20 Comments

1. Shawn, you must have read my mind, or perhaps my postings on Steve Munro’s site or on my own site (such as the comment at http://lrt.daxack.ca/blog/?p=63#comments).

   To make the current system more confusing, it is not symmetrical. Some YRT services operate into Toronto and there is not additional fare to be paid. Of course, there are no transfer privileges with this, and the buses are restricted from picking up southbound and dropping off northbound, but it means that one can travel between Highway 7 and Leslie to Fairview Mall on either TTC’s Don Mills 25(D) for $5.75 or on YRT’s Leslie 90 for $3.

   Wide boundaries and zone supplements are the way to go. Fare-by-distance is a good concept, especially from the point of view of the rider who only needs the TTC for a few stops, but this discourages the people we most need to get out of their cars and take transit. I have two suggestions that compensate the short-distance rider, especially those downtown…

   First, time based fares are needed across the GTA. YRT/VIVA now uses this. Your fare is not payment for a trip from A to Z with now stop-overs. It is a 2-hour transit pass. Get on and off as you wish. If you still have time left, you get your return trip all part of the original fare paid.

   The added bonus to this is that it eliminates many, if not all, disputes about whether you are at the right transfer point. If the expiry time on the transfer is still in the future, your transfer gets you on the vehicle. For the TTC, it eliminates the need to print separate transfers for each and every route.

   The one downside is that it will mean the end of transfer machines in subway stations that you can access any time you are there – transfers must be obtained at time of fare payment only. Fortunately, this will be phased in over a period of time on the TTC. Tests with time-based transfers on St. Clair have been favourable, and Transit City lines will use this. As people become used to it, it will be extended to the whole system, possibly because the public will start demanding it.

   The one other thing I would recommend, is something that some other cities have: a “City Saver” fare. For example, Melbourne has such a fare for its Central Business District. A lower fare is available for short trips. In Melbourne, these fares have no transfer privileges, but I would suggest for the TTC once time-based fares are in place, that such a fare might come with a shorter (60 minute?) expiry time.

   One other thing I would add (if I were in charge!): GO fares would be fully integrated. That means two things: GO fares would still be by distance, but would be set based on other GTA zones AND would be equivalent to the same fare plus supplements as using other systems. This means that, a valid fare between two points on GO’s network get you on the local systems anywhere between those two points.

   Comment by Calvin Henry-Cotnam — September 18, 2008 @ 12:10 pm

2. “If we are to have a seamless GTA-wide transportation system, we need transit that is not planned by municipal boundaries. After all, municipal boundaries only matter to politicians.”

   I can’t agree with this statement more!

   While service quality is a great motivator, hard boundaries remain a psychological barrier to taking transit. I’m certain there is a significant percentage of people who have easy access to VIVA (arguably the highest quality local transit service in the 905) who still resent the fare boundary and drive to Finch station.

   The way I see it, we have four options:

   Better Business As Usual:
   Similar to options 1 above where riders pay less to cross the 416/905 border. It makes it more of an incentive to take YRT to the subway instead of driving to Finch, but it still penalizes those who live on the “wrong” side of the artery.

   Regional Flat Fare:
   One fare gets you unlimited travel anywhere in the GTHA for a set period of time. This will probably produce the greatest financial incentive for riders to take transit, but will likely see lost revenue unless the fare is set much higher than it already is.

   London Model:
   Where trains and subways use a fare-by-distance scheme similar to GO’s, while buses and trams use a regional flat fare system. This charges riders accordingly for the increased capital and operating costs of providing enhanced services, but could result in a two-tiered transit service where some can only afford to take local buses.

   Full fare-by-distance:
   Where riders tap-in, tap-out and have the cost calculated by the distance they travel. It is arguably the most “fair” way to pay for different levels of services used by different riders, but it eliminates the peace-of-mind of knowing my impromptu trip will cost the same as my everyday commute.

   There was quite a bit of discussion on this on Urban Toronto , but this is an issue that is critical to be kept in the spotlight. Great post!

   Comment by Andrae Griffith — September 18, 2008 @ 12:22 pm

3. Thanks. Andrae, I’m one of those people who avoids taking the VIVA in favour of driving — well, usually a lift — either to Finch or, if traffic is really bad, to Steeles to catch the TTC bus. I live about 1.5 km north of Steeles. I know dozens of people who do the same thing.

   It’s more than resentment — it’s basic economics. It makes no sense for us to pay the extra $2.60 or so for those couple of kilometres. So we find other ways. We’re talking a lot of people here.

   What about the DC Taxi model, zones instead of precise distances? (I know, DC switched their taxis over. But the model remains!)

   Comment by Disparishun — September 18, 2008 @ 12:44 pm

4. … and, Calvin, I think the zone system could probably be designed so as to build in something equivalent to the City Saver fare, by making the CBD (or wherever) one big zone.

   Comment by Disparishun — September 18, 2008 @ 12:46 pm

5. I think a better approach would be to have GO bus service replace the 905 services in a comprehensive scheme to both make highly active bus nodes around their GO Train stations and also major arterial routes throughout 905.

   There are some areas where this becomes complicated, like Bramalea, but it is probably one of the best solutions to the transit confusion between operators in the 905.

   GO should also run such services in outer 416 (west of Jane, east of Victoria Park (exception only for Danforth GO access permitted), north of Sheppard), while at the same time allowing the TTC to stretch their routes out farther into 905 without penalty (north to Major Mac, west to Hurontario, east to that hydro corridor by Brock Rd. in Pickering).

   GO and TTC would still have separate fares, but in the overlapping areas would also be in competition with each other, keeping service levels high. This would result in a reworked fare model on GO’s side, and increase both the cost-value for the rider and improve the choice for the rider, because within the overlap zone, many would be able to use either service provider to reach their destination at comparable costs. Branding and service quality become more key to the operator and transit culture than they are today.

   Comment by Karl Junkin — September 18, 2008 @ 1:03 pm

6. I am conflicted on this issus. As a commuter who lives in Toronto, and works in Markham, reducing the cost would be great.
   No agency who operates into Toronto is even looking at this issue. Maybe because it is a good revenue stream for them? Mississauga, YRT, and Brampton Transit could easily accept TTC transfers, but choose not to. Also, I find many cross-border travellers buy a GTA pass anywayss. Maybe an incentive would be to reduce the cost of the pass.

   I am a proponent of a flat fare system. I think a zonal system will discourage suburban commuters, since their transit trips tend to be longer. People talk about penalizing short-distance travelers with a flat fare. Why does no one think about the long-distance travelers? A zonal system has the potential to harm the ones who need transit the most.

   Comment by Justin Bernard — September 18, 2008 @ 2:07 pm

7. Ultimately this can only happen if TTC and the municipal carriers all give up their fare box income and have it sent to a larger regional entity that starts with an M for redistribution.

   Comment by Triceratops — September 18, 2008 @ 8:43 pm

8. Justin, the zone lines have to be drawn somewhere. Do you reckon I should be able to take transit all the way to Niagara with the same fare somebody pays to move 2 km along King Street?

   Comment by Triceratops — September 18, 2008 @ 8:47 pm

9. The zone system and also full fare for every transit authority that you travel on has been around for a long time. Before Metropolitan Toronto came around each outline township had their own bus service. If you stared your ride in Toronto and wanted to go to East York it cost two full fares. Scarborough also had their own bus company.

   When the TTC took over these systems in 1954 the two fare system did not disappear right away. The TTC kept a two zone fare system in effect for a number of years. If you went up north Yonge there were even more zones. It took the politicians to eliminate the seconded zone in Toronto into one zone.

   You can’t blame the TTC or YRT for collecting a full fare each. They would not receive sufficient funds to meet their needs. It would take political will to eliminate the zones. With Presto, the best way would be to charge by distance.

   Comment by Andy — September 19, 2008 @ 6:06 am

10. Triceratops, Sure. Then you can consider Steeles Avenue a zone line, and Oak Ridges a zone line. Transit passes are transferable. Timed transfers are the answer for short trips. It is essentially 2 fares.

    You are assuming that there is going to be one huge transit agency stretching all the way to Niagara Falls. It’s not going to happen. And if there were going to be transit service all the way to Niagara Falls, GO Transit will provide that service, and we know a zonal system is already in place.

    Plus, who is going to take transit everyday from Niagara Falls to Toronto, or Hamilton? Even I would just drive.

    Comment by Justin Bernard — September 19, 2008 @ 6:40 am

11. I too am in favour of the ‘zone’ system. When ever I travel in Europe, particularly London and Paris, I’m absolutely blown away by how seamlessly their transit system works. I don’t think I have ever taken a cab in either one of those cities or rented a car.

    The ‘zone’ system works particularly well in London because commuters are also faced with the congestion charge when they drive into the city. The reduced rate is £8, £10 if you forget to pay it the day you drive into the city, forcing drivers to make a decision whether to use public transportation versuses their personal automobile. Add to that the gas prices in Europe, they are significantly higher in Europe (over £4/gallon, approximately $2.20/litre in the UK)

    I think that the Toronto GTA needs to adopt a similar scheme to London. If we combine a congestion charging scheme with a ‘zoned’ public transit system, individuals may start to more seriously consider what form of transportation they use each day.

    Comment by Sasha — September 19, 2008 @ 7:42 am

12. At last night’s presentation on the Montreal Smart Card, the AMT explained the rationlization of fares among the 14 separate transit systems in their service territory. Today, you can buy individual system fares, or you can buy a regional fare that is based on zones.

    The regional fare revenue is shared among all systems in proportion to usage, and it is valid on all modes including commuter rail. This scheme has lowered the effective cost of a multi-system monthly pass by 15-25% for users with the missing revenue made up from new gas tax and vehicle license revenue. That’s a very important point: amalgamation of the fares of the different systems has been achieved with a new revenue stream.

    This basic need is missing from talk about the Presto card and the successes of this technology in other cities. Somebody has to pay for elimination of the 416/905 fare boundary.

    The other vital point in Montreal’s presentation was the need for good service. I will summarize their presentation on my own site over the weekend.

    Comment by Steve Munro — September 19, 2008 @ 7:54 am

13. Somebody has to pay for elimination of the 416/905 fare boundary.

    That assumes that that elimination of the 416/905 fare boundary would be a net loss, Steve. A zone system could well increase ridership significantly, particularly in the dense areas on the wrong sides of the boundary. Certainly it would go a long way torward recapturing the revenue lost from people like me who find it uneconomic to pay $2.60 to travel a kilometre and a half.

    I think a better approach would be to have GO bus service replace the 905 services in a comprehensive scheme to both make highly active bus nodes around their GO Train stations and also major arterial routes throughout 905.

    But GO’s experience is almost entirely with commuter service, Karl. They are not really set up to do short-haul urban transit, and are therefore not really set up to replace the 905 services.

    If you want to centralize but separate the systems, a better way would be to do it by mode (short-haul, long-haul, etc.) rather than lines on a map.

    Comment by Disparishun — September 19, 2008 @ 1:42 pm

14. GO does have some experience in this department on their local Brampton routes, and their Hwy2 bus.

    GO has been looking at providing its own feeders to its train staitons before, although it seems to have vanished from recent discussions as far as I can make out. Nonetheless, it is a direction GO has shown an interest in going towards previously, and I think they should not only continue with it, but also take it a step further… because they are by far in the best position to be doing so.

    GO believes in smart growth despite their reluctance to stop expanding parking, and this feeder bus service goes hand-in-hand with it. If well-managed, ridership on both GO Trains and on buses in 905 should rise by a good margin.

    I was in Richmond Hill Tuesday evening… I took the GO Train up to Richmond Hill station, from which I could walk to my final destination in 20 minutes. There is no GO service at all back to Toronto from Richmond Hill at 9:30-10pm though. YRT only runs buses every 30 minutes on Bayview. Knowing this, I looked for and was fortunate enough to get a lift back. That’s an example of problems the 905 systems have with making their service attractive, including GO in this instance (if I was on Lakeshore, it wouldn’t be an issue).

    I hadn’t ridden the Richmond Hill Line for a few years, I was impressed to learn that this line is now running 10-car trains… even though Richmond Hill station can only accomodate 8 at the moment. For a line that runs 10-car trains, GO should recognize that bus service should also be increased… in both directions.

    Comment by Karl Junkin — September 19, 2008 @ 2:44 pm

15. They are by far in the best position to be doing so.

    Why?

    GO believes in smart growth despite their reluctance to stop expanding parking, and this feeder bus service goes hand-in-hand with it.

    First, if believing in “smart growth” approaches is to be a criterion, it is very hard to believe that GO enjoys any kind of advantage — especially when you are comparing it to YRT.

    Second, you have largely concentrated on running feeder buses. Running feeder buses is part of a commuter system, not a local urban transit system. Again, I think GO could become a very good commuter system if it spreads frequent, two-way service to the kinds of lines you are talking about (here, Richmond Hill).

    But as long as local links to long-haul stations are thought of in terms of feeder buses, they will never be very frequent — especially at 9:30 or 10 at night! — because there simply isn’t much commuting at that time, which is the bulk of long-haul trips.

    Rather, what is needed is municipal planning and transit service that go hand in hand to create environments in which long-haul stations are development zones within a larger mesh of origins and destinations. That is well underway in northern Toronto/southern York Region, basically the area between, say, Finch subway and Langstaff GO station.

    I believe it will spread northward up to Major Mac, where you are talking about, and beyond. But not if we continue to hold up long-haul point-to-point commutes as the goal for transit. That’s not the goal in urban areas, and it should not be the goal in urbanizing areas. We need to do better.

    Comment by Disparishun — September 19, 2008 @ 3:18 pm

16. The TTC came up with a makeshift solution in the GTA Pass. It offers a little bit of convenience (no multiple fares to deal with), but not much cost savings to the transit rider. The $47/week price works out to $201.42/month based on a 30-day month. A TTC Metropass is $109 ($100 if you get a year subscription) and a YRT monthly pass is $95. You’re almost better off to buy the 2 monthly passes instead of the GTA Pass every week. And why is the GTA Pass ONLY available by the week? Perhaps to make the high price a bit easier to swallow?

    Comment by Shawn Smith — September 19, 2008 @ 11:10 pm

17. Additional riding has additional costs unless you are lucky enough to have surplus capacity on the routes where new cross-boundary trips will be taken. The tradeoff will always be between a relatively small discount on a two-zone trip assuming most of them will be commuters to downtown, and a large discount for short trips near the boundary line.

    Others here have discussed the need for a soft zone boundary. This could be implemented either with some sort of fare-by-distance (complex), or a more finely-grained zone structure (ie the “overlap” is a zone in its own right). However, fine-grained zones make fare evasion simpler because someone riding only a short distance into the “next” zone has a good chance of not being challenged unless there is a full “tap in, tap out” system.

    Every scheme has its ups and downs, but it would be dangerous to assume that new riders attracted by fares will make up for the discount given to existing ones. Service attracts riders, not fare cuts, and service costs money.

    Comment by Steve Munro — September 20, 2008 @ 9:27 am

18. I don’t quite follow what you’re saying, Steve, but it sounds like the basic gist is that, should fare integration attract the many potential riders who currently live near zone boundaries and don’t take transit on account of the double fare, that will cost money — since everyone who gets out of their car and onto public transit is another cost for public transit.

    Sure. Riders cost money. But if Presto boosts ridership which, in turn, means we need more funding for transit, surely that’s a good thing?

    Comment by Disparishun — September 22, 2008 @ 7:55 pm

19. «someone riding only a short distance into the “next” zone has a good chance of not being challenged»

    That`s fine with me. If it`s that short of a distance out of the zone, then the damage is minimal even if it is technically fare evasion.

    Comment by Triceratops — September 22, 2008 @ 8:22 pm

20. In the US, transit ridership is booming, and yet agencies are contemplating service cuts, and fare increases, because of funding shortfalls.

    Do not assume with increased ridership, there will be increased funding.

    Comment by Justin Bernard — September 23, 2008 @ 8:04 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.