News   Oct 31, 2024
Get Ready for a New Era of Mapping and Data Tools on UrbanToronto
 273     0 
News   Oct 31, 2024
55 Yonge Resubmission Eliminates Office Space, Adds Over 350 Units
 1.2K     3 
News   Oct 31, 2024
News Roundup for October 31, 2024
 557     0 

GTHA Transit Fare Integration

anb said:
Maybe they'll consider Malton as just being in Brampton's zone due to the line's very short time in Mississauga and it would be very unnecessary if they charge riders an extra zone they didn't even wanna be in the first place.


Burlington and Oakville should just be merged into one zone and be called southern Halton if they're just gonna throw Milton and Halton Hills under one zone. Its understandable if they had done it this way because of the separate local transit between the 2, but it still should be in consideration. Brampton and Mississauga would have no choice but to stand on their own zones, we all know its highly unlikely they would ever combine them.
Click to expand...

The zone map did show Brampton and Outer Toronto touching each other, which would make sense, given the existing 11/50/511 linkages.
 
ShonTron said:
The zone map did show Brampton and Outer Toronto touching each other, which would make sense, given the existing 11/50/511 linkages.
Click to expand...
That was my understanding as well. I am not super familiar with how fare zones operate else where, but I'm assuming the fare would be calculated based on the shortest zone path between where you tap on and tap off. A trip from Bramalea to Union would go Brampton -> Outer To -> Central To.
 
I won't overly nitpick as @just east of the creek noted progress is progress.

That said, I think there are too many zones in this version. It would make more sense to me if they each followed the boundaries of the regional municipality.

That would be simpler to understand, even if you hiked the price a bit; but obviously if you didn't hike the zone fee, it would be a larger savings.
 
Northern Light said:
I won't overly nitpick as @just east of the creek noted progress is progress.

That said, I think there are too many zones in this version. It would make more sense to me if they each followed the boundaries of the regional municipality.

That would be simpler to understand, even if you hiked the price a bit; but obviously if you didn't hike the zone fee, it would be a larger savings.
Click to expand...
Or they could just base them on set distances in a series of concentric circles, so within 10km, within 20km etc. If I remember correctly, this is how Japan does it. Incidentally, Japan also provides for steep discounts for monthly passes between any two specific points (i.e.home & work) and allows for stops in between, but not deviations to other routes.
 
urbancog said:
I'd certainly support fare integration, but it would need to be implemented in an equitable way. The TRBoT's approach is overly influenced by the current organization of local transit agencies.
View attachment 462044
The 64km journey from Union to Hamilton would cost $11.70 per journey because it crosses Mississuga, Oakville, Burlington, and Hamilton zones.
View attachment 462047
Whereas the 66km journey from Union to Bowmanville would cost $7.70 per journey because it only crosses the two zones that Durham has been split into.

Similar issues occur on the Kitchener line where the split of Peel into Mississauga and Brampton (and the strange boundary alignment of the municipal boundary in NE Mississauga) add an extra zone-cost to all journeys beyond Malton.
Click to expand...
Isn't this letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? There is room to quibble about the zones and allowing different pairwise zone pricing, as TRBOT acknowledge. They present a simplified model and suggest ways it can be tweaked to enhance equity. For instance, you can just define the pairwise trip between Hamilton and inner Toronto or Waterloo Region and inner Toronto to be priced as 1 less than the zone difference.

It would be great to think of how bicycle infrastructure can be integrated into this fare structure. Maybe include a bike share use within the transfer window (can use bikeshare to ride to the station, or from the end station to the destination within the 3 hour window), or provide free 24h secure bike parking as part of the fare. The logic being that someone who rides to a higher order transit station rather than using a bus is saving the operating cost for the bus portion of the trip.

I would be happy to get cake rather than complain my sister is getting a bigger slice and get none instead. Fare integration is critical to efficiently using the region's infrastructure and building non-car mode share. If you want to argue equity points like this, do it as a supporter, or it can be a battle to fight after we get fare integration.
 
afransen said:
Isn't this letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? There is room to quibble about the zones and allowing different pairwise zone pricing, as TRBOT acknowledge. They present a simplified model and suggest ways it can be tweaked to enhance equity. For instance, you can just define the pairwise trip between Hamilton and inner Toronto or Waterloo Region and inner Toronto to be priced as 1 less than the zone difference.

It would be great to think of how bicycle infrastructure can be integrated into this fare structure. Maybe include a bike share use within the transfer window (can use bikeshare to ride to the station, or from the end station to the destination within the 3 hour window), or provide free 24h secure bike parking as part of the fare. The logic being that someone who rides to a higher order transit station rather than using a bus is saving the operating cost for the bus portion of the trip.

I would be happy to get cake rather than complain my sister is getting a bigger slice and get none instead. Fare integration is critical to efficiently using the region's infrastructure and building non-car mode share. If you want to argue equity points like this, do it as a supporter, or it can be a battle to fight after we get fare integration.
Click to expand...

Yes to most of the above; but I would note that the suggestion/complaint is not about a concrete government proposal, but rather a suggestion by a private body as to how to implement same.

I think its entirely fair to offer alternatives; and one ought not to imagine that envisioning better means opposing a lesser improvement.
 
Last edited:
anb said:
Maybe they'll consider Malton as just being in Brampton's zone due to the line's very short time in Mississauga and it would be very unnecessary if they charge riders an extra zone they didn't even wanna be in the first place.
Click to expand...
I would think the fare would be charged in such a way that it is not based on the actual path the transit vehicle takes between the zones (that's asking a lot of transit users to understand vehicle routing) but the smallest number of zones you must traverse between the origin tap on and the destination tap off. So (in theory) someone from Mississauga would pay the same for going to Etobicoke and to Scarborough (2 zones) but more to go to downtown (3 zones), even though the path you take to get to Scarborough may or may not pass through the downtown zone.
 
afransen said:
I would think the fare would be charged in such a way that it is not based on the actual path the transit vehicle takes between the zones (that's asking a lot of transit users to understand vehicle routing) but the smallest number of zones you must traverse between the origin tap on and the destination tap off. So (in theory) someone from Mississauga would pay the same for going to Etobicoke and to Scarborough (2 zones) but more to go to downtown (3 zones), even though the path you take to get to Scarborough may or may not pass through the downtown zone.
Click to expand...
In your example specifically, probably not. The reason for Zone A being set up as it is, is that according to English, its based off systems like London and (I believe) Berlin, where the goal is to try and free up capacity in the downtown core. As such, the goal would be to, for instance, insensitivize people take the Eglinton Line from Mt. Dennis to Kennedy instead of going through Union. Again, its like how in London you can use the London Overground to get around Zone 1 and pay a cheaper fare.
 
ARG1 said:
In your example specifically, probably not. The reason for Zone A being set up as it is, is that according to English, its based off systems like London and (I believe) Berlin, where the goal is to try and free up capacity in the downtown core. As such, the goal would be to, for instance, insensitivize people take the Eglinton Line from Mt. Dennis to Kennedy instead of going through Union. Again, its like how in London you can use the London Overground to get around Zone 1 and pay a cheaper fare.
Click to expand...

I could see the theoretical merit...., however:

Such a system would work best if you had a Toronto version of Crossrail outside the downtown core. Eglinton-Crosstown isn't yet close to that, and with the street-running section in the east, may never be...........

A GO Midtown Line remains a pipe dream, but would arguably fit the bill, though the zones are not properly set for such a line (which runs south of St. Clair in the core and would therefore be in the same zone as Union).

Finally, I think its unfair to penalize someone, who say, lives on the Etobicoke waterfront and wants to go to Guildwood, and suggest they should pay more to do so via the Lakeshore line, or bus it all the way up to Eglinton and take a transfer at Kennedy, literally more than doubling their journey time.

Zones will always penalize some trips they ought not to; and no system is perfect; that said, we have to be careful in emulating a fare-system model based on a much different transit reality than our own.
 
Last edited:
I concur with Northern Light. The reason London and Berlin can have such systems is because it's relatively easy to circumvent the downtown cores of those cities, given that they're both inland. The geography of Toronto is challenging to make that fair for anyone south of Dundas Street from the Humber to Hamilton. You would have to define the CP track as the northern limit of the Inner Toronto zone instead of St. Clair.
 
And I suspect someone merely riding through the inner Toronto zone is not putting as much pressure on that part of the network as someone headed there or transferring there. If the concern is capacity at Union or Bloor Dundas.
 
afransen said:
And I suspect someone merely riding through the inner Toronto zone is not putting as much pressure on that part of the network as someone headed there or transferring there. If the concern is capacity at Union or Bloor Dundas.
Click to expand...
Good point. A factor to OnExpress & Metrolinx to consider when choosing between through running and terminating services.

Faster trains and more express services may encourage people to take jobs in places they couldn't previously reach with a reasonable journey time. For instance, commuting from W of Toronto to the employment cluster at Hwy 404 / Hwy 7 is currently only practical if you can afford to use Hwy 407 but reverse peak services Union to Unionville, with express into Union, may deliver a tolerable journey time.
 
11th said:
From the budget, does that mean free transfer between GO and TTC is here?
Click to expand...
Nope, it vaguely says they're working on it, but that doesn't really mean much considering that they let the half-fare transfer agreement expire.

This GO Transit co-fare discount applies to the following transit systems: Durham Region Transit, Milton Transit, Grand River Transit, Guelph Transit, Oakville Transit, MiWay (Mississauga Transit), Brampton Transit, Hamilton Street Railway, Burlington Transit, Bradford West Gwillimbury Transit, York Region Transit and Barrie Transit. The government is working to expand this initiative to support more people using public transit to come into Toronto.

2023 Ontario Budget | Chapter 1B

2023 Ontario Budget: Building a Strong Ontario
budget.ontario.ca budget.ontario.ca
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top