News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5K     0 

I think it's important to keep in mind how artificial the 416/905 boundary is, and how it didn't even always exist (both in the sense that 905 used to be part of 416, and also in the sense that Toronto used to be part of York County).

That said, I don't see the current fare structure changing any time soon, unless the TTC and the transit systems around the GTA are merged under Metrolinx.
 
The question is either where to put the boundary or whether to place a boundary at all.

A boundary is necessary or folks in Barrie would like in I guess, so where does it go? Municipal boundaries or concentric circles centered on Union Station or what? Nobody is going to be happy.
 
maybe a different, productive tack in this thread - maybe people can list off pros and cons for the systems discussed:

(1) flat fare - pros: easy to administer, does not force declining inner/suburbs to pay more for their lack of choice, pays for fixed infrastructure more effectively, diversity of travel patterns irrelevant, 'underperforming' routes subsidised; cons: could force higher average costs for everyone, diversity of travel patterns irrelevant, 'underperforming' routes subsidised

(2) zoned fare - pros: ; cons: difficult to administer, disadvantages declining inner/suburbs, does not account for diversity of travel patterns

(3) fare-by-distance - pros: account for diversity of travel patterns, 'underperforming' are not subsidised; cons: difficult to administer, 'underperforming' routes are not subsidised

Did I miss any other fare structures? Other pros / cons that people can brainstorm?
 
The TTC subway system, whether you like it or not, has become a regional transportation system. I'm starting to think it should just be owned by Metrolinx and perhaps integrated with GO. This would also go well with the new DRL idea Metrolinx was proposing.

The idea I was floating in the Sheppard Subway thread was basically a small nominal entrance fee, eg) $1, no matter what mode got you to the station, be it bus, car, GO train, walk-in. This transfer would not be free. But it would entitle you to something like 5 stations of travel (any direction including changing trains at interchanges), and then some per station cost after that and would have a time of use dimension to help control crowding at peak times (and perhaps help pay for capacity improvements and expansion). This way, your "zone" would be not be based on some arbitrary boundary like a street or municipal boundary but where you decided to get on to the system.

I was thinking this in response to why there seems to be so much demand for subways in a place like Richmond Hill and why the province seems to prefer suburban expansion and not in-city improvements. They already have a GO train. Why not demand improvements on it?

The real reasons I think they want subway is (a) because the current fare structure is more attractive to potential users than GO and (b) they think having a train nearby but out of their sight and tucked underground with a cheap flat fare will raise their property values whether they actually use the subway or not.

This is the type of demand I was hoping subway fare-by-distance would help to curb.
 
This is the type of demand I was hoping subway fare-by-distance would help to curb.

Why not harmonize GO Transit fares with TTC fares for subway's/LRT's only? That means using the subway to Kipling would cost the same as using the GO Train to Kipling.

I think metrolinx should def take over all rapid transit systems in Toronto because they all have such an immensely regional role.

Let's also institute POP method on these transport modes since fare by distance is best applied with POP. This way the system would save a tonne of $$ by eliminating fare collectors & associated staff at 69 stations...

Metrolinx is already ahead of the game on this one by making the Eglinton-Crosstown a POP line!
 
Let's also institute POP method on these transport modes since fare by distance is best applied with POP. This way the system would save a tonne of $$ by eliminating fare collectors & associated staff at 69 stations...

Metrolinx is already ahead of the game on this one by making the Eglinton-Crosstown a POP line!

No, it is not best applied with POP. It doesn't matter. Washington Metro, London Underground and pretty much everything in Asia are some examples.
 
In reality, so much of the costs are fixed costs in terms of infrastructure itself, that to price it on usage doesn't really make 'natural' sense.


Just think about it. Even if you only travel from King to Dundas... would the transit system be viable if that is all it was. A short line between King and Dundas?



I'm fine with charging someone who lives downtown more and only travels a short distance to work... they can afford it. I'd rather not charge the poor person from Jane/Finch or Scarborough more as they try to get to work or university.

1) it is true a large precentage of subway is fixed cost, but it is nowhere near 100%. Additionally, for many people living closer to downtown, they didn't need the surburban part in the first place (and the constructing cost associated). Maintainance cost of the railtracks are also directed linked to the length of the sytem. You won't think it costs pretty the same to maintain/repair the tracks of 2km ver 20km, right?

2) It is just morally wrong to think charging downtowners more are just acceptable. for one thing, not everyone living downtown is rich. There are three universities in downtown, right? are the students all rich? What about St Jamestown? Regent Park? Moss Park? Are they supposed to pay more than those in Forest Hill? Lawrence Park? for the other, just because one is rich doesn't mean he should pay more. now you charge the rich more for commuting, what about charge them twice the amount for a fridge, a TV or gasoline? They apparently can afford it too. Poor people are poor mostly due to their own weakness. Don't take it for granted it that those who make 100K a year should be responsible for making their life better.
 
Have we gone full circle in this discussion? Are we back to rich suburbanites versus poor downtowners? Are the occupants of the Ritz poorer than the apartment dwellers of Jan-Finch? No....there are rich and poor (if it were such a simple line rather than a relative gradient it might be easier to discuss) in, both, the downtown and the subway-serviced burbs (and elsewhere).

It is also, I think, a bit fraudulent to describe fare by distance fare systems as a downtown v suburb discussion. Someone taking the subway from, say, Yonge-Sheppard to York University in a couple of years would, by any system, be seen as travelling a shorter distance but would never have entered downtown......and by a per km or a zonal system would be called a short trip.

This discussion has merit.....some of the crap being thrown around (IMO) does not.
 
1) it is true a large precentage of subway is fixed cost, but it is nowhere near 100%.

Based on TTC savings from cancelling a single train on the Yonge line, and what is in the capital budget for subway projects; I would guess it is over 50% fixed costs at this time.
 
G
On a political note... most subsidies in reality don't go towards the poor. But benefit the middle class and rich. So I wouldn't really start talking about poor people being weak.

Poor people are responsibly for a lot of things in their life... but most people who earn 100k... generally are getting a subsidy. Either directly from the government or protection from competition or via the financial games sector. It's okay to tell the poor manufacturing workers he has to compete with China. But doctors... wait a minute... only a qualified Canadian doctor can practice here. And in Ontario for a long time, mainly doctors gave vaccinations. Again, a subsidy for the rich. If you were poor and a nurse could give you a vaccination in a free market, you would choose the cheaper option.

Even in terms of transit. Look at how Union station centered transit is... and you see how lopsided government spending is. Wonder who the benefactors. Just look at the direct rail link from union to the airport...

so universal health care benefits the rich and middle class? are you kidding? just compare Canada with the US and see in which country the poor have better coverage.
I know the doctors will make a lot more if health care is privatized. So what? I don't care since my employers will cover it anyway, dental and vision. So will the employers of the "rich" and "middle class". What about the poor who make $20k a year? They will be on their own. I myself would prefer that way as I will pay much less tax for the healthcare and education of people I don't know at all. You said the poor didn't have a choice, guess what, neither the rest of us.

Speaking of doctors and lawyers making a lot of money..well, don't complain, if they make a lot, why not try to be one of them? Medical school and law school are not exactly as easy as driving a cab, but the doors are always open. We all have the opportunities, don't we? Take the LSAT or MCAT, and work toward being a lawyer and doctor, instead of whining about them making too much money. Is there anything that prevents you from doing that? A friend of mine just score 800 (perfect score) on LSAT and have been admitted to Columbia Law. He has no money right now and shares a crappy apartment, but in a few years, he will be rich. Why don't those who hate the lawyers try to score 800 as well? If you can't, well, you are not smart enough to start with to get even get 650, why bother complaining about others making 10x as you do? The smart and the most capable deserve superior life quality. That's how the world works. One's own financial situation is mostly due to his own intellectual limitation, don't blame the government or the rich.

Transit of course should be centered around city core. Public transit makes most sense in highly dense area, don't you get it? It doesn't circle around rich people, as you seem to imply. Otherwise, Bridle Path would have direct subway access, wouldn't it? In Los Angeles, the subway doesn't go to the rich neighbourhood (Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Brentwood) because the rich hate it. What do you expect, subways centers around sparse suburban neighbourhood where you see 50 people every square kilometer? When someone moves to the remote suburbs, he is making a choice - lower public transit coverage. You think rent is lower at Jane/Finch? It is low at Regent Park as well. Why not live there? Transit is excellent. There are plenty of cheap basement apartment in or near downtown as well. Look at any city, public transit congregates at where it is most dense. Who cares if you are poor or rich? If you are dependent on transit, follow transit instead of expecting transit to follow you.
 
so universal If you are dependent on transit, follow transit instead of expecting transit to follow you.

This should be a marketing line that the TTC should use or the condo/housing/devlopment in the city core. Its great.
 
A friend of mine just score 800 (perfect score) on LSAT and have been admitted to Columbia Law. He has no money right now and shares a crappy apartment, but in a few years, he will be rich. Why don't those who hate the lawyers try to score 800 as well? If you can't, well, you are not smart enough to start with to get even get 650, why bother complaining about others making 10x as you do?

The LSAT is scored out of 180. If he got 800, he must be quite the genius.
 
METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND THE CAR CHANGE THE PICTURE
The TTC continued to make an operating profit until 1972 when, under political pressure from the suburban majority on council, the TTC eliminated its fare zone system which previously obliged suburban residents to pay an additional fare. By the late 1980s, the annual cost of keeping the TTC afloat was now up to a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money, although at 32% of all revenues, this was the lowest subsidy required of any city in North America.

FLAT FARE VERSUS FARE BY DISTANCE
In 1921, one of the goals of the City of Toronto in establishing the Toronto Transportation Commission was enabling Toronto residents to travel throughout the city on a single fare, regardless of the length of the trip. Transfers between routes were free. The city was compact enough, and ridership high enough, that the Commission was able to perform this service while making back most of its costs (operating and capital expenses) from the farebox.

But the fact remained that public transit ran most profitably when people used it to take short trips. On routes where there was a good cycling of passengers on and off at each stop, each vehicle ended up carrying far more passengers enroute, and this efficiency covered expenses well. But as Toronto’s suburban growth spilled out beyond the city’s boundaries, commutes began to lengthen. This meant transit vehicles had to travel farther to carry the same number of passengers. There was less cycling of passengers on and off at each stop. Revenues decreased and expenses increased.

As the suburbs around Toronto were not part of the city proper, City Council had no qualms of charging these passengers extra to cover the extra expenses, or even imposing fare zones so that revenues per trip more closely matched the costs per trip, but after 1954, the suburban municipalities around Toronto sat with Toronto on Metro council. Also, the pace of urban sprawl increased. The densities of the suburbs decreased, meaning that public transit could no longer efficiently serve the outer suburbs and make back its costs. At least, not without a fare system that recognized the higher costs of longer commutes.

The zone fare system, while not perfect, at least managed to do this, but it was unpopular with suburban residents and their politicians who felt that all residents within Metropolitan Toronto should be covered under the same fare, regardless of the distance travelled. In the 1960s, debates over TTC fares and service on Metro council were often rancorous. At one point, the boroughs of North York and Etobicoke went to court to overturn Metropolitan Toronto’s subsidy of the TTC, unless Metro Council acceded to their demands for improved service.

When the province of Ontario reorganized Metropolitan Toronto in 1967, it gave the suburban municipalities surrounding Toronto a majority of seats on council, reflecting the increase in their population growth, and the suburban view of public transit as a subsidized public service rather than a utility that paid its own way, won out. On January 1, 1973, the two zone fare system within Metropolitan Toronto was abolished, and the zone fares outside of Metropolitan Toronto’s boundaries were combined into one. The TTC had now become wholly dependent on government operating subsidies to balance the books.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUBURBAN TRANSIT AGENCIES
Earlier this decade, Mississauga Transit asked the TTC to extend the 32 Eglinton West bus into the Airport Corporate Centre northwest of the Eglinton/Renforth intersection, in the City of Mississauga. It asked that only the regular TTC fare be charged, and paid for any operating deficit the extension incurred. It later decided that this was too costly and asked the TTC to charge the Mississauga Transit fare west of Explorer Road, which was done effective January 4, 2004. In exchange for the fare increase, passengers on the route could transfer to connecting Mississauga Transit buses.

THE RIDERSHIP GROWTH STRATEGY, THE GREATER TORONTO TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND THE SMART CARD DEBATE
This has sparked a renewed debate about fare management among the transit systems. Although some suburban politicians, like the late mayor of Vaughan, Lorna Jackson, have suggested that the Greater Toronto Area be covered by a single fare, others have pointed out that the deficits that this would unleash, with travel from Square One to the Scarborough Town Centre costing as little as a trip from the Eaton Centre to the Exhibition, would bankrupt any transit organization and weigh it down with subsidies. It is generally agreed that a fare by distance scheme would have to be applied.

One of the top priorities of the Greater Toronto Transit Authority is to create a smart card fare system that would use electronic cards to tailor the amount paid by passengers to the distance travelled. The Toronto Transit Commission has been reluctant to come on board, however. As it is still catching up on the service cutbacks of the 1990s, it fears that the priorities of the GTTA is towards various schemes to benefit suburban riders, and that insufficient funding will be applied to bring services in the core up to adequate levels. The TTC notes that its capital requirements are so much larger than any of the surrounding agencies, and that changing its decades-old gravity-based fare collection system could be very costly — the equivalent of several buses and streetcars that would already be full of passengers were they operating now.

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/spare/0021.shtml
 

Back
Top