete YUS extension to Richmond Hill, DRL west and Sheppard West.

 

[gweed123]

As I promised earlier, I made a couple maps of a couple different fare zone configurations for the GTHA.

One of the things I tried to avoid is zones becoming 1 large ring around the entire region. So I used different shades of the same colour to illustrate the rings, but they themselves are separate fare zones.

The first option is a simplified fare zone structure with 4 rings as well as rural zones. The lines don't exactly follow municipal boundaries, because it's primarily meant for rapid transit, which should be under the control of Metrolinx.

The second option is one with many more fare zones broken down. This would be a more ideal structure for rapid transit, because you could have a base fare and then an added fare for each subsequent zone travelled. $2 base fare for local transit, $2.50 for rapid transit (BRT, LRT, subway), and $3.00 for express transit (GO REX, GO Trains, GO Bus, Express Buses), followed by an additional $1.00 per zone would give a pretty fair fare structure.

Unfortunately though, it could be very confusing for some riders at first, although hopefully with Presto and tap on/off it should sort itself out automatically.

What I'm thinking for how it works is local transit does not travel through more than 2 fare zones. As a result, a tap on on a local bus charges you the fare for 2 zones. If you stay within the same zone, tap off when getting off and it will refund you the extra $1. I find that the refund model would be much better than asking for money twice.

For rapid and express transit, what would happen is you would be charged for how many ever zones that route passes through. If you exit before the entering the total amount of zones, you tap off and you get refunded the difference. For example, if a rider is riding the Yonge Subway, it passes through 3 zones (you can ride it around and pass through 5, but that wouldn't make any sense to actually do). When tapping on at say King, you would be charged $4.50. If you tapped off at Eglinton, you would be refunded $2.00. This $2 gives an incentive to tap off, and it also reduces fare evasion.

 

[Dan416]

As I promised earlier, I made a couple maps of a couple different fare zone configurations for the GTHA.

One of the things I tried to avoid is zones becoming 1 large ring around the entire region. So I used different shades of the same colour to illustrate the rings, but they themselves are separate fare zones.

The first option is a simplified fare zone structure with 4 rings as well as rural zones. The lines don't exactly follow municipal boundaries, because it's primarily meant for rapid transit, which should be under the control of Metrolinx.

View attachment 9385

The second option is one with many more fare zones broken down. This would be a more ideal structure for rapid transit, because you could have a base fare and then an added fare for each subsequent zone travelled. $2 base fare for local transit, $2.50 for rapid transit (BRT, LRT, subway), and $3.00 for express transit (GO REX, GO Trains, GO Bus, Express Buses), followed by an additional $1.00 per zone would give a pretty fair fare structure.

Unfortunately though, it could be very confusing for some riders at first, although hopefully with Presto and tap on/off it should sort itself out automatically.

View attachment 9386

What I'm thinking for how it works is local transit does not travel through more than 2 fare zones. As a result, a tap on on a local bus charges you the fare for 2 zones. If you stay within the same zone, tap off when getting off and it will refund you the extra $1. I find that the refund model would be much better than asking for money twice.

For rapid and express transit, what would happen is you would be charged for how many ever zones that route passes through. If you exit before the entering the total amount of zones, you tap off and you get refunded the difference. For example, if a rider is riding the Yonge Subway, it passes through 3 zones (you can ride it around and pass through 5, but that wouldn't make any sense to actually do). When tapping on at say King, you would be charged $4.50. If you tapped off at Eglinton, you would be refunded $2.00. This $2 gives an incentive to tap off, and it also reduces fare evasion.

Your last picture is extremely complicated...and I thought London's fare system was complicated!

 

[gweed123]

Your last picture is extremely complicated...and I thought London's fare system was complicated!

It's complicated for sure, but I think it at least puts a proper fare value on certain distances travelled. Shorter distance riders don't end up subsidizing longer distance riders, unlike the current system.

The thing is that when you make fare zones too big, you need to either: a) make the difference between fares for each zone larger, b) end up subsidizing longer distance trips, or c) raise the cost of short distance trips to balance it out. None of those are particularly good options IMO.

 

[CDL.TO]

Smaller fare zones are optimal because they more accurately reflect the length of a transit trip and minimise the "I live just past the fare boundary" penalty. The important thing is to make sure that the zones are "invisible" to the regular user so they don't have to concern themselves with the complexity.

Look at GO. They have around 90 fare zones, but GO passengers don't have to familiarize themselves with the zone system. Implementation on a local transit system couldn't be the same as the GO system, but it's still the model that a region-wide fare system should aim for.

 

[Markster]

Another thing one can do to mitigate the border problems with zones is to make the zones appropriately small, and have the base fare cover a 2-zone pass. That would effectively set a minimum distance that a base fare will make you eligable for.

 

[drum118]

The first zone plan is in the right step, but needs more work. The 2nd one needs to thrown away. Need to review what is taking place in Europe as its not the goal to charge less for short rides vs. long rides.

In many places the long hauler help to provide better service for the short hauler.

The "GOAL" is to get people to use transit in place of cars and charging a fair price for all to use. Based on today setup, it cost 2-3 times more to use GO/Local/TTC to get to and from where a rider wants to go than the major Cities of Europe consider a rider can use bus/tram/metro/regional/intercity trains as well long distance trains for their travel within x-distance on the same fare cost that is less than here.

 

[M II A II R II K]

The fare system could be brought into modern times with an app and charge people different amounts depending on where they're going with a difference of a few cents if they go a stop further.

 

[dunkalunk]

I like the idea of making the base fare 2 zones of travel. It ensures that anyone living along a zone border is not made to pay extra for crossing that line. It also keeps the base fare sufficiently high to discourage relatively short transit trips that can be taken by bicycle. As such, I'd also keep zone boundaries fairly small (for instance between Spadina and Parkside south of Bloor)

This could just as well be calculated using a base fare+fare by distance system, although for simplicity's sake, a zone system could be favorable.