[taal]

Has someone posted the odd little article in the star today?

Someone did the math, and if the TTC were actually able to sell 20 million tokens (20 million times 25 cents of lost revenue equals 5 million in "lost money,") they'd be making 85 million dollars off that, enough to cover their deficit for years to come. Or at least apparently, that's what the article says.

You realize that those 20 million tokens would be negated by the almost 0 sales in the months to come after January as no one would need tokens anymore until they're done with their little stock pile? - add to that the 5 million in losses.

So unless I'm missing something, that would rank up their with the many stupid articles the STAR provides us.

 

[nfitz]

Someone did the math, and if the TTC were actually able to sell 20 million tokens (20 million times 25 cents of lost revenue equals 5 million in "lost money,") they'd be making 85 million dollars off that, enough to cover their deficit for years to come. Or at least apparently, that's what the article says.

Good grief ... which idiot at the Star wrote that? They don't even have 20 million tokens. The loss was quite clearly $2.50 of lost 2010 revenue per token - any idiot could have figured that out. Is investigate journalism dead?

I didn't see that in my Star ... which page?

 

[andomano]

Good grief ... which idiot at the Star wrote that? They don't even have 20 million tokens. The loss was quite clearly $2.50 of lost 2010 revenue per token - any idiot could have figured that out. Is investigate journalism dead?

I didn't see that in my Star ... which page?

It wasn't an idiot from the star, just a concerned citizen that is bad at math apparently.

Article:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/729716

 

[taal]

There's actually nothing wrong with the math at all ... the numbers stated are correct for the most part.

What's completely ignored is the consequence of the hording.

The assumption made is that pre fare increase hoarding will not effect sales of TTC tokens (regardless of the cost) post fare increase.

I'm sure we'd all love it if that were true but for that to happen would require a lot of people to sudently:
1) Take up a TTC token collection hoby (while on crack)
2) Increase the amounts of trips they take to justify the continued demand even with their large token collection hoarded up.

So if we presume absolutely no increase in ridership because of this the TTC's number of a 5 million dollar loss - over the year - is correct.

 

[nfitz]

It wasn't an idiot from the star, just a concerned citizen that is bad at math apparently.

Article:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/729716

Oh, that's on the letter to the editors section - page A20 of Tuesdays paper. A John Griffin in Toronto. Not an article at all!

 

[k10ery]

There's actually nothing wrong with the math at all ... the numbers stated are correct for the most part.

What's completely ignored is the consequence of the hording.

The assumption made is that pre fare increase hoarding will not effect sales of TTC tokens (regardless of the cost) post fare increase.

I'm sure we'd all love it if that were true but for that to happen would require a lot of people to sudently:
1) Take up a TTC token collection hoby (while on crack)
2) Increase the amounts of trips they take to justify the continued demand even with their large token collection hoarded up.

So if we presume absolutely no increase in ridership because of this the TTC's number of a 5 million dollar loss - over the year - is correct.

In defence of this guy, that doesn't seem to be his point at all. Rather, he's saying that, if the TTC is right about how much hoarding is going on, then they are taking in so much money right now that the interest alone will cover their future losses.

But I think he really means that TTC is fibbing about how big is the revenue loss from hoarding. (It's what folks in the argument business call a "reductio ad absurdum". )

More on this in the Post: Token Debacle: TTC's numbers do not add up

 

[nfitz]

In defence of this guy, that doesn't seem to be his point at all. Rather, he's saying that, if the TTC is right about how much hoarding is going on, then they are taking in so much money right now that the interest alone will cover their future losses.

What interest? It's not like they have the option to invest the money; it simply would reduce the City funding they receive. And reduce it for 2009, rather than 2010 when they need the cashflow. Any short-term interest paid will be marginal.

 

[k10ery]

What interest? It's not like they have the option to invest the money; it simply would reduce the City funding they receive. And reduce it for 2009, rather than 2010 when they need the cashflow. Any short-term interest paid will be marginal.

Given how big are the budget shortfalls at TTC and the City (and who cares which it is anyway?) -- not to mention how useful deferred maintenance is in shifting deficits between years -- I think fare revenues in 2009 have pretty close to the same value as fare revenues in 2010. They don't just throw the money away after all. Still, I am not saying that I think revenue from "hoarders" this month will cover the future losses on tokens - that's crazy talk, for sure.

 

[nfitz]

Perhaps next time, they should just instantaneously raise rates; with passes being subjected to a 6-week delay. We managed quite well when provincial sales tax rates suddenly increased at midnight, after announcement during a 4 pm budget.

 

[k10ery]

Yes, I imagine a lot of people would have preferred to pay the extra 25 cents this month to avoid the fuss.

 

[Jonny5]

So the MTA raised fares by 25 cents this year but avoided service cuts. They had a financial hole that made the TTC's shortfall look insignificant. In the end they were rescused by the state's implementation of a new payroll tax that went straight into their coffers. Oh can we only dream of such a thing here! Stable and predictable funding!

Ooops...


M.T.A. Tax Revenue Is $200 Million Short

 

[GraphicMatt]

With attitudes toward transit like Kevin Libin has in the National Post, we're probably doomed:

If the goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, air pollution and gas consumption, and maximize the environmental impact of sustainability spending, we may be better off without publicly funding transit at all.

"Subsidized transit is not sustainable by definition," says Wendell Cox, a transport policy consultant in St. Louis, and former L.A. County Transportation commissioner. "The potential of public transit has been so overblown it's almost scandalous."

It's not that environmentally minded transit promoters are being dishonest when they argue that city buses are more efficient than private cars: It's that they're talking about a fictional world where far more people ride buses. Mass transit vehicles use up roughly the same energy whether they are full or empty, and for much of the time, they're more empty than full.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2314104#ixzz0Z8OZjtTV
.

I love that the dude who runs transit in St. Louis is an authority on things.

 

[kettal]

Maybe Mr. Expert should visit Toronto during a TTC strike and see how much better things are on days when nobody takes transit.

 

[Jonny5]

So the MTA raised fares by 25 cents this year but avoided service cuts. They had a financial hole that made the TTC's shortfall look insignificant. In the end they were rescused by the state's implementation of a new payroll tax that went straight into their coffers. Oh can we only dream of such a thing here! Stable and predictable funding!

Ooops...


M.T.A. Tax Revenue Is $200 Million Short

Update... now they are $400 million short.

Proposed service cuts include closing two subway lines, shortening two more, reducing off-peak service on all others and closing many stations overnight that are now 24hour. Non-subway proposals include eliminating a few dozen bus routes, ending all discounts for student fares and reducing their "wheel-Trans" equivalent's services.

My bet is they will do just what the TTC has done when government funding dried up and have rapid succession of fare hikes up to $3/ride.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I have noticed the gasoline stations signs with 100.4¢. So why are the complainers who complain about the TTC fares going up to match the 905 transit fares, not complaining about the price of gasoline now?