[muller877]

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.

There is a large fixed cost that no one at the center or the left wants to tackle. Even though the city workers have become more efficient (maybe to a point where they will equal their private counterparts) they are overpaid.

On average Toronto overpays:

Salaries - 13.7%
Early retirement - 4.0% (1.4/35 years of service)
Sick Days - 2.0% (4/200 days per year)
Pension plan - 4% (pure estimate)
Total = 23.7%
Plus 6x less likely to lose their job

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sit...-private-sector-compensation-in-ontario_1.pdf

Average salary = $51,000
Number of employees = 52,300 (per budget reports)
x 23.7%
= $630,000,000
(that's $600 MILLION)

A lot of money that could be spent on capital builds if we could get this in control.

Ideally the provincial gov't would encourage cities to push back at their biggest expense (and they would also do so). This would require a legislative fix where
- tribunals would look at the absolute value of private companies pay (including benefits) when determining the pay rate for any essential service
- create a process to eliminate the roadblocks to privatization (and likewise demand that unions have a right to bid on work as part of both private and public sector privatizations)

These number are huge. And with the adverting dollar kickbacks from the unions (Working Family Coalition) we know the Liberals will never do anything.

 

[Disparishun]

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.

(...)

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.

This. Charge per kilometre. Let people choose the mode that best fits their trip.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

This. Charge per kilometre. Let people choose the mode that best fits their trip.

Yes. Stick all the poors on the buses. I'm tired of them clogging up my subway.

 

[kEiThZ]

This. Charge per kilometre. Let people choose the mode that best fits their trip.

I won't take credit for the idea. This is how it's done in places like the UK.

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.

Oh come on. Fraction of its ridership? Utter nonsense. What are those people going to do, spend 5 hrs in traffic per day on already clogged highways and spend $30 per day on parking (those charges are surely going up if more people start driving).

The whole system may see some loss of ridership depending on how a separation is implemented. That loss of ridership won't amount to the majority of ridership not taking transit.

What always strikes me in this discussion is the odd focus on trying to maintain fares, for a forum that understands sprawl. Cars cause sprawl. But so does flat-fare transit. Our current fare scheme is horrendous for anything but suburban commuting. The transit system is enabling sprawl here. And worse, the flat fare adds to pressure to extend the subway network into the suburbs, because it's a cheaper alternative than GO which charges by distance.

Personally, I don't see any way to make transit more sensible than splitting off the feeder network from the subway network. One authority owning the subway and GO would force that authority to develop them in a more cohesive and integrated fashion. Push GO rail where it makes sense and subway where it makes sense. Similarly, the feeder network can finally develop as a proper city wide bus/streetcar network, with a focus on broad service, rather than just feeding the subway. Heck, we may finally see more regular bus service to GO stations, in time for RER.

Alternatively, we may well end up with the whole TTC being uploaded to Metrolinx.....

 

[kEiThZ]

Yes. Stick all the poors on the buses. I'm tired of them clogging up my subway.

Do you complain that GO charges more and provides faster service inside the 416? Is GO elitist?

 

[Disparishun]

Yes. Stick all the poors on the buses. I'm tired of them clogging up my subway.

You skipped the part where you explain what you're on about, and passed straight to name-calling. Charming.

 

[wolfewood]

Except TheTigerMaster isn't wrong. That's exactly what charging per kilometer would do in Toronto. Other than GO, transit services in the region are predicated on one fare rides. Also, before anyone starts citing other cities, most have had those pay-per-use type systems for decades, if not centuries (London suburbs were designed around the notion that only the wealthy/middle class could afford the train tickets in, for example). And, considering the various reports David Hulchanski has published in recent years showing that the poor are disproportionately more likely to live on the edges of Scarborough and Etobicoke, it is almost certain that any increase in transit fares will harm those least able to afford it.

If you really want to fund transit in a way that forces everyone to pay, raise the provincial portion of the HST or perhaps increase taxes progressively (ie. impose a higher duty on the wealthy and work your way down).

That said, I've always thought that a way to have the best of both worlds on this issue would be to raise taxes to pay for a reduction in fares. Just throwing numbers out but say make the base fare $1.50 and then add to that up to $3 within the megacity boundaries. No one gets a fare increase and you can incentive short trips. It's probably politically unpalatable because you'll still piss off people on the edges of town but it's a better idea than raising fares on those least able to afford it already.

 

[nfitz]

This all raises a more fundamental question...............should Doug Ford be held politically responsible for his brother's actions?

Any that he didn't speak out about at the time.

As I recall, the only thing Doug Ford opposed, was Rob going into rehab, because Doug knew that meant that although it might save Rob's life, that Doug's access to power would effectively be ended with the powers transferred to the Deputy Mayor.

Ultimately Doug is responsible for only his own actions and no one else's so is it really even fair to bring up Rob when discussing Doug? Please don't get me wrong, I don't like Doug either but he is not "his brother's keeper".

You can't endorse his actions, and then not be accountable for it.

And don't forget - Doug Ford (and Randy) was a drug dealer from his teen years, well into his 20s. Rob Ford was but a child during this time. Where do you think Rob Ford first got drugs from? Why didn't Doug lift a finger when Rob got addicted? Rob admitted to having used pretty much every different drug he could get his hands on. Many containing toxic cancer-causing chemicals. And surprise, he dies from a rare stomach cancer.

If Doug let him get addicted to drugs in the first place, he's responsible for his death. Not to mention his baby sister.

Comparing Trudeau and his father to Doug and Rob Ford doesn't work. (heck, Trudeau's father stepped away from some of his own policies - in the end it was Pierre we have to blame for giving away Canada's share of the oil wealth to the provinces in exchange for the charter of rights - something the west chooses to forget).

Let's be honest here. If Albertans strictly cast their vote against Trudeau based on their history with his father the liberal media and left-wing progressives would be all over it ...

That doesn't even make sense. It was Trudeau that gave Albertans all the oil-wealth, by giving up Canada's share, in the 1980s.

And what left-wing media - it's no secret there's a huge right-wing media bias in this country. Even centrist outlets like the Toronto Star and CBC are rare. I can't think of a single major left-wing outlet ... the biggest I can think of is Now.

^ That is a very valid point and it fair to judge Doug on his policies and what he backed Rob on but not on Rob's racist rants, drug addiction, and mental health problems.

Point me to where Doug objected to Rob's racist rants?

Doug's certainly shown some pretty extreme racism since Rob's death, backing some very odious and undeniably racist individuals and politicians. Only a racist supports a racist.

Are we suddenly supposed to pretend that Doug Ford isn't a racist?

 

[nfitz]

I won't take credit for the idea. This is how it's done in places like the UK.

This. Charge per kilometre. Let people choose the mode that best fits their trip.

Where in the UK charges by the kilometre? London uses a combination of a bizarre zone scheme (even more bizarre's than GO, where some very short trips cost a fortune, and some very long trips are cheap), and charge-by-mode, with no free transfers from bus to tube, or even bus to bus, but no charge per distance on bus.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Even in cities like Tokyo, stations within a certain range have a certain price but never individual prices for individual stations on the subway or even the regional rail. Fare by distance by kilometer would be extremely complicated and expensive to implement. The current plan to include a time-based usage is the best solution within Toronto and is the cheapest option.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Do you complain that GO charges more and provides faster service inside the 416? Is GO elitist?

Yes. I've written my thought on that issue on at least one occasion.

GO Transit is too expensive and impractical to be used by lower income people. Indeed, an argument could be made that the service is unaffordable for daily commuting for anybody who isn't relatively wealthy (consider that the GTHA median family income is just $68,000)

60% of GO Transit commuters parking and driving at GO stations. So not only are these people paying GO Transit's exorbitant fares, but they're also paying for gas, insurance, depreciation, parking, lease payments and other car-related payments. Someone commuting between Ajax GO and Union Station 20 times per month would have a fare of $296.55 per month, or $3,558.60 per year. The cost of car ownership in Canada ranges from $8,500 to $13,000. It would be virtually impossible for someone making a median individual income of $30,000 to afford this.

Limited mobility is a chronic problem for lower income individuals, and this problem is going to become significantly worse as income equality increases throughout the GTHA. We should be looking for ways to remedy the problem; not exacerbate it with punitive fare structures, that effectively punish the poor for being poor.

In it's current state, GO Transit operates as a shuttle for relatively wealthy people to travel between Toronto and their outer suburban homes. We should not be satisfied with this, especially in light of increasing income inequality.

 

[Ahmet Kul]

So far so good. I really like the idea of Free Wi-Fi on GO transit.

 

[Leo_Chan]

So far so good. I really like the idea of Free Wi-Fi on GO transit.

Who's going to be first? WiFi and cellular in TTC tunnels or WiFi on GO Trains?

 

[kEiThZ]

GO Transit is too expensive and impractical to be used by lower income people. I

Why should the transit system be used to address social issues? This is simply more crap tossed on to an already inadequate transit system.

You want to deal with transit being too expensive for people? Have the social services offices pay for fare discounts for low income persons. This mentality is a huge part of why transit is crap in the US ("It's for poor people.") and why it's great for Europe (they build it to service the middle class above all else).

In effect you're asking all of Toronto to suffer worse service, to subsidize fares for the poor. And worse, you're doing this on the backs of municipal ratepayers. If transit was actually more expensive, it'd be the province providing those subsidies through the welfare system.

It's bad enough that we have people who insist on building subways and aren't willing to pay for them with higher taxes. How is it any different when we discuss expanding the network or improving the service and nobody is willing to entertain fare increases.

Want to help the poor? Give them a transit system that works. One that actually is marginally competitive with a car from home to work. Stop worrying about the ticket price.

60% of GO Transit commuters parking and driving at GO stations.

I was talking about GO inside the 416. What happens in the 905 is not as relevant. When GO RER happens, very few people will be driving to a GO station. They'll be getting there by bus or LRT or streetcar, inside the 416. Integration on that needs to improve.

 

[kEiThZ]

Where in the UK charges by the kilometre? London uses a combination of a bizarre zone scheme (even more bizarre's than GO, where some very short trips cost a fortune, and some very long trips are cheap), and charge-by-mode, with no free transfers from bus to tube, or even bus to bus, but no charge per distance on bus.

I generalized a bit. Sue me.

A zoned fare is basically fare by distance. Especially when you're talking about the 9 or whatever zones London has. How much is anybody travelling within one zone?

If anybody wants to nitpick, fine, the TTC can go with zoned fares. Whatever. It's still better than the flat fare today.

My general point was flat fare on surface routes. Base + distance on subsurface. And create a credit for transfer between the two.