Integrated TRANSIT Fares

We are creating one seamless fare For transit service structure to make crossing municipal providers: boundaries and switching between • Regionally integrated fare collection, transit systems simple and hassle-free. products and policies Fare Integration is a key strategy in • An integrated system that is equitable the Regional Transportation Plan and and improves service competitiveness we’re working with our transit partners across the Greater and For the region: Hamilton Area (GTHA) towards a consistent approach to transit fares • Fares that attract more transit users in the region enabled by PRESTO. • A system that supports smart growth, a competitive economy, and A GTHA vision for integrating fares encourages residents to leave with all 10 transit operators. their car at home For customers: In support of this vision, we’ve • A simple, harmonized and consistent created a GTHA Fare Structure fare structure transit system Evaluation strategy and are completing • Quick and hassle-free transfers an evaluation of potential new • Fares that reflect the value of the ser- concepts for the region. This is an vice provided overview of: • Transit fares in the GTHA today • Fare structures from around the world • Our scope of work • Our goals for a new fare structure strategy • Fare structure concepts • Next steps and how to participate

How Fares Work in the GTHA Today The existing approach to fares in our region is complex and fragmented.

There are currently 10 different ways • The number and quality of transit • Creates siloed, inefficient or fares are determined in the GTHA, options available to customers is duplicative local transit services, with each transit service provider reduced driving up operating costs setting its own rules and prices. • Transit ridership and revenue are Limitations of the current fare structure reduced by placing transit at a include: disadvantage against competing options (cross boundary barriers, • Different customers taking similar double fares or transfer policies) trips are treated inconsistently

(3 ZONES)

BRAMPTON

MILTON

MISSISSAUGA

OAKVILLE OAKVILLE

BURLINGTON

n n

n LEGEND

o o o m

n t ill e k

a

o p r ilt o O h on t

o ssaug a r il t m r

G FREE li ng t m Free transfer, within agency Y ak v u a r o a M r

u D O T ss i H i B B M Free transfer, agencies with connecting FREE Extra services FREE (FREE ) N/A (FREE ) N/A FREE (FREE ) FREE Co-fare Brampton fare Free transfer, agencies without Burlington (FREE ) FREE N/A FREE N/A (FREE ) FREE N/A (FREE ) Co-fare (FREE) connecting services (potential single-fare trips require use of additional agency or agencies in between) Extra 1 Durha m N/A N/A FREE N/A N/A N/A N/A (FREE ) Co-fare fare Co-fare for transfer with GO Transit, Co-fare discount applied to local fare Hamilto n (FREE ) FREE N/A FREE N/A (FREE ) (FREE ) N/A (FREE ) Co-fare Extra No agreement, customer pays both fares Mil ton N/A N/A N/A N/A FREE N/A N/A N/A N/A Co-fare fare

Extra FREE (FREE ) N/A (FREE ) N/A FREE FREE 2 (FREE ) Co-fare N/A No agreement, no connecting services Mississauga fare

Oakvill e (FREE ) FREE N/A (FREE ) N/A FREE FREE N/A (FREE ) Co-fare

Extra Extra Extra Extra Extra N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A FREE 2 3 Toron to fare fare fare fare fare Extra FREE (FREE ) (FREE ) (FREE ) N/A (FREE ) (FREE ) 2 FREE Co-fare Y ork fare

1 Extra Co-fare Co-fare Co-fare Co-fare Co-fare Co-fare Co-fare 3 Co-fare FREE GO fare

.

Fare Structures from Around the World

London, England Zones • Unique fares for every zone combination • Daily payment caps • Wide variety of monthly passes available based on zone to zone distances travelled

Amsterdam, The Netherlands Small Zones/Fare by Distance • E-purse fares based on distance traveled • Zones often use natural barriers such as water or highways • Zone pricing is consistent across the region (2 zones cost the same regardless of location)

Hamburg, Germany Zones (Rings) • 5 large zone rings divided into 20 segments • Zone sizes increase as you further from the city centre • Fares based on number of zone rings travelled

Seoul, SOUTH Korea Fare by distance • Fare is set based on the shortest traveling distance • Transfer from Subway to fares are computed according pre-defined scale • The basic fare covers a distance of up to 10 km with an increase for every 5km travelled over 10km

Our Scope of Work While fare integration encompasses a number of different elements, our focus at this stage is on fare structure.

ELEMENT WHAT IT IS CUSTOMER EXPECTATION

System for determining base fares Consistent fare structure throughout region Fare Structure (e.g. flat fare, by zone, by distance) Fares that are seen to reflect the value and related transfer policies. (length, quality) of trip taken.

A system for fare collection: Farecard, mobile One method to pay anywhere (PRESTO). Payment System device, credit card, etc. Consistent fare structure for multi-agency travel. Customer types, e.g., child, youth, senior Consistent concession definitions Concessions eligible for fare discounts. throughout region.

Fare products to reflect customer travel Products encourage multi-agency travel and volume of use (ticket, pass, volume where appropriate and reward frequent Products discount). transit use.

Amount paid for travel, with fares for Consistent price for similar trips throughout products and concessions typically region. Price derived from the adult cash fare. Goals for a New Fare Strategy We identified three goals to help us achieve our vision of an integrated, customer-first regional fare structure. What do each of these goals mean to you? Goal 1: Simplicity Goal 2: Value Goal 3: Consistency The fare strategy will The fare strategy will The fare strategy will simplify the customer reflect the value of the create a common fare experience and agency trip taken, and maintain structure with consistent fare management/ the financial sustainability definitions and rules operations, attracting of transit services. across the GTHA. travellers to transit services throughout the GTHA. Fare Structure Should Reflect Value of ServicE When we applied the goals to our work we determined:

• Paying the same price for all service Instead, we’ve starting thinking about Three Service types were defined types (i.e. bus, streetcar, GO Train) how various service types could be using guidelines that reflect qualities does not reflect the value of the defined (or differentiated) and which that customers value in transit services service. fare structures may be a good fit for such as speed and travel time. • Fares based on time were unpredict- these service types based on various able and could end up charging design principles we have developed. customers more for delayed trips.

SERVICE TYPE DESCRIPTION ROUTE LENGTH Average speed Right of way

• Low speed <20 km Low • Generally in mixed traffic; 1. Local • Route length which is 10-20 km/h some sections of separation <20km

• Medium speed <25 km Medium • >90% Separate • Route length which is 20-45 km/h 2. <25km

• Route length which is >20 km High • Separate (rail) 3. Regional >20km >45 km/h • In mixed traffic (highway bus)

GTHA Public Transit Demand By Distance and Service Type

Short distance trips are better served by Local and Rapid Transit

Medium distance by a mix of Rapid Local and Regional Transit

Long distance by Regional Transit Fare Structure: Design Principles

Continuity Customers may use different service For customer convenience and types for the same length trips due to efficient use of the available network, service availability. fares for different service types should be comparable when the services serve the same market.

Trip distance: Short Medium Long

Local and Trip distance: Short Medium Long Local Rapid Transit fares should be comparableLocal and for Local Rapidshort Transit trips Rapid Transit fares should be comparable for short trips Rapid Transit Regional

Rapid Transit and Regional fares should Regional be comparable for medium trips

Rapid Transit and Regional fares should be comparable for medium trips Connected Network The GTHA transit network design To provide integrated use of the often requires customers to use network, fares should not penalise multiple service types to complete trips that require the use of multiple trips. service types. Trip distance Local transfer to Rapid Transit Trip distance Local transfer to RapidRapid Transit Transit Only

RapidRegional Transit transfer Only to Local

Regional transfer Local Rapid Transit to Local Regional

Local Rapid Transit Regional Fare Structure: Design Principles Generalized Cost Service types travel at different speeds and take different times to travel the Example: Bloor to Sheppard is 19 Local same distance minutes by subway and 40 minutes by bus travelling on slower service modes ‘pay’ more in time than Rapid on faster service modes Transit Time Where there is a significant difference in travel time, fares should be lower for slower service types than for faster Regional service types

Distance

Gradual Increments Large fare Large jumps in fare encourage increments cause customers to reroute their travel riders to adjust their to obtain the lower fare travel to avoid the To encourage customers to use the fare increment service that best meets their travel needs, fares that vary by distance should escalate consistently or in small Fare increments and avoid large jumps When fare increments are small, riders choose the location of where they board and get off based on their travel needs Distance

Large/Small Zones Large zones : ~7km Small zones: ~3km LARGE ZONES Typically designed with most short trips 1 or 2 zones long Customers generally know their fares in advance without needing to consult a map or table Can be implemented on Local with on-board fare payment and enforcement SMALL ZONES Usually require tap on/off fare collection to determine trip length More suitable for Rapid Transit and Regional Local Both large and small zones are widely used throughout the world Rapid Transit

Testing Fare Structure Concept s Existing Fare Structure: ‘Status Quo’ Local: each Municipal Service Provider sets their own fares; mostly Local Rapid Transit Regional flat with zones for some long trips High Rapid Transit: same as Local Regional: small zones, with a flat fare for short to medium length trips Transfers: free between 905 $ Fare operators, double fare between * 905 and Toronto*, co-fare between 905 and GO, double fare between Toronto and GO* Low

Short Medium Long Distance

Concept 1: Modified Status Quo Design Rationale: modify current fare environment to address the most Local Rapid Transit Regional significant issues with the status quo High Features: • Consistent transfer policy between municipal transit agencies (may re- quire additional fare*) $ Fare • Consistent transfer policy between municipal transit and GO • Regional base fare and Rapid Transit fares more closely aligned to improve Low continuity for medium length trips

Short Medium Long Distance Concept 1: Modified Status Quo

Rapid Local Local Transit Regional Local Regional

Joe used to take the subway to Mary used to drive her car to Jane used to take MiWay from his job downtown even though the GO Train at Agincourt when her home and pay a second the GO station is nearby and she went downtown. Now she fare when she transferred to the GO Train is faster. Now uses the TTC toget to the GO TTC to get to school. Now she GO fares are closer to subway Station and receives a co-fare pays a discounted transfer fares for the same trip, and Joe transfer discount when she taps fare when she enters the TTC. uses GO when it meets his on the GO. travel needs. Testing Fare Structure Concepts

Concept 2: Local and Rapid Transit Zones Design Rationale: develop a new regional fare structure with fare by zone Local Rapid Transit Regional for Local and Rapid Transit, adding High flexibility to pricing Features: • Local and Rapid Transit use large zones, aligned for simplicity, but may $ Fare have different fares • Regional fares for medium distance trips are comparable to Rapid Transit • Transfer policy required for transfers Low between service types Short Medium Long Distance

Example: Local and Rapid Transit Zones

Zone 2

Zone 1 Zone 3

Emma takes from her home in Ajax and transfers onto the TTC to visit her daughter. She is travelling in 3 zones and pays the 3 zone fare when she starts her trip. Testing Fare Structure Concepts

Concept 3: Hybrid Design Rationale: develop a new fare structure with region-wide Local Rapid Transit Regional flat fare for Local with Rapid Transit Local Rapid Transit Regional and Regional using small zones or High fare by distanceHigh Features: • Region-wide flat Local fare Rapid $ Fare Transit comparable to Local for short trips Regional fares comparable to Local Rapid Transit Regional Rapid $Transit Fare for medium distance trips High Low • Transfer policy required for transfers between service types Short Medium Long Low Distance $ Fare Local Rapid Transit Short Medium Long Examples: Hybrid Distance Low

Local Local Local Rapid Transit Short Medium Long Distance

Amir takes from his home and transfers to the TTC subway to get to his appointments. He pays the flat fare when the bus, and taps on and off when he boards and leaves the subway. BecauseLocal his trip on the subway is longer than a certain threshold, when he taps off anRapid additional Transit fare Local reflecting this distance is deducted from his . Local

Local Local

Chris uses several municipal from her home in , MiWay and TTC to reach a client in northwest Toronto. She pays a single flat fare for the entire trip when she boards the first bus. Next Steps: Fare Structure Development We Are Here

Step 1: What type(s) of Step 2: What is the best Step 3: Should other Step 4: How do fare structure best meet way of applying such type(s) fare structure elements we implement this vision/goal/objectives? of fare structure to the be included? structure? GTHA?

• Type of Service • Service categories • Time of day fares • Revenue allocation • Trip Length • Zone size and design • Additional fare structure • Fiscal impact • Price structure optimization/calibration • Phasing • Transfer policies • Governance

Stakeholder and public engagement groups. In June, we will report on all will continue through April and include findings and the preferred fare a range of activities to inform, and structure and then move towards collaborate with municipal partners, assessing additional fare structure elected officials and community elements.

Your feedback at this stage will help us understand the variety of fare-related issues experienced by transit riders today. You can provide your comments today or participate online at metrolinxengage.com

What fare-related issues do you experience and/or want us to address?