[TOareaFan]

Most disturbing aspect of the Sun's story (to me).....

....was the apparant re-prioritizng of the projects.

I recall a discussion on these boards about how upset people in Hamilton were that their light rail plans were not in the 15 year plan....according to this story in the Sun...they are now.

I also recall that full express service on Georgetown GO was in the 15 year plan...again, according to this story in the Sun, it now isn't.

Either:

1. The Sun is guilty of sloppy reporting (what are the chances of that);
2. My recollection is off and full express service on the Georgetown line was never a priority (my recollection gets fuzzier as I get older); or
3. Metrolinx has been manipulated and cajoled by local politicians with pull the priorities have changed.

Any one of those 3 is disturbing to me (particularly #2 as it does not bode well for my mental state!)

 

[RedRocket191]

1. The Sun is guilty of sloppy reporting (what are the chances of that);

DING DING DING

We have a winner!

 

[DavidH]

1. The Sun is guilty of sloppy reporting (what are the chances of that);

Keep in mind that this is the paper that awarded the TTC streetcar contract to Alstom last fall.

 

[kEiThZ]

Perhaps, what Metrolinx needs is an expansion to include more technocrats. TfL has 17 board members with only 1 sitting politician. Metrolinx has 11 members of which 9 are politicians.

I'd like to see a 20 member board comprising of 10 technocrats including the chair and one member from each of the GTAH transit services (GO, YRT, DRT, BT, MT, OT, Burlington Transit, HSR) and two from the TTC. Stick to having transit chairs as board members. And perhaps throw in a provincially appointed citizen emeritus or two (steve munro, james bow for example) in the technocrat pool. I'd be willing to bet that things would start moving quickly if the composition were changed like this and that the courage to make the unpleasant decisions would finally appear.

 

[GraphicMatt]

The fact that the TTC never seemed to like Metrolinx that much kind of soured things from the beginning. If you can't get the biggest agency to do any more than just sort of blithely acknowledge your existence, there's not a lot of hope for any real movement.

I think what soured Metrolinx as far as the TTC and Toronto Council is concerned is the feeling (paranoia?) that all the suburban members of the board would propose all sorts of local transit options and extensions, all of which would essentially direct people onto the already overcrowded subway system downtown.

Because our government still only funds TRANSIT PROJECTS and not TRANSIT, this is probably a legitimate concern.

 

[cacruden]

Perhaps, what Metrolinx needs is an expansion to include more technocrats. TfL has 17 board members with only 1 sitting politician. Metrolinx has 11 members of which 9 are politicians.

I'd like to see a 20 member board comprising of 10 technocrats including the chair and one member from each of the GTAH transit services (GO, YRT, DRT, BT, MT, OT, Burlington Transit, HSR) and two from the TTC. Stick to having transit chairs as board members. And perhaps throw in a provincially appointed citizen emeritus or two (steve munro, james bow for example) in the technocrat pool. I'd be willing to bet that things would start moving quickly if the composition were changed like this and that the courage to make the unpleasant decisions would finally appear.

I would prefer Metrolinx (crown corporation of ontario), have a professional board - appointed because of expertise in transport - and an advisory committee that can have local/regional reputation. The mayors and councilors already have a job, they don't need to be on Metrolinx.

 

[kEiThZ]

I would prefer Metrolinx (crown corporation of ontario), have a professional board - appointed because of expertise in transport - and an advisory committee that can have local/regional reputation. The mayors and councilors already have a job, they don't need to be on Metrolinx.

Agreed. Sadly, with the reality that's already established I don't see that much of a change happening. I was merely proposing a compromise.

 

[doady]

Because our government still only funds TRANSIT PROJECTS and not TRANSIT, this is probably a legitimate concern.

Both the federal and provincial governments provide constant funding from the gas tax each year. The TTC gets $150 million a year from the province.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Both the federal and provincial governments provide constant funding from the gas tax each year. The TTC gets $150 million a year from the province.

But its operating budget goes way beyond that. Even with a ridiculously high farebox recovery percentage (highest in North America, IIRC), huge ridership growth has meant that there's a shortfall to make up every year.

There are obviously huge political obstacles that make dealing with the TTC way more of a hassle than it should be, but I do think that any Metrolinx-type agency needs to concern itself first and foremost with sustainable funding for increased service levels -- not just drawing new lines on a map.

 

[doady]

But its operating budget goes way beyond that. Even with a ridiculously high farebox recovery percentage (highest in North America, IIRC), huge ridership growth has meant that there's a shortfall to make up every year.

What do you expect? That cities not pay for transit operating costs at all? Very few systems in the world actually have more than 100% cost recovery. Ridership growth does not make systems less efficient. I think this is backwards thinking. Full buses make more profit than empty ones.

 

[GraphicMatt]

What do you expect? That cities not pay for transit operating costs at all? Very few systems in the world actually have more than 100% cost recovery. Ridership growth does not make systems less efficient. I think this is backwards thinking. Full buses make more profit than empty ones.

I think we agree. I'm saying that, at 70%+ farebox recovery, the TTC is incredibly under-subsidized.

Ridership growth is fantastic, but past a certain point it undoubtedly makes transit systems more expensive. Without committed long-term funding from the only governments able to provide it (provincial+federal), the TTC is heading down an impossible path. This is the kind of thing Metrolinx needs to be dealing with -- and I'm hopeful that we'll see something soon.

(Somewhat related: David Miller just said that some councillors are apparently now pushing for a 20 cent fare increase.)

 

[kEiThZ]

I think we agree. I'm saying that, at 70%+ farebox recovery, the TTC is incredibly under-subsidized.

When transit systems rely less on the fare box they become more dependent on the generosity of higher levels of government. We don't exactly have a great track record there. Combine a reduced dependency on the fare box with a prohibition on municipal deficits (like we've got in Ontario) and you've got a recipe for a disaster whenever a recession strikes. In the US a number of transit operators are scaling back because of reduced state or federal funding. Meanwhile the TTC is doing relatively well. While whole neighbourhoods in the US lose service, the TTC is simply scaling back a few bus routes. And that difference is all because the TTC has taught itself to rely on the farebox.

As for Metrolinx, fund raising should only be part of their mandate. They need to push forward a regional vision. Personally, I would start by empowering them with all the gas tax funding for the GTAH. That would earn them co-operation quite quickly.

 

[doady]

I think we agree. I'm saying that, at 70%+ farebox recovery, the TTC is incredibly under-subsidized.

Ridership growth is fantastic, but past a certain point it undoubtedly makes transit systems more expensive. Without committed long-term funding from the only governments able to provide it (provincial+federal), the TTC is heading down an impossible path. This is the kind of thing Metrolinx needs to be dealing with -- and I'm hopeful that we'll see something soon.

(Somewhat related: David Miller just said that some councillors are apparently now pushing for a 20 cent fare increase.)

I agree with you that there should be more long term funding of transit form higher levels of government. I just don't think the TTC should be fighting against transit improvements in the 905. If such improvements will cause even more overcrowding on the subway, then all the more reason that the TTC should be building subways instead of LRT. The TTC's obsession with LRT does not justify any sort of opposition to improving 905 transit.

And I also think the TTC should raise fares and improve service. There is pretty big gap now between YRT and TTC in terms of fares...

 

[Paleo]

I just don't think the TTC should be fighting against transit improvements in the 905. If such improvements will cause even more overcrowding on the subway, then all the more reason that the TTC should be building subways instead of LRT. The TTC's obsession with LRT does not justify any sort of opposition to improving 905 transit.

If by "transit improvements" you mean subway extensions into 905 (ahem York Region), then I have no problems with the TTC opposing it because those extensions are projected to have low ridership volumes (and likely operate in deficit) for the next 15 years and beyond.

Those massive capital expenditures could be used for things with far better ROI. Bringing the subway to Richmond Hill's doorstep to lose money and take away seats from City of Toronto users is a surefire way to get us riled up.

If fare integration means a repeat of what happened when the TTC abolished fare zones then I can see why they'd put up a fight on that too. Not to mention the capital costs of upgrading everything to electronic which takes away from badly needed rolling stock improvements.

 

[cacruden]

^ It would be much better if we had an entry/exit zone/distance based system because then you really have very good metrics on fare recovery on given lines. So if the province wants to extend TTC subway into York Region, then the province and/or other city should pick up the difference between operating cost and fare recovery.... If the cost is not recovered then you just short turn most of the trains in the city of Toronto. Also, if all this detailed information was publicly available - then I believe politicians would pay much more attention to viability of a line instead of --- I just have to get the extension into my area for my constituents. (IMHO)