drum118
Superstar
Before that, there was the Ontario Railway Act, that looked after Local Transit to deal with various issues raised by both the public and Cities when transit was run by PPP.
|
|
|
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
Before that, there was the Ontario Railway Act, that looked after Local Transit to deal with various issues raised by both the public and Cities when transit was run by PPP.
Ed Drass
Active Member
Do other GTA transit agencies measure their boardings in a similar way to TTC? If so, how many routes outside 416 would measure up to the TTC's 'new' minimum standards?
If transit operations were regional, how would minimum standards be set? Subsidy levels? I guess you'd have to designate zones for these measures, just as fares would be by zone or distance.
And if the provincial government set these levels, which areas do you think would be favoured? The low-density suburbs that define elections, or the transit-rich but pinko central zones?
Hello, Metro, all over again ... and $3 rides for 1km downtown trips.
-ed
If transit operations were regional, how would minimum standards be set? Subsidy levels? I guess you'd have to designate zones for these measures, just as fares would be by zone or distance.
And if the provincial government set these levels, which areas do you think would be favoured? The low-density suburbs that define elections, or the transit-rich but pinko central zones?
Hello, Metro, all over again ... and $3 rides for 1km downtown trips.
-ed
drum118
Superstar
MT used the key pad on the fare box to count the rider as well how they are paying.
I can tell you that a number of routes for MT fail to meet TTC new Min Standards, but then late night service doesn't exist for major of the routes in the first place.
Using TTC standard, Route 14 should not exist most of the day, let alone after 7 pm. It gets 60 minutes on Sat and no Sunday service now. It will get Sunday service in Sept on a 6 month trail base, but should be scape after 3 months, as it will never meet the load standard from day one. Too may huge Million Dollars homes and very very low density area. Forest Hill
Last edited:
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The TTC gets 70% revenue from the farebox, Mississauga gets 45% from the farebox. Which means Mississauga gets a subsidy of 55%, but Toronto gets by with only 30%. If Toronto could get a better subsidy, it would be able to run most of the cut routes.
BTW. Montreal has a 56% farebox recovery (44% subsidy), Vancouver has a 48% (52% subsidy), New York City has a 54% (46% subsidy), and Los Angeles has a 29% (71% subsidy).
doady
Senior Member
Toronto doesn't need better subsidy, TTC needs better subsidy. The TTC subsidy comes from Toronto. The MT subsidy comes from Mississauga. MT is more subsidized than TTC because Mississauga is more willing to subsidize transit than Toronto is, it's as simple as that. Same with Vancouver, Montreal, New York City, Los Angeles, etc.
spider
Senior Member
The TTC needs NO subsidy. Subsidy is just another way to say who gives a shit, it is an excuse for inefficiency and waste.
When the riders pay 100% of the cost of transit then they might become interested enough to demand a say in where their money goes and deserve answers.
All my utility bills are based on usage and I don't complain why should transit, which just another utility be any different?
Asterix
Active Member
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you might not be fully aware of the huge subsidy spent on private automobile conveniences (little things like roads). The taxes and fees you pay to own and operate your car don't come anywhere near paying for the infrastructure built to enable your usage.
Ed Drass
Active Member
It sounds like you have read Andrew Coyne's excellent piece in a recent Maclean's. He makes the exact argument in favour of charging for road use.
It's interesting to consider what our transport network would be like if subsidies were gradually removed from both transit and road use.
Air travel in Canada, especially in large centres, is largely free of subsidy -- hence all those "taxes and fees". Of course, the roads servicing the airports represent a subsidy...
ed d.
valvenis
New Member
I believe the article Ed's talking about is: http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/11/stuck-in-traffic/
doady
Senior Member
Okay... moving on...
If Rob Ford wasn't so adamant about freezing property taxes, TTC and other city services wouldn't have to be cut. MT is able to do the opposite of the TTC (add extra off-peak service service on top what was budgeted) because Mississauga is willing to increase its subsidy, and it can do that because it is raising property taxes, at least to match inflation. The blame for the TTC service cuts lies with the City of Toronto only and its plan to freeze property taxes. Don't blame anyone else for that. The TTC had actually been increasing service a lot before Rob Ford came along.
If Rob Ford wasn't so adamant about freezing property taxes, TTC and other city services wouldn't have to be cut. MT is able to do the opposite of the TTC (add extra off-peak service service on top what was budgeted) because Mississauga is willing to increase its subsidy, and it can do that because it is raising property taxes, at least to match inflation. The blame for the TTC service cuts lies with the City of Toronto only and its plan to freeze property taxes. Don't blame anyone else for that. The TTC had actually been increasing service a lot before Rob Ford came along.
Dan416
Senior Member
Freezing property taxes isn't a good long-term strategy. It's best if it matches inflation. Or at least gradually increases over time.
nfitz
Superstar
The TTC service cuts could have been adverted with about $7 million. As a 10¢ token and $5 pass fare increase would have generated $24 million, then we could have avoided the service cut for a 3¢ token and $1.50 pass increase. This would have increased fares at about one-half the rate of inflation.
drum118
Superstar
Up to 2010, MT had a fare recovery of 65%.
The City saw the need for more and better transit that they are willing to let the cost recovery to fall to 50%.
MT only provide 25% of TTC operation for the city as a whole with most areas seeing no service on the weekends or late night service.
TTC can get better subsidy by Toronto opening up their pocket book than having ""ALL"" of Ontario paying for it in the first place.
There only one pocket that the money comes out of at the end of the day and it is yours.
doady
Senior Member
Yes, MT and TTC cost recovery ratios were very high in the late 90s and early 00s after the province cancel all funding, but they started to decline steadily once some funding was restored (i.e. OTVP, gas tax). Seems like TTC is back to the 90s again? Though this time it is the city at fault, not the province.
I mean,the city is now so unwilling to fund to transit that it wants to upload its transit system to the province, wow. Wouldn't it make more sense to upload the Gardiner and DVP? After all, Gardiner and DVP is used a lot by 905ers and out-of-town people, so it makes sense for it to be a provincial responsibility, doesn't it? But I guess Rob Ford's Toronto doesn't have a problem subsidizing motorists, even if they are from outside Toronto. Subsidies are only bad if it goes to transit users.
Not sure if fare increases for two consecutive years is a good idea, especially considering how substantial the first one was (around 10% increase).
I mean,the city is now so unwilling to fund to transit that it wants to upload its transit system to the province, wow. Wouldn't it make more sense to upload the Gardiner and DVP? After all, Gardiner and DVP is used a lot by 905ers and out-of-town people, so it makes sense for it to be a provincial responsibility, doesn't it? But I guess Rob Ford's Toronto doesn't have a problem subsidizing motorists, even if they are from outside Toronto. Subsidies are only bad if it goes to transit users.
Not sure if fare increases for two consecutive years is a good idea, especially considering how substantial the first one was (around 10% increase).
nfitz
Superstar
It was 11% - but the first in 3 years, so averaging 3.5% a year. Not really comparable to the 1.2% increase that would have been necessary. But perhaps not fair given that car drivers got a 100% decrease. Given that car drivers got a $5 decrease per month, then the fair thing to do would have been to have a $5 and 10¢ reduction and have the city increase the subsidy to the TTC accordingly. But I guess Ford is more interested in cutting costs for drivers than transit users.