AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
So that's still quite similar to what we have here in Toronto. Steeles Avenue would be our Hudson River in this case.
Well they have an even stronger reason - it's a state boundary.
AoD
So that's still quite similar to what we have here in Toronto. Steeles Avenue would be our Hudson River in this case.
Well they have an even stronger reason - it's a state boundary.
AoD
So that's still quite similar to what we have here in Toronto. Steeles Avenue would be our Hudson River in this case.
Help whose riders? You made it sound as if these schemes are neutral across the board, with no negative impact to existing riders. And let's not pretend the blame only falls onto the TTC - where is the regional leadership when it comes to revenue? I don't see Metrolinx willing to assume that financial risk or implement any revenue tools on their own.
Let's not pretend for one second that farebox is the only challenge facing reverse commuters - or in fact the dominant problem facing commuters in general. I've said it before - you can't even ensure it is the dominant mode within the same transit jurisdiction - let's not get ahead of ourselves and think that zone fares will change that,
If you are going to bring out the term "equity", you better be aware of the socioeconomic status of the ridership of the TTC - particularly those in the outlying suburbs and their predominant mode and destination.
My argument is that you haven't demonstrated the amount of impact - fiscal, ridership, equity - a move to a finer grained zone system will create - with no illusion that we are currently operating a zoned system - just one with boundaries that doesn't necessarily strike one's fancy.
That would hold more water, if one system wasn't run by an agency jointly run by the state New York and the counties in New York where it provides service, and the other run by a agency jointly run by the states of New York and New Jersey. And don't forget the New York-only agency runs commuter trains in New Jersey with no issues.Well they have an even stronger reason - it's a state boundary.
In Toronto, we have a "Toronto Wall", however.
Even when there was a "Berlin Wall", the trains crossed (but didn't stop).
Pretty much. Flat-fare across the city, excepted and your Metrocard transfer good for two hours. The MTA also operates a lot of premium coach services (somewhat equivalent to the 140-series double fare routes) that require an additional fare.
TTC has estimated that two-hour transfers would cost $20 million.New York City (MTA) has a farebox recovery ratio of 51.2%. Toronto (TTC) has 73%. Would the TTC get two-hour transfers if they had the same subsidy as New York City?
TTC has estimated that two-hour transfers would cost $20 million.
73% farebox recovery is something like 1.095 billion of revenue on their roughly $1.5 billion budget. So two-hour transfers would reduce that revenue to 1.075 billion, dropping the farebox recovery from 73% to 71.7%.
Dropping fairbox recovery to MTA rates of 51.% would provide over $300 million to riders. For that, you could significantly reduce TTC fares - by other $1 (with corresponding pass reductions) - making them more in line with MTA fares.
The more you get down to specifics, the more the comparisons with any other agency fall apart. History, population distribution, density, geography - - it all varies. Totally fair to say.
What does not vary is that the systems we "look up to" - MTA, CTA, Paris, TfL- have some things in common:
-electronic fare collection
-subsidies from higher levels of government (and other municipal sources)
-single agency for basically the entire commutershed
-fare integration (of some kind) between various agencies
There's no question we need a "made in the GTA" version of all this. But it's a lot of hubris to say the flat fare and total lack of coordination between various agencies (aside from some limited co-pay agreements) is what's best for us. I don't thiink we should copy NYC or London but we can definitely learn lessons from them they can't learn from us and it's why I say no one else does things the way we do.
There's no question we need a "made in the GTA" version of all this. But it's a lot of hubris to say the flat fare and total lack of coordination between various agencies (aside from some limited co-pay agreements) is what's best for us. I don't thiink we should copy NYC or London but we can definitely learn lessons from them they can't learn from us and it's why I say no one else does things the way we do.
It's hubris to say that flat fare within an agency (or zone that is contiguous to political boundaries) is not what is best for us. The question isn't that - it is how you do with transition between agencies (and zones, if you like), not arbitrarily declare that it is deficient, eliminate it, draw a whole new set of boundaries and then declare fait accompli without knowing what it the implication to overall ridership or funding is.
Like I have said before, and will say again - what is it that you are trying to do, exactly? Redrawning zone boundaries for it's own sake is very different from ameliorating the negative impact of the current zones to certain types of users.
AoD
Maybe if we have Metrolinx swallow up everything in the GTA and just have it divided like Metrolinx North (YRT), West (MW/BT), East (DRT) and Central (TTC),
then we can justify zonal fares more easily.
With all the revenue loss going towards TTC? Won't happen in a million years.Maybe if we have Metrolinx swallow up everything in the GTA and just have it divided like Metrolinx North (YRT), West (MW/BT), East (DRT) and Central (TTC),
then we can justify zonal fares more easily.