ibhattac
New Member
where's inspector spacetime when you need him.
|
|
|
- Thread starter kkgg7
- Start date
where's inspector spacetime when you need him.
k10ery
Senior Member
I live at the intersection of 2 streetcar lines and a 5 minute walk from the subway. In other words I have very good TTC service compared to suburbians. If the price was $3.50 instead of $2.50 the TTC would double its operating profit per ride. I might ride my bike a bit more often. But I certainly wouldn't cut my TTC usage by more than half. So the TTC would still make more money off me at $3.50 than $2.50.
I'm a captive market and they know it.
nfitz
Superstar
How can you look at those numbers and conclude that TTC is more expensive? A one-station subway ride in London is $5.20 compared to $3.00 here. A long ride in London is $9.10 in London compared to $3.00. A one-station token/card ride in London is $2.47 almost the same as here ($2.50), however a long token/card ride in London is $7.80 compared to $2.50 here. How can you possibly conclude London is cheaper. Perhaps if you took the bus for very long trips maybe ... but people don't do that in London, with such an extensive rail network. They tend to get used for local trips.
You should have seen it 10-years ago before Ken Livingstone. It's state-of-repair was very poor. They've invested heavily in it over the last decade, pretty much rebuilding the entire thing - a process that will continue for another 5-10 years.
waltthizzney
New Member
do you guys support a time-based system like vancouver?
liamdevlin02
New Member
Amy Rose
Active Member
I'd rather see the reintroduction of zone fares, so its somewhat a mix of the both. Yes, people living further from their destination will have to pay more, but not so much that they resort to cars/homeless shelters, but not flat fare either. Quite simple to deal with such, as long as the transfers refers the zone that you initially started the trip.
kkgg7
Banned
One thing is clear here: whoever argue against fare by distance system must live far from work and know they are not paying enough but would prefer short commuters keep subsidizing them.
Thanks Palma. You seem to be one of those who advocate what is right and fair, instead of "what is best for me".
Thanks Palma. You seem to be one of those who advocate what is right and fair, instead of "what is best for me".
RedRocket191
Senior Member
A word of honest advice: Attacking the motives of the people who disagree with you, rather than debating their augments on the basis of their points is no way to have a reasoned discussion about anything. But what am I thinking... This is the internet!
drum118
Superstar
Are you saying people who live in one area of the city and work in another are at fault for not finding a job close to home that requires a larger subsidizing from short trippers??
Are these riders responsible for companies that have relocated to other area that were close to them in the first place??
Who is responsible for chasing local business from the waterfront as well in the centre core to the suburbs and the 905, that requires riders to travel longer trips, as well spending more travel time to get there??
Who is responsible for housing to leap frog from cheap housing cost to high income, where riders who make low wages are force to relocate to another area not of their choosing to make end meet and have to travel farther to get to work??
Do you realize that the quality of service and the type of service is based on long haulers, not the short hauler??
Until the zone system was removed in 1972, TTC made a profit off the backs of the long hauler who got poor service in their zone outside the city core.
What are the boundaries of the flat fare zone, zone 1, zone 2 zone 3????
Given the fact that most business are operated by the long haulers and low wage incomers, who going to have that nice coffee/food ready for the short haulers if they stop showing up for work??
Don't you think long haulers time is worth something, since they will spend 2-4 times more riding the system than the short haulers??
As a short hauler, are you prepare to pay the full cost of your rider including all capital cost and operating cost?? If you are, be prepare for that sticker price, as your fare will be a killer.
Last edited:
ibhattac
New Member
"Map 1 illustrates the connectivity of the City of Toronto using a transit score developed by the Martin Prosperity Institute. The score uses data from the Toronto Transit Commission and combines the number of stops within 500m of the centroid of a Census block and how often a bus, subway, or streetcar stops there in a specific hour. In terms of relative weighting, subway stops are weighted by 1, streetcars by 0.5, and bus stops by 0.25. On a scale of 0-1,500, the average transit score for the entire City is 66.5. The downtown core is 15 times more connected than the city average, as transit scores are highest where more streetcars and subways are found and lowest towards the outer edge of the city that are only served by buses.
Map 2 overlays the Toronto Transit Desert map with City 3, the poorest and most disadvantaged of the three cities. The overlay demonstrates the connection between household income and transit connectivity in the City of Toronto; namely, that the most economically disadvantaged of the Three Cities – City 3 – is the most under-serviced in Toronto."
I don't know how well this jpg shows up, but where would people propose the zones to be? It sounds like the zone system would perpetuate the emerging/existing economic disparities in the city. Is that a desirable objective? Or should transit have a social equity component built into its pricing?
Justin10000
Banned
I live near a frequent streetcar line, and subway station, and an OK bus line. My commutes are short, and I know I subsidize suburban riders. I could care less, I have transport options, many people in the suburbs do not. You force them to pay more, because you think it's not "fair" that those of us with lots of travel options are helping them use transit, and they will drive. It's not that hard to understand.
kkgg7
Banned
I understand everything you said, yet it doesn't change a thing. Being poor doesn't mean you are entitled to purchase the same goods or services at a lower price, right? You pay the market price nevertheless. So what's the point of bringing out the low wage argument? Will VIA give you 30% discount for being a low income earner when you travel? No. Why you have to live far from work, who is responsible for that, totally irrelevant. You are purchasing a service, and you pay for the quantity you buy. If you think it is too expensive, don't buy it. If you think fare is too high, move closer to work then. If you say you can't afford the location, may I repeat for the 10 times, sacrifice the space. Get rid of the yard, dining room, livingroom or just live in a condo.
In term of paying "all the capital and operating cost", apparently none of us is paying 100%. Some money comes from government funding. Yet for the remaining fare revenue, it still needs to be fair: charge based on how much you consume. If you travel far, you pay more, simple as that. Whether you make 10K or 100K is completely irrelevant. Can you get a bottle of beer for 20% less if you show you are poor?
For the government funding part, the financially welloff population already paid a larger share than the poor folks, thus already contributing more to our public transit. So stop thinking "I am poor, so I should pay less for everything".
For myself, how high TTC fare is does almost nothing to me whatsoever. Even if one trip costs $10, it has minimum impact on me since I take it for like 5 times a month. So I have not being arguing for my own benefits. I am arguing for what is the right thing to do without unfairly treating any interest groups. Negatively impacting certain groups doesn't mean unfair treatment.
Last edited:
kkgg7
Banned
Your logic here is heavily flawed.
1) they live in the suburbs because they choose to. Nobody forces them to live far from transit. (if land is too expensive, live small)
2) i am not "forcing" them to pay more. I am asking them to pay what they consume.
3) If you want to subsidize them, that's honourable. But from a public policy perspective, you can't force everyone else to subsidize. Why not let those who want to subsidize to pay more than required everytime?
Areas with great public transit are not just expensive places. There are many cheap pockets in/near downtown with excellent transit coverage. I don't believe people live in the burbs because they have no choice. It is mostly because they don't make a lot of money yet still insist in living large space where only richer people can afford. If you live in an area with bad transit, yet your living space is more than 400sf per family member, it is your own choice that led to poor transit, Nobody else is responsible to subsidizing you.
sixrings
Senior Member
you cant compare wants with needs. of course no one is going to allow a poorer person to buy a sports car for less then the average income maker. however the government makes all sorts of needs cheaper for people who cant afford as much. This is why we have community housing, this is why we have discounted tuition for people who come from backgrounds with less money, its why some people can get osap and others cant, why some pay for day care and others get it for almost free. That may seem unfair however is it fair that i have a good postacode so i can go to better schools get better jobs. moving also is not cheap. if the average house is 400k that means you are suggesting people just lose 40k by moving and paying taxes and real estate fees. im also guessing that alot of these people who are farther dont even own. I do agree with you to a point that people should be content with smaller houses. the problem is you make the assumption everyone is living in a mcmansion. also it doesnt matter what handful of prices you find on the internet to support your claim the reality is that downtown is skyrocketing. maybe those mls prices are low to encourage bidding wars????? just a thought. anyways i can afford to live where ever i want and riding the ttc does not hurt me. i dont see why people whp can afford to live in the best areas are complaining about nickles and cents and trying to make it cheaper for their own usage.
spider
Senior Member
Define "cheap" please and provide examples. I am sure many poor renters in your much maligned suburbs would love to take advantage of your grasp of the problem,
.