GTHA Transit Fare Integration

[kEiThZ]

What about service based tiers?

1) Get on the bus and tap on or pay for base fare. $2. Station walk-ins pay base fare too.
2) $1 top up when accessing the subway network.
3) $2 top up when accessing the GO network. Or $1 on top of the subway top up when transferring from subway to GO. Or $2 flat if you transfer from TTC bus to GO.
4) $1 top up on top of GO or subway top ups for any regional bus service.

Hypothetical trip: Mid-town Toronto to Mississauga

1) Pay $2 to get on a TTC bus.
2) Pay $1 subway top-up at TTC Station.
3) Pay $1 GO top-up at Union
4) Pay $1 regional bus network top-up at MiWay transfer.

Total fare was $5.

Revenue sharing: Agency which first boards gets the base fare. Agency you transfer on to, gets your top-up.

 

[ssiguy2]

Great map and I totally agree with a zone based system as it works very well in Vancouver.

I think your zones however maybe a bit complicated and require a rebooting of many routes in the suburbs confusing and a logistical nightmare. I think the easiest, both in terms of operations and public usability, would be to have zones based strickly on regional/county boundaries. So essentially 5 zones in the GTA....Toronto, York, Peel, Halton, and Durham. They could have a couple small exceptions such as the extreme north of York that goes all the way to Lake Simcoe. York Transit has a lot of issues especially the outrageous prices but the idea is a good one where living in the municipality means basically one fare with ease of getting from one city in the region to the other without having to worry about crossing a municipal boundary. From a regional planning end it would also be easier to administer.

I think the best way to go forward would have a base far for each region but that fare would include all services offered in the region.........streetcar, LRT, subway, bus, and GO trains and buses.It would be easy to implement and understand and make GO train service far more effective for inner region travel and make it part of the base transit system as opposed to it's current configuration of being a 905 to Union express.

 

[rbt]

What about service based tiers?

1) Get on the bus and tap on or pay for base fare. $2. Station walk-ins pay base fare too.
2) $1 top up when accessing the subway network.
3) $2 top up when accessing the GO network. Or $1 on top of the subway top up when transferring from subway to GO. Or $2 flat if you transfer from TTC bus to GO.
4) $1 top up on top of GO or subway top ups for any regional bus service.

The challenge here is the faregates between buses and subways. At a station like Finch, you would need to widen the corridor or else there would be huge backlogs of people trying to transfer. Other stations like Spadina may be even more challenging.

If you swipe while boarding the vehicle (no faregates between bus/subway areas) then you have the New York problem. It can take 15 minutes to load up a Q33 bus with tourists at Jackson Heights station because each passenger needs to swipe.

Even the 192 can comfortably load in 90 seconds.

POP helps but fare checks during peak periods tend to be impossible on a moving bus.

 

[gweed123]

What about service based tiers?

1) Get on the bus and tap on or pay for base fare. $2. Station walk-ins pay base fare too.
2) $1 top up when accessing the subway network.
3) $2 top up when accessing the GO network. Or $1 on top of the subway top up when transferring from subway to GO. Or $2 flat if you transfer from TTC bus to GO.
4) $1 top up on top of GO or subway top ups for any regional bus service.

Hypothetical trip: Mid-town Toronto to Mississauga

1) Pay $2 to get on a TTC bus.
2) Pay $1 subway top-up at TTC Station.
3) Pay $1 GO top-up at Union
4) Pay $1 regional bus network top-up at MiWay transfer.

Total fare was $5.

Revenue sharing: Agency which first boards gets the base fare. Agency you transfer on to, gets your top-up.

Interesting idea. However, how would that work for longer trips on GO? For example, from Burlington to Toronto? Would GO still not require a zone fare system?

Great map and I totally agree with a zone based system as it works very well in Vancouver.

I think your zones however maybe a bit complicated and require a rebooting of many routes in the suburbs confusing and a logistical nightmare. I think the easiest, both in terms of operations and public usability, would be to have zones based strickly on regional/county boundaries. So essentially 5 zones in the GTA....Toronto, York, Peel, Halton, and Durham. They could have a couple small exceptions such as the extreme north of York that goes all the way to Lake Simcoe. York Transit has a lot of issues especially the outrageous prices but the idea is a good one where living in the municipality means basically one fare with ease of getting from one city in the region to the other without having to worry about crossing a municipal boundary. From a regional planning end it would also be easier to administer.

I think the best way to go forward would have a base far for each region but that fare would include all services offered in the region.........streetcar, LRT, subway, bus, and GO trains and buses.It would be easy to implement and understand and make GO train service far more effective for inner region travel and make it part of the base transit system as opposed to it's current configuration of being a 905 to Union express.

The thing with putting all of a region in a single fare zone though is that you would need a pretty sizeable fare jump between regions in order to have reasonable fares for a certain distance travelled. Right now, GO incrementally increases its rates the further you get away from Union. If, under your system, leaving from Clarkson (in Peel) costs significantly less than leaving from Oakville (in Halton) you're going to see a lot of people driving to Clarkson. Right now the cost difference between the two stations is around $1 believe, which isn't worth the extra drive if someone lives closer to Oakville than Clarkson. Change that to $2 or $3, and that cost-benefit would certainly change for a lot of people.

Larger fare zones are certainly simpler, but they require a larger fare jump between zones, and the increase the likelihood of people making the calculation that it's cheaper to board at the 1st stop on the other side of the fare zone, because of the big difference in cost.

 

[kEiThZ]

Interesting idea. However, how would that work for longer trips on GO? For example, from Burlington to Toronto? Would GO still not require a zone fare system?

GO is treated as a fare zone and gets its own top up under my model. So you pay the base fare ($2) and you pay the top-up ($2). That top-up can stay flat for inside Toronto. Or it can use the current fare-by-distance model for inter-regional trips.

So let's take your example and add some bus routes. Let's say I want to go from Burlington to Avenue and Eglinton.

1) Bus to GO station. Base fare. $2
2) GO Fare to Union with a discount of the Base Fare deducted. Minimum top-up is $2. Let's assume it costs $5 to go to Union, this would make the top-up $3.
3) TTC Subway Surcharge. $1
4) TTC Bus surcharge (since you paid your base fare somewhere else). $1.

Total fare: $7

In essence, you pay a base fare and get one transfer for free. After that, each transfer effectively costs you $1. Now GO can charge a $2 transfer since its a faster service. And/or you can make the transfer pricing based on the intended travel distance. Viva could apply the $2 transfer also, since it's an express service of sorts.

Let's take a more typical 905er commute. Richmond Hill to Financial district via Finch Station using Viva and TTC:

1) Viva bus. Base fare + $2 Viva surcharge. $4
2) TTC Subway surcharge. $1.

Total fare: $5

This system is very easy to understand:

1) Base fare is $2 and provides you travel on local bus service.
2) Express services such as VIVA and GO will charge you a surcharge.
3) Every system transfer results in a surcharge.
4) TTC Bus/Streetcar/LRT are separate from the TTC subway network

I get that the system isn't perfect. Or that it doesn't fully account for fare-by-distance (though it can be done by pricing transfer differently), but this is a system that is very easy to understand for the public and easy to implement. It achieves a reasonable solution to the thorny problem of revenue sharing, since whoever collects base fare gets it and the system you transfer to gets your transfer surcharge. This means that a 905 commuter will pay a base fare to his local bus service in the morning and a base fare to the TTC or GO in the evening. The system also encourages transit agencies to promote densification at stations, since walk-ins get them the base fare. GO will have a ton of incentive to build offices over all its parking lots.

The system will get people thinking completely differently about transit. For example. If you have the time, you could cross the 416 for $2. Alternatively, if you don't have the time, the removal of the double fare penalty will now encourage some 416 commuters to consider GO for part of their journey.

 

[gweed123]

@ Keithz: Very interesting model, makes a lot of sense too. However, there isn't much of a distinction between someone who takes the subway from Bloor-Yonge to Union as someone who takes the subway from STC to Union, though. Like today, the only time you're dinged for extra distance is when you happen to change systems.

@ dunkalunk: I initially had something very similar. The problem I ran into when trying to rationalize it though was that the suburban zones were quite a bit larger than the urban zones. This may lead to a lot of downtowners being upset that the distance they can travel within a zone, or even 2 zones, is quite a bit smaller than what a suburbanite can do for the same fare. It definitely is a balancing act though, and a lot of your boundaries do make a lot of sense.

Also, I think having varying base fares between the 3 transit types, specifically the local transit and local rapid transit, will result in a further overload of people using surface routes.

Your model is perfectly valid though, I just have the personal opinion that as long as you're staying within one zone, it shouldn't matter what type of transit you take to get to where you want to go. It's only when you start making longer, multiple-zone trips that you should start paying a premium for using a more 'express' mode of transit.


As a side note, one of the things I tried to do with my map was place fare zone boundaries along rapid transit routes (ex: Hurontario, Yonge north of Eglinton, etc). Why? Because then that RT route can be in 2 fare zones simultaneously. I tried to incorporate the idea that no one travelling on local transit should have to cross a fare zone boundary to access a rapid transit line. Obviously there are some trip patterns where that won't happen, but by and large that's the mentality with which I tried to approach drawing the boundaries.

 

[M II A II R II K]

A Presto card that can calculate customized fares depending on what trip you take where it's a difference of a few cents from one bus stop to the next.

 

[gweed123]

A Presto card that can calculate customized fares depending on what trip you take where it's a difference of a few cents from one bus stop to the next.

That involves a mandatory tap off though in order to calculate the fare. I suppose though you could use the refund model, where the rider at the beginning is charged a maximum amount, and then when they tap off the difference is credited back to them. People would be much more inclined to tap again if it means getting money back as opposed to paying more.

 

[dunkalunk]

@ dunkalunk: I initially had something very similar. The problem I ran into when trying to rationalize it though was that the suburban zones were quite a bit larger than the urban zones. This may lead to a lot of downtowners being upset that the distance they can travel within a zone, or even 2 zones, is quite a bit smaller than what a suburbanite can do for the same fare. It definitely is a balancing act though, and a lot of your boundaries do make a lot of sense.

The urban vs. suburban thing will always be an issue. In many cases, the road structure of your typical suburb does not support transit all that well. It is far cheaper to serve a dense urban area with utilities, amenities, and infrastructure than it is to provide utilities, amenities, and infrastructure to your typical, low density suburb. Because of the deficiencies in the road network, many people who live in these areas have no choice but to own a car. Perhaps this will change over time, but until then, sprawl will need to be subsidized by the urban. I'd just rather subsidize transit than the road budget.

Also, I think having varying base fares between the 3 transit types, specifically the local transit and local rapid transit, will result in a further overload of people using surface routes.

I'm frankly okay with flooding surface routes. The increased demand would eventually lead to improved frequency on those routes. This may sound a bit classist, but people have a choice between getting somewhere cheap and getting somewhere fast. Time vs Money. TTC currently charges $3.00 cash fare, Mississauga $3.25, Brampton $3.50, York Region $3.75. $3.50 as a base fare for rapid transit and express routes seems completely reasonable to me. You're paying for a higher quality of service.

In addition, we should not be bogging down rapid transit routes with local traffic for distances where it is often more reasonable to take a surface route or walk than it would be to go underground.

As a side note, one of the things I tried to do with my map was place fare zone boundaries along rapid transit routes (ex: Hurontario, Yonge north of Eglinton, etc). Why? Because then that RT route can be in 2 fare zones simultaneously. I tried to incorporate the idea that no one travelling on local transit should have to cross a fare zone boundary to access a rapid transit line. Obviously there are some trip patterns where that won't happen, but by and large that's the mentality with which I tried to approach drawing the boundaries.

By making the second zone free, you can largely resolve the issue of people boarding close to fare zone boundaries. Past that, distance really needs to be charged for.

 

[gweed123]

I'm frankly okay with flooding surface routes. The increased demand would eventually lead to improved frequency on those routes. This may sound a bit classist, but people have a choice between getting somewhere cheap and getting somewhere fast. Time vs Money. TTC currently charges $3.00 cash fare, Mississauga $3.25, Brampton $3.50, York Region $3.75. $3.50 as a base fare for rapid transit and express routes seems completely reasonable to me. You're paying for a higher quality of service.

In addition, we should not be bogging down rapid transit routes with local traffic for distances where it is often more reasonable to take a surface route or walk than it would be to go underground.

All good points.

By making the second zone free, you can largely resolve the issue of people boarding close to fare zone boundaries. Past that, distance really needs to be charged for.

Very interesting, and certainly makes a lot of sense. I'm going to play around with the concept of "2 zones for free" too to see what I can come up with. That would certainly allow for smaller zones, which would decrease the per zone top-up fee.

 

[dunkalunk]

While the discussion of GTHA fare integration has been raised, I don't think the province is ready to tackle the challenge of local route planning for the entire service area.

However, I do believe there is still room for savings through efficiency if operations of some of the area's transit agencies were combined. There are far too many routes that just simply turn around at the city limit leaving the area between them noticeably under-served and creating routes which have no destination apart from the suburb they happen to be winding through. Here's an example of what amalgamated transit agencies could look like:

I've done my best to have the boundaries between the various transit agencies reflect physical barriers to travel (Rouge River, 427/Credit River, Bronte Creek). In doing so, it reduces the number of cross-border routes that are required, but does create an additional complication where transit agency borders no longer follow municipal or regional borders (Etobicoke west of the 427 no longer part of TTC service area, Burlington west of Bronte Creek no longer part of Halton-Peel service area). A lot of the urban boundaries (such as Steeles Ave, Burloak Road) are relatively arbitrary related to actual travel patterns given that suburbs have grown over them to make the boundary indistinguishable.

There would be a few quick wins to amalgamating some agencies such as putting all transit in the Niagara Region under one authority, or the combination of all transit service in Peel. What I do wonder though is apart from cost savings through more efficient operation, if it would be worth the institutional hassle of drafting transfer agreements between municipalities for agencies which do not strictly follow municipal boundaries or cross regional ones. I can see this kind of negotiation over responsibility and funding from keeping agencies from considering merger without the guidance (or iron fist) of the Province and/or Metrolinx.

 

[gweed123]

While the discussion of GTHA fare integration has been raised, I don't think the province is ready to tackle the challenge of local route planning for the entire service area.

However, I do believe there is still room for savings through efficiency if operations of some of the area's transit agencies were combined. There are far too many routes that just simply turn around at the city limit leaving the area between them noticeably under-served and creating routes which have no destination apart from the suburb they happen to be winding through. Here's an example of what amalgamated transit agencies could look like:

I've done my best to have the boundaries between the various transit agencies reflect physical barriers to travel (Rouge River, 427/Credit River, Bronte Creek). In doing so, it reduces the number of cross-border routes that are required, but does create an additional complication where transit agency borders no longer follow municipal or regional borders (Etobicoke west of the 427 no longer part of TTC service area, Burlington west of Bronte Creek no longer part of Halton-Peel service area). A lot of the urban boundaries (such as Steeles Ave, Burloak Road) are relatively arbitrary related to actual travel patterns given that suburbs have grown over them to make the boundary indistinguishable.

There would be a few quick wins to amalgamating some agencies such as putting all transit in the Niagara Region under one authority, or the combination of all transit service in Peel. What I do wonder though is apart from cost savings through more efficient operation, if it would be worth the institutional hassle of drafting transfer agreements between municipalities for agencies which do not strictly follow municipal boundaries or cross regional ones. I can see this kind of negotiation over responsibility and funding from keeping agencies from considering merger without the guidance (or iron fist) of the Province and/or Metrolinx.

I've considered something similar. What I've come up with is 7 divisions with Metrolinx: TO, DR, YR, PR, HR, HM, and RT (Rapid Transit). The former 6 would be local transit service divisions within their respective geographic service area, although the separations between them would be purely for way-finding and administrative purposes. They would still be under the same umbrella, using the same fare system, and the same fare zones.

Rapid Transit routes would be managed under a separate division, and the routes would all have a 1 letter prefix (S1, L2, B3, E4, etc). Local transit routes would all have a 2 letter prefix describing the geographic area (ex: the Dufferin bus would be TO29). This simplifies wayfinding, especially around boundaries. A similar system is used in NYC, where bus routes have a letter prefix for the borough they serve.

This would simplify the back-end of operations by having everyone under the same roof, but it would also simplify the front end by having a coordinated regional system, while at the same time maintaining regional operators.

 

[Adjei]

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2013/12/transit-fare-integration-essential-next-step

 

[doady]

Fare integration would only work if it excludes TTC. Look the way 905 transit operators are restricted from operating within the City of Toronto. Torontonians sees 905ers as the enemy, simple as that. The 905 systems are a threat to the TTC. The 905 can't operate transit in Toronto, how can there be integration? Doesn't make sense.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

nothing about this today.