GTHA Transit Fare Integration

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Why stop there? Amalgamate all the transit agencies in the GTHA under Metrolinx regardless of municipality.

If that's what the provincial government wanted to happen, they would have done it a long time ago. Just why would they want to pick up a portfolio that is a money (operating and capital) sink - all the risk and no reward. Guess who will be the flogging post for local transit deficiencies (and there's a lot of it) for an amalgamated regional system under provincial purview?

Fare integration isn't the elephant in the room - it's not the limiter of transit usage - insufficiency of service is.

AoD

 

[W. K. Lis]

Why stop there? Amalgamate all the transit agencies in the GTHA under Metrolinx regardless of municipality.

And have the province subsidize the operating budgets of ALL transit agencies in Ontario. As it used to be, even with the PC's, the Liberals, and NDP's governments (until Mike Harris started underfunding everyone, and continuing even today).

 

[TOareaFan]

Why stop there? Amalgamate all the transit agencies in the GTHA under Metrolinx regardless of municipality.

Because local transit decisions should be made locally and regional ones should be made by the regional authority.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Quite sincerely, sometimes irony and sarcasm are lost in translation on the Internet and I think there's some of that going on but...

That's who fare integration would mostly benefit: Toronto's outer neighbourhoods full of criminals like Rexdale, Jane-Finch, Malvern... if the City of Toronto doesn't care about these people to reduce their isolation and give them more different opportunities, then I don't see why the 905 should care either. Fare integration is 100% a Toronto problem, as far as I'm concerned.

It's a rider problem and Toronto carries most of the riders. As long as you have a metro area where the biggest abstainer from integration is the main agency, you have a big problem. (also a relevant fact: more people live in the 905 than the 416. 416 carries way more transit riders but you can't disconnect population growth from transportation planning.)

Rest of the 905 is already integrated with each other and with GO. And while TTC doesn't provide any service outside of Toronto's borders, the 905 systems and GO already provide a lot of service within Toronto. So from a 905 perspective, fare integration with TTC is not necessary and no one should not be pushing for it especially if the TTC is not.

No TTC service outside Toronto? Except the subway opening next year, the one that's planned for the near future and the many TTC-contracted routes, some going as far north as Major Mac?
Also, GO going to RER is a fundamental chagne that alters this dynamic and requires rethinking x-border travel.

The 905 systems already stretch their budgets to provide connections into Toronto, and not only does the City fo Toronto not reciprocate, it bans the 905 systems from picking up passengers within its borders. As a result of Toronto's hostility, cost recovery ratios of the 905 systems are below 50% while TTC is 70%. So it's obvious that if there is a cost to fare integration that the TTC should bear that cost 100%.

That's partly true. I think TTC intransigence is a huge problem but asking them to bear the costs merely ensures it will never happen. Toronto's hostility is not the reason for the fare recovery ratios. They're so high in the 905 because of decades of bad, autocentric planning and they're so low in Toronto because they lost provincial funding and don't have the political balls to fund their system properly (see: Tory, John - 2.6% cut).

What's changed is huge urbanization in the suburbs and people who are actively discouraged from taking transit by the fare system. It's hard enough for 905 munis to do chicken-egg planning and get people onto buses but it's even harder when they know all their customers are doing what they can to avoid a double fare (e.g. if YRT loses riders who walk or drive to Toronto).

IMHO, Metrolinx should be a proper regional transit authority; the independent agencies can exist under that umbrella but some degree of provincial subsidy is required to balance things out and create a system that works for riders. Right now everyone seems more concerned with how it affects the various agencies but the whole point is to make things easier for people who actually ride the system and increasingly use multiple agencies.

 

[muller877]

If there is fare integration, it's the TTC who should be paying for it 100%, not the 905. The 905 should not pay a single penny to Toronto. The 905 systems already stretch their budgets to provide connections into Toronto, and not only does the City fo Toronto not reciprocate, it bans the 905 systems from picking up passengers within its borders. As a result of Toronto's hostility, cost recovery ratios of the 905 systems are below 50% while TTC is 70%. So it's obvious that if there is a cost to fare integration that the TTC should bear that cost 100%.

The real problem is the false sense that Toronto funds 70%+ of their transit and the 95 only fund 50%. Simply not true.

Think of it like renting or owning a condo. In round numbers if you are renting you are paying $2000. The owner then pays $1000 in operating expenses and earns $1000 to cover their initial purchase of the condo. If your parents decided to buy the condo for you your cost magically shrinks in 1/2 to $1000. Your parents money is after all free!

Same thing happens for subways and streetcars. They are a huge upfront cost (i.e. the condo) which the TTC's parents (fed's/province/city) has given to them for free. So of course their operating costs are a lot lower since you only need 2 operators and electricity to move 1,000 people (versus 20 buses, 20 drivers, gas, etc).

Similar to this if you compare TTC to other cities around the world the recovery ratio's are not the same because most cities will include the capital costs (or leases) and interest expense in the recovery ratio. The TTC plays an accounting game...pushing paper vs moving people.

After you include all this "free" money (which comes from our pockets as taxpayers) I am guessing that the TTC has a worse recovery ratio than some other cities in the 905. But the TTC should be way better due to subway, density, etc. Would love to have someone do the math and have a fully costed recovery ratio.

 

[aquateam]

The real problem is the false sense that Toronto funds 70%+ of their transit and the 95 only fund 50%. Simply not true.

Think of it like renting or owning a condo. In round numbers if you are renting you are paying $2000. The owner then pays $1000 in operating expenses and earns $1000 to cover their initial purchase of the condo. If your parents decided to buy the condo for you your cost magically shrinks in 1/2 to $1000. Your parents money is after all free!

Same thing happens for subways and streetcars. They are a huge upfront cost (i.e. the condo) which the TTC's parents (fed's/province/city) has given to them for free. So of course their operating costs are a lot lower since you only need 2 operators and electricity to move 1,000 people (versus 20 buses, 20 drivers, gas, etc).

Similar to this if you compare TTC to other cities around the world the recovery ratio's are not the same because most cities will include the capital costs (or leases) and interest expense in the recovery ratio. The TTC plays an accounting game...pushing paper vs moving people.

After you include all this "free" money (which comes from our pockets as taxpayers) I am guessing that the TTC has a worse recovery ratio than some other cities in the 905. But the TTC should be way better due to subway, density, etc. Would love to have someone do the math and have a fully costed recovery ratio.

A few things to mention:

1) The original Yonge line was constructed entirely from farebox revenue. The University line and original Bloor-Danforth line was constructed entirely with city money. The province gave a loan of $60 million to speed up construction but the TTC was hardly the beneficiary of largesse from Daddy province and Ottawa.
2) I don't think any transit agencies include the cost of large capital construction in calculating their farebox recovery ratios, since it's meant to be a ratio of operating costs, not capital costs.
3) The Yonge subway and Bloor-Danforth lines have significant operational costs that come with maintaining 62/50 year old infrastructure, as we see with the weekly subway closures and resignalling projects.

That being said there's a lot of truth in what you've said:

-The TTC does include things in the "State of Good Repair" funding file that should really be under their operational expenditures to artificially improve their statistics, but that's partially because the Province has stopped giving operational funding. It would be nice to compare apples to apples the TTC to MTA, STM, etc.
-The 905's lower farebox recovery ratio is a result of low density urban form lowering the productivity of buses, not underinvestment in transit. Transit is less efficient there and you don't get the same economies of scale.

The TTC has statistics on individual bus lines that you could compare to the 905 in order to compare cost recovery ratio, but buse lines don't exist by themselves, they are part of a system, so any comparison would have to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

A few things to mention:
-The 905's lower farebox recovery ratio is a result of low density urban form lowering the productivity of buses, not underinvestment in transit. Transit is less efficient there and you don't get the same economies of scale.

The TTC has statistics on individual bus lines that you could compare to the 905 in order to compare cost recovery ratio, but buse lines don't exist by themselves, they are part of a system, so any comparison would have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Also, if not for the presence of mass transit to the 416 (subways, GO), your 905 farebox recovery ratio might be even lower yet given the highly used rush hour only express services.

AoD

 

[Adjei]

So after three years they still have not decided on how fare integration will be done, no wonder nothing gets done in this region:

• GTHA Fare Integration o Analysis for the business case and evaluation of alternative GTHA Fare Structures is continuing. Work has progressed on analysis for alternative concepts and these will be the basis for engaging with municipalities, transit agencies, stakeholders and the public in 2017.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20161208/20161208_BoardMtg_PP_Report_EN.pdf

 

[amnesiajune]

(Going back a bit)

Also, if not for the presence of mass transit to the 416 (subways, GO), your 905 farebox recovery ratio might be even lower yet given the highly used rush hour only express services.

Overall, cost recovery in the 905 transit systems isn't that bad. It's really just a handful of passengers on essential services who take up the vast majority of service. A couple of YRT routes cost more than $100/passenger because outside of rush hour, it's literally cheaper to send a taxi (one that pays it's employees the great wages of a bus driver) to a bus stop than to operate a fixed service.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

So after three years they still have not decided on how fare integration will be done, no wonder nothing gets done in this region:

• GTHA Fare Integration o Analysis for the business case and evaluation of alternative GTHA Fare Structures is continuing. Work has progressed on analysis for alternative concepts and these will be the basis for engaging with municipalities, transit agencies, stakeholders and the public in 2017.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20161208/20161208_BoardMtg_PP_Report_EN.pdf

The main reason is the biggest player in the room the TTC dosn't want to intigrate it's fare with the other sytems. In away it makes sense that the money spent by the customer should go to the agency they use. For example if I want to go downtown from where I live I can use the TTC or take the go train. The go train cost almost double TTC fare to use because it's a different service, would I use it more if I could pay the same as TTC fare maybe.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The main reason is the biggest player in the room the TTC dosn't want to intigrate it's fare with the other sytems. In away it makes sense that the money spent by the customer should go to the agency they use. For example if I want to go downtown from where I live I can use the TTC or take the go train. The go train cost almost double TTC fare to use because it's a different service, would I use it more if I could pay the same as TTC fare maybe.

But it shouldn't be that simple, which is the problem.
Your example ignores the person who takes TTC (or, heaven forbid, a 905 agency) to the GO or otherwise transfers between systems. Who gets the money then?

To use the obvious example, if a YRT bus goes by my house and I avoid taking it to TTC, choosing to drive instead, then TTC gets the money instead of YRT, simply because of how the fare is structured. They've effectively stolen my fare (and ridership count). GO fares will definitely change relative to TTC fares once RER comes online, though no doubt GO service will remain higher as it's a "premium" service.

Anyway, TTC doesn't treat riders like "customers." If it did (to use the same cross-border example) it would allow its riders to board empty YRT buses at Steeles, instead of making them wait for packed TTC buses. But, as you point out, TTC wants that money; ensuring efficient movement of riders from Point A to B is a secondary concern.
It's a systemic issue.

And, as I've said before, we have to stop pretending we're reinventing the wheel here. Pretty much every "world-class city" you can name (London, New York, Paris, Chicago etc.) has a regional authority, usually with local agencies operating within it. And they've had them for decades. They do zones or charge different fares for different modes and otherwise do many things from which we could borrow best practices.

It's time to realize, as much as Toronto loves its flat flare (and it's toll-free highways, for that matter), that there are better systems out there and that the money needs to flow from serving riders first.

As for this fare-integration strategy, it's starting to remind me of the Investment Strategy which took 4 years to get from draft to final form, only to go straight to the shelf due to political cowardice. 2018 is a provincial election year so fingers crossed they'll have the stones to force the issue before there's a change at the top. With the Spadina line and RER coming online over the next few years, a proper solution is required sooner rather than later.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's time to realize, as much as Toronto loves its flat flare (and it's toll-free highways, for that matter), that there are better systems out there and that the money needs to flow from serving riders first.

Serving whose riders? A system with 400 Million plus boarding vs. the smitten of cross-border commuters in jurisdictions that can barely get even a minority of mode-share? Let's not pretend the latter constitute the most important component of customers on an impact basis.

And if you want to emulate other regions, have a regional body that collect taxes regionally (yes, regionally) and subsidize the operating cost of transit accordingly. Empty talk about what other regions does without considering that is pointless. If you want Metrolinx to step in and do the flat-fare thing, perhaps they should pony up some dough. Did they?

AoD

 

[Adjei]

Initially when this initiative was started they said they would have things up and running by 2015. We are now almost into 2017 and they are still studying it. What a joke.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Initially when this initiative was started they said they would have things up and running by 2015. We are now almost into 2017 and they are still studying it. What a joke.

Of course they are - the proponent doesn't want to take leadership and fill any funding gaps changes to the system will create - and no system will want to eat that up for the provinces' agenda and translate that into an increased fare/property tax increase/service cut. And did Metrolinx step in a say - we are going to turn RER into a truly regional alternative by harmonizing fares to existing zones (aka municipal boundaries)? Nope, because they have their own priorities (aka high income, ex-urbanesque, high political impact customers) to deal with. Did they say - we will cover the fares of cross-border riders in the interest of regional integration so that riders won't need to pay double fare? Nope.

Besides that point - and let's cut to the chase here - beyond the instances where someone is travelling a short distance across the boundary, why should *anyone* have the expectation that they can go all the way from I don't know, the edge of Mississauga or whatever to downtown Toronto on a single flat fare?

AoD

 

[amnesiajune]

If you want Metrolinx to step in and do the flat-fare thing, perhaps they should pony up some dough.

Fare integration doesn't necessarily cost a lot more money. A $3.00 fare collects the same amount of money regardless of whether it's set by the TTC or Metrolinx. The only thing that would end up costing the TTC a bit more money is the small number of people who transfer from other systems, but some of that would also be recouped from people (me, for example) who would take public transit more often if they didn't have to pay twice as much because they live on one side of an arbitrary line and work on the other side. You'd also get more transit usage from people who live or work (especially those who work) within a short bus ride of Toronto's GO stations, but not quite within walking distance.

I think the real holdup in all this is just negotiating the division of fares between transit agencies. For example, if someone takes both the TTC and YRT, they should be splitting the fare 50/50, but obviously both transit agencies are going to kick and scream for a bigger slice of the pie. It might take a provincial government that's willing to impose fare integration instead of negotiating it, which is completely within the provincial government's power but will burn up some political capital.