|
Post by Mark Dewdney on Mar 9, 2010 11:32:56 GMT -5
A contributor to CPTDB (thanks OrionV) sent along a great idea; let's use "timed transfers"; transfers that expire 90 minutes after they're issued.
Then there's no questions, no judgement calls for operators, just a plain black-and-white time when the transfer expires.
This has the benefit of reducing confrontations between driver and rider, a goal we should all share...
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Hybrid0920 on Mar 10, 2010 23:38:59 GMT -5
I think this is a great idea! It really upsets me as a visitor to Toronto when I take a subway, grab a transfer and its not valid a few streets away! So I think HSR works great on this system, TTC should have it too. Im not sure if you guys have monthly passes, (A.K.A ours is $71 (too much) per month for unlimited travel 24/7) but if not, then I suggest that as well!
|
|
|
Post by Mark Dewdney on Mar 11, 2010 17:37:36 GMT -5
We do have the Metropass, and if you're upset at HSR, you'd REALLY hate TTC - $121.00 ($99 student/senior) per month. Now, we DO have a significantly larger city (and subways) to move...
Anyways, Hamilton's big enough to provide a good comparison as to whether timed transfers actually work - and apparently, they do.
Definately worth exploring if I can get my "peers" on Council to put me on TTC.
|
|
|
Post by lukev on Mar 14, 2010 22:39:15 GMT -5
Many cities work on a timed ticket system.
You don't go through any fare gates, or even show your ticket to the driver when you enter a bus or streetcar, you just validate your 2-hour ticket, keep it in your pocket, and when the inspector comes around, you better have a valid ticket, or it's fine time!
The real benefit for this is there's no waiting at the bus stop for the operator to check fares and count change. Certain TTC routes, like Spadina, spend more time lining up and checking tickets than they do moving!
|
|
|
Post by Mark Dewdney on Mar 15, 2010 11:42:10 GMT -5
Oh, man are you right there. The current incarnation of streetcar does not lend itself to efficient movement of people. I wonder how long a timed transfer needs to be in order to connect to other systems - for example, if I'm coming from Kingston Rd & Victoria Park or, say, Eglinton & Rathburn- and I want to get on Viva at Finch, then that transfer had better last awhile. However, then you open it up to abuses when someone's taking short hops - say, shopping in Kensington Market, then over on Spadina - and if the transfer's still "valid", then they hop the Bathurst streetcar up to the subway...so you can't leave it TOO long.
|
|
|
Post by lukev on Mar 16, 2010 16:31:05 GMT -5
Two hours, and yes, it allows you to go to the shop and back on the same ticket. That's a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Dewdney on Mar 16, 2010 23:10:00 GMT -5
Hm. I'm all for generosity and freedom wherever possible (just getting that out there) but doesn't that deprive the system of a fare? Now, here's the REAL underlying question (we're turning over the stone underneath the stone here); Will more people - enough of them - get on the system because of that? In other words, will the "extra" riders, enticed by the timed transfer, offset the fares we lose by allowing the rider two trips for the price of one?
|
|
|
Post by lukev on Mar 17, 2010 1:22:04 GMT -5
I believe it will attract more people to use the TTC for errands.
Right now, TTC is attractive for work commutes, as evidenced by the crushing overflowing subways and buses during rush hour. Outside of rush hours, though, there tend to be empty seats just waiting to be filled. If we can fill these seats by selling timed tickets, then nothing is lost.
Turning a profit should be the least concern with transit. The #1 concern is reducing car traffic, and getting people around, which improves the economy in itself
|
|
|
Post by Mark Dewdney on Mar 17, 2010 11:57:34 GMT -5
Well, if not turning a profit, at least endeavouring to pay for itself. Even if it's tilting at windmills, that should be a serious goal of the service.
The timed-transfer system seems to have many benefits - one of them would be that timed transfers are absolute and simple - thus reducing the arguments between TTC operators and patrons somewhat. Based on that idea alone, that makes it worth contemplating.
|
|
|
Post by lukev on Mar 17, 2010 14:44:53 GMT -5
No municipal transit systems in the western hemisphere break even. TTC and GO Transit are by far the most "profitable" in the whole continent. If we go to a break-even model, there is no way we can compete with New York City, for example, where the fare only covers 30% of the operating costs; or Montreal, which is below 60%. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio
|
|
|
Post by Mark Dewdney on Mar 17, 2010 15:16:56 GMT -5
I hear you, Luke, and I'm not speaking to the outright NECESSITY to break even. I'm speaking of striving to get as close to that as possible. For my money, which I pay equally with every other rider, I need to see waste being eliminated and costs being kept as far down as possible - which will then persuade the provincial and federal governments that we should be given greater latitude with transfer funds, etc.
In other words, just because it appears to be impossible, should we not try?
Maybe I'm idealistic, but who says we can't be the system that discovers 3 or 4 new (cost-saving) ways to move people around - that NYC and Montreal promptly copy?
|
|