[Mapleson]

Why must TTC strive to be the only profitable transit system in the western hemisphere?

Because the GTA is home to 1 in 6 Canadians, because the City of Toronto continually runs on the red, because funds to maintain the level of service from the mid-1980s to late-1990s are not forthcoming, and because the GTA will grow by 1.5 million people over the next decade.

I personally hate justification by comparison. Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio in the G8, but it still costs 20% of taxes annually to maintain. The TTC is amongst the highest cost-recovery rates in North America, but that extra $1 per trip still comes out of our collective pockets. IF the TTC were profitable, it could secure it's own future and plan long-term rather than being tied to short-term political decisions.

Instead of zoned fares I would suggest that the TTC should implement a mixed system of flat fares for surface routes and fare by distance for the subways and other heavy rail (GO).

The key benefits for such a system from my perspective is that it provides a fair cost to those who use the system short distances (buses in the suburbs) or subways in the core, and also provides discounts for those who use a less comfortable and slower form of transportation (buses and streetcars) while pricing longer and faster trips more appropriately. I would also suggest that such a model could also be used for GO service integration (for example price GO at $1 per station) and would eventually lead to full GO and TTC integration.

Interagency ticketing has been increasing and with Presto should lead to an integrated GTA transit payment system within a decade or so. The key issue presented in the topic is Operating Costs. First, zonal or any similiar multi-branch pricing is more costly to operate. Second, it runs counter to the idea of 'all you can eat' type passes such as the current MetroPass or DayRider tickets. Charges set per use will increase the dialectic between car and transit rather than giving transit its main advantage in being a pre-paid lump sum.

I would use a system where I know I will pay $120 per month, but may not if it'll vary between $60 one month and $180 the next. Overall revenues are the same, but predictivity of prices are not. If I don't have a MetroPass and want to jump on the TTC, I know it'll cost me $3 and can plan accordingly. Having distance pricing, I can't and will pay a premium for not having a Presto card.

Rather than zones, I would discount non-peak TTC trips (6AM-10AM, 3PM-7PM) to 50% of peak-period trips (I'm expecting something like a $3.50 / $1.75 split from current revenue levels). People know what to expect and flat-rate packs, like the MetroPass, can place their price point somewhere in the middle.

 

[Cranky Old Fart]

Rather than zones, I would discount non-peak TTC trips (6AM-10AM, 3PM-7PM) to 50% of peak-period trips (I'm expecting something like a $3.50 / $1.75 split from current revenue levels). People know what to expect and flat-rate packs, like the MetroPass, can place their price point somewhere in the middle.

Probably this is a better idea with the hopeful result of decreased peak hour overcrowding.

 

[T.O.Fanatic]

Why would you feel any less mobile with a Presto card?

Some other posters have already brought up this issue, with a fare card, you never really know how much your trip is going to cost each day, especially if the TTC brings in zoned fares. Metropass is a simple lump sum, increasing ease of movement and getting rid of the uncertainty.

 

[unimaginative2]

My TTC usage would increase dramatically if there were time transfers. For downtown multi-stop errands, the price of the TTC becomes prohibitive.

 

[W. K. Lis]

My TTC usage would increase dramatically if there were time transfers. For downtown multi-stop errands, the price of the TTC becomes prohibitive.

When my kid was going to day care (15 years ago, when I couldn't find an available space near my home), I picked a day care centre near a bus transfer point. That is so that I could drop my kid off at the day care, then transfer to a different bus to continue my trip. The return trips were no problem, since I would get a second transfer at the station where I got on at work. That lasted until an available space near home came available.

Don't tell anyone.

 

[golodhendil]

Some other posters have already brought up this issue, with a fare card, you never really know how much your trip is going to cost each day, especially if the TTC brings in zoned fares. Metropass is a simple lump sum, increasing ease of movement and getting rid of the uncertainty.

Why would you not know how much your trip costs?

 

[RedRocket191]

If it's per km (for example), you wouldn't know how much a potential trip would cost unless you checked beforehand. But, most agencies use daily / weekly / monthly caping so you'll never go over a certain amount.

With capping I don't see the need to maintain period passes. Caps are effectively period passes.

 

[Mapleson]

If costs are capped, you are basically discounting occational short-distance trips and surcharging occational long-distance trips. Long-distance commuters would cap out, as would frequent local use.

 

[RedRocket191]

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your point. Are you talking about how it would not be fair to have a long distance commuter reaching the cap sooner than a short-distance commuter?

If so, then the solution is to cap by number of trips instead of a dollar amount. GO Transit plans to have a soft cap at 46 trips - regardless of how long those trips actually are. My "monthly pass" would not be the same as the person next to me if even one of our trips are different, but we would both need to make 46 trips to get free riders.

 

[golodhendil]

If it's per km (for example), you wouldn't know how much a potential trip would cost unless you checked beforehand. But, most agencies use daily / weekly / monthly caping so you'll never go over a certain amount.

Well, according to the OP, one will never know the cost of the trip. A simple two/few-zone fare system will be very easy to figure out the cost; even with a slightly more complicated per distance system, one will have a very good idea of at least the approximate cost. Bottom line is, it's not something inherent to a farecard system (we could well have flat-rate farecards).

 

[RedRocket191]

Correct - it's not tied to a fare card. Even today, I won't know the cost of the trip if I wake up one morning and decide I want to go from Brampton to Guelph on GO. What we can do, however, is give people an accessible trip planner (web based, mobile-web friendly, and even on kiosks at the station) so that the information is within easy reach.

 

[Mapleson]

A trip-based cap to costs will encourage fare manipulation/avoidance (people taking more unnecessary short journeys to reach the cap at the lowest possible price). This limits the potential increase in revenue.

You must look at what service you are trying to provide/optimize in order to determine what fare structure is most appropriate.

Distance or zone based pricings don't need a fare card system, except enforcement becomes harder. I lived in England (non-London) for a number of years and found it prohibitively expensive to make occasional trips. You’d get on the bus, tell the driver your stop and pay your fare (with change rendered). It was quite common to see hoards of people walking to the downtown area (4-5 miles) or stores (0.5-2 miles) and catch the bus back.

Long-distance (30+ miles) trips also were ridiculous and I several times rented a car for the day with fuel included for cheaper than a one-way ticket. Inter-city travel (5-30 mile range) was reasonable by comparison as were monthly passes.

Distance-based pricing is advantageous to those near the center at the expense of those at the fringe. This discourages long-distance commutes as the TTC is creeping into suburbia.

Zone-based pricing again is advantageous to those near the center at the expense of those at the fringe of each zone. It creates divided communities as it costs twice as much to go one way down the street instead of the other. Basing prices on a 2-zone trip shifts the inequality to those commuting across borders.

Time-based pricing is advantageous to non-peak, infrequent users at a cost to rush hour commuters.

Flat-fare pricing is advantageous to frequent users at the cost of occasional use.

Again, what is the goal? Higher ridership? Higher revenue? Higher revenue per rider? Higher non-peak vehicle loading? Lower peak-period vehicle loading? Better occasional use service? Better frequent use service? Lower administration costs?

 

[RedRocket191]

I believe that we should want to encourage people to make short trips, even if it does cause people to reach their caps faster. If we can encourage people to switch the "quick run to the corner store" from driving to transit then the greater policy goals of instilling a transit culture are met.

 

[Mapleson]

My key word was unnecessary. On a fixed distance-based pricing, and I was taking the subway from Union to Don Mills, I could take one evening and make every station a "trip" and reducing my distance pricing significantly. It's exactly the same reason they suspended token sales in December. The way to 'cheat' the system is obvious and not easily preventable.

OK, if your goal is to reward occational trips and to shift people from cars to transit, there are better solutions than per km pricing, imo. You are instilling a local transit culture for those with a high level of local service. You are discouraging a transit commuter culture. So less people take cars from home to the store down the road, but more drive downtown?

 

[golodhendil]

My key word was unnecessary. On a fixed distance-based pricing, and I was taking the subway from Union to Don Mills, I could take one evening and make every station a "trip" and reducing my distance pricing significantly. It's exactly the same reason they suspended token sales in December. The way to 'cheat' the system is obvious and not easily preventable.

If one is so determined to cheat the system this way, then all the power to them. However, simple measures could be put into place to prevent this as is done in other systems, e.g., by putting something like a half-hour or even 15-min blackout period between swiping out of and into the system (at the same station).