Leo_Chan
Senior Member
What is more controversial? What to build or what to charge? I would say what the fares are because to most people, it's more about money than how fast to get somewhere. Of course NIMBYs would say otherwise.
Now we got some voting going on Voltz checks the Option 1 box....Toareafan checks the status quo box!Yes, also there should be a GO TTC co-fare
Schemes from Metrolinx to institute zone fares on Subways and LRT lines were really just a scheme to hike fares on TTC riders using "premium" lines to subsidise cross border trips.
It's the same problem. Transit systems designed in the 50s/60s that have long since outgrown their structures, fare and otherwise.
You're totally right that every system has trade-offs and we've hit the limits of the one we have in place. We can certainly debate the nuances of the various options - and I've said a 905/416 subsidy may be the most palatable if not most sensible solution - but I think you have start by realizing the problem in the first place. Travel and growth patterns are entirely different from when those systems were designed. RER and Presto provide tools to think about all of it differently.
Okay: 1. resolution through cross boundary subsidy; 2. lower GO fare. Neither involves rehashing the whole system by necessity. I mean, you really, really want to compare these issues to a system handling 500M+ riders and the transit benefit THAT level of usage offered? It's like someone crying unfair and therefore we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
To sim up, here are two realities:
-No major metropolitan area does things the way we do. Whether it's zones or co-fares or different charges for different modes we are an aberration among "world class cities" (This, coincidentally, is equally true of how we fund transit.)
-You know how Canadians feel all superior looking down at America because we watch their media but also have a useful outsider's perspective and feel they're too far up their own asses to get how they really look? As someone who grew up in North York but now lives in York Region, I feel this exact dynamic applies equally to Torontonians who never leave the 416 have no clue how things look to everyone else. Live 500m outside Toronto and you'll find out quickly how absurd the transit system is.
You talk about "existing users" with no real evidence of who they are. Are there more people paying unfair double fares or people riding the length of Line 2?
I suspect the former but I don't know for certain and don't claim to. The assertion reads to me more as "you have to be fair to Toronto first." Obviously funding issues have to be resolved but here's a crazy idea: Look at riders - from everywhere first - and design a system the benefits them, as broadly as possible. Worry about being fair to all the consittuent agencies and governments secondarily. I care more about some rider who hypothetically needs that flat fare to get from Scarborough to Etobicoke than I do what it means to the TTC if something changes. Your 2 suggestions aren't aimed at riders so much as agencies, IMHO.
But this is, you know, how the private sector works - trying to meet the needs of customers first. It's not what we have now because there's no incentive to care about people outside your fiefdom, whereas the Gap cashier at Yorkdale could care less whether there's a store closer to you you "should" be using.
Is New York not set up the same way we are? Flat rate across all boroughs, premium fare for express buses, fare by distance for commuter trains, and separate fare for separate systems outside the city (though they appear to honour each other's transfers, including NYCT buses).No major metropolitan area does things the way we do. Whether it's zones or co-fares or different charges for different modes we are an aberration among "world class cities" (This, coincidentally, is equally true of how we fund transit.)
Live 500m outside Toronto and you'll find out quickly how absurd the transit system is.
Respectfully, you probably should care. Its in your own interest to care. Two fares is absurd, and three is ridiculous.Funny, considering I live in Mississauga, pay two fares on my inbound and three fares on my outbound. I don't find any of it "absurd" whatsoever. On the other hand, it would seem York Region in particular has a certain sense of entitlement when it comes to transit while couldn't even manage to break 15% transit modal split.
Unless huge subsidies are in place, subways and RER will most likely be more expensive than bus or streetcar if going to the same place.Fares by distance is the best. It get's rid of these imaginary boundaries and encourages people to use transit for shorter trips. It would only work however if it includes ALL transit modes including RER. Going from A to B should cost the same no matter how you choose to get there.
Is New York not set up the same way we are? Flat rate across all boroughs, premium fare for express buses, fare by distance for commuter trains, and separate fare for separate systems outside the city (though they appear to honour each other's transfers, including NYCT buses).
Funny, considering I live in Mississauga, pay two fares on my inbound and three fares on my outbound. I don't find any of it "absurd" whatsoever. On the other hand, it would seem York Region in particular has a certain sense of entitlement when it comes to transit while couldn't even manage to break 15% transit modal split.
The evidence speaks for itself - the system may not be perfect, but the modal share for the City of Toronto is superior to most cities in America - and most certainly York Region.
I mean, if you really want to talk about other metropolitan areas - quite a few of them also has a metropolitan level of government, a single transit authority, regional funding mechanisms (including taxation) whatnot (never mind other differences such as urban density, etc) - are you suggesting that York Region want to go down that route? ... I mean, if you really want to look into other "world class examples" - just how many actually have each local suburban municipality running their own system?
Nice try turning this into a riders vs. systems debate - it isn't - it is creating winners and losers among existing riders when you break down an existing fare system.
Actually, the private sector works by holding onto existing customers first and making sure their needs are served before moving into new market. Those who failed to do so tend to fail as a business.
Respectfully, you probably should care. Its in your own interest to care. Two fares is absurd, and three is ridiculous.