[Earlscourt_Lad]

I'm mystified as to why people keep trumpeting the line that Gary Webster was a good manager. On his watch the TTC became dirtier and basically went backwards in all respects. plus he was like the invisible man, i bet most people had never seen or heard of him until he got fired.

A good manager puts in place good people and processes and strives for constant improvement. Andy Byford seems to have done more in his first couple of weeks on the job than Webster did in years

+1

 

[nfitz]

A good manager puts in place good people and processes and strives for constant improvement. Andy Byford seems to have done more in his first couple of weeks on the job than Webster did in years

Didn't Webster hire Byford as the COO to improve operations? Surely then, that means he put good people in place. Things don't turn-around over-night ... if Byford made significant change in a couple of weeks, he'd been working on how to do it for a while.

And while it's all fine that he can do some customer service work ... will he be able to deal with the big engineering issues? Hopefully.

Yes, it all looks positive, but I'm not sure the need to scapegoat Webster here. Though it does emphasize the need to bring in fresh non-TTC blood from time-to-time.

 

[Still Waters]

Agree, most of what Byford has put in place was already in the works under Webster. And Webster was the one who hired both Upfold and Byford to bring that outside perspective to the organization. The plan was for Byford to get a year's experience under his belt, getting some of these new initiatives started, so that he could hit the ground running when Webster retired.

As for "fresh blood," I think Webster was the first CGM promoted from within the organization for quite some time. Working backwards, Ducharme, Gunn, Leach, Savage, Warren (that takes us back at least to 1980), all of these CGM's were hired from outside the organization. I'd say the non-TTC blood has been more the rule than the exception.

 

[unimaginative2]

I personally don't mind. But you will get a flood of complains from low-income long-range riders, that they cannot afford the increased long-range fares.

Air flights and taxi rides are not live essentials; whereas TTC rides are for quite a few people.

I agree that there could be a definite social impact of fare-by-distance. That's why I wouldn't want it to be used as a back door to a big fare increase. On the other hand, a lot of low-income people are paying high rents to live closer to their work and are subsidizing people who travel long distances. It is a complicated question, but flat transit fares may not be the best way to support low income populations.

New York stuck to the 5-cent fare for far too long, and it crippled their transit system.

 

[Palma]

I agree that there could be a definite social impact of fare-by-distance. That's why I wouldn't want it to be used as a back door to a big fare increase. On the other hand, a lot of low-income people are paying high rents to live closer to their work and are subsidizing people who travel long distances. It is a complicated question, but flat transit fares may not be the best way to support low income populations.

New York stuck to the 5-cent fare for far too long, and it crippled their transit system.

Go is also essential so why do they have it? No difference with TTC.

 

[Rainforest]

Go is also essential so why do they have it? No difference with TTC.

The majority of GO riders are reasonably well-paid professionals who live in the areas surrounding Toronto and work downtown; they can afford higher fares. As always, there are cases that do not fit that scheme, but they are not numerous enough to dictate the pricing policies.

Also, there is a historical factor: the GO system emerged as an alternative to driving from the suburbs, and established higher, distance-based fares from the onset.

 

[Rainforest]

I agree that there could be a definite social impact of fare-by-distance. That's why I wouldn't want it to be used as a back door to a big fare increase. On the other hand, a lot of low-income people are paying high rents to live closer to their work and are subsidizing people who travel long distances. It is a complicated question, but flat transit fares may not be the best way to support low income populations.

Fair enough; I am not saying that fare-by-distance on the TTC is a bad idea, just that it will be an uphill battle politically.

Perhaps the way to approach it is to offer greater discounts for short-range riders who use the new Presto card, once it rolls out fully.

 

[W. K. Lis]

http://www.blogto.com has an article on Andy Byford, entitled "Toronto through the eyes of Andy Byford". Click on this link.

Not Vladimir Putin, but he is Andy Byford.

 

[Palma]

The majority of GO riders are reasonably well-paid professionals who live in the areas surrounding Toronto and work downtown; they can afford higher fares. As always, there are cases that do not fit that scheme, but they are not numerous enough to dictate the pricing policies.

Also, there is a historical factor: the GO system emerged as an alternative to driving from the suburbs, and established higher, distance-based fares from the onset.

Well what about the studies that show immigrants are going directly to the suburbs instead of Toronto due to high cost of acomodations which means they would be taking GO. Plus when you say GO started from the onset by distance based fares, well the TTC used to be also so this holds no water. Once all the transit gets build, it will happen. I believe most major cities have it this way but somehow Toronto is so special that we cannot have distance based transit? It reminds me of when cigarette smoking was banned in restaurants and all the bar owners, etc started crying the blues of how they would loose business. Where did they think all those smokers would go when going out?

 

[Rainforest]

Well what about the studies that show immigrants are going directly to the suburbs instead of Toronto due to high cost of acomodations which means they would be taking GO.

Some immigrants get reasonably well-paid jobs and can afford GO fares. Some immigrants who work low-wage jobs find those jobs closer to their homes, buy cheap used cars and drive to work; GO is useless for them anyway even if the fares were not an issue.

You certainly can find individual examples to the contrary; but the historically dominant pattern is that most of people who use GO, can afford its higher fares.

Plus when you say GO started from the onset by distance based fares, well the TTC used to be also so this holds no water.

TTC never was fully distance-based, it had only 2 zones, and even those were abolished long ago. Bringing the zones back will not be easy.

Once all the transit gets build, it will happen. I believe most major cities have it this way but somehow Toronto is so special that we cannot have distance based transit?

Again, I did not say that we cannot have it, or that having it is a bad idea; just that it will be difficult to introduce.

 

[nfitz]

TTC never was fully distance-based, it had only 2 zones, and even those were abolished long ago.

It's got 2 fare zones now! It had 6 zones in the 1950s.

 

[typezed]

Go ahead and advocate for fare zones if you want to increase the already bitter divide between the inner suburbs and the core. Go ahead if you want to increase the suburb's antipathy towards the TTC and further reliance on the car. Our transit system only operates efficiently when heading towards the core. Getting anywhere else by transit, from one suburb to another, or even within one old suburb, is a huge, time-wasting, uncomfortable pain in the ass. My guess is that many people living in distant parts of Scarborough or Etobicoke or North York purchase Metropasses and use them only to get back and forth to work, a basically break-even transaction. Someone living in old Toronto can purchase a Metropass and use transit several times a day, every day, as part of a vibrant urban lifestyle. This would even be more true if we were blessed with the necessary DRL serving the Distillery, CityPlace, Liberty Village, Leslieville and Parkdale, if there was an improved rapid transit network in the core. This situation is a natural outcome of individual's choices in how and where they live, but it would be very unfortunate if we were to further divide our city by imposing greater costs on one group of people when their experience of transit is as a much lesser service.

 

[jje1000]

Getting around the suburbs was the reason why Transit City was developed, and the potential rejection of zone-based fares lies in the poisoned political debate brought around by Ford and the fact that the suburbs are poorer than they once were.

 

[ssiguy2]

Thanks for the link.
Two important things I noticed that are both positive. He stated that Toronto needs both subways and LRT finally someone stating the truth where one technology does NOT fit all unlike Miller that LRT was the only option for Toronto. He also stated clearly that Toronto desperately needs a DRL, again something that wasn't even on Miller's agenda.

 

[nfitz]

He also stated clearly that Toronto desperately needs a DRL, again something that wasn't even on Miller's agenda.

Sure it was. Miller's council voted to ask Metrolinx to advance the timetable on it, so it was complete by 2023 (15-year plan) instead of the 2033. Also voted to proceed with the pre-EA studies - which TTC started under Giambrone. Giambrone clearly said that TTC needed to start it by 2018 or so. And I think they both said it was necessary before the Yonge subway extension opened.

Not sure where you get the "not on agenda". Not at the top of the agenda, but certainly on the agenda, and not at the bottom either.