[11th]

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?

The pricings are right. It is unresonable in the first place to have to pay $3 just to travel ~2km. I know it's not a good comparison, but in other places around the world, $4 can takes you on a 30km+ railway from one end to another. Putting aside ridership and population density, TTC fares are overpriced.

 

[kkgg7]

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.

You can stand by the opinion that the costs of constructing a subway from Union to Bloor and Union to Finch are the same too.

By changing the fare system, the politicians are just making everyone paying the fair share of the cost. You are not telling some you now pay $2 more and some you now pay $2 less. You are saying you will pay $4 for 20km, $3 for 10 km and $1.5 for 2 km, which applies to everyone in TO. If you want to pay less, travel shorter distance.
Sure, some will feel bad about having to pay more, but few will think it is unfair. Keep in mind that everyone travels for only 1 or 2km sometimes.

 

[TOareaFan]

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).

What I was saying was, given the current operating environment and built state of the subway, Bob's ride from Finch does not cost much more to provide than Jane's ride from Bloor (oops, Jane getting on at Bloor was an accident).

 

[kkgg7]

What I was saying was, given the current operating environment and built state of the subway, Bob's ride from Finch does not cost much more to provide than Jane's ride from Bloor (oops, Jane getting on at Bloor was an accident).

just to give a simple example. Do the railtracks to be maintained regularly? Do you think the maintenance cost from Union to Bloor is the same as from Union to Finch as well? If Jane never uses the bloor-Finch part while Bob uses it everyday, why should Jane pay for the the maintenance for that part which only Bob uses?

 

[TOareaFan]

You can stand by the opinion that the costs of constructing a subway from Union to Bloor and Union to Finch are the same too

if you are going to attribute words to me that i never said, this iscussion will end pretty abruptly. I never commented on capital costs. I said that the costs the fares contribute to (operating costs) are not much different.

but everyone knows that 1) you are in self-denial 2) you live in the suburbs.

Name calling/projecting your opinion to "everyone"/suburbs v downtown divisiveness.......all in one line.....wow! Can you discuss/argue/debate without attack? Is that in your arsenal? Can you find the page up button to find the part where I said that I favour fare by distance? That, yes, being a 905 suburbanite who comes to the city am quite used to fare by distance.....I just am not sure it is necessary or practical on the subway as built.

 

[kkgg7]

if you are going to attribute words to me that i never said, this iscussion will end pretty abruptly. I never commented on capital costs. I said that the costs the fares contribute to (operating costs) are not much different.



Name calling/projecting your opinion to "everyone"/suburbs v downtown divisiveness.......all in one line.....wow! Can you discuss/argue/debate without attack? Is that in your arsenal? Can you find the page up button to find the part where I said that I favour fare by distance? That, yes, being a 905 suburbanite who comes to the city am quite used to fare by distance.....I just am not sure it is necessary or practical on the subway as built.

Sorry, I take it back. My apology.
However, since constructing longer subways costs more, those who travel longer distance should pay more since the suburban part is basically constructed for them. The logic is clear here. And whenever the downtowners need to go to the suburb, they have to pay more too, right? Why is it not right?

 

[nfitz]

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.

My streetcar home invariably short-turns about 2/3 of the way there, and then I end up walking.

Should I then offer the driver a $2 fare instead of a $3 fare?

 

[spider]

I'm not sure how I feel about a fare by distance system. Would the proponents of such a system apply it also to utilities, the closer you live to the lake your water and sewage bills should be less, the closer you live to your Telephone Exchange the less you should pay, apply the same parameters to Hydro and Gas for the same reason?

Would a private company running a small bus service along Bloor/Danforth and Yonge providing a lower fare for a slower ride be an answer, choose the subway for $3.00 or the surface bus for $1.50 to go from Woodbine to Coxwell on Danforth Avenue for instance?

 

[nfitz]

Would a private company running a small bus service along Bloor/Danforth and Yonge providing a lower fare for a slower ride be an answer, choose the subway for $3.00 or the surface bus for $1.50 to go from Woodbine to Coxwell on Danforth Avenue for instance?

Wouldn't necessarily have to be private.

This is what they do in London. A bus fare anywhere that they travel is £2.20 ($3.55) cash or £1.30 ($2.10) with Oyster. However, subway (tube) fares range from a minimum of £4.00 ($5.20) cash or £1.90 ($2.47) with Oyster to £7.00 ($9.10) cash or £6.00 ($7.80) with Oyster depending on zone and time of day (and even higher for tube lines that go into Hertfordshire). So taking the bus in London is always somewhat, to significantly cheaper than taking the tube.

 

[kkgg7]

I'm not sure how I feel about a fare by distance system. Would the proponents of such a system apply it also to utilities, the closer you live to the lake your water and sewage bills should be less, the closer you live to your Telephone Exchange the less you should pay, apply the same parameters to Hydro and Gas for the same reason?

Would a private company running a small bus service along Bloor/Danforth and Yonge providing a lower fare for a slower ride be an answer, choose the subway for $3.00 or the surface bus for $1.50 to go from Woodbine to Coxwell on Danforth Avenue for instance?

1) that's not a direct comparison. You do get charged by how much water and gas you consumed right? Why is it hard for you to accept that subway service should be charged based on distance as well. It is not that different from train fares: you pay less to go to Kingston than to go to Montreal. Why is it different from city transit??

2) I totally support that idea. It gives us options. Many cities allow small companies in operate such bus service. However, Toronto won't as it will likely affect the (horrible) TTC's revenue, which apparent is more important than giving people choice and flexibility.

 

[kkgg7]

Wouldn't necessarily have to be private.

This is what they do in London. A bus fare anywhere that they travel is £2.20 ($3.55) cash or £1.30 ($2.10) with Oyster. However, subway (tube) fares range from a minimum of £4.00 ($5.20) cash or £1.90 ($2.47) with Oyster to £7.00 ($9.10) cash or £6.00 ($7.80) with Oyster depending on zone and time of day (and even higher for tube lines that go into Hertfordshire). So taking the bus in London is always somewhat, to significantly cheaper than taking the tube.

as you can see, ttc is more expensive than London's tube. London is one of the most expensive cities in the world, and the london underground has 11 lines (compared with 2 for TTC) and covers 400 kms, 9-10 times of ttc subway.

Among the subway systems I have taken, London is probably the most efficient/convenient one. So much better than NYC's subway maze. You get discount for non-rush hour trips, and a daily cap (off peak £6.6 for zone 1-2). We should really learn something.

 

[Palma]

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.

And they pick up other passengers along the way. That’s right, if the taxi driver had to continue to Finch the passenger would pay more. This whole argument sounds like when the no smoking policy was to come into effect and all the doom and gloom coming from restaurants and bar owners. Where were all those smokers going to go if they were supposedly going to stay away from bars and restaurants? And guess what, bars are as busy as ever so are restaurants. And this is what this whole debate sounds like - sound the alarm bells because people who need to pay for going the furthest refuse to do so. I mean they pay more on Go and they do still use it.

 

[Palma]

My streetcar home invariably short-turns about 2/3 of the way there, and then I end up walking.

Should I then offer the driver a $2 fare instead of a $3 fare?

Under fare by distance, you would get a refund. How exactly? Well the only way it could work is anyone entering the system, would need to swipe their card (thinking of the future) and the system would automatically take the cost of the whole system (i.e say it is 30km and costs so many cents per kilo). Then when the person gets off at their destination they swipe the card again and now get the money refunded back to the card based on the distance they have traveled. If you forget to swipe well then you do not get that money refunded. This is how my friend who moved to Amsterdam last year says it works. Doing it the other way where people need to swipe once they get off only means you need to trust people to do that. This way - pay in full and then refunded back on distance traveled.

Why is all this so hard to understand. Look I do not live downtown, I live uptown (north of Eglinton) so I know I would pay more going downtown to work than someone who lives downtown, but so what. It is the fair way to do thongs. At least than I know when I am downtown I can choose to take the subway a short distance and know I am not being charged the full cost which presently is 2,50 (if you buy tokens or 3.00 with cash).

 

[Palma]

as you can see, ttc is more expensive than London's tube. London is one of the most expensive cities in the world, and the london underground has 11 lines (compared with 2 for TTC) and covers 400 kms, 9-10 times of ttc subway.

Among the subway systems I have taken, London is probably the most efficient/convenient one. So much better than NYC's subway maze. You get discount for non-rush hour trips, and a daily cap (off peak £6.6 for zone 1-2). We should really learn something.

And once fare by distance comes, you can also do all these things to. With a card system its easy to implement all these discounts.

 

[picard102]

If you want to pay less, travel shorter distance.

Agreed. Just fold space and time, it's pretty simple folks.Agree