[TheTigerMaster]

Isn't the subway network profitable?

I’ve had City staff personally tell me that the subway is not profitable. Take that for what you will.

I’ve been seeing this claim about the subway being profitable for as long as I’ve been following transit, yet I’ve never seen any evidence substantiating that claim. I’m pretty sure it’s a myth.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The subway from my understanding is largely profitable from an operations standpoint - barely. The huge capital expenses in maintaining the system however make it vastly unprofitable. That is why uploading the subway's ownership (and therefor capital expenses) while maintaining operating funding for the TTC, as proposed by the PCs, would actually be an incredible deal. It would relieve the city from hundreds of millions of dollars of annual capital spending.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

That may certainly be true, though I have extremely limited sympathy for anyone who turns to racists and/or demagogues (or both in one!) out of spite for the perceived status quo.

so then the job is to make the society better so they don't have to, not make excuses for the status quo.

That's just not true. High-handed language?

Rob Ford was elected because the media wouldn't touch the rumours about his drinking problems, racist issues, extreme bigotry, drunk driving, spousal abuse, and predilection for under-age prostitutes. Heck, they STILL won't touch the latter issue, despite the details provided by the police in the arrest warrants. Had there been a full discussion of what was known, in the manner that the #MeToo movement has been doing of late, there's no way a piece of trash like Rob Ford would ever have been elected.

He was also elected because the Toronto Star had done a very effective hatchet job on David Miller for months and years, making look like he needed to go. Very bizarre, given they worst sin apparently was being tough with the unions, not giving them what they wanted, and extracting serious concessions during the 2010 negotiations, that will save money for years - unlike anything that a drugged-up wife-beater like Rob Ford or "come meet my at my white-only country club) Tory have ever done.

That's absurd. I've never felt talked down to by David Miller. And my gosh, it's not like he also didn't have a reputation for showing up in public under the influence. Except unlike Rob Ford, he'd be taking transit - and talking to people. Rather than driving through streetcar doors trying to kill them.

I'm sorry, I don't see your point here. Aren't leaders supposed to be of above average intelligence? Isn't that the whole point?

You think people wanted to vote for Ford, because they felt he was stupider than they were? It seems more to me like you are projecting your personal inferiorities about your own abilities on the entire populace.

Look at your posts and the way you describe suburbanites, nfitz. Look at how you've been suspended for going too far. That's the problem.

 

[JGHali]

The subway from my understanding is largely profitable from an operations standpoint - barely. The huge capital expenses in maintaining the system however make it vastly unprofitable. That is why uploading the subway's ownership (and therefor capital expenses) while maintaining operating funding for the TTC, as proposed by the PCs, would actually be an incredible deal. It would relieve the city from hundreds of millions of dollars of annual capital spending.

It is not at all an “incredible deal” inasmuch as the province is perfectly capable of giving the city operating funding for the TTC. Like before 1995. No need for hare brained “uploading” or the implementation of zones or “premium” fares as occasionally is floated by Metrolinx types.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The subway from my understanding is largely profitable from an operations standpoint - barely. The huge capital expenses in maintaining the system however make it vastly unprofitable. That is why uploading the subway's ownership (and therefor capital expenses) while maintaining operating funding for the TTC, as proposed by the PCs, would actually be an incredible deal. It would relieve the city from hundreds of millions of dollars of annual capital spending.

This is nothing that couldn't be achieved through Queen's Park properly funding transit. I don't know what people keep acting as if the wheel has to be invented for there to be proper transit funding.

Also, ever since the events of the 1990s, I'm apprehensive about giving Queen's Pare greater control over municipal infrastructure. We could only image what Mike Haris would have done to the TTC if he had direct control over it.

 

[kEiThZ]

People really have some misguided analysis here. Does anybody think the average voters gives a damn about any of the salacious Rob Ford stuff? Here's what I heard from my neighbours in Scarborough at election time, "Ford said he was going to build the subway. Rest of them? All they do is talk." Nobody else gave a damn about all the "scandals". I put that in quotation marks, because that's how they see it.

I don't agree with my neighbours. And I see populism for what it is. But to combat it, you have to understand it. And if the last few posts here are anything to go by, more people are clueless about it, than knowledgeable on it.

 

[kEiThZ]

Without the subways as assets, the TTC would need some other source of revenue to support the bus system.

High order transit is only profitable with a feeder system.

’ve had City staff personally tell me that the subway is not profitable. Take that for what you will.

I see some advantages and disadvantages. Transparency would be a plus. As it stands, we don't know if the subway network is subsidizing bus services in this city or the other way around. Personally, I suspect that the subway network is operationally profitable. Won't cover expansion. But given our volumes, the likelihood of covering operating costs has got to be up there.

I would argue that separating the two might just improve asset utilization. A new owner might have incentive to do fare-by-distance or offer off-peak discounts and boost utilization of the subway network. I also suspect that the city would have to spend more on the bus network. But that's just reflecting the true cost of that component.

I would argue that the net effect might just be improved overall revenue and cost recovery, and more effective investment on both sides. However, that comes with the likelihood that fares might go up. And personally if it's distance based or zoned, I'm okay with that.

 

[lead82]

Populism is popular because they see the current failing as inaction and all talk. Our current city politicians need to be seen as taking concrete actions to resolve both urban and suburban problems. Tory can be pigeon-holed as a downtown elite (which he is) and that he hasn't done much of anything for the suburbs except to keep property tax increases low.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I see some advantages and disadvantages. Transparency would be a plus. As it stands, we don't know if the subway network is subsidizing bus services in this city or the other way around. Personally, I suspect that the subway network is operationally profitable. Won't cover expansion.

Neither is subsidizing neither. The subway isnt subsidizing the bus, and the bus isn't subsidizing the subway. They're part of an integrated network. The subway doesn't have it's own separate pool of revenue that is being used to subsidize buses, or vice versa.

Further subway would only be "operationally" potentially profitable, if you exclude maintenance and upkeep, which is ridiculous. The subway is not profitable. A casual glance at the SOGR backlog would easily demonstrate that.

I would argue that separating the two might just improve asset utilization. A new owner might have incentive to do fare-by-distance or offer off-peak discounts and boost utilization of the subway network. I also suspect that the city would have to spend more on the bus network. But that's just reflecting the true cost of that component.

How would you handle the revenue split between the subway and the surface network? This was a problem with the Transit City LRT lines, because they're all tightly coupled into the TTC network. The result was that Metrolinx let TTC keep 100% of fare revenues.

 

[kEiThZ]

Further subway would only be "operationally" potentially profitable, if you exclude maintenance and upkeep, which is ridiculous.

Since when does operationally profitable not include maintenace and upkeep? If the split happens, my hope is that the subway network can reach a point where SOGR never gets this ridiculously large again.

How would you handle the revenue split between the subway and the surface network?

Personally, I've argued for a simple flat fare for all surface routes (say $2). And a fare by distance scheme with a base fare (say $2 + 1 cent per km to start). If you can't afford it you can go across the city for $2 on the Eglinton LRT. Would take you longer. On the other side, the low base fare for the subway would allow for much more regular usage on short trips. I would suggest that to limit all fare growth in the subway network to the kilometric charge.

Controlled transfers only needed at subway stations. The situation that Metrolinx faced with Eglinton is not relevant here. For the simple reason that you're now grouping services and assets together where sensible. Eglinton would be grouped with surface routes and people should be able to get on and off like it was a bus or streetcar.

This would do wonders for targeting sprawl. And we'd also end up seeing much better feeder service integration into GO. Hopefully shifting traffic where it makes sense. For example, if you're downtown bound why not take the GO? Right now, that's really disincentivized on the flat fares.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I see some advantages and disadvantages. Transparency would be a plus. As it stands, we don't know if the subway network is subsidizing bus services in this city or the other way around.

This question if whether or not the subway is subsidizing the bus is especially ridiculous when you consider that Toronto’s subway system gets the overwhelming majority of it’s ridership from the bus and streetcar network. Without the surface network, the subway network would have a fraction of its current ridership.

 

[ADRM]

so then the job is to make the society better so they don't have to, not make excuses for the status quo.

I'm not sure who you think is "making excuses for the status quo", and I think it's difficult to argue that Doug Ford is the only one looking to upend it.

In some ways, Ford is campaigning for a reversion rather that a maintenance of the status quo; he's the least progressive of all candidates and the one who possesses the most antipathy to using public resources to make people's lives better.

 

[muller877]

Isn't the subway network profitable? It's why I don't think there's an issue if Metrolinx takes over. They'll reinvest further. The city will have to appropriately subsidize feeder bus service.

Also, I think fare-by-distance or zoned fares will only happen when the subway network and the feeder network are separated. The TTC seems to have no interest in it.

And if one think uploading equate to a process free from political interference, all they need to acquaint themselves with is why the province chose to fund Spadina extension, or build a station at Kirby.

AoD

Whichever level of politician controls it there will be political interference. Just look at the fantasy maps various Mayor's have produced as platform gimmicks. Every swing voter somehow had a a pretend station near their house. Scarborough, Finch, Don Mill, DRL, Jane. Mayor's did not focus on the feasible or the most needed but which ones scores votes in certain areas of Toronto.

Provincial will somewhat do the same. The DRL has turned from a Relief Line into a Downtown focused subway since there are lots of NDP/Liberal swing votes in the downtown ridings. PC's will focus on the outer-416 and the inner-905 since these will be swing PC/Liberal's.

So the question is how to make sure that the tax dollars are spent that would best each persons needs and is transparent (so politicians would have a hard time interfering). Yes, there would be fudge-able numbers in any formula but here is my attempt at a solution.

What I would like to see is a property tax charge for transit (just like we have for schools) in the GTA. To cover both capex and opex of the transit system. 1/4 goes to GTA regional transit (e.g. GO), 1/4 goes to very local transit (local bus service or streetcars), 1/4 goes to intermediate transit needs (subway, BRT, LRT) and 1/4 goes to mega-projects (RER). Take the average throughout the GTA right now that we pay through our property taxes and apply it across the region. And the Province will contribute 1/2 mega, 1/4 GTA and 1/4 intermediate (capex and opex).

Then the transit agency (whomever it is) would need to report on what services they have provided to each resident specifically (including an annual report card plus mandatory community feedback on priorities). For local transit it would be more of a subsidy to cover operating costs. But for regional transit it would be more capital growth.

This would mean that users in dense neighbourhoods may have surplus balances which would allow more frequent bus service or a LRT service being built to serve the neighbourhood. And in less dense areas that currently do not have bus service it would force the City to figure out the best way to service the community (Uber?). It would also mean building a subway/BRT/LRT to neighbourhoods who are being undeserved right now (comparing dollars contributed to dollars used).

If you live beside a subway it could mean building a tertiary exit or building a relief line that you would use.

It would also mean commercial buildings also have the same formula. This will mean that money will be allocated to make sure employees can get to work & people can get to the retail stores (the transit needs are met not just for the residents but also the workers).

The downside…dense areas (i.e. the financial district, Liberty Village, etc) will get more and more transit while other areas will continue to see ½ hour service. But I would consider this an upside as well. It makes sure that the transit dollars are spent on the areas where there is density and where there are transit needs vs White Elephant projects. And lots of transit will drive more density creating growth nodes.

If a developer wants to bring a subway to their undeveloped area (e.g. VMC) they would have to agree to fund any deficiency (including a surety bond) until the development hits the desired limit.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I'm not sure who you think is "making excuses for the status quo", and I think it's difficult to argue that Doug Ford is the only one looking to upend it.

In some ways, Ford is campaigning for a reversion rather that a maintenance of the status quo; he's the least progressive of all candidates and the one who possesses the most antipathy to using public resources to make people's lives better.

by immeadiely going to say all his voters are sexist and racist, you are settling for that. We don't know that, we both know the Liberals are not completing all the projects they said they would and are even stiffing some communities (Brampton). Doug is not the only one, as you mention trying to upend it. The goal is to find someone who will change the way things are done before we end up with him. He only wins when you can't describe policy arguments as to why his methods don't work.

 

[OneCity]

Populism is popular because they see the current failing as inaction and all talk. Our current city politicians need to be seen as taking concrete actions to resolve both urban and suburban problems. Tory can be pigeon-holed as a downtown elite (which he is) and that he hasn't done much of anything for the suburbs except to keep property tax increases low.

Last election we needed a Centre-Left Mayor to split the City divide. Instead we have a Centre Right Mayor trying to make everyone happy (including York region)with no money to really improve anything substantially

The City has been severely neglected from end to end for decades and this has ignited the Citys political fire to resolve matters with polarized infighting and clever plans. No matter how strong your beliefs are this is not going to move us forward in any positive manner. The far leaning Downtown Left have a much different vision of Scarborough and other inner suburban areas then the residents who actually live in these areas. Fords are a bi product of this lack of representation and obviously not a good situation.

IMO the City very much needs a moderate Left Mayor candidate that supports the subway plan as priority to push the upper levels (similar to Tory)in addition to searching for means to fund LRT and rapid bus locally. If we put Fords lack of operational transit funding aside most residents in their individual pockets from end to end of the City agree with the Capital transit plan in his platform as priorities over anything else. The best the City can do in this environment is elect a moderate-consensus building Left candidate to branch out of the usual City Left comfort zone and take this infrastructure plan to run with. Infighting to overturn the SSE or blaming Tory for what Miller and many other local and Provincial politicians didn't support in the past with the DRL and SSE is not going to move the City forward in any reasonable way. Its up to the Left to reach over into the suburbs or Tory politics will likely continue and any idea of further political infighting to push an old far Left transit agenda is insanity at this stage.