Wednesday, August 17, saw Rob Ford going up to Queen’s Park in a time-honoured Toronto tradition asking for money for the transit system. I won’t go into much detail on this as you can (and already may have) read all about it in other media:
Karen Howlett and Patrick White in The Globe
Daniel Dale in The Star (with a wonderful photo in which Ford appears to be channeling the subway gods)
Mayor Ford’s dream of a subway paid for entirely by the private sector has evaporated. Brother Doug Ford claimed on CBC’s Metro Morning in February that developers were just waiting to invest $5-billion in the line, but they’re not queuing up chequebooks in hand. Desperation set in a few months back when even Ford’s hand-picked transit fixer, Gordon Chong, openly questioned the proposed financing. Since then, any public sector funding that Ford could scrape together was thrown in the pot so that the private sector “ask” would drop by a billion or two.
Back in March, Mayor Ford signed an agreement with Queen’s Park (a document that has not yet been ratified by Council) in which Ontario takes over responsibility for an underground Eglinton line (at a cost of $8-billion or so, using up almost every penny of the Transit City money), and Toronto is on the hook for the Sheppard subway. If there’s money left over on Eglinton, up to $650-million will be given by Ontario to Toronto. Ford wants that money now, and fears that a Federal contribution of $330-million to the Sheppard LRT project will be lost if the Sheppard project doesn’t get on the rails soon. He has also been after money from “PPP Canada”, a federal agency, but they’re a pesky bunch and want to see a business plan.
The Mayor came away from Queen’s Park empty handed, and Premier McGuinty made it quite clear that Ontario is in no position to advance funding for the City’s project until the true cost of the Eglinton line is known.
This has to be the biggest waste of a bilateral meeting in quite a long time.
What is Toronto’s big problem? The operating budget going into 2012 and beyond. What effect does the Sheppard Subway have on this budget? Zero. It’s a capital project, and the line doesn’t even have detailed engineering work completed, let alone any idea of how we will pay for it.
If Mayor Ford had some respect for Toronto taxpayers as he so often claims, we would work on proposals to improve the balance sheet on Toronto’s operating budget. Ford’s Council is already on record asking that Queen’s Park return to funding half of the operating deficit, but this issue was not even on the table.
“Predictable funding” has been the rallying cry of transit advocates, politicians and management for decades. It is impossible to make long range plans about service quality, major system maintenance works and expansion without knowing that money will be available, and that funding programs will meet the challenge of a robust, growing transit system.
On the Operating Budget, Ontario dropped out of that game under the Harris Tories, and came back, fitfully, under the Liberals with various one-time bailouts. Gas tax revenues earmarked for Toronto are split between capital and operating with about $90-million going to operations, and the rest to capital. To put this in context, the TTC’s total operating subsidy is over $400-million, and the provincial contribution is nowhere near half.
Back in 1990, the last year of the Peterson Liberal government, Ontario gave the TTC almost $101-million in operating subsidy. Yes, more money, 21 years ago. Toronto has been waiting a long time to see this type of funding return to our transit system. In recent years, as special subsidies dried up, Toronto politicians complained that “transit spending” was out of control because the City’s subsidy portion grew so rapidly. Part of this came from system growth — by 2011 the system will have gained almost 50% more riders than in had at the depth of its fall — part from extra costs of service improvements, and part from the cost of carrying riders on buses that have lower capacity than their predecessors.
Like Toronto, Queen’s Park faces the conundrum that actually supporting transit costs money because almost all new riders represent additional net costs. Going “green”, giving riders better options for travel without the need for multi-car families, isn’t free. Supporting the growth of employment in downtown Toronto through better regional transit isn’t free. Attacking congestion on roads in the 905 with good, attractive local transit certainly won’t be free because the transit habit falls off north of Bloor Street, never mind the 401 or Steeles Avenue.
On August 18, Metro Morning asked each of the provincial parties what they would do for transit in Toronto.
Frank Klees from the Tories talked about a $35-billion infrastructure fund included in their platform saying that it had a lot for transportation and transit, but with very little specifics. That’s not surprising considering that the platform actually does not commit the party to much of anything on this front.
Cheri DiNovo from the NDP focused on operating costs saying that her party would pay 50% of transit operating subsidies in return for a four-year freeze on fares. Although her heart’s in the right place looking at service rather than megaprojects, the fare freeze is a hard sell for me. With TTC fare revenue now at $1-billion annually, a four-year freeze would cost well over $100-million annually by the last year, and this would wipe out a good chunk of the added subsidy without providing any better service.
Kathleen Wynne, Minister of Transportation, talked about all of the money Queen’s Park has sent Toronto’s way, but she plays fast and loose with past, current and future dollars, local and regional projects, not to mention capital and operating budgets. For example, the provincial contribution to the Spadina extension project, close to $1-billion, was expensed in 2006 and sits in a trust fund. This was a one-time payment to soak up part of a surplus. Payments for new subway cars and streetcars are welcome, but they come over many years especially for the streetcar project, and Queen’s Park has no money at all in either the new carhouse nor in the system’s reconstruction to accommodate the new fleet.
Ontario has money in the Union Station project, a log-overdue update of this facility, but that’s only the start of capital needs for GO Transit.
The Air Rail Link to Pearson is another Provincial “gift” to Toronto, but looked at relative to other projects, it’s small change and not a high priority. Without the Pan Am Games, this would have vanished when the “private sector” scheme to build it fell apart.
Minister Wynne talks about the Gas Tax which yields $160-million annually for Toronto. However, as I noted above, that’s only $70-million into capital and $90-million into operating, and this amount will not grow with inflation because it (and its federal counterpart) is a fixed cents-per-litre amount. Only a big jump in fuel consumption, the exact opposite of current policy goals, would generate more revenue.
Meanwhile, other capital subsidy programs from Queen’s Park have wound down and future TTC capital projections show Ontario spending little more than $100-million annually. (See page 20 of the TTCs 2012 capital budget projection showing projected sources of revenue. Note that this does not include the Spadina, Sheppard or Eglinton projects.)
Yes, Ontario will build us an $8-billion Eglinton line, but at the cost of other proposed Transit City services that will never see the light of day, at least while Mayor Ford is in office. They may be sidelined even under a new Mayor because Queen’s Park will be busy paying the Ford premium for an underground Eglinton line.
What would I have asked for from Premier McGuinty?
- Let’s pretend I believe in the Sheppard Subway. I would start by having this project in far better shape as a business plan, with solid indications of how the private sector funding would actually work. Only then would I turn to other governments to “top up” the project or to provide temporary financing until the developments that would pay back the cost came on stream. I would prove that I can actually achieve what my campaign promised.
- Council is already on record asking for better operating subsidies, and I would ask for a 50% Provincial contribution including a mechanism to index this to inflation and to system growth.
- Fares must rise too, and there’s no point in soaking up new subsidies with fare freezes. Just as Toronto creates headaches for itself with tax freezes and foregone revenue, the TTC is hurt by the absence of small, regular fare increases to cover, at least in part, its increasing costs. Otherwise, we will have this whole debate again in four years.
- On the capital side, Toronto’s transit system, especially its subway now facing major costs for renewal of its half-century old structures and systems, is a regional asset and benefit, and should be funded on that basis. As with the operating budget, there must be a set amount of money available every year, including indexing, that could be included in TTC capital maintenance plans.
- Only the major expansion projects which are the true one-time costs would still be funded on a “project” basis, and these must not compete with the funding to maintain what we already have.
Yes, that’s a lot to ask especially of a government that is running a deficit and facing an uncertain future, but it’s what we need. Metrolinx is supposed to deliver an “Investment Strategy”, but it needs to look not just at a few GO extensions and busways, but to the needs of Toronto’s transit system and the systems that will grow around the GTA.
Will this require new “revenue tools”? Certainly. Politicians who fear to state the obvious may play to their base, to the something-for-nothing crowd for whom “gravy trains” are the simplistic answer to all our problems. That’s not leadership, but pandering, and without even a modicum of real business sense about how city and regional finance work.
Back in 2007, we had “MoveOntario 2020”, but it didn’t take the government long to get very cold feet thanks to low-balled project estimates and an economy headed into recession. The problems are still there, and frustration with congestion — be it overcrowded roads or subways, or buses that arrive infrequently and full — is even more pressing.
The job any Ontario government has is to sell that vision, the value of that investment.
The Mayor of Toronto needs to play his part in building a much-improved TTC system, not just one pet subway line.
Steve Munro 
Off topic, Steve, but I trust you’ll be posting about Ford’s latest cap-in-hand trip to McGuinty to try and wring $650 million for the pixie-dust-funded Sheppard subway?
Or do you have too much of a headache from, like me, banging your head against a desk?
Steve: This comment has been moved to the new article. We have lots of brake shoe dust in Toronto subways, but no pixie dust.
LikeLike
And the news regarding the insanity of this project just keeps getting worse. Ford wants the “surplus” money from the Crosstown to fund the Sheppard line immediately when they have barely broken ground on the Crosstown.
So much for the private sector saving the day in Ford’s world.
LikeLike
I’m presently in Europe, and more than ever I see the need for steep fare hikes. Just yesterday the city transit fares in Warsaw rose by 30%, increasing the fare contribution to the transit budget from 30% to 40%. Fuel costs and system renewal/expansion are the main cost drivers, but the difference in transit quality between most European cities and Toronto is ever more apparent: the new low-floor streetcars and articulated buses are wonderful.
I think it is much more important that service be improved than that fares be kept low. Innovative fare schemes could be introduced to assist low-wage earners traveling long distances; Europe in general has more reduced fares for students, seniors etc. than we have in Toronto, as well as much less late night employment (creeping 24/7-ism is something we should perhaps resist more actively than we have).
I’ll write again when a more appropriate thread appears.
Steve: I have moved this comment to a more recent, appropriate article.
LikeLike
Hi Steve
One thing that was interesting in the on line comments in “The Star” was that there were very few comments from the Ford chorus line defending what he was doing. It was only until rather late in the day that some comments came in supporting Ford. There was a poster who stated that there were no cancellation fees paid for Transit City, which I find hard to believe. There were none of the usual “Go Ford Go” chants. It was also interesting to read Martin Cohn’s column.
The piece about how each of them faced the press was very interesting. I do not want to build up any false hopes, but it would be nice if the wheels were falling off the Ford nation already. If that is the case, I think that everyone who cares about the city should ride hard on Ford, Kouvalis & Towhey to make their lives an absolute misery for the next three years.
Steve: Kouvalis and Towhey were not elected by anyone, and with luck, we will make it a trifecta in 2014.
Thanks for reminding me about Cohn’s article. I will add the link to the main post.
LikeLike
Steve, given the fees that will need to be paid by the city because Mayor Ford cancelled Transit City by fiat, he’ll have to go to council, correct? Is it possible for council to reverse its cancellation?
Steve: It is comparatively easy for Council to “not do” something, but much more difficult for them to start or restart something. In theory, Council has never cancelled anything, but it can be argued that on transit lines, that’s a TTC decision, and the TTC (dominated by Fordites) has bought into the new plan. The real problem comes in starting the Sheppard project requires City money, or a guarantee against default backed by the City.
LikeLike
Steve:
“Daniel Dale in The Star (with a wonderful photo in which Ford appears to be channeling the subway gods)” <— I fell off my chair laughing.
I remember Jane Pitfield in 2006 was saying build 1 or 2 km a year. What is wrong with that? I think London UK is the one that builds tunnels then when density along the tunnels appears, boom a station. Disclosure: I voted for Jane and volunteered at her campaign.
The Sheppard subway going to Scarborough Town Centre instead of let's say Pickering Town Centre (thus serving ALL of Sheppard East) is there because of an interest group that wants their way. I lived in the area and I know that group very well. We don't get along much.
Also I will repeat what I said in the past many times: FARE BY DISTANCE.
Let's say there is a TTC meeting tomorrow Friday at 1pm.
I live on Morningside and Lawrence area, over an hour.
You live A LOT closer.
We both pay $3 (let's forget metropasses for a second).
What if you wanted to go to the farmers market at Nathan Philips Square? if fare by distance was around, you'd pay a buck there and a buck back.
So people using more "resources" pay their appropriate fare vs. someone going a few blocks. TTC would have more money.
LikeLike
Some of the comments on the news links raise an interesting question. With Ford so worried about that $330 million of federal money, why did he go to McGuinty demanding $650 million rather than first raising the issue with his new fishing buddy Harper?
Of course, I’m sure Hudak’s people are now banging their heads against various desks because the Sheppard vs Eglinton issue from 1995 has come back to haunt them thanks to Ford.
LikeLike
Miroslav Glavic said:
Fare-by-distance approach might be more fair than flat rate, but I doubt that TTC would make more money. For that to happen, you would need to raise the fares for long trips more than you lower the fares for short trips.
In reality, there would be public pressure to do the opposite: significantly lower the short trip fares while only slightly raising the long trip fares.
LikeLike
It looks like you were mentioned in one of The Star’s front page articles for Friday morning here.
Steve: Yes, it’s me again. I am planning to write a separate article about the coming TTC operating budget discussions.
LikeLike
Fare by distance after decades without it is a recipe for social upheaval on a par with some of the rushed planning choices that created our inner suburb pockets of poverty.
The reduction in the % of people who live in the downtown who are poor (condos will do that) and the increase in poverty in North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke, are demographic changes that are playing out now but not really understood. And, its not like there is a Jane Jacobs trying to help us to understand how to make a city in the midst of all this. When Toronto Life calls Uxbridge and Dundas suburbs, and champions what amounts to white flight, we are living in a time of barbarians.
The ability to create social capital that fights that sort of thinking within the city will be significantly hampered when the TTC goes to zonal/distance fares. For example, I’m doing an errand today which requires me to come down from where I live in Willowdale to near Queen’s Park; the errand involves providing a resource to a city service, thus creating a small small bit of social capital. With TTC fares based on access, that city service can draw on resources across the city; without it, that service is limited. In practice, the people who use the TTC to go short distances are subsidising city run social capital enterprises.
Zonal or distance based charges may need to happen. But our city will be very different after that and the consequences will be very far reaching indeed.
I’d rather see fares raised every year as a matter of course.
But Steve is right … it would be nice if reality was being looked at as against the focus on the Sheppard extension pipe dream.
LikeLike
Ian Folkard: I too have noticed the change in the tenor of comments in the The Star and Globe web-sites. Shortly after the election the bulk of comments were pro Ford and anyone who had the temerity to criticize would receive an enlightened reply such as “You must be a commie with no job or in a union which is the same thing”. Now virtually all of the comments are anti Ford and the agree/disagree votes are overwhelmingly tilted to agree. Every little while a Ford supporter jumps in with a typical well thought out bit of insult to the other commenters. These comments receive immediate and spirited ridicule.
I don’t think that the former Ford supporters have seen the light to the extent that they now criticise their former hero. However, I do think that the more rabid ones are disillusioned with the lack of progress in trashing the city and the more naive or disengaged voter has realised that he or she was sold a bill of goods. No sensible person believes any more that there is gravy and no sensible person is taken in by the magic private sector funding for the Sheppard subway.
On a related topic, it is a longstanding maxim that politicians can survive being disliked, but the perish in the face of ridicule. Ford can threaten to shut libraries and all those commies, union members and artists (and thinking caring people who love the city with jobs) can scream until they are hoarse. However, there is still a sizable element who think he is right. However, the image of a confused Mayor, meeting with the Premier in an obviously unprepared state and defacto admitting that his fairy dust financing was and is a fiction is a different story. Add to that the obvious fact that there is no gravy and it is all too much for any politician to bear. Rob Ford can survive as a bully, but as a buffoon he has no future.
LikeLike
@OgtheDim I could see a zone system work, if implemented properly. For example, Toronto’s passes are priced out of line with bulk fare compared to other transit systems. What if there was a zone system in place, but it also meant that passes broke even after 40 trips rather than 50+.
Steve: There are arguments for various mechanisms to rearrange the fare system including zones, timed transfers, etc. However, at the end of the day there remains a need to raise “X” dollars this year, and “X plus inflation” next year. Discussion of alternative fare structures does not address the question of where this money is going to come from. I will be writing about this in a separate article.
LikeLike
The reality is that we already have fare zones. Take the TTC Dufferin bus across Steeles in to Vaughan and you will pay another fare. Same with all the other services across Toronto’s borders.
Steve: Toronto used to have zone fares, but they were eliminated at the insistence of suburban politicians in Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke whose residents objected to subsidizing the TTC with tax revenue but having to pay more to ride the system. Don’t forget that almost all of those former municipalities used to be in “Zone 2”.
LikeLike
If I’m interpreting this news story correctly, the feds are already planning to redirect their funds (originally for Transit City) to the Sheppard Subway.
I don’t see a reason for the feds to blow any more on subway pet projects, since the election has long passed. Unless they’re in the business of making their Conservative counterparts look good at all costs.
Steve: Yes, it appears that the Ford folks misrepresented the Federal position on their contribution. This is particularly odd given that when the MOU was signed with Queen’s Park, there was a clear expectation by the Toronto folks that the Sheppard LRT money from Ottawa would go to the subway project.
LikeLike
Well, at least we can say that out of this mess, Toronto has gotten …. one really great picture.
The only thing I can see happening is that McGuinty starts talking about promising funding to cities outside of Toronto for their public transport plans (to shore up the “not-416 vote”) in the next 6 weeks – while stalling on the Sheppard subway request – until everything is decided in October.
After that, who knows. They say a week is a lifetime in politics. 6 weeks is an eternity.
By the way, Steve, I hope you are getting a list of questions on public transport policy & planning ready for the upcoming provincial election.
Regards, Moaz
LikeLike
Also, you mentioned that even if Rob Ford is ousted in 2014 (and assuming work on the Sheppard Subway would have already begun by then), a new mayor would only continue the Sheppard Subway and ignore the original Transit City projects for another term or so (not to mention putting off other service improvements).
With this in mind, I honestly think that the Sheppard Subway is worse than nothing at all. I know this may seem drastic to some, but I hope that the feds eventually cancel their funding so that the Sheppard Subway doesn’t get started.
LikeLike
My guess is that what we are seeing now from the family run mayor’s office is unfortunate desperation. I don’t know how much private sector money is currently lined up for the Sheppard project, I not an expert on those matters, but if I were a betting man I’d say it was some amount not too far from zero.
So some of the Fords’ chickens are coming to roost. The Sheppard expansion plan (remember Youtube campaign promise to expand from Yonge to Scarborough Centre in time for the the Pan Am Games 2015) is blowing up in his face.
Ford needs about $1 Billion to kick-start the expansion-there being rumblings through the grapevine that he might take the line only as far as he can afford-say Victoria Park, and try to start building it before 2o14 (oh, is that an election year?).
The Sheppard extension was a key election plank and he has to deliver something, at least by then. Does that explain why he went to Queen park? Maybe this does: Mr. Ford cannot keep his promises, cannot uphold his end of the deal, can’t pay for his own toys and cannot take responsibility for his own astonishingly poor judgement and ignorance. Much like a spoiled child.
LikeLike
I wonder if the flip-side to fare increases might be cranking up the density of housing in Toronto. I’m just cross-posting a slightly edited version of something here that I posted in urbantorontoforums. I would appreciate peoples’ thoughts on the math.
Steve: Any density effects have a very long lag time after the point where a decision is made. It’s not as is we can simply rezone land and have large numbers of new residents pop up the next day. There’s this little thing called “the market” that affects where developers build, how much they can get, what sort of development we see (high rise, condo, family vs singles, etc), and how fast development takes place. Developers love to get land upzoned to future-proof themselves against anti-development councils, but the actual building may take place a decade or more after the zoning change. Meanwhile, fare revenue, subsidies and service quality are issues today, and we won’t solve those problems by dreaming of a hypothetically intensified city.
I’m leery of looking at densities around subway stations. At the risk of repeating past comments, the demand on our subway network largely comes from feeder services, not from developments right at each station’s doorstep, although these can help. However, that “doorstep” has a finite length, and people will only walk so far to a station especially in bad weather.
By the way, you may have noticed that every attempt to control sprawl around the GTA has failed miserably. That should tell you something about the likelihood of seeing intensive development within the 416. Also, of course, there is the small problem that a lot of the 416 already has buildings on it, and much of the land is not about to be redeveloped. Upzoned, maybe, but new development is quite another matter.
LikeLike
Echoing Steve’s comment, it’s important to have stops close together so that access to the line is convenient. This is true for any mode operating in a given corridor so long as the service provider’s mandate is to provide local service, as is the case with TTC. So density around a subway station is more of a tool for municipalities to strategize around for building fewer cul-de-sacs rather than justification for a subway station.
The governing factor for determining whether the money is worth technology x or y is the peak hour peak point demand, not the traffic at individual stops or stations. Something worth bearing in mind as well is the off-peak usage of the service, which will be higher if there are more stops closer together to serve more origin-destination pairs conveniently. There’s more to a line than its rush hour purpose. Far too much importance is misplaced on reducing the capital cost of infrastructure through the spacing of stops further apart, and it undermines the usefulness of the system and does all of us (who pay for the line through taxes) a great disservice.
LikeLike
Steve, thanks for your insightful reply to my previous post.
I think my thought process behind trying to highlight densities was to demonstrate how far the gap is between densities and being able to support the type of transit people desire. 12,000 units overnight in Tam O Shanter gets the TTC a tiny little bit closer to a subway station that might break even, but doesn’t address the systemic problems in any meaningful way. I didn’t mean to convey the impression that I was trying to advocate for keeping fares the same and relying on density exclusively to solve the TTC’s woes. I think I was just trying to demonstrate, perhaps inarticulately, that [no] matter how far you cut costs, there would still be a fundamental problem in that the population and densities we have simply don’t support the kind of TTC we need/would love to have. As such, we absolutely need farebox/subsidy/revenue stream solutions to address all the “revenue, subsidies and service quality (that) are issues today”. That said, why not throw in some upzoning and redevelopment into the mix to take the edge off the extent to which the problem will snowball over time?
And yes as a planner, I’m well aware of the lag time between zoning and development, let alone the role of “a little thing called ‘the market'”, not to mention the role of council when it comes to planning and development.
I guess my frustration with all this stems in part from what often appears to be willful choices made by elected officials which essentially hobble the infrastructure and human services upon which we all rely.
*sigh*
Steve: A problem with zoning is that during times of economic difficulty, developers love to get higher densities pushed through, and development-friendly councillors (including those with ties to organized labour, not just property owners) use the “we need more construction to generate jobs” argument. This overrides what might otherwise be done with proper planning. I am very suspicious of this for obvious reasons.
LikeLike
Hello Karl (of metronauts fame) and Steve,
Just wanted to say thanks for your comments in follow-up to my earlier thought exercise in terms of trying to understand the necessary densities for a subway station as a local station, as opposed to a destination/feeder point into the system. Lot of food for thought, and it still leaves the issue of how to fund the TTC out there in the short-term. I’m glad that both of you do the work and advocacy that you do. Having a forum like this is great.
As a planner its always interesting trying to balance, at least in terms of a policy/research/academic exercise, the real needs of now and trying to create something ‘inherently sustainable’ through the urban fabric when it comes to the delivery of services.
Karl, I’d be interested to hear your experiences about how all this worked in Japan with their fundamentally different planning system.
Cheers for all of this!
LikeLike
Wouldn’t it be ironic to see the LRT on Hurontario running before anything on Sheppard is built? And perhaps Kithener-Waterloo’s LRT? *sigh*
LikeLike
@Ibhattac:
Japan seems very much like a different planet to what we have here. It’s a lot easier for density and rail-based transport infrastructure to mesh because usually both activities are carried out by the same companies – this can even
include the urban planning.
The railways are privately operated in Tokyo area, except for some subway lines. Only the subways require any subsidy, and even government-owned lines have started turning profits on the operations side (capital is another matter for subways, but private surface railways are on their own for capital works needs). There is one big legal mechanism involved that keeps a steady stream of riders and fares coming the railways’ way: Employers are required by law to cover full-time employees commuting costs. In a sense, one private entity “subsidizes” another private entity, but except for some government-run subways (like Yokohama’s), transportation operating costs don’t cone from the tax base. I find the system inherently sustainable, since as long as people are working, riders are effectively guaranteed since it’s perceived as “free” transit to the employees. The economics, while legally “manipulated” one may say (fair enough), are heavily slanted in transit’s favour, even though everything is fare-by-distance and there are shared fares between train and bus services (even when the same parent company runs both modes’ services).
Some of the larger stations are also mega-developments themselves, sometimes with a rail line elevated flying through the second floor, although ground or open-cuts are common too. The integration between development and transportation, and the synergy, is pretty amazing, and maximizes utilization of space (which is always at a premium over there) and the value of land.
LikeLike
J. MacMillan wrote,
Sadly, it may be necessary. Toronto need a good case of LRT Envy to get things moving.
Steve: What would be even sadder would be for the LRT projects outside of Toronto to stall based on the fantasy financing of an all-subway alternative.
LikeLike
Certain train fares in the UK are linked to inflation — CPI + 3% seems to be quite common. Maybe that middle ground is the best — outright fare freezes leave money on the table, but there’s political traction in the promise of not having fares skyrocket… especially if linked to funding from a senior level of government.
And that Star photo is amazing — almost too perfect.
LikeLike
Marcus Gee in the Globe & Mail says it is “now seems distinctly possible” that the Ford brothers may force out Karen Stintz as TTC chair because of differences on the Sheppard subway extension among other issues.
Assuming Stintz does not leave willingly, does the mayor have the ability to unilaterally fire the TTC chair? Or would he need City Council to approve?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/marcus-gee/the-alienation-of-karen-stintz/article2135984/
Steve: Stintz can only be removed from the TTC by Council. However, a majority of Ford stooges on the Commission could depose her as chair. A related issue is the question of changing the composition of the TTC to include more members and/or some who are not Councillors. If the “mushy middle” rolls over and lets the Fords have their way on a move like that, Stintz could be relegated to the margins fairly easily. For the TTC, it would be a disaster.
LikeLike
Hazel needs to cement her legacy. I expect Mississauga will have an NHL team and lure one of the banks to relocate in addition to a Hurontario lrt before the Shepard subway is built.
LikeLike
Karl Junkin says:
I would say that station capacity for passenger flow is also a factor in determining whether a line should be surface or grade-separated.
LikeLike
Regarding Stintz’s idea for the Sheppard Subway extension, I remain against extending the Sheppard Subway only to Victoria Park, as it would create unnecessary transfers from the Don Mills Road corridor (I believe Don Mills is more heavily used than Victoria Park).
The Sheppard Subway terminus at Don Mills Road makes sense as is and for the future.
LikeLike
I think the majority of the problem is the fund-by-project approach, it’s great politically, because the politicians get to announce big projects, but it’s tough on transit planning and funding. The problem with projects is that they often go 6-10 years out, when the politicians that deal with it are on 4 year terms, and often the next batch cancel the project to come up with their own, so all the money spent already on that project is basically flushed down the commode. Transit City is a perfect example.
I think a better approach is for the Province to say to the TTC (not the city), here is X number of dollars, the following year we commit to Y dollars, then Z dollars, then A dollars, then B dollars, so the province each year looks at the money 5 years out. The TTC then knows its provincial funding over the next 5 years and can best determine how to use that money. The city should use a similar approach, determine the funding 5 years out as a fixed amount, the TTC then has to budget around these amounts using fares and advertising as their variable money sources.
Realistically the TTC should have reserve funds for equipment purchases, we know how long a streetcar lasts, we know how long a subway car lasts, we know how long a bus should last, if you need to replace 300 buses in 15 years, and they cost $750,000 each, you need to be putting $15,000,000 a year into a reserve fund to replace those buses.
LikeLike
I understand that the cost of running the TTC increases each year (increases in diesel prices, inflation, higher electricity costs, higher labour costs etc.). As a result, the TTC needs more money year after year to provide the same service levels as in previous years. On the surface, some of the solutions appear to be increase fares, re-introduce fare by distance, road tolls and increasing the subsidy from Queen’s Park. However, the problem is that wages for the majority of the public remain stagnant. Implementing any of the above solutions makes commuting less affordable for the majority of the public. This is the current problem as I see it is how do we provide a fast, convenient and reliable transit system with continual system expansion while keeping public transit affordable for everyone?
LikeLike
This affects a specific station’s design only, not the technology used for a line.
While this would generally only apply to subway connection points, or possibly GO connection points (depending on how GO evolves in coming years), the key isn’t whether or not to grade separate, but whether or not you can remain in-street. Usually, subway connections for a high-order corridor make remaining in-street practically impossible, although not always, as demonstrated long ago by the pre-BD subway Bloor-Yonge design (in most places along the current subway network, however, this is likely not an option). The point is that an off-street at-grade solution, if land can be found for it, would be sufficient for doing the job, although below-grade may be more attractive in many cases and worth the significant money to do such. It varies case by case and depends on the pros and cons relative to a specific site.
Steve: An important difference between the old Bloor-Yonge interchange and places like St. Clair West or Don Mills Stations is that Bloor-Yonge did not include any terminal facilities for the surface routes. To the west, the first turnback was Bedford Loop (now St. George Station). The Finch LRT was to have an underground connection to the Spadina subway, but as it would operate with double-ended cars, it didn’t need a loop (a separate surface loop will serve the bus routes at Finch West Station).
LikeLike
Silly question here: If the Federal Government is willing to divert their $333 million (as I recall) Transit City committment to the proposed Sheppard subway, how far would that “go” … especially if they make the announcement next month, just in advance of the election?
In other words, how much would that announcement help ensure that Tim Hudak’s PC party get additional seats in Toronto in the upcoming election?
Because that (the upcoming election) is what is important right now – at least for the moment.
Beyond the election, how much money would it cost to extend the Sheppard Subway to Victoria Park, thereby preserving some positive perception of Karen Stinz & Rob Ford by creating a compromise position that they can both work with – again, at least for the moment?
The more I read, the more I think that this is much more about politics & egos & legacies, rather than public transport policy, mobility & access.
Regards, Moaz Yusuf Ahmad
Steve: Don Mills to Victoria Park is 2 km, and it will be a deep tunnel to get under the DVP. This means that at least Cummer Station will also be deep. Say $800-million, although I am sure that the Fords’ private sector friends could do it for maybe $700-million by cutting corners here and there, at least until the inevitable contract changes came along.
LikeLike
And, just like some of us including me got caught up in talking about zone fares, it seems the media is now caught up talking about Steve’s call, among other things, for a thought out fare increase.
Heather Mallick on fare increases and the poor in the Star
Why is such a complex issue with so many relatively easy to discuss talking points getting so bogged down in discussions of just a few of the details?
Steve: I will turn to the whole issue a fare increase in my next article.
LikeLike
Mallick makes a number of good points in her opinion piece. Wages in Canada have remained fairly stagnant. Many of the well paying careers are being replaced by low paying McJobs with no benefits. Inflation drives the cost of living up as does increased taxes. An increase in TTC fares is a big financial hit for a lot of people in the GTA. The TTC needs more money to provide better service (or even just to maintain current service levels). The question is, how does one raise TTC revenue while still keeping the system affordable for everyone?
LikeLike
Our transportation issues are caused by overutilization during a short period of the day. 24/7ism should not be fought, but encouraged to make full use of our infrastructure. If we want to “easily” increase job density, add more people working the same job and same location, but at different times of day.
Building 1-2 km a year does not work. Creating in-fill stations on existing lines is relatively easy, but you need support apperatus at the end of a subway line (bus depot, parking, storage track). That’s ignoring inflation costs, where building today costs half as much as building in 2035.
Fare by Distance worked well for the TTC up to the 1970s when Toronto was amalgamated and the rural councillors outvoted the core for flat rates and a tax subsidy. One of the major reasons for not bring it back before now, is the lack of fare infrastructure to charge by distance and the money to improve operational effeciency. Now that the TTC has bought into Presto, there is the potential to go distance-based or any other fare model, once the technology is in the ground.
@Matt L, there are certain rail fares in the UK that have far exceeded inflation. In the mid-2000s, there were several cases of fares jumping 200-3000% over a single year. If the ridership is stable, then fares only rise in proportion to costs. However, when the ridership forecast begins to slip, they crank up the fares to make sure they aren’t left in a deficit. Basically, any trip that doesn’t involve London or Glasgow is exposed to uncertainty.
Steve: Do you mean 200-300%, not 3000%?
Regarding the position of transit funding of each of the parties, the Progressive Conservatives are doing a good job of hiding the fact they plan to strip most of the $160 million gas tax subsidy from the TTC and provide all Ontario municipalities with “their fair share in order to meet their local transportation needs” (note their modifying the stipulation it be spent of transit to transportation, thereby allowing funds to go to road bridges and similar projects). As Toronto receives approximately 51% of the gas tax now, expect the TTC’s transit funding from the province to drop as much as all the other systems combined.
LikeLike
@ Richard – here’s one possible solution. Residents of Toronto pay more to use the TTC than residents outside the city. I, for example, pay approximately $1300 per year for my Metropass, and around $1000 of my property tax bill goes to the TTC to fund their operating budget. So the TTC costs me around $2300 per year. Regular TTC riders in the 905 make no contribution to the operating budget via their property taxes, so they are in effect paying around $1000 less than I do to use the system.
My solution? Raise TTC fares by 50%. That would bring the cash fare up to $4.50 and the Metropass to $181.00 (to compare, a Zone 3 fare in Vancouver is $5.00 and a Zone 3 monthly pass is $151). The next step would be to offer a discount equal to the fare increase to City of Toronto residents.
How would this work? If you want to buy a Metropass, simply go to a collector booth and show picture ID with a Toronto address to receive your discount. The same would apply for the MDP (Metropass Discount Plan) and tokens, while the cash fare would remain at $4.50 in all situations.
The benefits? The net fare increase for City of Toronto residents is 0% as long as you pay with a pass or tokens, while 905ers (who log many more kilometres on an average trip than most Toronto riders) get hit with the 50% fare increase. This shields the current administration from any backlash in the next election (which would be the only way to sell such a scheme to them), and it also dramatically decreases the operating budget subsidy required by the city. As an added benefit, if some 905ers choose to stop using the TTC in favour of other means of transportation, it will create some desperately needed room along our busiest transit routes.
Granted, this is not a perfect solution. Retailers would not be able to offer the discount, nor would vending machines, so the number of riders purchasing metropasses or tokens at collector booths would increase dramatically. But overall, I think this solution would at least address the inbalance in our current fare structure, and it’s worth giving it a try.
Steve: Residents of the 905 would argue that they contribute to the TTC through provincial and federal taxation. The whole question of revenue flows among jurisdictions is a very complex issue, and if anything we should be moving to unified fares (not just unified fare collection). This will almost certainly involve some sort of time and/or distance based fare, as well as passes that work for more than one local system and integrate with GO. That’s the real promise of Presto, not simply being able to collect a Mississauga, GO and Toronto fare on one card.
I will reiterate a point made often before: the value of public transit is that it saves on the need for roadspace (and parking), not to mention saving the transit user some or all of the cost of owning and operating a vehicle (or a supplementary vehicle in their household). The economics of such savings must also be considered when we look at cash flows related to transit, not just the taxes and fares we pay.
LikeLike
Mallick is in a fantasy land when she talks about abolishing fares and increasing the subsidy (never mind that there is nowhere near enough capacity in the system to accommodate the massive surge in demand should fares ever suddenly go poof).
She is also off-base when referring to the working poor’s stagnating wages, presumably the wages of working minimum wage jobs. Minimum wage has gone up just barely shy of 50% over the past 8 years. While that’s still below the poverty line, and I’m not suggesting these people are well off, it is a fact that minimum wage has not been stagnant of late. Moreover, a key point that Mallick totally omits, is that TTC/ATU113 wages have been far from stagnant, and it is the wages for those that run the TTC on the front line that will dictate a supermajority of the costs to provide x service level at y loading standard, not the wages of the working poor who ride the TTC.
If Mallick wants to draw attention to solutions for the working poor who rely on the TTC, that’s great, it’s genuinely an important issue, but it needs to be realistic. Hamilton seems to have a good thing going as far as I can tell with their subsidized transit pass for the working poor, a model that I think Toronto should investigate emulating. The subsidy, worth 50% off the regular fare, comes out of the City budget, not the transit agency’s budget, so it works well for the TTC budget when it comes time to wrangle over that (i.e. the subsidies for the working poor don’t get drawn into the broader dialogue of what the TTC can and cannot afford to do with service levels).
The fact remains that fares are too low currently, as the TTC is losing a buck per ride carried. That means that if ridership increases by 20 million riders in one year, it will need a subsidy top-up of 20 million dollars. This is far too rarely acknowledged, and so the nature of the problem is never understood when the topic of fares is debated – or opined about in the media. People don’t seem to realize that whether the TTC is paid for out of fares or taxes, the money is still coming from the public at the end of the day – not thin air. The only difference is the visibility of the money trail when you see your token go clunkity-clunk into the fare box.
Fare freezes are not sustainable, and it is irresponsible to try and suggest otherwise. Subsidizing the working poor is important, but don’t subsidizing all the other riders along with them.
LikeLike
The “cash” fare is the “real” fare for public transport – everything else (from tickets or tokens to Day passes, Weekly passes and Metropasses) are “concession” fares and can be treated as a “loss of potential money” (effectively, an opportunity cost) for the TTC.
Steve: Actually, no. Most fares are paid at some form of concession level as simple as the discount for children or seniors, or a bulk-buy method using a pass. Over half of all adult trips are taken using passes today. In many systems around the world, the single fare (however it is purchased) is deliberately kept high to discourage its use.
The TTC has played with fare increases that affect both the cash fare and the concession fares – from small nominal increases to large ones, from psychological barriers (remember how long the Metropass stayed at $99 and the cash fare at $2) to political ones (the ever “popular” fare freeze).
As you can imagine, both types of fares have their own proponents who are willing to argue that if the TTC must increase fares, it should increase the “other” fare media.
But the market for public transport is changing, fare payment technologies have changed, and the TTC and the public and Metrolinx need to have this important discussion about the future of fares in Toronto and the GTA.
I personally think that it is time to re-introduce zone fares, introduce time-expired transfers in all GTA public transport operations that do not have them yet, and leave the cash fares alone (except for any adjustments necessary to re-introduce zone fares).
All future fare increases should be pushed to the Metropass & weekly passes.
That way, short-duration trips and day-trips become an option for all public transport users, while not penalizing those who can least afford it.
Of course, there would have to be more incentives to encourage people to continue to purchase monthly passes despite the increased cost.
We have already seen Metropasses become transferable, and the introduction of the tax credit for public transport. Now we need to see additional encouragement – from volume discounts to tax incentives to get companies to offer public transport passes as a perq for their employees as well as a “green” initiative.
It’s also worth pointing out that many agencies give free public transport tickets to those who need it. Certainly these activities could be expanded or otherwise supported by the public & companies interested helping provide mobility and access to the less-fortunate.
Regards, Moaz
LikeLike
Richard said:
The money to operate the transit system must come either from the fares or from taxes. To my knowledge, no big city in North America runs a free transit system; and it is highly doubtful that the Toronto / GTA public will accept the level of taxation required to make TTC service free. Even the freeze of existing fares is not a good idea, as it gradually increases the system’s subsidy needs, without a dedicated tax revenue source to cover it.
What could be done to improve affordability without compromising the system? One suggestion is to create a dedicated revenue source to subsidize TTC (income surtax or gas surtax are preferable, rather than property tax increase), then set the subsidy rate (for example, 40% of the operating costs), and then every year set the tax mill rate to match the subsidy rate. If that scheme was implemented, the TTC fares could come down significantly one time, although afterwards they would still have to be raised gradually to maintain the selected subsidy formula.
Another, more limited, suggestion: let people who work for low wages ride the system on the student fares. It will require extra subsidy, but not as much as keeping the fares low for everyone. And given that the student tickets and passes exist already, the administration cost of that change won’t be large.
LikeLike