News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

Cash fare is a terrible choice for analyzing fares. It's not an accurate reflection of what actual regular transit users have to deal with. Comparisons should use ticket/token/PRESTO prices.
 
Cash fare is a terrible choice for analyzing fares. It's not an accurate reflection of what actual regular transit users have to deal with. Comparisons should use ticket/token/PRESTO prices.
Cash fare was column 2 of my table. Ticket/token/PRESTO was column 3. Toronto still cheapest of the GTA agencies I listed.
 
Brampton 46% farebox 54% subsidy
Mississauga 46% farebox 54% subsidy
Toronto 63.2% farebox 36.8% subsidy
Montreal 57.1% farebox 42.9% subsidy
Ottawa 52% farebox 48% subsidy
New York City 55.5% farebox 44.5% subsidy
Los Angeles 30.6% farebox 69.4% subsidy
Detroit 13.9% farebox 86.1% subsidy
Edmonton 39.4% farebox 60.6% subsidy

If Toronto had a higher subsidy from the city, province, or federal governments, TTC would also be lower. BTW. That's operations, not capital. The transit funding being discussed is mostly for the capital budget.
 
Toronto 63.2% farebox 36.8% subsidy
That doesn't seem current. Looking at the 2012 financial statements - http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Com.../2013/May_24/Reports/DRAFT_CONSOLIDATED_F.pdf - operating revenue was $1,087.2 million compared with operating expenses of $1,457.2 million. That's 74.6% farebox, not 63.2%. Even if you include the "portion of environmental expenses funded through capital subsidy as well as accident claims and employee benefits that are funded through the long-term receivable" then it's 69.3%.

What's really shocking is that they left over $40 million of the operating surplus on the table. Nice for the city ... but then we justify a fare increase of 5¢ to raise a only $18 million? Sounds like we overpaid by 10¢ a ride in 2012.
 
Cash fare was column 2 of my table. Ticket/token/PRESTO was column 3. Toronto still cheapest of the GTA agencies I listed.

The difference with TTC is that the fare doesn't provide 2 hour unlimited travel, like the rest of the GTA. So the TTC fare cost isn't necessarily lower. (I think that affects the revenue ridership totals too, because people in the 905 can potentially reuse the same fare for the return trip.)

On that note, I think we could compare the cost of monthly and weekly passes too:

Weekly pass & monthly pass cost (adult):

TTC - $38.50 - $128.50
MiWay - $32.00 - $120.00
Brampton Transit - $30.00 - $115.00
YRT - $30.00 - $120.00
Durham Region Transit - N/A - $100.00
 
On that note, I think we could compare the cost of monthly and weekly passes too:

Weekly pass & monthly pass cost (adult):

TTC - $38.50 - $128.50
MiWay - $32.00 - $120.00
Brampton Transit - $30.00 - $115.00
YRT - $30.00 - $120.00
Durham Region Transit - N/A - $100.00
Oh, Toronto is definitely more expensive pass wise. On the otherhand ... surely TTC riders make more trips per month on average.
 
I think we're going about this wrong

The way to do this is to find the "true" fare cost of the TTC relative to other systems is to find how much the average TTC rider pays per day and how many kilometers they ride per day. Then do the same for other major systems. We will then be able to get a ratio of fare to distance travelled.
 
I think we're going about this wrong

The way to do this is to find the "true" fare cost of the TTC relative to other systems is to find how much the average TTC rider pays per day and how many kilometers they ride per day. Then do the same for other major systems. We will then be able to get a ratio of fare to distance travelled.

Is there even any way for the TTC to know the distance travelled by its riders? I suppose you can estimate, but you can't know
 
The TTC could do survey.

Even then it still a guessing game.

Unless you tag each rider for a week, there is no way you will get a true picture what the distance is for any rider on any system travels daily.

TTC is the cheapest system per km for a rider to use as well the quality of service.

If the Presto Card was a true smart card, you would get that info easy so long as the riders tap on and off especially at the end of their trip.

Because of quality of service, riders used TTC more than any of the 905 systems.

If you tag me, that info is only good for that week since my travel is never the same each week. Some more while some less as well distance. I have taken the weekly pass down to $.50 per trip. It includes stop overs.
 
Mean Well, while we talk small funds, Los Angeles is looking at a bigger price.


Metro considers adding fees to every new home, store or office building to fight congestion


Costs could range up to $1,900 per home or $30,000 for a new retail store
By Steve Scauzillo, Staff Writer
@stevscaz on Twitter

Posted: 05/18/2013 05:31:08 PM PDT
Updated: 05/18/2013 05:33:07 PM PDT

File - Construction workers build new homes in the Rosedale housing project in Azusa on Dec. 10, 2012. A new fee being considered by Metro to fight congestion could add as much as $1,900 to the cost of a new home. (SGVN/Staff file photo by Leo Jarzomb)





Developers in Los Angeles County are bracing themselves for a new layer of congestion fees that would add about $1,900 per new home and about $30,000 on a new Trader Joe's store,

The added fees are being considered as part of a developing Congestion Mitigation Fee Program, 10 years in the making by the county's Metropolitan Transportation Authority or Metro.


After more than 50 businesses signed a letter opposing the measure, the program suddenly was withdrawn from Wednesday's Metro Planning and Programming Committee and placed on hold.


"The Board and their staff felt that it being a complex issue, more time is needed by all to fully understand it. It will probably go back to the Board at a later date," wrote Metro spokesman Rick Jager. Though the May 23 date originally set for board approval also was withdrawn, Jager said the board had not set a new date for consideration.


The program was created in 1990 and was paired with Proposition 111 that raised the state gas tax 9 cents a gallon. The program is required to fund transit projects that will help alleviate traffic congestion caused by new development. If no program is in place, the county and 88 cities are in jeopardy of losing Prop. 111 revenue, about $83 million a year, according to Metro.


Metro had recommended each city charge a minimum fee of $200 per car trip generated by each new development. Under the minimum, Metro estimates

Advertisement

the fee would generate up to $767 million over 20 years.

Cities have submitted wish lists containing numerous projects, from lane widenings and new freeway on- and off-ramps to traffic signalization to a $60 million grade separation proposed at a train-street intersection in Baldwin Park. If all 1,700 projects submitted by 88 cities were completed, it would cost $5.1 billion, create 60,200 jobs, and reduce the number of hours drivers sit in traffic by between 6 percent and 38 percent over 20 years, according to Metro.


Development fees are nothing new to many cities. Pasadena and Santa Monica, for example, have a sophisticated system for charging developers for roads, traffic signals, bikeways, etc. Some 22 cities in the county already impose transportation mitigation fees, while 66 cities do not, according to Metro.


If the new program was adopted, Metro would work with each city in the county to adopt a separate congestion mitigation fee schedule. Though it's not totally clear, those cities with existing fees could receive credits if the fees are adequate, according to Metro.


Members of the Los Angeles County Business Federation are opposed to the fee plan and opposition is growing. "This is a hot issue," said Judi Erickson, spokeswoman for BizFed who attended Wednesday's hearing, only to hear the matter was tabled without any discussion,


Prior to the meeting, the business group had met with Metro staff and went over the numbers. The group sees it as potentially onerous.


"We are worried about adding a fee, which would drive up costs. And we're not going to see any real change," said Holly Schroeder, chief executive officer of the Building Industry Association Los Angeles-Ventura Chapter and a BizFed member.


Others have criticized the plan, saying it is based on a 1990 law and does not take into account newer laws that reduce congestion and air pollution, such as AB 32, a greenhouse gas reduction plan, and other "smart growth" laws that prioritize developments near rail stations and bus stations to reduce commute times and air emissions.


"A plan that assesses a development and impact fee to fix some streets and build some bike paths seems out of touch," said David Grannis, president and CEO of Point C LLC, a Pasadena company. Grannis is also BizFed's transportation committee chairman.


Metro's report dated May 15 said no matter how many new laws have been passed to deal with new roads, trains, and carpool lanes, Metro is responsible under the 1990 law for developing "a congestion mitigation fee methodology" and the cities can then decide to adopt their own ordinances.


Metro Board Member and Duarte City Councilman John Fasana said he's leaning toward supporting the plan. He said extensive study by Metro supplies the link between the congestion fee plan and a possible reduction in traffic when applied regionally in all cities.


"I think it has been well-researched and is well-founded," Fasana said.


Under the minimum fee amounts spelled out in the Metro report, congestion fees would amount to: $1,876 per home, $1,150 per multi-family unit (apartment or condominium), $2.92 per square foot for retail, $2.26 per square foot for office space, $1.43 per square foot of industrial space and $2,464 per room for hotels.


BizFed members said they've heard from Metro board members who said the fees could be much, much higher.


Bill Holman, vice president of Azusa Land Partners, the group building the 1,250 Rosedale project in north Azusa, said his project's mitigation fees are already locked in under a previous agreement. But he was concerned about future developments.


At the $200 minimum congestion fee, a typical new house would generate eight car trips a day, amounting to a $1,600 congestion fee. "It all adds up," he said.


Schroeder said when one adds up all the existing fees on a new home for roads, schools, parks, etc., and adds in this one, between $25,000 and $75,000 is added to the selling price of a new home or townhome. "This is a big chunk of the price," she said.


Freeway and train watcher Bart Reed, executive director of The Transit Coalition in the San Fernando Valley, said every new project brings more traffic that must be addressed. "Everyone thinks they can have a free ride. But if you impact the community, you have to provide mitigation," Reed said. "There are lots of impacts when you build things. The business world naturally doesn't want to pay its fair share."
 
So Flaherty is trying to tie the province's hands on the HST. If I may suggest some talking points:

1. Conservatives have campaigned on provincial rights and against strong federal government. So much for that.
2. Flaherty was part of Harris government that filled in Eglinton subway, and is still not willing to pay for transit.
3. Conservatives have encouraged sales tax harmonization for tax efficiency purposes, but Flaherty has just made it impossible for any province going forward to agree to a HST.
4. The Conservatives are now actively against a region paying for public goods accruing to that region, instead making everyone in the province pay for it.
5. Flaherty is purportedly part of a "subways subways subways" political group that has thrown up nothing but obstruction to the actual construction of subways.

I think some effective political messaging could be built up around this.
 

Back
Top