News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5K     0 

GO Transit is an agency that provides mostly limited service, only at certain hours in the day, only on certain days, only in a single direction, to a single station, at extremely low frequencies, and in ROWs. GO Transit's high cost recovery has nothing to do with its distance-based fare structure.

GO Transit's fares aren't even really distance-based since the fare costs are not even proportional to distance: people traveling short distances (i.e. people living in the City of Toronto) are charged much higher fares per km than those who travel long distances (i.e. people living in the 905).
 
GO Transit's cost recovery is something like 95% which is close enough, which is why I mentioned it.

Regardless, I think both agencies should be at 100% cost recovery.
(As I mentioned, the fact that other agencies like the MTA are subsidized is irrelevant, since they are a different city and different situation).

But by "100% cost recovery" I don't mean just by raising fares. They should use every avenue available to them raise their own operating income.

For example, imagine a 1% sales tax was created for the City of Toronto (hypothetical, you could imagine a road toll, gas tax, etc.).
The City would use that new income to help subsidize the TTC. But I'm saying, that sales tax (or toll, or whatever) should just be given to the TTC/Metrolinx as an income, which would effectively remove transit from municipal politics.

If these agencies can break even, this would end the problem of provincial uploading, since there would be no costs to be uploaded.

Once operating costs are accounted for, they can start looking at raising income for continuous capital expansion programs.
That's really whats needed to start planning for the long term.
 
Last edited:
Ryan said:
Why does the TTC have to be subsidized?

It's just not a sustainable model. How can we expand a transit system or grow ridership, when, if it's being subsidized at 30%, the operating costs will just continue to rise as the system expands.
Click to expand...

The subsidy, cost, and energy used per passenger goes down the more it is used. That meets the requirements of sustainability. Any growth in ridership is accompanied by spending less on other means of transportation thus freeing up the money used for transit. Non transit options are less sustainable in that the land required to deliver the transportation solution grows at a higher rate, the cost per passenger remains virtually the same with adoption, etc. You are looking at the tax bucket at a fixed amount, but it is as flexible. You are looking at roads as free of cost, but they are not. You are looking at the tax paid portion and the user paid portion as completely separate, but the taxpayer and user are the same person and money going to Esso, Ford, and State Farm and money going to Metropass and the city are coming from the same wallet.
 
How can you even think of comparing the TTC to GO, or GO to any other local agency in terms of cost recovery ....

Essentially GO is rush hour only ... the total ridership on all the buses combined is somewhere in the 35K range, less then the ridership *single* routs on the TTC.

So really that means is ridership is mainly their rail passengers, which for the most part are rush hour only.
 
So are you saying you are in favour of council subsidizing transit?

Instead of subsidizing the system directly, the city/province should subsidize lower income transit users. This kind of thing would be easy to implement with a fare card system.

There's no reason for the transit systems not to be in control of their own revenue. I mostly just want to get it away from the politicians.
 
Ryan said:
Regardless, I think both agencies should be at 100% cost recovery.
(As I mentioned, the fact that other agencies like the MTA are subsidized is irrelevant, since they are a different city and different situation).
Click to expand...

You said other cities have to subsidize transit because they don't have the enough transit ridership/culture to support it, and you specifically listed New York City as an exception. Not only does New York City subsidize transit, it does so at a higher rate than Toronto does (the MTA NYC Transit has 60% cost recovery, compared to the TTC's 70%). Even Paris has something like 60% cost recovery. Even if 100% cost recovery for transit in Toronto was actually a good idea right now (and it isn't), it is just not a realistic goal, at all.
 
Ryan said:
So are you saying you are in favour of council subsidizing transit?

Instead of subsidizing the system directly, the city/province should subsidize lower income transit users. This kind of thing would be easy to implement with a fare card system.

There's no reason for the transit systems not to be in control of their own revenue. I mostly just want to get it away from the politicians.
Click to expand...

Removal of transit subsidy would only make sense if it was accompanied by full cost recovery on roads. This means making the TTC an entity separate from the government with ownership of its properties and with a need to pay land tax to the city, and making a similar Toronto Roads Commission separate from the government with ownership of its properties and needing to pay land tax. Both entities would need to recoup 100% from user fees. Why subsidize lower income transit users at all in this scenario... just give them a transportation credit to use as they see fit. The city could set minimum service standards (e.g. no removal of connectivity to currently connected properties for the TRC, or maximum distance to nearest transit stop for the TTC).
 
While the service cuts might be delayed till February, 2012, (hopefully, ridership numbers might force some rethinking), it should be remembered that this is part two of service cuts. Back in the Spring of 2011, we had part one of the service cuts. I did not, and currently, do not like the outcome of the first cuts. The bus service near my home had been cut to 10 PM, and other routes were affected even more. The worst, I think, was with the 74 Mt. Pleasant route, with no service at all after 7 PM.

This shows how the current regime does not support transit as the previous administration did. Transit is just gravy that needs to be cut because it is not used by the people in charge.
 
This whole 'getting change from a token machine' thing is already pissing me off and it's only the second day. If only they weren't so moronic and had debit/credit machines installed a decade ago.
 
In case you forgot, the price of a TTC fare had gone up January 1st. You have until January 31, 2012 to use the old tickets and passes.

See this link.
 
MORE service cuts coming February 12th and 13th, see this link.

Census numbers came out today. See this link.

From 2006 to 2011, Toronto’s population went up 4.5% to 2,615,060. Unacceptable! Rob Ford wanted a 10% reduction in spending, but how can there be a reduction in spending when the population of Toronto went up 4.5%?

How could the TTC reduce service on the TTC when the population keeps going up? A 10% reduction is not logical when there is a 4.5% increase in people. People would use the TTC more, especially with rising oil prices at the same time (unless you’re a millionaire).
 
W. K. Lis said:
How could the TTC reduce service on the TTC when the population keeps going up? A 10% reduction is not logical when there is a 4.5% increase in people. People would use the TTC more, especially with rising oil prices at the same time (unless you’re a millionaire).
Click to expand...

How can a subway on Sheppard be justified when we cannot fill a bus every 5 minutes?

Both the 85 and 190 are being reduced in service.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top