News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5K     0 

I am fine with fares rising by the cost of inflation. But the subsidy has to rise faster than inflation...here is why:

Fare revenue grows with ridership growth.

Subsidy does not. It's not linked to anything. So it needs to rise by inflation as a base. But it also needs to rise with ridership growth (or even better by population growth).

The bigger challenge is that because of the way the capital budget works (and capital projects in general) there will be years where we buy more busses or open new subway lines with much higher or lower operating costs. So there will be big jumps or drops in the needed subsidy and ticket prices.
.

I actually have a real problem with the split between the capital account and the operating account when it comes to a subsidy. The TTC has a quasi-fixed REQUIRED capital spend every year to keep their fleet operating (new buses, etc). And yet this amount is excluded when looking at farebox ratios.
 
Indeed. The alternative for many ticket collectors is paid disability leave.

The problem with this includes:

1. Most private sector LTD is 60% of salary. And if you can work (not equivalent pay work but just work) your LTD disappears. When they move to the collector booth they still get full salary and benefits.

2. If they are stuck in a booth are they doing the proper activities that will get them off of LTD?

3. Are the workers trained as a CSR? If they are injured or sick they may have chronic paid and not be an ideal candidate for a CSR.

I've seen instances in private industry where a person goes on LTD. The company offers them a different job (at a lower salary) and they take it. But it made financial sense for the company.
 
Mayor John Tory wanted the TTC to reduce 2% on their budget. Not happening. However...

From 1969 to 1978, the University arm of the Yonge-University Subway was closed, Mondays to Saturdays at 9:45 p.m. and all day Sundays and holidays. No service from St. George to St. Andrew, Union Station was the terminal. The 5 Avenue Road bus was extended to Front Street during the times the University Subway was not operating.

Therefore, as a cost savings measure, I propose that the 4 Sheppard Subway line close down after 9:45 p.m. Mondays to Saturdays, and all day Sundays and holidays. This should save the 2% the mayor so wants.

In addition, should the 2 Bloor-Danforth Subway be extended to past Scarborough Centre to Sheppard Avenue, that the extension from Kennedy to Sheppard also close down after 9:45 p.m. Mondays to Saturdays, and all day Sundays and holidays.

Will my suggestions happen? Probably not.
 
It’s Time to Stop Pretending That Roads Pay for Themselves

See link. (U.S. numbers and stats.)

road-pay-self-graph.JPG


If nothing else, the current round of federal transportation legislating should end the myth that highways are a uniquely self-sufficient form of infrastructure paid for by “user fees,” a.k.a. gas taxes and tolls.

With all the general tax revenue that goes toward roads in America, car infrastructure has benefited from hefty subsidies for many years. But at the federal level, the road gang could always argue that the gas tax paid for the Highway Trust Fund. Not anymore.

The gas tax has stagnated at the same rate since 1993, and the Highway Trust Fund has been bailed out so many times over the last decade, it’s hard to keep count. A long-term transportation bill was supposed to fix that. Instead, the six-year bill on its way to passage right now in Washington may finally bury the idea that American highways are wholly paid for by the gas tax.

Despite gas prices plummeting to barely more than $2 a gallon, and despite pressure from interest groups on both the right and left, Congress has never seriously considered raising the gas tax to cover the cost of the federal transportation program. That means roads are in line for way more subsidies.

It’s unclear exactly how much subsidy the final bill will contain, since the House and Senate bills have yet to be reconciled. But it looks like about $85 billion will be needed to fill the gap over six years. Part of that figures to come from raiding the Federal Reserve and part from a gimmicky one-shot tax on “repatriated” overseas corporate profits. Either way, we’re not talking about “user fees.”

In the House bill, the combined subsidy would account for a quarter of the $322 billion in transportation spending over six years. The subsidy will only get larger in future bills as the purchasing power of the gas tax continues to erode, unless Congress can overcome its aversion to asking drivers to pay for roads.


Federal rules even make it harder for states to collect their own “user fees” for roads. It remains illegal for states to toll existing interstate freeways. Only new highways can use tolls as a financing mechanism.

“Congress continues to shift the burden of paying for roads from drivers to all Americans,” said Tony Dutzik of the Frontier Group, an environmental policy organization, “while failing to reform a system that too often prioritizes highway boondoggles at the expense of investments that can deliver the greatest benefits for all of us.”

If there’s a silver lining, it’s that a federal transportation program freed from the myth of “user fees” might also find it easier to reform the longstanding policy bias for roads, like the formula that sets aside 80 percent of transportation funds for highway programs and 20 percent for transit.

Many of America’s peer nations, like Japan, Canada, Australia, the UK, and Germany, have been moving away from the “user fee” model, according to a recent report from the Eno Transportation Center. In those countries drivers still pay fees, but they go to the general treasury, and transportation investment is determined by other factors, like which projects are worth supporting and what they will ultimately achieve.

The problem is, Congress’s debate about how to pay for infrastructure doesn’t inspire confidence in its ability to set spending priorities. If legislators can’t muster the will to raise the gas tax a mere 10 cents, it’s hard to envision the day they’ll stop pandering to voters who think more roads will solve their transportation problems
 
Just looking through it, two hour transfers meet 6/7 of the policy criteria, but aren't being looked at because it would cost too much money. Yet they ignore extra revenue from riders who normally drive when making short trips, the countless benefits of reduced congestion from new riders, increased profit (tax revenue) from local businesses serving customers making a stopover, etc. Meanwhile St. Clair continues to enjoy its special transfer at the expense of everyone else.

I like a comment I read elsewhere: "The only time the TTC should be referenced is on how not to run a transit system."
 
wow I like how TTC deflected the 2 hr transfer pending the metrolinx integration..... NOT....
I really cant fathom their thinking and rigidity to change when the rest of the GTA is already doing it.

My theory is that most other (sane) transit systems the majority of return trips are commute based and not made within two hours. Meanwhile the TTC, which does deserve credit for running very frequent service, likely sees a lot more people making stopovers and short return trips. This is why passes don't break even until nearly 50 rides (60 for students and seniors) are taken.

I'm guessing the $20 million in lost revenue comes from people using said transfer instead of a pass. However, short return trips are not only arguably cheaper for the transit system to provide, but are more attractive to choice riders as well. A 9-5 commuter who normally drives to the plaza to do his errands on weekends may opt to take transit instead since the trip isn't far or long (much easier to consider frequently stopping local transit for such a trip than to take it across Toronto where the 401 would accomplish it in 15 minutes) nor is there a rush, and by choosing transit he is helping the environment and reducing congestion.

One could argue that the TTC makes up for its lack if two hour transfers because of its frequent service, but other transit friendly cities like Vancouver, Montreal, and New York not only offer some form of two hour transfer, but have passes which break even after about 40 rides too. If the TTC is this concerned about fare loss, perhaps they should reevaluate their fare structure. Keep passes at about $143, but charge $3.50 for a Presto tap and $4 cash. It might suck, but the result would be a more attractive and friendly transit system which accomplishes one of the city's goals to encourage people to meet their needs close to home.
 
Yet they ignore extra revenue from riders who normally drive when making short trips

I'm not sure that's very much. Very few in the "how to fix the TTC" surveys give price as the reason they don't use it.

20 million is quite a bit given zero benefit to pass holders. It would be somewhere around a 15 cent token price increase to equal it out on top of the usual nickel per year.
 
Honestly, I'd pay $0.20 more per token (about $8.50 per month for the average commuter) to get timed transfers and not to have to worry about which direction I'm traveling. I think most commuters would too. Simply because they'd then start planning en-route activiites. Fighting this is penny-wise, poud-foolish from the TTC in my opinion.
 
I'm not sure that's very much. Very few in the "how to fix the TTC" surveys give price as the reason they don't use it.

20 million is quite a bit given zero benefit to pass holders. It would be somewhere around a 15 cent token price increase to equal it out on top of the usual nickel per year.

Yet would they ride more if timed transfers were offered? The current token fare structure works for strict 9-5 commuters with other transport modes for other errands and passes are for those who are transit dependent. There is a large middle ground of regular riders, including the commuter demographic mentioned above, who want to ride more and the freedom of a pass but are unsure if they can justify its high break even cost.
 
I am in favour of two-hour transfers. Another side-benefit to two-hour transfers is the ability to make longer walking transfers, such as being able to transfer between 90 Vaughan and 109 Ranee without having to board 32 Eglinton West or 63 Ossington.

It would also allow for commuters to go to Bessarion station using 115 Silver Hills.
 

Back
Top