The TTC has announced that the July Metropasses for subscribers will not be mailed out. Instead, all customers who normally receive passes in the mail and pay by automatic bank withdrawal should buy a pass at the regular price. They will receive bank credit for the difference between a pass on subscription and one bought at a station. Extra stocks of passes will be at collectors’ booths and in pass vending machines.
For full info, please refer to the TTC’s site.
The Metrolinx board met on Thursday, April 28 and there were a few items of note on the public agenda.
To everyone’s great surprise, the TTC recently discovered that fare evasion is a rising problem on the transit system, according to reports in the Globe and the Star. Is Toronto becoming a city of transit cheaters, or is something more subtle at work here?
Over many years, when the subject of fare evasion came up at Commission meetings, the standard line from management was that Toronto has a very low evasion rate compared to other cities. Indeed, a 2007 report on the “Business Case” for Smartcards talks about Toronto’s low fare evasion rate and the role new fare technologies might play. Counterfeit media are considered to be more of a problem than evasion, and the TTC worries that Smartcards for concession fares may be abused at automatic entrances.
The low evasion rate was routinely cited as a reason that the TTC did not aggressively pursue fare inspections because the cost was greater than the potential revenue gain.
Times have changed. Finding “waste” is the flavour of the day. Moreover, as the stories linked here make clear, this debate is in the larger context of the TTC’s Special Constable force. In 2010, the City Budget Committee and Council directed the TTC to reduce this force, and the Toronto Police Service has taken over their function for Criminal Code and other aspects of policing. This issue came up again in the 2011 Budget, and a City report gives the background information.
It is quite clear that TTC fare inspectors do not require the full powers formerly accorded to Special Constables, but TTC management is exploiting the current financial situation and calls for crackdowns on freeloaders as a wedge to reopen the question of having their own, dedicated force.
Strangely, we find that fare evasion, long considered a non-issue in Toronto, is suddenly a problem. Have the numbers really changed, or is the jump from past results simply the effect of better enforcement?
Recently, I was riding the Queen car and was asked to show my pass. This is the first time in over a decade that this has happened. All door loading is regularly used on Queen, and the occasional freeloader will hop on for a short trip — after all, with almost no inspection, the odds of getting caught riding for five minutes is quite small.
According to the Star’s article, transfer fraud has jumped. TTC transfer enforcement was simplified some years back by the inclusion of a prominent day number on all transfers, and different colours for each day. However, a parallel evolution was for operators to avoid confrontation with passengers over fares. Indeed, even with polite riders, when 30 people all board in a crowd, checking all of their fares is not easy.
For those who do pay fares, we know that over half of all adult trips are done using a Metropass, and there tend to be more passes used on frequent downtown routes because the population of heavy transit users is greatest there. This begs the question of what the evasion rate is among those passengers who don’t have a pass, those for whom there is an incentive to cheat.
The Queen car’s 50,000 daily riders represent annual revenue of about $30-million, but over half of this will be from passes and various forms of discount media. If the TTC is really losing $1.2m annually from transfer fraud, this is a large proportion of the riders using transfers. Catching them should be like the proverbial fish in a barrel, but two fare inspectors working the entire line won’t bring in a big haul.
The move to any new fare system with any kind of self-service validation (e.g. Presto) requires that the system be enforced, and even the TTC acknowledges that it should start more aggressive fare inspection on the streetcar routes, at least, as a prelude to the introduction of the new fleet where all-door loading will be standard.
Oddly enough, the TTC still wants to keep its Special Constables (or whatever they are to be called) deployed on the subway system, with a few left to handle the Queen car on weekdays. That’s not a scheme designed to catch fare cheats, but simply a continuation of the way the Special Constables have been used since their inception. If the TTC really wants to improve their haul of fares, then Special Constables should actually spend more time on this activity.
Otherwise, it’s hard to believe that “fare evasion” is anything more than the latest excuse to perpetuate the TTC’s own security service.
Updated March 1, 2011 at 7:00 pm:
To no great surprise, the TTC Board today endorsed the staff proposal to do away with Post-Secondary Student Passes for part time students. This was done after a few hours of well presented, cogent deputations from a variety of speakers who, for their troubles, were greeted with a Blackberry wielding board who spent little of their time paying attention. In one case, a presenter was finishes, but Chair Karen Stintz was so busy with her email that she didn’t notice for some time.
The common thread through the deps was that the concept of “part time student” is not consistently defined either between institutions or even programs within the same university or college. About 20% of students today are “part timers” mainly for economic reasons (they cannot afford to pay the fees for a full time program in one go) or because the program they are in is defined as “part time” (regardless of its actual course load). This cohort of students is growing, and they are also penalized by being ineligible for various loans and grants offered to “full time” students.
Yet another group not covered by the policy are those who are in “certificate” programs which may have just as heavy a course load, but don’t lead to a degree.
As one speaker put it, “students are students”, but the convoluted definitions and practices lead to artificial distinctions between them.
At the end of the deputations, Commissioner Palacio put forward a motion in the best tradition of appearing to be supportive while doing precisely nothing. He wanted the Commission to reiterate that part time students have access to the “VIP Pass” discount program, and wanted the staff to write to university and college administrators urging that they extend their current VIP Pass program for staff to the part time students.
This proposal, which passed, of course, insulted the speakers who know perfectly well that a VIP Pass (which costs about $10 more than a student pass) was available, provided that their institution actually was part of the VIP program. The problem is that this is not universal, and depends on an institution (or a group like a student union) setting itself up as a VIP Pass vendor.
Finally, Chair Stintz thanked everyone for “making their voices heard”. “Heard” is not the word I would use, as “listen” was certainly not what much of the Commission was doing most of the time. If she had really “heard”, she would have acknowledged that there is a problem with definitions, not to mention the larger issue of other groups who make claims for discounted fares, and sent the whole issue off for a detailed report. This change won’t have much effect until fall 2011, and there was no need for a definitive decision today.
But no, that’s not what happened. Mayor Ford’s minions were in and out of the meeting to ensure that the vote went the right way, and the students didn’t have a chance.
[The original article from February 28 follows the break below.]
Updated January 12, 2011 at 5:30 pm: Today the TTC decided to defer the matter of the proposed service cuts to its meeting on February 2. I will comment in more detail on both the Operating and Capital budget presentations that were made today (they are not available online).
Meanwhile, details of the service cuts are available. A few notes about this table (which comes from the TTC):
The TTC has already noticed one “oops” — the Downsview Park bus on early Saturday evenings carries 267 riders in the three hours between 7 and 10 pm, or almost 90/hour. Saturday daytime, it carries 176 in the 13 hours from 6 am to 7 pm, or 13.5/hour. However, it is likely that a good deal of this riding is concentrated later in the day, and it will be easy to get over the screenline by taking this into account.
I will digest this chart with additional calculations in a post tomorrow.
The methodology has a certain prejudice depending on the type of route. For example, very short routes tend to have a lot of turnover and rack up boardings quickly. Long routes handle longer trips, and the resources used per boarding are proportionately greater. This means that a long route has to have a higher average load to meet the boardings/hour criterion and escape cuts.
For routes that don’t do well, this is something of a moot point because they are never going to the cut, but this sort of systemic error in analysis becomes important if, in 2012, the bar is raised to cut more “unproductive” services.
Back in the early days of this blog, I wrote a long paper about the role of transit and what a truly regional plan would look like. To avoid extensively quoting myself, I suggest that any newcomers to this site read that as a starting point as it contains not just a list of routes, but a philosophy of how one should look at transit.
Since 2006, we have seen Transit City, MoveOntario2020 and The Big Move. The GTA appeared well on its way to real progress in transit although problems, notably the question of local service funding, remained.
Now we have a new Mayor in Toronto, and plans that came from years of work and debate lie in pieces on the floor. Metrolinx and Queen’s Park seem content to “plan” by carving up funding that’s already committed and redrawing their map to suit the whims of a new regime at City Hall.
The fundamental problem in this exercise is the phrase “funding that’s already committed”. When you draw a map with a half empty pen, you make compromises, and you run out of ink leaving huge areas bereft of service.
If redraw we must, then let us do so with a view to a transit network and to a view beyond the end of next year. What does Toronto and the GTA need? How much will that cost? How do we pay for it? If we start with the premise that we cannot afford anything, we should stop wasting our time on planners, engineers and the myth that transit can actually transform travel for the next generation.
The discussion below is Toronto centric because this is a Toronto blog, and that’s where most of the GTA’s transit riders are. All the same, the philosophy of what transit should be affects everyone, especially in those areas where so much transit growth is needed just to catch up with the population.
Some of the info here will be familiar to those who read my commentaries regularly, but I wanted to pull it all together as a starting point. My comments are not intended as the one, definitive “solution”, but to show the need for debate on a large scale, integrating considerations from many parts of various schemes.
[While I was writing this article, the Pembina Institute published its own critique of the Ford transit plan. I do not intend to comment on that document here because it addresses only one part of a much larger collection of transit issues.]
[My apologies for the lateness of this post. The last few days have seen a number of distractions and conflicts with blogging in my life, and I am just getting back to it “full time” now.]
The Commission meeting began with two unusual events. One was a “motion without notice” by newly-minted Commissioner Palacio proposing that the Commission ask Queen’s Park to give the TTC “essential service” status. (This was a procedural device requiring a 2/3 majority to permit for an “urgent” situation, although with the current Commission makeup, that sort of majority is easy to attain.) After a brief debate and with only Commissioner Augimeri (the token non-Ford supporter on the Commission) opposed, the motion passed. The “urgency” was caused by this item’s being up for debate on Council’s agenda for the following day based on a similar motion at Executive Committee earlier in the week. I have commented on this issue separately.
The other event was an inaugural address by the new Chair, Karen Stintz. (See Chair Stintz’ blog and scroll down to “My Priorities as TTC Chair”.) There are four main aims, none of which is worked out in much detail.
I wish Chair Stintz well in a very difficult role in difficult times. The TTC and the transit system is a large, complex organization, and its effect on the City of Toronto is greater and more long-lasting than most other agencies Councillors direct. Collisions between being “pro transit” and being part of “Team Ford” are likely to come as soon as the 2011 budget process, and certainly as Council begins to look at planning for 2012 and beyond.
Union Station Second Platform & Concourse Improvements
This report, authorizing a contract for the construction work on this project, was approved, but not until after considerable questioning by Commissioner Minnan-Wong who is greatly perturbed by the increasing cost of the project. How did it get from $90-million to $137m (not including work funded from various TTC facility improvement lines in the Capital Budget), and who was paying for the added cost?
The project is funded primarily by Waterfront Toronto which, in turn, has a nest egg contributed by the City, Queen’s Park and Ottawa in equal measure. WFT agreed to fund the increased cost, and the money was redirected from the cancelled Front Street Extension project. The cost increase comes mainly from changes in the design to accommodate the City’s own Union Station project as well as the complexity of rebuilding a major subway station while it remains in operation.
The project gets underway in January 2011.
Ashbridge’s Bay Maintenance Facility
This topic was the subject of several deputations by members of the Community and by area Councillors, as well as some debate among the Commissioners. The primary issues raised were:
A few points are worth noting.
TTC management will report back on these issues early in 2011.
Again, the question of project budgeting came up. There is a still unsettled battle between TTC and City finance staff about whether the TTC can spend money on a project whose scope and cost have changed without first obtaining Council approval. Because the TTC board delayed action on awarding this contract, the issue has not yet come to a head, but may do as part of the 2011 budget process. A revised project scope for this facility will be included in the overall Capital Budget and this may, or may not, attract attention. As I understand current Council policy, only if the revised scope is approved by Council through an updated budget would the TTC actually have the authority to proceed.
New Overhead Facility Lease
As I mentioned in the preview of this meeting’s agenda, management recommended that the Commission relocate its overhead maintenance crew to new quarters to be leased for five years. This will allow for expansion of the crew to undertake major reconstruction of the streetcar overhead infrastructure.
This report was approved without comment.
Post Secondary Student Metropasses
A large crowd of students demonstrated on Nathan Phillips Square before the TTC meeting, and they moved into the Committee Room to support speakers on this issue.
The Commission decided that students in Private Career Colleges who have full time programs (defined as 20 or more hours/week) would be eligible for student metropass pricing. This will come into effect probably for February 2011. Other groups, notably students at Community Colleges, will be the subject of a separate report early in the new year.
Most interesting about this issue was the fact that the Commission made no attempt to dismiss the request on the grounds of budget constraints or equity with other riders. This particular room full of students got an uncharacteristically warm reception from an agency whose usual response to requests for subsidies is “go elsewhere”. The Commission (partly in their other role as Councillors) is spending the “surplus” in the TTC budget even though this may not last into 2011. The presence of a well-known former politician as the legal counsel government relations consultant for the Ontario Association of Career Colleges may have had something to do with the success of this student appeal.
Transit Service Variety Village
After an impassioned deputation by Councillor Crawford, one of the new faces at City Council, and a staff presentation outlining the problems involved and the options available to serve Variety Village, the Commission decided to go forward with a staff proposal to increase the hours of service on the Variety Village Community Link bus so that instead of ending at 7:00 pm, the service will run until 10:00 pm. Moreover, the frequency will be improved from hourly to half-hourly. Both changes take effect in January 2011.
Unknown to most would-be riders, this service is available to any transit rider, not just to Wheel Trans users. The combination of longer hours and better service are expected to improve riding on this route. A report on the success of the improved service and on alternative ways to serve Variety Village will come forward no later than June 2011 with the intention that any changes would be implemented in September.
Updated Dec. 11, 2010 at 2:20 pm: The section on the site remediation report for the proposed Ashbridges Bay carhouse has been updated to reflect a June 2010 report on a possible alternative site near Broadview and Eastern.
Original article from Dec. 10, 2010:
The new Toronto Transit Commission dominated by political supporters of Mayor Ford will hold its first substantive meeting on December 15, 2010. Among items of interest on the agenda are:
At its recent meeting, the TTC considered a staff report on the 2011 budget including Operating (the so-called conventional system’s day-to-day costs and revenues), Wheel-Trans and Capital (major repairs and expansion). The material in this report is only an overview of the full budgets to be presented at the Commission in January 2011. Many details remain to be seen, not the least of which will be the TTC’s reaction to the prevailing political mood after the October 25 election.
In this article, I will deal only with the Operating Budget, and will turn to the others in future posts. Continue reading
Information about the Presto contract with Accenture and plans for the system are now available on the Presto Website.
I am spending much of this week at the Film Festival (yes, there will be reviews), and will comment on the Presto information next week, possibly in conjunction with whatever will or will not be proposed for the TTC meeting of September 30.
Steve Munro 