Some might argue that as a public service, transit should be free. Nice idea, but the service must be paid for somehow. The model we have worked with in the past was to cover the operating cost through a combination of fare box revenues and tax subsidy. The percentage of how much each of these contributes can vary greatly from one transit operator to the next, and when a passenger needs to travel from an area served by one operator to an area served by another, they often have to pay two completely separate fares.
Some might argue that people should pay for what they use. For transit, this tends to mean a "fare by distance" system, such as what GO Transit uses. This has three drawbacks:
Zones Are An Easy Way To Implement Fare-by-distance
Instead of actually charging for the actual distance proportionately, zones are used. The more zones one travels through, the higher the fare. This means that often multiple stops are in the same zone, and in turn means that one more stop might or might not cost more, and one less stop might or might not cost the same.
Discourages Long Distance Commuters
Longer distance commuters may be discouraged from using transit due to the increased cost. These are the very commuters we want to encourage to use transit, and since their longer commute often adds more stops to their trip, and therefore more time, the increased cost is in both money and time. The costs of driving and parking can become attractive because of this.
Discourages Short Distance Coummuters
Short distance commuters may be discouraged to use a system as the fare by distance involves a base fare plus zone (distance) charges. Often a transit agency will choose to increase fares by raising the base fare that applies to everyone. GO commuters recently found this out when the base fare was raised by 25 cents on March 16, 2009. This is not the first time this has been done, and over the past four years a commuter traveling from Old Cummer (near Leslie and Finch) to Union has experienced an increase of 27%, while longer distance commuters have had lower percentage increases (9% for Barrie, 14% for Oshawa, and 10% for Hamilton). Alas, it is not the last time this will happen as it is expected again on March 20, 2010.
A system that has features that discourages both long distance and short distance commuters is seriously flawed!
Flat fares are easy for everyone, but have a major drawback:
Short Distance Riders Feel They Subsidize Longer Distance Riders
While a single flat fare makes transit more attractive for longer distance commuters, it leaves short distance and even medium distance commuters feeling that their fare is somehow subsidizing the long distance commuters.
Take a look at a comparison of the fare structures currently in the GTA on this page.
That will give you the details, but the simple fact is that when you move from one operator's territory to another's, you pay an entire new fare. The only exception to this is the special "ride to GO" type fares where available.
In a sense, the GTA as a whole is a zone-base fare-by-distance system. Unlike GO Transit, where the fare is based on a base rate plus a distance charge based on the zones one travels between, transit riders using other operators must pay an entire new base fare when a fare boundary is crossed. This means that a person with a 4 km commute that crosses a border pays double, while the person with a 40 km commute within the territory of one operator pays a single fare. This is not exactly what one would call fare by distance!
There is also a non-symmetrical treatment of borders when the TTC is involved. For instance, if one had to travel from the intersection of Highway 7 and Leslie Street to Fairview Mall (at Don Mills and Sheppard), on a weekday there are two bus routes to choose from. One choice is TTC's route 25D, but as a contracted service riders must pay the YRT fare and the TTC fare for a total of $6.25 each way! The other choice is YRT's route 90, which costs only $3.25 each way.
Clearly, there is a problem. At best, this problem is unfair to transit users, at worst, it is a deterrent to using public transit.
Before outlining a system of fare integration, let us discuss the cost. We are talking about reducing or eliminating the payment of extra fares when a trip involves more than one transit operator. This loss of fare-box revenue must be made up somewhere.
One source could be to raise the base fare for all operators, but this would likely be seen as getting short-distance users to subsidize longer distance users. There may have to be some small adjustments, likely upwards, as an integrated fare system would be most easily implemented if all agencies involved charged the same base fare. That said, an integrated fare structure would not preclude an individual operator from offering a special local fare (see "City Saver" fares below) at a reduced cost.
The other source of paying for an integrated fare system would be for the province to cover the cost. Given that inter-agency transportation covers a wider area, and that a major alternative is increased use of the provincial highway network, it would seem most likely that this cost should be covered by the provincial government. An ongoing, sustained level of provincial funding to cover some of the operational costs of all transit agencies should be a responsibility of the provincial government.
Remember, this is a possible proposal. It is open to debate, criticism, and from that, amendments. Feel free to comment on this blog page.
This plan is not going to suggest eliminating separate transit operators and having one huge flat fare for all of the GTA. At the same time, the plan will "smooth out" the transition between operators with an equitable fare system that provides full transfer privileges between different operators. It should not matter who a fare is paid to, if the fare applies to the zones involved, the transfer should be accepted on any other transit vehicle traveling within those zones. This plan will also not introduce new zones by splitting any existing operator. Each operator's region will be one zone (unless it is already more than one zone, as is the case for York Region that has three zones).
1: Unified Fare Structure with Time-based Fares
Before any idea of integrating fares can move forward, all the transit agencies will have to adopt a unified fare structure. At the heart of this, is the move to a time-based transfer system for all agencies. Gone are the days where a transit agency mainly exists to move people to and from work during weekday rush hours. Transit use is for many purposes, at many different times of the day. A high number of transit users now use monthly passes or, where available, weekly passes. The idea that a fare is paid for specific travel from point A to point Z is part of the past. When one's trip does not fit that model, one uses another mode.
The future is to look at paying a fare as purchasing a block of time usage of the transit facility. Several GTA agencies have moved towards this time-based system, where a single cash or ticket fare gives the user up to two hours of transit use. Enter, leave, re-enter, go one direction, go the other direction - one can make use of the transit system in whatever way possible until the transfer or fare receipt expires. This eliminates most transfer-related fare disputes: if the time has expired, the transfer is no good - there are no issues with where one uses the transfer, if one is going "the right way", or if one is carrying packages from a shop near the transfer point. There is also a cost reduction for transfers, as there is no need to print separate transfers for each route.
One of the biggest deterrents to using transit occurs when someone lives close to a boundary between operators. Most current situations involve paying a whole extra fare when the border is crossed. This often leads to people choosing to drive and park across the boundary to avoid paying the second fare. In some cases, the level of effort to drive and pay for parking can mean that some will drive all the way to work and not use transit at all.
No transit user who is only going a few stops wants to feel they are subsidizing someone traveling farther. This applies equally for someone using the Queen streetcar between Dufferin and Yonge Street as it does to the person using TTC Route 25D on Don Mills between John Street and McNicoll.
Instead of a single line that delimits two zones, such as Steeles Avenue, two zones should overlap for a few kilometres. The amount of overlap is open for debate, but a good rule of thumb would be four kilometres. On Yonge Street, this would mean that the TTC zone would extend as far north as Centre Street, approximately two kilometres north of Steeles, and York Region's Zone 1 would extend as far south as Finch Avenue.
Anyone paying the base fare in the TTC's zone can travel as far north as Centre Street without having to pay extra. They would also have full transfer privileges onto any other transit vehicle operating in the same zone as the one where the fare was paid. Continuing travel into the other zone will require payment of a zone supplement, as will be discussed in the next section.
Anyone paying the base fare in YRT's zone 1 can travel as far south as Finch Avenue without having to pay extra. This person would also have full transfer privileges onto any other transit vehicle operating in that same zone.
When one's trip requires traveling into a different fare zone, the fare-by-distance model suggests they should be paying more for the trip. However, the transit user should not have to pay an entire separate fare. Instead, a supplement should be paid, for example, and additional dollar. The supplement could be paid when crossing fully into a new zone, or it could be paid at the start of travel, where a transfer could indicate the zones that the fare covers.
The issue of expiry time as it pertains to zone supplements may come into play. A trip that spans more than one zone will likely take longer, so it follows that a fare paid for more than one zone might have a longer expiry period. One line of thinking is that the expiry time should be extended an additional 30 minutes for each additional zone that is paid for. On the other hand, it is not as common for a longer multi-zone trip to be used for on-and-off, multi-point trips, so extra time is not likely to be needed for the multi-zone traveler. Any trip that requires travel through more than three zones would likely be better served by GO Transit, which is described in the next section.
Over the next decade, much of GO Transit's operations will be transformed from a rush-hour only system to a full day frequent service operation. This will make GO a substantial component of GTA and regional transit - a true viable alternative for other modes.
As such, it makes most sense to have its operation fully integrated with other transit agencies. GO fares would have to be set according to the GTA-wide structure. This means that it would be the GTA base fare plus the appropriate number of fare supplements. This would also mean that any other transit vehicle used to get to or from a GO station would not cost any extra. If traveling from a location in Newmarket to a location in Pickering, one could board a YRT vehicle, paying the base fare, to get to the GO station. At the GO station, three zone supplements could be paid to supplement the YRT transfer (one supplement for traveling between YRT zone 2 and YRT zone 1, the second for traveling between YRT zone 1 and the TTC zone, and the third for traveling between the TTC zone and the DRT zone). Upon arrival in Pickering, there would be no additional cost to transfer to a DRT bus to reach the final destination.
One could argue that since GO is a longer-haul, more express-based service, then it should cost extra. It is conceivable that this might be the case, but perhaps the addition of a single supplement over the rest of the fare might be more in line rather than charging a rate so much higher that it deters people from using GO where it is appropriate. Even if a GO fare is slightly higher than the normal fare between the two zones in question, GO's fare should include transfer privileges to all local routes in the zones at each end.
While it is conceivable that part of the cost of fare integration may have to be paid at the fare box by a slightly higher base fare, this can be slightly offset for short-distance users who only need to travel within a single zone. For example, if the base fare were to be $3.50, which gets the user 2 hours of travel within a single zone plus the ability to travel into additional zones for $1 per added zone, a transit agency could offer a City Saver fare for a reduced cost with limitations on its usage. Perhaps, for $2.00, a user could have 60 minutes of transit use that cannot be upgraded to another zone.
Post your comments on GTA fare integration on this blog pageThis page last updated February 14, 2010