Updated April 30, 2015 at 12:40 pm:
The text of motions passed regarding this item have been added at the end of the update below.
Updated April 30, 2015 at 9:30 am:
The debate on the motion asking for a report on a pilot project for a $1 off peak seniors’ fare went on at great length at the April 29 TTC board meeting and provided some political theatre along the way.
At its heart, there are interlocking issues in any debate about fares:
- Should seniors as a class of riders receive discounted fares, and how generous should this discount be?
- Are other groups of riders equally or more deserving of discounts?
- Should a “pool”of subsidy related to discounts be allocated to various groups based on needs, or should the scope of such subsidies be increased?
- How will eligibility for any subsidy be administered?
- How should any fare subsidies be funded, and what is their priority relative to other transit needs such as improved service and maintenance?
- Should the standard fare structure be revised to provide benefits to all riders rather than targeted groups?
The proposal for a $1 off peak seniors’ fare came from Commissioner Vince Crisanti, a member of the Ford faction in the previous administration who was not noted for his generosity on the subject of social programs. Moreover, when he did sit on the TTC board (before the coup d’état that ousted many of the Ford crew), his knowledge of transit matters could not be described as encyclopaedic. To be fair, at this point the proposal was only a report request – tell me whether it would be feasible to have a pilot program to test the lower fare – and one might expect the whole thing to disappear if the result proved impractical, especially from a financial standpoint.
The problem, of course, is that everyone wants cheaper fares for one or more deserving groups, or even for all riders as Mayoral candidate Tory advocated, without getting into the questions of whether this is the best use of transit dollars or how a net new subsidy would fit into the allegedly tight city budget situation.
Public deputations on the issue, of which there were few despite the large crowd of seniors in the audience who arrived as a group, concentrated on support for the lower fare. In one case, the presentation by TTCRiders ran into a basic problem that their primary desire is to help low-income riders, but they have been pulled into the $1 fare issue as a jumping off point for their larger cause.
Questions from board members were generally civil, although there was a common thread of “how should we pay for this”. One deputant tartly replied that if the city can afford to eat the sunk costs of cancelled LRT projects and build the Scarborough Subway Extension, then availability of revenue is not the issue.
Toronto Councillors love to pretend that any discussion of new services or expenditures must be a zero-sum game with higher costs in one area balanced by reductions in others. This ignores the considerable taxing powers of the City that go unused thanks to pandering to motorists (the vehicle registration tax) and to the no-new-taxes philosophy that hobbles modern political debate.
The best moment came in a testy exchange between an old Chinese lady, speaking through an interpreter, who was harangued by Commissioner Denzil Minnan-Wong with a series of questions ending up with, to paraphrase, how can we pay for fuel if we let people ride for free? After a short pause, the reply came back: “that’s a stupid question”.
For far too long DMW and others have grandstanded at the expense of citizens who just want to exercise their right to speak on public issues, and chairs of meetings (including the TTC’s Chair Josh Colle) have failed to rein in such abuse. That one response burst DMW’s balloon, and will long be remembered.
Colle himself noted that he had come to the TTC a few years ago with a similar incentive – helping seniors with lower fares – but has since learned that as a group, seniors are rather well off. The real issue is to identify those who are in need regardless of their age.
Commissioner Alan Heisey proposed a motion asking for a report on a variety of fare options to come forward in October 2015 as input to the 2016 budget process. This would allow TTC staff to explore a range of new or revised fares, and in particular whether technical capabilities or limitations of the Presto fare card would affect the implementation.
The decision on future subsidy levels will be up to Toronto Council, but the TTC board should already have taken a position on the matter rather than simply inheriting a campaign promise as they did with the free rides for children in the 2015 budget.
Voting on the items took a bit of diplomacy as nobody wanted to actually vote against Vince Crisanti’s proposal. In the end, it was amended to request a “briefing note” by June, and then Heisey’s much broader motion was passed. A briefing note does not come back to the TTC agenda and simply updates members on information from staff. A report becomes the subject of future debate.
The motions as they were passed are:
Motion by Commissioner V. Crisanti
Request the TTC CEO to report back to the TTC Board by June 22, 2015 in a briefing note on the feasibility of a six month pilot program to reduce fare costs during off peak hours to $1 for seniors.
Motion by Commissioner A. Heisey
Whereas in November 2013 TTC staff reported to the Board on a variety of policy changes with respect to senior discounts. The Board chose not to make those changes.
As a result of this report TTC staff began work with other city departments on a “Fare Equity Strategy” which was co-signed by the TTC and the City and endorsed by City Council. The detailed work on that strategy staff will report by the end of 2015 to City Council on that strategy and the role that PRESTO would play in any implementation.
Whereas in January of 2014 TTC staff reported to the Board on time-based transfers and indicated they are broadly a positive change, but possibly expensive, and not really achievable until PRESTO implementation.
Whereas in August 2014 TTC staff reported to the Board on the “Opportunities Report” that considered, among other things, the 2 hour transfer. The report was approved based on the need for funding. Everything was funded except the 2 hour transfer.
Whereas in October 2015 TTC staff will be reporting to the Board on all new options that PRESTO will allow including different concessions, different fare policies (time based, directional, off-peak vs peak), Metropass vs daily / weekly caps., different policies that enable greater information, cash acceptance and a strategy for that etc.
Therefore, be it resolved that the Board:
(1) Request staff report back, as planned, and in consultation with city fare equity staff, in October for a fulsome discussion on fare policy when PRESTO is in place and for when we remove legacy fare media (tokens etc.) and what the future for cash payments are including consideration of various fare options including:
(i) fare by time of day
(ii) 2 hour transfer
(iii) Seniors fares by time of day, including $1.00 seniors fare during off-peak hours
(iv) Fare by distance
(v) Concession policy overall as informed by Fare Equity Strategy
(vi) Monthly pass versus daily / weekly / monthly capping
(vii) Free regular transit fares for Wheel-Trans qualified passengers in addition to the visually impaired
(2) Request that staff continue discussions on a 2-hour transfer, with PRESTO and Metrolinx, to understand how that could be funded via savings in the PRESTO programme and in support of more regional fare integration.
Original article from April 29, 2015:
The TTC board will consider a request from Commissioner Vince Crisanti at its April 29, 2015 meeting:
Requesting the TTC CEO to report back to the TTC Board by June 22, 2015 on the feasibility of a six month pilot program to reduce fare costs during off peak hours to $1 for seniors.
This idea continues in the tradition of bribing riders with their own money while ignoring the wider implications for the transit system. First, let’s look at the numbers. The TTC publishes a compendium table of fare and ridership data on the City’s Open Data website. Here is the table with information up to 2014.
1985-2014 Analysis of ridership
In 2014, there were approximately 69-million seniors/students rides of which 23m were by monthly passes, 33m by tickets and 12m by cash fare. The TTC estimates that of the non-pass trips, 40% are due to seniors. Of these trips, about 2/3 would be off-peak given that many seniors will avoid peak travel if possible, and they are less likely to be tied to a standard commuting schedule.
- Starting with 45m non-pass student/senior fares,
- 40% of that brings the number down to 18m senior fares, and
- 2/3 of that brings the number down to 12m off-peak senior fares
For the sake of argument, assume that the $1 off-peak fare represents a $1 saving for all affected trips, and so the base cost would be $12m. However, the lower off-peak fare would almost certainly cause some peak trips to shift out of the peak, and moreover, there would be a lower incentive to buy the already high-priced senior’s Metropass at $112 (or $102.75 on MDP discount). The break-even point for a senior’s pass today is just over 50 fares/month, and the pass brings the convenience of avoiding lineups for fareboxes or fare machines. If a rider is in a position to travel mainly off-peak, their monthly cost would drop quite considerably with a $1 cash fare.
[I am an MDP subscriber for a senior’s pass, and my monthly TTC trip count averages somewhere around 80. Therefore my average fare today is $1.28. I would probably continue to buy a pass for the convenience of not having to queue for a farebox/fare machine, but riders who use the system less than me might not consider this expense worth the bother. Moreover, once the “pass” functionality is implemented through Presto, that inconvenience disappears.]
Any reduction in TTC revenue would have to be offset by increases in other fares, or by higher operating subsidies. As a rule of thumb, a $30m bump in subsidy represents a 1% increase in taxes, and so it is easy to calculate the tax effect of any planned fare discounts.
The planned enhancements to TTC service for 2015 have an annual cost of $88.2m as shown in the following chart [see Operating Budget at p. 15]:
Note that $12m of the total above is actually a capital-from-current charge for purchase of new buses, and $30.2m relates to acquisition of space for these vehicles. Therefore the actual service-related costs are about $46m ($88.2m less $42.2m).
The TTC considered a variety of fare reduction options in a November 2013 report which argued [p. 1]:
• It is beyond the mandate and expertise of the TTC to effectively resolve broader social and community issues related to income distribution.
• The current TTC policy regarding concession fares is that new or reduced concession fares will only be considered if arrangements are made to subsidize the TTC for the associated revenue loss. Additional subsidy is required to avoid placing the burden of the proposed program on existing riders through increased fares and/or reduced services.
Given the likelihood of shifts both from peak to off-peak travel by seniors to take advantage of the reduced fare, and the migration from pass-based to cash trips, the annual cost of a $1 off-peak fare would be well above $12m. Moreover, one must ask whether seniors as a group should receive this type of added subsidy when other groups such as welfare recipients are routinely denied such benefits on the grounds that social policies are not in the TTC’s mandate.
There is also a broader question of time-of-day based fares for all riders, not just for seniors. This is a complex problem that would affect a wide swath of TTC revenues given that over half of all riding is off-peak. Such discounts can prove troublesome for riders with very long commutes who cannot as easily avoid the peak period as someone with a trip that can easily be taken on the shoulder of the peak when fares are cheaper.
If the TTC is going to get into a discussion of fare policy, it should do so on a much wider basis than simply looking to give one group of riders a fare reduction. There are other difficult questions such as whether fares should be flat, time-based or distance-based, and how fares can be truly integrated between TTC, the 905 transit systems, and GO so that moving from a red bus to a blue bus or a green train does not pose a huge fare penalty.
As I reported in a previous article, the TTC has rediscovered the role of policy debates, and they could make a good start with these issues. If nothing else, the underlying research and discussion of options should be on the table for general input from citizens rather than simply appearing as a fait accompli in the next round of budget papers.
Steve Munro 
As a Senior I say that seniors should pay more than they do for travelling at peak periods. If the TTC wants to reduce the number of people travelling at peak times by reducing off peak fares, good, but there are many seniors who still work and should pay a higher fare.
LikeLike
I struggle with special fares for seniors. It is hard to justify as it would appear to me to be based on the assertion that they are poor. I dislike the use of income (especially taxable) as a test for seniors. It is important that when we look at income we balance it with the assets – because seniors can easily have low taxable income, strictly because they are only slowly pulling it out of RSP (still in the early years, and mins were just reduced) or going forward already have large amounts in their TFSA, or from a tax perspective – dividend yielding corporations.
I hate the idea, of a heavily indebted just finished school employee, subsidizing a senior with a multi million dollar portfolio. When we are looking at accumulated savings this is not as improbable as it may sound. Also especially pertinent to seniors if we are looking at – taxable income, you could have a 100k income from dividends, and pay virtually no tax, poor granny who paid no tax last year because she was so poor may actually have an 8k per month disposable income, because she has so many bank shares – an astute investor, that had received a one time payment to induce early retirement or pension payout, or insurance policy of 875k in 2009 could have done so merely by betting on our largest bank – would seem awful too for the just graduated early 20s couple earning sub 60k and with no house and 80-100k in student debt to be paying that person’s way, no?
Steve: It is important to remember that the situation where seniors as a group were comparatively well off is a fairly recent phenomenon, and it is not uniform across the entire group. Good pension income, especially from two-income families, plus the benefit of appreciation in the value of the family home, are “modern” effects, not to mention a longer lifespan and the arrival of the Canada Pension Plan (1965). Note also that the concept of a “family home” does not apply to all seniors, only those well enough off to have lived in one to begin with. A large segment of the population rents and has no real estate equity to draw on.
Children’s fares predate the TTC, and the Scholar’s fare was introduced in December 1921. It took until the early 1970s for Seniors to get their own fare, and it was only available for ticket fares, not cash, at 50% off the adult rate. The TTC has been pushing that ratio up over the years, notably for pass pricing.
I really must point out that seniors with a multi-million dollar portfolio are rare, but if it’s convenient to paint them all that way for your argument, that tells me all I need to know about your approach to “equity”. Similarly students get a discount regardless of their income or debt situations, or the degree to which their education is subsidized. I could talk about students from well-off families feeding at the public trough while “working people” get no breaks, but that would be just as inaccurate a portrayal as yours of millionaire seniors.
The issue is that subsidies should somehow relate to income and need, although this is not a straightforward thing to administer. Even the transit tax subsidy is skewed in that it is a non-refundable deduction, and so someone who has no taxable income receives no benefit from the rebate. A further issue is the difference between individual and family incomes. One “breadwinner” might legitimately be the official recipient of social benefits in a family, but how do we decide which of their relatives and dependents should also get cheaper TTC fares? This is a very complex situation, and dismissing the question by painting all members of one class as privileged wealthy folk is no way to address the issues.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a retired IT professional with a decent pension plus private savings and some post-retirement income. Many of my contemporaries are not in as fortunate a position. I could afford a full fare adult pass, but that doesn’t mean everyone my age or older can.
LikeLike
…..you’re a senior now, right? 😉
Steve: Have been for over a year.
LikeLike
Being under 65, I am against cheaper transit fares just for seniors.
Since I will be 65 next year, I am for cheaper transit fares just for seniors. Let my kids pay for me via their property taxes.
LikeLike
Steve: Should Seniors Get Even Cheaper Transit Fares?
That line coming from a senior himself is pretty selfish. Why not ask something more meaningful and less selfish like “Should Scarborough Get Even More Subways?”
Steve: Please see my response to an earlier comment in which I said that I was perfectly able to afford a full adult fare. The fact that I could do so does not mean that other seniors, or more generally others who are not as well-off as I am, should be denied a reduced fare.
As for “selfish”, it is synonymous with Scarborough as presented by comments such as yours.
By the way, the article was a report on a proposal before the TTC today from a member of the Commission, not my own scheme. If you cannot keep straight the idea of “reportage” versus “advocacy”, you really should find somewhere else to leave your comments.
LikeLike
This is a convoluted proposal that is doomed to failure before it gets anywhere. Far easier to have seniors free after 9 AM and before 3 PM and all day Sunday. Alternatively, time expired transfers for everyone at all hours. Simple.
LikeLike
I utterly fail to see the social policy purpose of a concession fare for seniors. Many of them are poor, but many of them are very wealthy.
Seniors are, however, more likely than the average Canadian to vote. So this looks like pure political pandering to me.
LikeLike
Steve I have not painted all seniors as millionaires, merely made the point that they are present and much less rare than they were a couple of generations ago. The assumption that seniors were generally or largely poor that initially led to across the board seniors discounts is no longer the case. The problem is that those that have struggled will do so in retirement, and really will need help, as they did in their working life. There are others who while approaching 80 still are in no need of help (my mother for instance). I used an extreme example perhaps, but only to make the point that not all seniors are poor (nor are all young people).
The problem is that while making the operating assumption that seniors were means challenged was an assumption that was a workable one 20 years ago, I do not believe it is so clear anymore. There are lot of people who will enjoy quite healthy retirements, or who could but will keep working.
Also Steve your point on students is also true, and many years ago when I was in University I knew a couple of people who were a year behind me, even though they were much older than I, school was fun and one had changed programs 4 times, and had plenty of money – he had no need of a student discount for the bus, however, I believe this is rare, whereas seniors of reasonable means is no longer the rare exception, the strong correlation that justified the initial policy is no longer that strong.
Steve: It may no longer be that strong a correlation, but just try changing current arrangements without putting an alternative in place. We could just as easily argue that people from the far corners of the 416 should pay ore to travel downtown, a decision that was rescinded four decades ago in roughly the same time period that saw seniors’ fares introduced. “Inequity” is a word whose definition often suits the speaker as we have seen from some of the trolls here. You cannot simply say “I don’t agree with today’s arrangements” and assume that they can be changed without debate and consideration of alternatives.
LikeLike
Yes, however, I can make arguments against the idea of increasing the discount. I struggle with the idea of discounts for seniors that are granted only because they are seniors, however, it is likely not worth changing the existing discount, simply because of the difficulty of bringing a policy that would reasonably cover those who do need it (and seniors who are truly in need are very likely to be in worse situations, as income and physical afflictions correlate). However, I am not comfortable doubling down on the policy either.
I would agree that “inequity” is a most dangerous word (along with “fair”), and I would note that I managed to avoid using it. I would also note, I was trying to make the point with regards to a singular senior in question. It would bother me to get discounts (unless something goes terribly wrong in the next few years) for the same reason it bothers my mother, she is not in need. I can remember discussing this 30 years ago in University, I would have preferred at the time to see higher tuition (which has happened), fewer loans and more bursaries (which has not). Focus the aid on those who will truly benefit, and I knew I was not one of them.
Yes, and to some degree this would help net out the advantage of the seniors discount to someone who has largely dividend income. However, it also means that those who have little do not gain the advantage of as much of the help as intended. I am not arguing against a seniors discount, nor for it, however, I would like to challenge a substantial deepening of if, without careful questioning as to why we are doing it, and what are the effective underlying assumptions. If there was an easy effective means test that was not demeaning I would support that, however, I believe this is a difficult thing.
As I said Steve “I struggle with special fares for seniors”, as from a policy perspective, the logic is not as crystal clear as it once was, that of course does not mean I would say we should wipe them out either. A sizable increase or removal should not happen without a serious discussion, and the removal should not without a good way of helping those who really need transit for the absolute requirement of mobility and without the means to reasonably pay full fare. However, it bothers me to know that those that recently had chauffeurs, are getting the same discount as their now retired driver {and yes this is an extreme example}.
LikeLike
P.S Steve to me the use “equity” or “fair”, is bothersome, because it seems to be generally used as you said for the benefit of the speaker, and hiding within a large group painted with a single brush. Fair is weak, because inevitably it means discussing issues like seniors, or residents of a certain borough, or region, where all are painted in the same light. The rich seniors with the poor, those that deliberately made the choice to opt for the large backyard, now using neighbors who are less well off, to justify services that the density does not generally justify. The use of a narrow argument regarding services, while ignoring the richer services or lower costs, that caused them to locate in that area to begin with. The feeling I have with regards to the use of this argument, is that it often seems to be used by those that want to have their cake and eat it too. Complain about lower pay in their area of employment, but they picked it for its lower stress, quicker entry and/or higher social rewards, or time flexibility. They complain about unfair longer trips, when they wanted and selected low density and a backyard and lots of space. The complain about a lack of close / walk-able services, when they chose the location as they wanted to be able to drive, and not worry about parking.
Fair seems to be the argument made, when someone no longer wants to deal with the other side of the coin of their own choice. I can see a wealthy senior making the argument for greater seniors discounts on the unfair argument, using their poor generation mates, just as I can see someone who chose to live in the outer 416 making the argument for closer subway, who has a comfortably 6 figure income and works in the core – they could have afforded to live in the high density area, but will use those who cannot as a basis for argument. Something always appears unfair or inequitable when one only looks at one side of a many sided issue.
LikeLike
I think all of the transit subsidy issues can be resolved through a direct cash deposit scheme (similar to UCCB). You file your taxes and if you are below a certain threshold, you get a “transit credit”. However, at the fare box, everyone should pay the same.
LikeLike
On the Senior’s issue, I think we should eliminate it completely as a category of tickets/passes, but allow them to claim it as a tax deduction/rebate, based upon an income threshold. I would be in favour of doing the same with students, but I’m thinking that this would be harder to capture.
LikeLike
I don’t think the TTC should be in the business of granting subsidies to people in broad age categories. Whether it is seniors, students or children, there will always be some who need the subsidy and some who don’t. Having these categories will always lead to questions of fairness and equity and the TTC doesn’t have the tools, the information or even the ethical basis to make such decisions.
In the future when (or if) some automated fare tool such as Presto is implemented in Toronto it will be easier to target transit users who need a subsidy. For example, the province could credit Presto cards of transit users who may need it because they do have access to such information as income, household situation, etc. Even then such a system will be open to abuse but then it will be a provincial problem, not a TTC problem.
LikeLike
I am all for a system that takes into account financial situation … at the least there needs to be a re-look at the 12-month discount and corporate discount on metro passes … I understand why they do them (cheaper to administer, and longer term = easier accounting) … however this really only benefits people who can guarantee they will be ok to drop 120$ each month automatically from their accounts, or people that work at big organizations (banks, government, telecom, etc.) … there needs to be a system in place where if you have ended up buying 12 passes in a row you get one free or something (punch card, or something) … of course it all goes away with Presto … or does it … we don’t really know yet what the metropass structure is going to be on Presto yet … a really big question that needs to be answered soon!
LikeLike
It’s good to at least see mention of the need for offsetting subsidy against any kind of new reduced fare. Wouldn’t it be extraordinarily disingenuous to implement a special fare for the needy but then have it directly result in service cuts affecting those same folks?
Steve: Disingenuous, yes, but quite typical of the way that some Councillors approach any request for funding. Even John Tory only squeaked through his first budget by dint of large expenditures that didn’t become public until after the event. If everything had been on the table, the issue of new taxes would have been unavoidable.
LikeLike
@Malcolm N and any others who feel similarly against seniors reduced/free fares because some are wealthy or well to do.
Do you really think seniors who are rich will be bothered to ride the crappy TTC bus to get anywhere? I highly doubt it. They will drive or ride in a cab.
@John I don’t think the TTC should be in the business of granting subsidies to people in broad age categories. Whether it is seniors, students or children,
Well, they took care of the child fare “problem” didn’t they?
LikeLike
@Raymond – Well, I would qualify some of my older friends and family as “wealthy” and you know yes they do ride the TTC, in fact as a matter of pride. The riding of the TTC being seen by them as being better for the community.
LikeLike
P.S. Raymond – however, they also like my mother live close to subway (Yonge & St. Clair) and tend to ride off peak – when the service does not seem so crappy. A large portion of those who are wealthier and TTC oriented will tend to live close to subway, in areas like Yonge & St. Clair, South West Rosedale (5 minute walk to Rosedale or Yonge/Bloor), or perhaps the Bloor West Village or in other areas close to Bloor. Even my brother’s neighborhood less than a 5 minute walk from Keele station for instance is an interesting mix (including some well heeled seniors). They may not ride the poorer bus routes, but they certainly ride the subway.
LikeLike
P.S.S Also note I am not against seniors discounts, however, think deepening them needs a full and proper debate. I would prefer a mechanism where the discount is not wasted on people like my mother.
LikeLike
If we are talking in general assumptions, I would say rich seniors are generally rich because they are frugal, so they would ride the TTC when it makes sense, or if they’ve downsized and feel they don’t need a car on a day to day basis.
LikeLike
Malcolm N wrote:
I can’t resist this, as I am in a pedantic mood today:
It is P.P.S., as it is a post-postscript. Unfortunately, more an more are making this error regularly. 😉
LikeLike
And why do children get it for free given that many of the children are from extremely high heeled families?
Steve: I agree. This was entirely a political gesture to give Tory some cover for totally reversing his campaign stance on fare freezes and service.
LikeLike
Seniors are richer than ever these days especially in some of the affluent, transit served areas. We need a mechanism to weed out the wealthy freeloaders who have no reason to be dipping into the public purse.
This is just further unnecessary senior vote buying to the growing “baby boomer generation”.
LikeLike
Seniors should be forced to pay full fares and the free TTC for children under 12 should be extended to homeless people and university/college students as well.
LikeLike
Is it individual fares or metro-passes that will pay for this change, because post-secondary student passes (42,855) pay more than seniors are discounted. Also, how will you determine who is homeless and can ride for free?
Steve: This is even trickier when we remember that a deserving person may also have a family, and the cost of moving them around could be a substantial portion of their travel budget.
LikeLike
There are probably 150,000 to 200,000 university and college students in Toronto. Why should the taxpayers of Toronto subsidize their education when it is the responsibility of higher levels of government?
Steve: By the way, the “quote” used by Ed is the title of the article, not my position on the subject as any reader should know.
LikeLike
I know that. I only included it to give a reference point for his comment about extended free fares which would have to be paid for by citizens of Toronto rather than by the governments that should cover it.
LikeLike
Re: Should Seniors Get Even Cheaper Transit Fares?
Should Aboriginals/Natives get free transit? Just the other day, I was on the College car and a native guy wanted to get on without paying and would not abide by the operator’s request to either pay or leave resulting in the driver refusing to continue driving. The native dude’s argument was that the TTC operates on native land and hence natives should not have to pay for it and that white man and the Chinese man and the black man and all the other immigrants polluted and destroyed the native land (Canada) and the native dude also said a bunch of other racist insults towards white people, black people, and other immigrants to the native land (Canada). The native dude also said free government services was in their treaty rights and because TTC is a government service, natives should not have to pay for it. The native dude fled just before the police came but not before causing at least 20 minutes delay and a long line of waiting streetcars during rush hour. I was wondering if there are any constitutional lawyers on this forum and could comment on whether or not natives are legally entitled to free TTC service (TTC service being a government service).
Steve: Many people think they are entitled to public services based on some concept of “equity”. This is not necessarily true.
LikeLike
First of all, taxpayers already highly subsidize higher education. Secondly, it’s a great investment economically. From a project in Regent Park with a cost of $6K per high school student ($1.5K per year for 4 years) to improve studying and university attendance, the tax on incremental lifetime earnings for those that went to college who would otherwise not attend was sufficient to pay for the full program (their own costs plus the cost of the non-affected). One of the four pillars of the project was free bus tickets for attendance and program compliance.
That said, I think a separate price is a blunt tool and tax credits are much more effective per tax dollar.
I’m not a laywer, but the 1990 case of R. v. Sparrow stated that rights are not absolute and can be, in certain circumstances, infringed upon. Some Registered Indians must pay taxes. RI don’t pay GST/PST/HST on-reserve or items delivered to a reserve, but do pay taxes on alcohol.
There is no legal right to receiving every public service for free.
LikeLike
Re: Should Seniors Get Even Cheaper Transit Fares?
Here’s a thought …
My wife and I rode the TTC **FOR FREE** on January 1st this year after attending a friend’s New Year’s Eve party, all thanks to Corby Spirit and Wine subsidizing the system’s cost from 7:00 p.m. December 31st to 7:00 a.m. January 1st (with the subway kept open until after 3:30 a.m. January 1st as part of this deal).
Given that there are just under 8 months until next year, the TTC brass – and, heck, even civic-minded councillors – should have just enough time to organize complete transit system sponsorship by one company each day for all the days in 2016. (At present, one can sometimes see entire subway cars or even stations – Bloor/Yonge or St. George – displaying ONLY ads of a particular company or organization, so why not just expand it system-wide?
Of course, Corby would be given right of first refusal for New Year’s Eve again to usher in this new, free transit system for citizens/transit riders/responsible drinkers starting next year. But just think about it from a corporate standpoint: if you had TTC staff install sponsor-specific ads on ALL the TTC vehicles (stations?) for each and every day – Corby until January 1st and then Company ABC for January 2nd, Company XYZ for January 3rd and so on until Corby takes over again at 7:00 p.m. on December 31, 2016. And there’s nothing stopping a company from doing it more than once during the year either.
That way, EVERYONE – seniors, students, the poor, the rich, adults, kids – could all enjoy transit at no cost and Councillors and TTC Board members wouldn’t have to think about money, money, money (which John Tory could now use to fund SmartTrack!) Not to mention, if the service is running poorly, the company that is sponsoring said transit vehicles would likely raise a stink with TTC Brass because of the negative association with slow-moving streetcars or buses.
Zzzzzz – Snork! Wha, What? Oh, just having a weird dream … Zzzzzzzzzz
[Sleepy Dean Girard]
LikeLike
Seniors should definitely not get a reduced fare just for being seniors, because frankly seniors are on average richer than other age groups. That makes reduced-fares-for-seniors the worst sort of public policy: give to them who has, take away from them who has not.
What would be ideal would be one low rate for everyone, funded by increased income taxes on the wealthy. But I suppose that makes far too much sense for Queen’s Park to do it.
LikeLike
While great on paper, this idea breaks down in reality. First of all, New Years Eve is worth sponsoring because many more people are going out and not driving to do it. Second, if everyday was free, it devalues the product. Third, there are already system capacity issues without encouraging everyone to make every trip they desire. Fourth, passenger revenues are 43.6 times higher than TOTAL TTC advertising revenues. Fifth, how much time and money do you think it would be to change ads on every TTC vehicle/station daily? Sixth, we don’t have the depth of large companies (minimimum $30M in gross revenues) to do this. Seventh, even if you could find 365 corporate sponsors willing to pay over $3M for a day of ads (or 73 companies to pay over $15M for 5 day blocks), the saved money would cover about 13% of SmartTrack capital costs.
LikeLike
Concerning $1.00 for seniors: Brampton Transit already does it.
Fares are either $3.75 cash or $2.80 (Presto, adult), $2.50 (Presto,child, student 6-19), $1.00 (Senior with Special card), $1.55 (Presto, Senior) or free (Children 0-5). A 2 hour transfer window is used, either through Presto card or paper transfer (for cash fares). Presto is strongly preferred and is used by almost all system users.
LikeLike
While this debate was raging, I was visiting Warsaw, Poland. Over 65, you get a Senior’s Pass for 50 zloties per year (about $16), which gives me unlimited travel over two zones (i.e. all of Warsaw and the airport). Regular fare is more like 3 zloties for one zone. And when I’m over 70, transit is free. ‘Nuff said.
LikeLike