Appendix: TTC fare comparison 2016

When the first study in this series was performed, the Canadian and US dollar were at par. In early 2014, it was still around 85 cents. With the recent crash in the dollar, it seemed only “fare” to produce a second set of numbers where $1 Cdn = $0.70 US. This may or may not be a true reflection of relative cost, since local purchasing power may not necessarily convert perfectly, but it is worth considering when comparing Toronto and other Canadian cities to their US peers.

This comparison is of North American transit systems but does not include Mexico, since labour costs, income levels, and other parameters there are quite different than the US or Canada. This is evident given the 5-peso fare (~37 cents Canadian) of the Mexico City Metro.

In past years any transit system with zones was left out, but a few have since converted to single-fare or are planning to do so. For Houston, Pittsburgh, Seattle and Vancouver approximations were used to try and equate their inner zones to the service area of cities like Chicago or Toronto.

The study was also broadened somewhat to include smaller cities or cities with weaker transit systems like Hampton Roads, Tucson, Kansas City and Trenton-Camden. While these are no Big Apple or Hogtown, they do have light rail and connecting bus lines. Obviously these will be somewhat asymmetrical comparisons to more robust systems elsewhere, but the pricing data is still interesting to include.

Large cities without subway or light rail, such as Winnipeg, are not included. Cities where rail lines are under construction but fares are not yet known, such as Cincinnati, Detroit or Honolulu, are not included.

Also not included in the comparison are systems with only Bus Rapid Transit - namely Mississauga, York, Brampton, Durham and Gatineau. Otttawa is the BRT exception, but it has a massive BRT system, a small rail line and is in the process of constructing a larger LRT network. When Mississauga or Kitchener build their new LRT lines, they will be duly included.

Significantly, this study does not include Washington DC due to its many zones for fares that price it more like a commuter rail system and less like a subway. WAMTA is simply apples-to-oranges when compared to single fare-zone systems because while it might be considerably more expensive for distant riders it can also be less expensive for short rides within a single zone. The Metro in DC does not even offer a monthly pass, making comparisons even more difficult.

This year, we are taking a closer look at transfers, which have a huge impact on the cost of getting from A to B. Some cities like Montreal include at least one transfer in their basic transit fare, allowing riders to change routes and vehicles (bus, rail, light rail) during their trip. Others like Philadelphia require that a specific transfer fee be paid in order to switch routes. More cities than you might think actually have no transfer policy at all -- you have to pay every time you board, even if all part of one trip. This is generally considered bad transit planning, since it can greatly increase costs and discourage ridership, but it is still prevalent in cities as large as Baltimore. And so the Adult Cash Fare is shown both with and without transfers. The Multiple Trip / Smartcard fare is shown including a transfer, since it is assumed a frequent rider would be using transfers as part of their commute. This is also necessary for the Trip Index calculation, since costly transfers are a major incentive to switch to monthly passes on many systems.
Unusual transfers, such as those that allow travel in any direction (used in several cities including Dallas), are ignored or treated like regular one-direction transfers in this study. It should be noted however that these are effectively short-term passes that add tremendous value for certain kinds of trips - for example, to run a short errand and return on a single fare cuts the effective cost of transit in half.

It should be noted that several cities such as Calgary offer special discounted fares or passes for low-income residents. While laudable, those fares are not included in this study.

Keep in mind when looking at the Trip Index that the average month has about 22 working days, not including holidays.

Many smartcards, including Presto, charge a fee of $1 to $6 to first purchase the card. That fee is ignored in the Multi/Smartcard fare since it is assumed commuters will already have a card.

Three cities in the Base Fare chart (Calgary, Pittsburgh and Salt Lake City) still have a Free Fare zone. These also add value for some users but are slowly disappearing (Seattle and Portland removed theirs in 2012) and ignored in this study.

Where different prices for bus vs subway do still exist, as in Boston, Chicago or St. Louis, the rail fare was used.

San Francisco, Calgary and Edmonton make transit free for seniors with qualifying low income or with a low-cost monthly pass, though for the study the standard senior fare is utilized. Ottawa lets seniors ride free on Wednesdays, though that too is ignored in the study.

Some cities have a 30-day or 31-day monthly pass that starts whenever activate, while others (including Toronto, Miami, Philadelphia) cling to the idea that a monthly pass starts on the first day of a given month. This difference, while annoying, is ignored. Whether the monthly pass is transferable or not is also ignored.

Houston and LA have bizarrely high Trip Indexes that should be ignored. Due to recent changes to transfer policies, passes are now redundant in LA since the base fare is so low and transfers are now free when using a smartcard. Houston does not actually offer a monthly pass, the cost of the day pass x 30 was used here but the result makes it obvious why such a product is not offered. Again, this has to do with a low base fare and free transfers.