[11th]

Fare by distance does not only benefit downtowners, it benefits all who travel short-distance. I know people in suburbs who do not even go downtown once per month. Someone travelling from Malvern to STC, or Steeles/Yonge to NYCC, shouldn't pay $3 either.

 

[RedRocket191]

Let's not be naive - the price will go down for some people, but the price will go up for others. It has to balance or we just end up deeper in the hole. How do you sell that to people?

 

[kkgg7]

I agree also with the price elasticity issue. Even before i read your post about choosing to walk if TTC fares rise too much I was thinking the same thing when I read the other poster saying if you live downtown the TTC can charge whatever they want and those people will pay because they have no choice. He obviously does not know the downtown area very well. Living downtown one has many options and that includes waling pretty much everywhere, but as you said if you live in the suburbs and need to go downtown - well its either pay whatever the TTC wants to charge or take the car and pay the higher parking rates + high gas prices + longer commuting time and I am hoping soon they will add a congestion charge/tolls to that equation.

plus, those who think just because many downtowners don't owns means we have no access to cars is wrong. Zipcar and autoshare are practically everywhere for as little as $8 an hour. Very handy and no hassle dealing with insurance or even filling up the tank. If you share with 1 or 2 friends, the cost is minimum. perfect for occasional car users.

Downtowners, in my view, are least dependent on TTC.

 

[kkgg7]

Let's not be naive - the price will go down for some people, but the price will go up for others. It has to balance or we just end up deeper in the hole. How do you sell that to people?

price go down for some and up for others, but both in the right and fair way, don't they?
I am sure ttc will end up with more revenue. How to sell that to people? You pay for how much your consume, just like all the other goods/services. Why is it hard to understand?

 

[Electrify]

Something worth pointing out is that not everyone is as geographically sharp as we are. I've met people who are, for lack of a better term, geographically retarded. I used to know someone who lived at Islington and Finch, and I spent 10 minutes trying to show him that to get to Dufferin and Bloor it is more direct to take a bus to Bloor and the subway across, than to take a Finch bus to Yonge, subway down to Bloor, and then back. Maybe an extreme example, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of people have no idea how long their trips actually are. The reason why GO has been able to do this is because of its commuter focus, the majority of trips are predictable and not as dynamic as local services.

Another thing worth pointing out is how this could affect people's trips and the resources on the system. People may take slower, yet more direct routes rather than faster, yet less direct routes. For example, someone from Bathurst and Finch who commutes to Bathurst and Bloor might take take the bus all the way down rather than the subway. If this happens en mass (which is possible, for example, the Viva Purple is cram packed between RHC and York University while few take the GO even though it is faster, more direct, and costs $1.50 more), could local services handle the overflow?

I'm not necessarily saying that a pure fare by distance system is wrong, but it may not be as perfect as some claim to be.

 

[TOareaFan]

price go down for some and up for others, but both in the right and fair way, don't they?
I am sure ttc will end up with more revenue. How to sell that to people? You pay for how much your consume, just like all the other goods/services. Why is it hard to understand?

Why do you think people don't understand what you are saying just because they point out reasons that make this system hard to implement? Doesn't the thread you started ask for just that?

When someone points out that fares go up for some and down for others (likely more people up than down if your prediction that total revenue goes up) that is just a way of saying as many people, maybe more, will be financially hurt by this as there are people who would gain....therefore, the politicos that represent those people will have a hard time supporting it for fear of losing their jobs.

Did you really start this thread looking for answers or just to collect a bunch of "geez, your smart! How come no one lse ever Houghton of fare by distance before?" type comments

 

[kkgg7]

Something worth pointing out is that not everyone is as geographically sharp as we are. I've met people who are, for lack of a better term, geographically retarded. I used to know someone who lived at Islington and Finch, and I spent 10 minutes trying to show him that to get to Dufferin and Bloor it is more direct to take a bus to Bloor and the subway across, than to take a Finch bus to Yonge, subway down to Bloor, and then back. Maybe an extreme example, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of people have no idea how long their trips actually are. The reason why GO has been able to do this is because of its commuter focus, the majority of trips are predictable and not as dynamic as local services.

Another thing worth pointing out is how this could affect people's trips and the resources on the system. People may take slower, yet more direct routes rather than faster, yet less direct routes. For example, someone from Bathurst and Finch who commutes to Bathurst and Bloor might take take the bus all the way down rather than the subway. If this happens en mass (which is possible, for example, the Viva Purple is cram packed between RHC and York University while few take the GO even though it is faster, more direct, and costs $1.50 more), could local services handle the overflow?

I'm not necessarily saying that a pure fare by distance system is wrong, but it may not be as perfect as some claim to be.

your concern is legitimate. However, isn't it nice that people can choose between slower but cheaper trip versus faster but slightly more expensive trips? In the end, one is supposed to pay a bit more for the faster Rapid Transit.

Taking the Bathurst bus is not a bad idea in your example. If you are concern about the capacity of the buses, you should know the Yonge Line is at capacity during peak hour as well. Some passengers choosing not to take it is not that bad at all.

I didn't think the distanced based fare is perfect. But it is probably the most fair and intuitively easy approach. Do you really think the current flat fare system makes more sense? You don't think one who travels 15 km should pay a bit more than one who travels 2km? Seriously?

I know many would prefer just getting the metropass and don't worry about distance and number of trips at all. Well, we can keep the metropass. But i would suggesting a monthly cap system instead.

 

[kkgg7]

Why do you think people don't understand what you are saying just because they point out reasons that make this system hard to implement? Doesn't the thread you started ask for just that?

When someone points out that fares go up for some and down for others (likely more people up than down if your prediction that total revenue goes up) that is just a way of saying as many people, maybe more, will be financially hurt by this as there are people who would gain....therefore, the politicos that represent those people will have a hard time supporting it for fear of losing their jobs.

Did you really start this thread looking for answers or just to collect a bunch of "geez, your smart! How come no one lse ever Houghton of fare by distance before?" type comments

I agree with you. But politicians should do the right thing instead of only focusing on pleasing their constituents. The "people" will always be unhappy unless everything is free, isn't it? For example, Canada's college tuition is one of the lowest among rich countries, are people happy? They still complain it is too high.

Following the same logic you mentioned, why aren't the politicians afraid the current unfair system makes the mistreated short distance travellers unhappy? It is their job to make things fair to everyone, not to make everyone happy.

It is hard to implement, I agree with you. But TTC has been raising fare each year, was that easy to implement? It got implement anyway.

 

[TOareaFan]

I agree with you. But politicians should do the right thing instead of only focusing on pleasing their constituents. The "people" will always be unhappy unless everything is free, isn't it? For example, Canada's college tuition is one of the lowest among rich countries, are people happy? They still complain it is too high.

Following the same logic you mentioned, why aren't the politicians afraid the current unfair system makes the mistreated short distance travellers unhappy? It is their job to make things fair to everyone, not to make everyone happy.

It is hard to implement, I agree with you. But TTC has been raising fare each year, was that easy to implement? It got implement anyway.

If you raise everyone's fare by 10 cents.....everyone grumbles but it oe not dramatically change thir views of the world......if you say "half of you will now pay $4 a trip and the other half will pay $2" the half paying $4 will likely be very mad.....the politicians that represent hose people will likely need to start looking for new work.

All that said, I still stand by my original option that there is very little variable cost in the operation of the subway. The cost of moving someone from Finch to Union is not as different as the cost of moving a rider from loor to union as you seem to think.

 

[Palma]

Another thing worth pointing out is how this could affect people's trips and the resources on the system. People may take slower, yet more direct routes rather than faster, yet less direct routes. For example, someone from Bathurst and Finch who commutes to Bathurst and Bloor might take take the bus all the way down rather than the subway. If this happens en mass (which is possible, for example, the Viva Purple is cram packed between RHC and York University while few take the GO even though it is faster, more direct, and costs $1.50 more), could local services handle the overflow?

I'm not necessarily saying that a pure fare by distance system is wrong, but it may not be as perfect as some claim to be.

Fare by distance would obviously work throughout the system - subway, streetcars, buses. People actually cannot be serious and think they can escape fare by distance system by assuming it would only apply to the subway. That would make no sense.

 

[Palma]

If you raise everyone's fare by 10 cents.....everyone grumbles but it oe not dramatically change thir views of the world......if you say "half of you will now pay $4 a trip and the other half will pay $2" the half paying $4 will likely be very mad.....the politicians that represent hose people will likely need to start looking for new work.

A.

You have got to be joking! I cannot believe this nonsense I am reading on here. Lets see - call a taxi - ask that you want to go from Front and Yonge to Finch and Yonge and want to pay the same fare as if you had to go Eglinton and Yonge and see what the drrver says.

 

[RedRocket191]

You have got to be joking! I cannot believe this nonsense I am reading on here. Lets see - call a taxi - ask that you want to go from Front and Yonge to Finch and Yonge and want to pay the same fare as if you had to go Eglinton and Yonge and see what the drrver says.

But the taxi driver stops driving when he drops you off. The subway driver has to continue till the end of the route, full or not. If the taxi driver had to keep delivering service all the way to Finch then someone has to pay him regardless of where you get off.

 

[ibhattac]

But the taxi driver stops driving when he drops you off. The subway driver has to continue till the end of the route, full or not. If the taxi driver had to keep delivering service all the way to Finch then someone has to pay him regardless of where you get off.

so i'm taking from this thread that one could either charge by distance travelled, charge on the basis of entering/existing zones, or price different routes differently given that a bus/subway/streetcar never runs half a route. well, except short-turned streetcars. and further, each of these could have some sort of time component built-in so as to not penalise people who run errands.

i'm starting to wonder whether fixed fares like we have now is just administratively and politically simpler than having to develop new pricing schemes for all sorts of circumstances and have each of those schemes approved by the ttc board only to be subject to political pressure for changes every year with each new budget cycle. as long as ttc still has a political component to it, unlike GO, maybe fixed fares are the best way forward simply on the basis of its simplicity.

i wonder if its possible to get access to ridership data at a very granular level for whatever years they have available to see if we can crowdsource the generation of a new pricing scheme that fills the ttc budget gap and is equitable to toronto residents.

 

[RedRocket191]

so i'm taking from this thread that one could either charge by distance travelled, charge on the basis of entering/existing zones, or price different routes differently given that a bus/subway/streetcar never runs half a route. well, except short-turned streetcars. and further, each of these could have some sort of time component built-in so as to not penalise people who run errands.

Yes. All of those are options that could be considered and have been implemented in cities around the world - but we need to be careful. Just because something in New York / Hong Kong / Vancouver doesn't necessarily mean it will work here.

i'm starting to wonder whether fixed fares like we have now is just administratively and politically simpler than having to develop new pricing schemes for all sorts of circumstances and have each of those schemes approved by the ttc board only to be subject to political pressure for changes every year with each new budget cycle. as long as ttc still has a political component to it, unlike GO, maybe fixed fares are the best way forward simply on the basis of its simplicity.

It absolutely is simpler to administrate and politically simpler as all riders are treated equally. However, some fare-by-distance models reward short trips with lower fares and encourage people to move closer to where they work.

i wonder if its possible to get access to ridership data at a very granular level for whatever years they have available to see if we can crowdsource the generation of a new pricing scheme that fills the ttc budget gap and is equitable to toronto residents.

It's fairly easy to count how many riders board the system every day, but it's very difficult to know exactly where they get off. There is modelling data and the Transportation Tomorrow Survey, and the census (but I wouldn't trust this past one further than I can throw it). I will say this though: Once the traditional fare media is withdrawn we will probably see a lot of changes to the GO bus network as we'll know exactly where people are boarding and where they are getting off.

 

[EnviroTO]

All that said, I still stand by my original option that there is very little variable cost in the operation of the subway. The cost of moving someone from Finch to Union is not as different as the cost of moving a rider from Bloor to union as you seem to think.

I don't know why you would claim such a thing. To provide service every X number of minutes between Bloor and Union versus Finch and Union you are talking about 3 times the operational costs but you aren't getting 3 times the riders, then you factor in that service every X number of minutes between Bloor and Union would not be required because there would be space on the train so you might be able to run the trains half the frequency or maybe even less frequently than that and operating trains at half the frequency means almost half the operating costs (with train operators, equipment, and energy requirements about half but station and track costs staying the same).