GTHA Fare Integration - Preliminary Business Case 1 GTHA Fare Integration Draft Preliminary Business Case Draft Report for Discussion September 2017 $ $ DRAFT $ $ DRAFT DISCLAIMER This Preliminary Business Case report provides an assessment of the case for Fare Integration in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. The work has been undertaken to determine the overall potential for Fare Integration as well as the varying performance for a range of potential Fare Structures. This work has been conducted for Metrolinx using best available information and modelling tools in conjunction with stakeholder engagement with the region’s transit agencies. The analysis included in this report is intended to support decision makers in reviewing and assessing the merits of different fare structures. This work has been completed with a number of working assumptions to develop design and analysis tools that are appropriate for this preliminary Business Case. Assumptions used in this work should be revisited and further defined in future stages of analysis and are only indicative at this stage. Pricing tests used in this analysis are intended for modelling and comparative analysis only, and should not be considered as potential fares without further study and analysis. GTHA Fare Integration Draft Preliminary Business Case Draft Report for Discussion September 2017 DRAFT Prepared by: Prepared for: Steer Davies Gleave Metrolinx 1502-80 Richmond Street W 97 Front Street West, Toronto, ON Toronto, ON M5H 2A4 M5J 1E6 Canada +1 (647) 260 4860 na.steerdaviesgleave.com Contents 0 Executive Summary i Preface i Background i Evaluating Potential Fare Structures v Fare Structure Concepts v Strategic Case ix Economic Case xii Financial Case xiv Deliverability and Operations Case xv Business Case Findings xviii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Study Approach 2 1.3 Stakeholder Collaboration 8 1.4 GTHA Fare Structure Model 9 1.5 Report Structure 10 2 Fare Integration Vision 12 2.1 Overview 12 2.2 ContextDRAFT 15 2.3 Problem and Vision Definition 17 2.4 Fare Structure Barriers, Strategic Outcomes, and Evaluation 25 3 Concepts for Evaluation 33 3.1 Overview 33 3.2 Alternative Fare Structure Concepts and Revenue Scenarios 33 3.3 Fare Structure Development 35 3.4 Alternative Fare Structure Concepts 52 4 Strategic Case 67 4.1 Overview 67 4.2 Strategic Evaluation 67 4.3 Strategic Benefit: Increased Transit Ridership 69 4.4 Strategic Outcome 1: Address Fare Barriers to Grow Transit Demand 79 4.5 Strategic Outcome 2: Attract and Retain Ridership through an Improved User Experience 90 4.6 Strategic Outcome 3: Improve the Fare Structure’s Role in Long Term Transit Development 94 4.7 Summary of Strategic Benefits and Issues 105 5 Economic Case 110 5.1 Overview 110 5.2 Approach 110 5.3 Assumptions 112 5.4 Economic Appraisal 112 5.5 Economic Case Interpretation and Summary 118 6 Financial Case 123 6.1 Overview 123 6.2 Approach and Assumptions 123 6.3 Financial Appraisal 124 6.4 Financial Case Summary 127 7 Deliverability and OperationsDRAFT Case 130 7.1 Overview 130 7.2 Delivery and Planning Issues and Risks 131 7.3 Transit Operations Issues and Risks 136 7.4 Customer Risks and Issues 138 7.5 Deliverability Case Summary 146 8 Findings 148 8.1 Overview 148 8.2 Business Case Summary 148 8.3 Key Insights from Business Case 152 8.4 Next Steps 155 Figures FIGURE 1.1 Stages of fare integration analysis FIGURE 1.2 Business Case structure FIGURE 1.3 Business Case structure FIGURE 2.1 Problem overview FIGURE 2.2 Vision overview FIGURE 2.3 GTHA Municipal Service Providers FIGURE 2.4 Fare integration goals FIGURE 2.5 Three perspectives approach FIGURE 2.6 Key structural barriers FIGURE 2.7 TTC and 905 msp double fare FIGURE 2.8 GO transit and msp average fares FIGURE 3.1 Approaches to setting fares by distance FIGURE 3.2 Global experience with fare by distance and zone fares FIGURE 3.3 Design principles FIGURE 3.4 Concept 1 overview FIGURE 3.5 Concept 1b overview FIGURE 3.6 Concept 2 overview FIGURE 3.7 Concept 3 overview FIGURE 3.8 Concept 4 overview FIGURE 3.9 Range of fare integration results FIGURE 4.1 Strategic case logic framework FIGURE 4.2A Change in demand by market (2031) revenue neutral FIGURE 4.2B Change in demand by market (2031) revenue investment FIGURE 4.3A Change in demand by distance travelled (2031) revenue neutral FIGURE 4.3B Change in demand by distance travelled (2031) revenue investment FIGURE 4.4 Flat fare considerations FIGURE 4.5 Zone considerations FIGURE 4.6A Barrier 1 – customers travelling with 905 msps and the TTC pay two fares (revenue neutral) FIGURE 4.6B Barrier 1 – customers travelling with 905 msps and the TTC pay two fares (revenue investment) FIGURE 4.7 Change in GO rail ridership for short and medium trips FIGURE 4.8A Barrier 3 – customers travelling with go transit and the TTC pay two fares (revenue neutral) FIGURE 4.8B DRAFT Barrier 3 – customers travelling with go transit and the TTC pay two fares (revenue investment) FIGURE 4.9A Demand distribution by service and distance (revenue neutral) FIGURE 4.9B Demand distribution by service and distance (revenue investment) FIGURE 5.1 Economic appraisal overview FIGURE 5.2 Calculating user benefits using the rule of a half FIGURE 5.3 Economic sensitivity tests Tables TABLE 2.1 GTHA travel market summary TABLE 2.2 Alignment of fare integration with plans and policies TABLE 2.3 Fare integration study objectives TABLE 2.4 Fare strategy components TABLE 2.5 Evaluation approach TABLE 3.1 Representative service structure TABLE 3.2 Example of zone and fare by distance communication tools TABLE 3.3 Fare by distance case studies TABLE 3.4 Cash fares for FBD on buses TABLE 3.5 Fare integration concepts TABLE 3.6 Sample fares used in reference cases (average fares) TABLE 3.7 Short term reference case ridership/revenue impacts TABLE 3.8 Long term reference case ridership/revenue impacts TABLE 4.1 Key ridership development considerations TABLE 4.1A Strategic benefits of increased ridership (revenue neutral) TABLE 4.1B Strategic benefits of increased ridership (revenue investment) TABLE 4.2 Key ridership development considerations TABLE 4.3 Barrier 1 – customers travelling with 905 msps and the TTC pay two fares TABLE 4.4 Fare structure understandability issues/benefits TABLE 4.5 Fare concept benefits/issues by traveller type TABLE 4.6 Adaptability analysis TABLE 4.7 Concepts and demand distribution TABLE 4.8 Concepts impacts on future services TABLE 4.9 Fare structure support for seamless service planning TABLE 4.10 What data can be collected from the concepts? TABLE 4.11 Strategic review of fare integration concepts TABLE 4.12 Strategic case conclusions TABLE 5.1 Economic appraisal assumptions TABLE 5.2 Economic appraisal summary (revenue neutral) TABLE 5.3 Economic appraisal summary (revenue investment) TABLE 5.4 Economic case concept analysis TABLE 6.1 DRAFT Financial appraisal results TABLE 7.1 Concept 1 deliverability review TABLE 7.2 Technology risk review TABLE 7.3 Understandability risks TABLE 7.4 Pricing risks TABLE 7.5 Payment options for fare integration concepts TABLE 7.6 Change in Average Fare for Low Income Travellers TABLE 7.7 Deliverability and Operations Case Summary TABLE 8.1 Concept overall strengths and weaknesses TABLE 8.2 Business Case summary TABLE 8.3 What drives Business Case performance? TABLE 8.4 Key Design Considerations for Continued Structure Development TABLE 8.5 Key benefits and issues for the integrated fare structure Glossary BCA Business Case Analysis BCR Benefit Cost Ratio FBD Fare by Distance GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions GO RER GO Regional Express Rail GTHA Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area LRT Light Rail Transit LUM Limited Use Media MSP Municipal Service Provider MTO Ministry of Transportation Ontario NPV Net Present Value OD Origin Destination PnR Park and Ride POP Proof of Payment RT Rapid Transit TAC Technical Advisory Committee TDM Transport Demand Management TTC Toronto Transit CommissionDRAFT TYSSE Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension VKT Vehicle Kilometers Travelled YRT York Region Transit DRAFT i GTHA Fare Integration - Preliminary Business Case Executive Summary Preface Steer Davies Gleave is pleased to submit this draft for discussion of the “Preliminary Business Case for Fare Integration in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area”. This Business Case has been prepared to provide technical input that supports Metrolinx in the development of a Fare Integration Strategy for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). This report contains work completed from 2015 to 2017 that included engagement with Metrolinx and the region's municipal transit service providers through a “Technical Advisory Committee” (TAC). The findings in this report are presented as a draft for discussion and have not been endorsed as formal recommendations by Metrolinx or members of the TAC. Background The GTHA is undergoing rapid growth: by 2041 it is expected the region will be home to nearly 10 million people. This growth will occur in existing and new employment and activity centres, which will increase travel within and between the GTHA’s municipalities. In response to this growth, significant investment in public transit services and infrastructure is underway: • New Light Rail Transit (LRT) systems in Hamilton, Mississauga, and Toronto; Preliminary Business Cases are developed • The Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension (TYSSE), connecting to provide insight and York Region and Toronto; evidence that supports decision making. This • DevelopmentDRAFT and implementation of the PRESTO fare card system; Business Case is not and intended to serve as a detailed implementation • The GO Regional Express Rail (GO RER) Program, which will strategy or design transform the existing GO rail system from a commuter-oriented plan for potential fare structures.