GTA Fare Integration: Session 4: Area 6

This Saturday afternoon session started slowly at 3:00 p.m. with about 8 attendees and was bolstered throughout the session by Metronaut "butterflies" with 15-20 attendees at its conclusion at 4:00 p.m. when Mischa arrived ringing the bell.

I was particularly interested in feedback on four tactical aspects of GTA Fare Integration:

    1. Unlimited, flat fare (GTA) passes (e.g. TTC Metropass or GTA Weekly Pass);

    2. Time-limited (e.g. 2-hour transfer any direction~ViVA, TTC St. Clair test) fare;

    3. Fare-by-distance (both zone (YRT/ViVA/Vancouver) and true fare-by-distance (Tokyo);

    4. Electronic fare card debit-a-ride (e.g. MTO/GO Presto test, MTA Farecard, London Oyster).

In addition Andrae & Tom Purves were interested in the related topics "How to integrate fares for regional travel", and "Transit Payment and Smart Fare Systems".

 Please feel free to add your comments and recollections. I started manually taking notes 10-15 minutes into the session; not realizing laptop wiki input had not been assigned to the group. I apologize for any comments not included... I tried to be true to the original comments and included virtually all of them (with my commentary in brackets), so please add them to complete, correct any errors, omissions on my part and balance the wiki.

1. Unlimited, flat fare GTA "pass":

There was general enthusiasm for an unlimited (Metropass, GTA, Weekly, YRT, etc.) flat fare pass valid for the entire GTA.

One contributor mentioned the need for various kinds of passes for different travel (e.g. one transit system only, GTA wide, for seniors, university students, etc.). A TTC staffer mentioned that in addition to (TTC and other) monthly and weekly passes there already was a "GTA" pass—the weekly "GTA Pass" (good on TTC, YRT, Brampton & Mississauga at $47.00/week or $203.67/month). The challenge was there was no (provincial) funding support for such a pass on a monthly basis (and clearly the weekly GTA Pass is too expensive to encourage widespread GTA travel when it's priced substantially higher than the price of two monthly passes on any two transit systems).

A Metrolinx staffer assured that the Presto card would include capability for unlimited travel flat fare passes.

 2. Time-limited fare:

There was general awareness of the time-limited two-way transfer (valid on YRT/ViVA and the TTC St. Clair test), but not a lot of personal experience or prior consideration as an alternate to a more complex zone/fare-by-distance GTA fare strategy. No one really embraced the concept with any passion... as it seemed it was the first time they had considered it as a possible GTA fare strategy to eliminate 416/905 fare boundaries (and their punitive 100% fare premiums).

One contributor mentioned, however, that several GTA transit properties (Brampton/YRT?) did accept transfers between their systems). The TTC's reluctance (to expand the St. Clair test) seems to be based on the ~$11M cost of implementing this fare system wide (TTC). Clearly, YRT, TTC, and MTO/Metrolinx need to research this option with riders to better understand it vs. fare-by-distance.

3. Fare-by-Distance/Zone Fares:

There was some passion and considerable debate for the pros and cons of this alternative; not surprisingly with folks from a technology background arguing in favour of it, whilst TTC staffers and a 905 Richmond Hill resident taking YRT/GO/TTC to school and back argued against the added complexity and cost vs. the present simplicity of TTC fare media (cash, tickets, tokens, passes). The RH student didn't want an electronic farecard to buy research paper if it would simply expedite charging him three transit fares—he wanted a lower overall "value" fare for his GTA travel. Another contributor said fare-by-distance in Washington DC "drove him crazy!"

One web programmer argued passionately that present technology allowed for an infinite variety of zone fare or fare-by-distance algorithms. Another person mentioned Tokyo's system where you need a card to know your fare: by-distance. (Reminding me of my visit to Tokyo as a student, and having to go to the tourist office to get an English credit-card size subway map so that I could compare it to the Japanese only-fare-by-distance map at the entrance to Tokyo subways stations. It was needed to pay the exact fare to your intended subway station, as each subway station had a unique fare map). I wondered if this programmer had considered how to communicate the tectonic shift from the present unlimited travel simple flat fares to true multidirectional complex fare-by-distance, regardless of technology's capabilities.

A concern about GO fares was they were not truly fare-by-distance—perfectly logical and linear as some shorter GO trips cost more than longer trips. The contributor advocated for a wholesale change to the current GTA fare structure to get away from double fares.

There was true ying-yang with one contributor advocating to abolish all fare zones, time limits and boundaries~"toss them out the windows" whilst another argued that rational fare-by-distance was the "way to go" as technology "made it simple"; another said it was "Unfair to pay three fares" and "On the other hand fare-by-distance was the way to go!"

To me it seems the tail is wagging the dog here. GO has pseudo fare-by-distance and a high Revenue/Cost R/C ratio (cost recovery of 86-89%). Fare-by-distance is a good cost recovery strategy, but does not encourage transit trips via simple, easy to understand flat fares. {GO is like Business Class transit with an average fare of $5.00 (vs. $1.72 for TTC and $2.13 YRT~March 2007). The TTC's R/C ratio is ~75% while YRT's is ~39% even with fares less than half of GO.} GO Transit thinks fare-by-distance is the best solution for it and local public transit. Ontario MTO and many Federal Transport Canada staff share this view.

With Toronto's transit market share or Modal split at ~24% and York Region's at ~7% Metrolinx needs to thoroughly understand the impact of zone or fare-by-distance fares on stimulating (or discouraging) GTA transit rides in the quantum needed to build transit share vs. the simpler time-limited transfer and unlimited zone pass fares options currently available on local transit systems but not GTA wide (save weekly GTA Pass).

I sympathize with the TTC concerns about the unknown capital, operating costs and ridership impact if fare-by-distance (electronic farecard) is imposed upon them... but recognize that the present TTC fare media and policies do nothing to promote true GTA transit integration without the punitive cost of a 100% fare penalty across Steeles or the prohibitive monthly cost of a weekly GTA Pass.

 4. Electronic Fare Card (Presto debit-a-ride electronic fare card)

There was considerable interest, passion and discussion on the merits and costs/benefits of an electronic fare card. Not surprisingly those in favour included a. technologists/programmers, b. those with prior farecard experience (London's Oyster card), and c. Metrolinx staff. TTC staff advocated for the simplicity of the present TTC fare media against the unknown cost of implementing the Presto card across all GTA transit properties and the operating subsidies it would or would not require.

A contributor talked about the utility of the Oyster card and it's flexibility to offer a variety of fare options and new revenue opportunities. He said Oyster would charge a maximum $4 fare if the rider didn't tap out, or the cheapest available fare available if they did tap out (I don't even want to think about the complexity of that algorithm!)

Another contributor voiced an opinion that a fare card's biggest benefit was its ability to increase revenue (Hong Kong) by making it a universally accepted payment medium. Another argued to let Credit Card companies assume the risk and take advantage of their security and systems knowledge instead of Metrolinx developing it's own fare card. To highlight this information use essay company .

There was some discussion about the exact nature of mechanics of the Presto fare card. A Metrolinx staffer said it was a tap-on/tap-off card. I suspect this is true of the limited Mississauga/GO/Union Station test. It would be horrendously complex for the TTC to implement tap-off given its integration of many surface routes with barrier-free subway access (no transfers needed). The impact on TTC speed of service with mandatory tap-off is scary to contemplate.

One person voiced his opinion that ease-of-use of the fare card was incredibly important in both acquiring and using the card. I presume he concludes the same about the fare structure underlying the fare card. Another said the same thing of the present TTC fare media: you put in a token and you can go anywhere and warned that fares being made more complicated would be an issue. It should offer convenience of usage, independent of service.

A transit enthusiast contributor argued for the operational benefits of the electronic fare card to allow much more frequent updates on rider data (from the present system of occasional manual "checker" audits) to virtually real-time dynamic daily data. Another transit enthusiast expressed a caution: warning against justifying the cost of implementing a farecard to obtain ride data as a tool for better operations planning and management.

Personally, I think this is the Province's real agenda in driving the GTA e-farecard, beyond making cross-GTA transit fares more accessible. It gives them an objective manner of allocating scarce operating and capital subsidies based on ridership. It solves their political dilemma in that the TTC with 50% of GTA population but ~85% of local public transit (ex-GO) could easily swallow up 100% of such transit subsidies; leaving the 905, also with 50% of population short of funds to build transit from the low single and double digits to catch up to the TTC's at 24% and onward to the 30%+ Metrolinx goal.

A respected transit advocate cautioned against the use of credit cards (whose companies were just salivating to be used as transit fare cards) in the hope of increased revenue—without a sound analysis of the total cost of implementation of a fare card against using the same funds for better basic transit service (more buses, streetcars, subways, etc.)

One contributor suggested variable transit pricing with higher fares during rush hour than off-peak. I thought this was an interesting idea, much like the 407 Toll highway early on. I wouldn't rule it out... maybe it has a role to play... sometime in the future when there are toll roads across the GTA, a GTA electronic fare card in use with a value GTA fare or pass and transit systems at capacity. Demand pricing may well be needed to moderate peak travel.

The social issue of whether the electronic fare card should address transit for the poor was raised with no conclusions voiced.

A Metrolinx staffer mentioned the utility of a fare card to an occasional transit user living in the 905, versus having to pay three (905/GO/TTC) cash fares. I commented that Metrolinx would never build transit modal split back to 30–35% from 24% in Toronto and from 7% in York Region by targeting occasional transit users. Metrolinx' Bold strategies were needed in Toronto and perhaps even stronger "MEGA" strategies in the 905. Another contributor also suggested that the fare card should address not only greater convenience for occasional transit users (the so-called "choice riders") but also heavy users as well.

 The convenience of an electronic fare card to charge two transit fares, rather than one lower integrated (pass, time-based or fare-by-distance) "value" fare will do nothing to encourage GTA transit in the quantum needed to rebuild transit modal split to the 30–50% level to really make a dent in car usage and road congestion.

All-in-all it's clear Metrolinx and the TTC need to better understand the transit riders' desires for a simple, easy-to-understand GTA fare system that doesn't discourage GTA transit with a 100% fare premium for travel across the system boundaries.

OTHER

I. Presto name equity vs. Metropass

When the subject was raised I was surprised by the lack of enthusiasm for the "Presto" electronic fare card name. It is premature to call it a "Brand" after a few months of a limited local Mississauga/GO/TTC Union Station test. One contributor asked, "What's Presto? It could refer to almost anything and has no obvious link to transit."

The TTC's Metropass was much more warmly received as an electronic farecard (brand) name, undoubtedly due to its true brand equity after 28 years in the market with Adult, Monthly, MDP, Group, University, etc. options.

While contacting some professional resume writers , i suggested some hybrid names... GO MetroPass or Metro GO Pass, without any consensus or preference expressed. Whatever the brand name, it needs to be evaluated thoroughly against newcomer Presto and the considerable transit brand heritage of the TTC Metropass.

 II. Knowledge of TTC vs. YRT Adult Fares

When I asked for a show of hands for those who knew the TTC adult fare, most hands went up--almost universal, not surprising given MaRs/UofT location. When asked the same question about the YRT Adult fare only 3-4 hands went up.

Clearly, Metrolinx has to understand the true demand for cross GTA transit travel (2006 Transportation Today study and it's ilk) not only with the present punitive 100% fare premiums for cross GTA system travel, but with an integrated GTA "value" fare (that is less than two transit fares) to drive such ridership.