toraerach
Active Member
100% cost recovery at the fare box is completely unfeasible. The TTC already recoups much more from the user than most other transit systems - asking the users to pay even more is obscene. Remember, we are trying to get people to take transit - how many people would really be able to afford it under your proposal? Public transit was created to ensure that everyone could get around.
And what good is a property tax decrease to renters? How many transit riders actually pay property tax directly? And spare me the argument that cheaper property taxes for renters = cheaper rent. Landlords will not decrease rent payments willingly.
And what about tourists? What good is a world-class transit system if it prices itself out of the tourist market?
Transit ridership is increasing because it has become a much cheaper alternative - jacking up the price would piss off way too many people and would tarnish the city's reputation elsewhere. Under your proposal for $5 fare you would make someone earning minimum wage pay more than an hour's work just to get there and back. People already get pissed off at $0.05 increases in fare...try explaining one in the triple digits.
As for P3s, I think they only make the pricetag look smaller in the short term. In the long run they will cost the government more. Look at the 407 for example. Even just building it privately ultimately takes more money out of government coffers. The money spent on our workers goes to pay income tax, sales tax on their purchases, helps save for their children's education, helps them save for retirement so that they can be self-sufficient in old age, etc. In my mind, hiring a private contractor in this case is just paying some rich people to do the government's dirty work.
If we really wanted to save money, contract the people responsible for this.
Now, on to the actual plan. I'm a little concerned about the leaked information, though I'll reserve judgment until the report is released. Concerns I have are mostly over the two agencies already showing a lack of co-operation and a fundamental disagreement in vision. I'd have to say I see myself as being more in the middle of all this. Sometimes subways should be built, others streetcars (and even then, each form - mixed traffic/private ROW/grade separated - are justifiable under the right conditions). Other times BRT, expresses buses, local service buses, trolley buses, etc. make sense. Neither the TTC or Metrolinx seem to grasp this completely.
Nor do they seem to be able to grasp the idea of multiple modes of transit on one corridor. You could, for example, put a subway on Queen with limited stops for a quick ride over long distances. Meanwhile, keep the 501 for local service. The distance between the stops makes the subway commute fast while the streetcar takes you where you need to go much closer to the end point. This will not happen.
I do not support a Queen subway, nor do I support the DRL-lite (LRT). It is of my opinion that the DRL to Union would relieve the Queen car out East and West at the stations placed there. Split the 501 route - but I won't get into my plan into detail here - maybe after the report is released. The DRL as subway to Union could, I think, help make Queen service more reliable.
I have to admit, I was really excited about the Eglinton LRT. I originally supported a subway on this corridor, but the more I found out about the LRT proposal, the more I liked it in general as compared to the subway proposal.
What I'm hoping is that Metrolinx is playing politics here and wants to present an extreme vision so that they appear to be making concessions to TTC demands while expecting concessions on their end. A sad state of affairs, but what else is new?
(typo)