Finance

by

The TTC’s 1991 Operating Budget

In my article about David Gunn’s opinion of what’s wrong with the TTC, I mentioned the 1991 Budget introduced as the TTC was having its record year of ridership in 1990, but was on the brink of a recession and unprecedented cutbacks.

The major objective of the proposed TTC operating budget for 1991 is to provide a better product and thereby to attract more riders to the TTC.  This will not be an easy task at a time when other demands on the taxpayers’ dollars are escalating, and with the economy headed into a recession.  The proposed budget is best summarized in one word:  balance — a balance among the needs of TTC riders and the taxpayers of Metro Toronto and the Province of Ontario.

[From Proposed 1991 Operating Budget, November 14, 1990]

This budget was introduced by TTC Chair Lois Griffin, a Councillor from the then Rexdale-Thistletown ward of Etobicoke which took in the northwest corner of the city down to Highway 401.  The south half of this ward is Mayor Ford’s home turf.  Al Leach, who would later preside over the amalgamation of Toronto as part of the Harris government, was Chief General Manager.  Neither of them could be called radicals.

David Miller was not yet a member of Council having lost on his first try to the incumbent in 1991.  He was successful on a second try in 1994.  Adam Giambrone was 13 years old and had not yet become active in the NDP.

In the face of economic difficulties, a conservative Commission was advocating service improvements as the best way to gain and hold ridership, and none of the ills that might have afflicted transit could be blamed on a previous administration’s misguided policies.

November 1990 Proposal For 1991 Operating Budget

By March 26, 1991, staff recommended that the budget be trimmed to compensate for falling ridership and for flatlining of the Metro Toronto subsidy contribution.  This flatline was relative to the budget submission, but the drop in riding was hitting revenue and would have triggered a greater subsidy need without offsetting changes.  This led to proposals for service and staffing cuts, although some additions stayed in the budget for safety and reliability reasons.

In reading the 1991 proposal, it’s notable that even before the heart of the recession, there were concerns that some TTC practices needed improvement.  In the years to follow, we would see just how badly the cumulative effect of putting off repairs would hit the TTC.

By July 1991, the projected budget, including cuts requested by Council, was back at the TTC.  Total expenses had dropped from the original $686.1-million proposed in November 1990 to $675.1m.

A few excerpts from my deputation at the time:

Transit riders expect a lot more from the TTC than their counterparts in New York, Philadelphia or Chicago, and we must work to meet Toronto’s expectations.  Simply being better than everyone else is not good enough.

…

No matter how good the subway service, if someone cannot get to and from the subway reliably, they will not use it.  If someone’s trip is not served by the subway, they will not attempt it by an unreliable or overcrowded surface route. … The fine-grained surface network will never be duplicated by the subway network.

…

The common complaints about crowding suggest that the average rider does not see the “average” loading conditions which may meet the service standards.  The empty space in buses at the back of a platoon is of little use to the riders crammed into the first vehicle. … providing better service with your existing fleet improves your productivity, makes your service more attractive and defers the need for additional vehicles.

…

I have often spoken of the need for the Commission to be advocates for the transit system. … Cities become “world class” because people living there care about all the parts that make up the whole.  Your job is to care about the transit system and to tell all of us how we can get it back not merely to “the better way”, but “the best way”.

[Letter to the TTC, November 20, 1990]

The TTC’s decline in the early 90s was so severe that the proposed budget for 1996 was $673.5-million, almost the same as the approved budget in 1991, and ridership was projected at 376-million.  When David Gunn talks of Toronto achieving only a 15% increase in riding, he forgets those dark days and the system he inherited when he joined the TTC in 1995.

by

Presto! Pay Now, or Pay Later (Updated)

Updated July 8, 2011 at 10:00 am:

[Readers new to this item should read the original post, and then come back to the top of the item for the update.]

At the Commission meeting, I presented this deputation.

In the discussion that followed, it became clear that there are aspects of the deal between the TTC and Presto that the parties would prefer to hide from public view.  Some of the details are up to Metrolinx to release, not the TTC.

On the matter of the recapture of the provincial loan for the cost overrun on the project, TTC’s Chief General Manager Gary Webster explained that Metrolinx had agreed to “hold the TTC harmless”, to use the legal phrase, against extra costs beyond what fare collection now costs the system.  Apparently the payback of capital is very similar to the proposed arrangement with the proponent of the Open Payment system.

There would be no payment to Presto before savings in fare collection costs begin to accrue, although the detail on these payments remains to be worked out.  The intent is that the sum of the cost of Presto service and the loan repayment will not exceed current costs.

Questions remaining unanswered include:

  • If the load is to be repaid over 10 years, but if there has not been enough cumulative saving in fare collection costs by then, what happens with the outstanding debt?
  • Is Queen’s Park contributing anything additional to the Presto project, or is the entire cost overrun entirely on Toronto’s back?
  • How aggressively will the TTC have to migrate riders from the current system to Presto in order to generate the hoped-for savings?
  • What is the status of Presto on the bus system given that the report proposing the financing scheme does not mention buses at all?

During the debate, Chair Karen Stintz stated that any regional integration would not occur until after 2015, presumably when Presto was fully rolled out.  Indeed, it is not practical to restructure fares before the fare collection system can handle whatever new tariff is in place.  Again, this begs the question of the status of the bus fleet which handles a great deal of cross-border travel.

Commissioner Minnan-Wong, unsatisfied with the level of detail in the discussion, moved deferral of the item, but this was voted down with only him in favour.

A update report on the status of negotiations with Presto will come back to the Commission in October or November 2011.

Continue reading →

by

Service Changes in July 2011

In a previous post, I described the diversions that will begin on July 11 around the reconstruction of the King/Bathurst grand union.

Beginning July 18 and continuing until early September, the 506 Carlton diversion around the Gerrard Street bridge, originally announced for June 19, will actually get underway.  Trackwork on the bridge has been in rough shape with slow orders for some time.  The planned date for return of streetcars to Gerrard Street is September 11.

Westbound service will run via Broadview, Dundas and Parliament.  Eastbound service will run via Parliament, Queen and Broadview.  Cars have been added to the schedule to compensate for the added mileage.

Effective July 31:

192 Airport Rocket: On the northbound trip, buses will serve the upper level bus stop at Jetliner first, then the arrival level at Terminal 1 and the arrival level at Terminal 3.  On the southbound trip, buses will exit the Airport via the ramp to southbound Hwy 427.  These changes are intended to free up running time to improve service reliability.

504 King: Streetcar service will return to Roncesvalles Avenue, although King cars will continue their diversion around the track and overhead work in Parkdale via Shaw and Queen.  There are only minor changes to some off-peak headways so that the running times work out.  However, I suspect with the traffic congestion on Queen and the inevitable streetcar short turns, service on Roncesvalles will not be as good as what is now provided by a dedicated bus shuttle.

Runnymede Station: The construction at Runnymede Station is supposed to be officially completed now, and 71 Runnymede, 77 Swansea and 79 Scarlett Road will return to their normal routings.

512 St. Clair: Overhead between St. Clair and St. Clair West stations will be retrofitted for pantograph compatibility.  Buses will replace streetcars on this section of the route after 10:00 pm weekdays, and all day on weekends.  The TTC claims that there will be timed transfers at St. Clair West.  Regular service resumes on September 4.

by

So You Just Bought A Subway Station!

Let me be the first to congratulate you on buying the naming rights to one of our fine subway stations!  You’re probably wondering if there are extras in the contract, things you should know about your new home.

We’re sorry about the holes in the walls.  The stations are getting on and we suspected that there might be problems, so we took a look.  We will put the walls back in April, June, September, maybe next year.  Have we asked you about sponsoring the walls too?  We’ve cleaned up a lot of them, but every little contribution helps!

The ceilings are a bit grotty in a few stations.  We were planning to fix that too, but a scheme to develop a new easy-to-maintain ceiling tile system was cut from our budget.  Could we interest you in sponsoring that?

The collectors’ booths are a bit of a mess in some stations, and we know all those posters don’t look nice, especially the ones that are a few months out of date.  We’re working on it.  Could we interest you in buying poster space on the booths?  We really would rather sell it to you than put useful information on them, and our only request is that you leave an opening so that riders can talk to the collector.

Signage.  Yes, we know. Our signage isn’t the greatest in some stations, but we look on this as a museum of design.  This is Toronto, and artsy-fartsy stuff doesn’t count for much here.  We are prepared to take down all of the signs and replace them with new ones in your corporate colours and typeface.  We regret that this is an extra charge option.

Announcements.  All station announcements will include your company name, and a short message, changeable monthly, tailored to a specific campaign.  In keeping with our practice on print advertising, we will ensure that the new messages are posted on our trains no later than two weeks after any special offers are no longer valid.

For a small added fee, we will include your logo on our transfers.  They are sure to become collector’s items!  This offer will end once the entire system converts to Presto smart cards, but the more affluent among you could afford to sponsor that entire subsystem.  Please talk to our friends at Metrolinx about regional sponsorship opportunities.

Escalators and elevators.  Your contract does not include any guarantees that the vertical transportation elements within your station will be reliably operating at any time.  We regret that this could produce a poor impression on some target audiences.  To compensate, we invite you to sponsor one of our Wheel Trans buses.

Our trains are an important part of the transit system, and we will endeavour to have them pass through your station reasonably often.  Although service may at times be irregular, this gives you an opportunity to market to a captive audience.  Video advertising screens will be programmed to launch special advertising campaigns when there is an extended delay.

We regret that the shiny exteriors you saw in our brochure only are available on brand new equipment.  Older cars are washed as and when we can get them to the one working car wash in our system.  If you have purchased exterior advertising on our trains, we regret that it may not be legible or attractive to your target audience.  Our plans for platform doors will completely eliminate the need to wash train exteriors, and this problem will solve itself in a few decades.

Are you wondering why your station doesn’t have your name on it yet?  We’ve issued the work order, but there have been problems with co-ordination and we hope to have the station looking bright and new to your specifications in a few months.  Trust us!

What?  You’re want a refund?

by

July 2011 Metropass: It’s Not In The Mail

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.

by

TTC 2012 Operating Budget Preview (Updated)

Updated June 9 at 12:01 am: During discussion of the preliminary budget at the June 8 TTC meeting, staff repeatedly noted that all estimates are based on current Service Standards which drive the quality of service to be provided in the face of growing demand.  This is a troubling state of affairs because we will almost certainly face a proposal to cut service quality by amending the standards as part of the 2012 budget process.

The last thing the TTC needs is a return to a there’s-still-room-on-the-roof planning which is a guarantee for declining customer satisfaction and employee morale, and for strangling ridership growth.

Chair Stintz made reference to the level of rider subsidy and observed that it is uneven across the system.  Would new standards be imposed that would trim routes and periods of operation beyond what already happened in May 2011?

The Commission desperately wants to preserve service (one of Rob Ford’s campaign slogans), keep costs down, and yet somehow squeeze much of the cost savings out of “efficiency”.  This is simply not possible, especially if Council imposes a cutback in the TTC’s operating subsidy.  Combining the known shortfall in the 2012 budget, the likely pressure from wage increases of the now-essential TTC workers, and a potential subsidy cut, there is a gap of over $100-million.  A good chunk of this is directly traceable to the short-sighted decision to freeze fares and eliminate the vehicle registration tax in 2011.  Another large contribution comes from the expected 1/3 increase in the cost of diesel fuel.

Management has been asked to look at opportunities for staff cutbacks that will not affect service, and this means that any cuts will disproportionately hit support services that make up a small proportion of the total organization.  Moreover, even assuming cuts can be found, this is a one-time fix and the cost pressures will return in 2013 and beyond.  Options to be reviewed include contracting out and sharing functions with the city.  It is unclear whether some Commissioners have grasped the idea that increased crowing on buses is a service cut, or if all they care about is that some transit vehicle wanders by now and then to preserve a fiction of service.

The timetable for finalizing the budget will see a report to Council in September with options for the TTC budget, and a final version, based on Council’s direction, to the TTC board in October.

The original June 8 post follows the break below.

Continue reading →

by

Subway Financing Falling Apart? (Update 3)

Updated June 4 at 10:20 am: The Star has published an article discussing road tolls and other ways to squeeze money out of drivers to pay for transit improvements.  David Gunn weighs in on the folly of a Sheppard subway, and Toronto’s transit woes in general.

Updated June 2 at 2:00 pm: Inside Toronto has published an article discussing the zoning increases needed to make the Sheppard Subway a reality.  This includes an illustration of the intersection at Victoria Park developed at the density likely to exist.  The drawing is from Tridel, a well-known developer, not from some wild-eyed lefty trying to frighten the locals.

Although Mayor Ford has disowned the concept of road tolls as a revenue source for subway funding, Gordon Chong continues to press the issue saying:

“I was hired to put all the options on the table and that’s what I’m doing. Road tolls are off the table for the Ford administration. But they’re still part of the toolbox. If you choose not to use that tool, that’s your choice.”

Honesty about the real cost of Ford’s obsession with subways is rare, but refreshing.

Missing from the discussion is the whole question of what development at this density will mean for suburbs through which subways are built, and by extension along Eglinton Avenue which may encounter the same fate.  Just because you have a subway (or underground LRT) doesn’t mean that the neighbourhood or the roads can accept the resulting traffic and population.  Many people who live in the new buildings along Sheppard do not travel by TTC, and they will simply add to congestion on the road system.

Continue reading →

by

Think About Transit on Finch and Sheppard, But Not Yet

On May 30, I sat through a bizarre debate at Toronto’s Planning & Growth Management Committee.  Two motions proposed at Council were referred off to this Committee for action, one regarding Sheppard and the other for Finch.  The intent of these motions was to provoke a discussion of and request detailed information about the status of transit on the now-abandoned parts of the Transit City routes beyond the scope of the proposed subway extension project.

First up was Sheppard.  Councillor Raymond Cho, whose ward encompasses the northeastern part of Scarborough, is very disappointed that plans to improve transit to his constituents, and to the outer part of Scarborough generally, have been cancelled.  He asked that, at a minimum, consideration be given to taking the rebuilt SRT (now the Eglinton Crosstown line) further north to Sheppard as this would bring the rapid transit network across the 401 and much closer to Malvern.

Councillor Karen Stintz (also chair of the TTC) proposed that discussion of the issue be deferred “until such time as the Toronto Transit Commission’s plans for improved public transit on Sheppard Avenue are known”.

This is an odd stance to take given that there is no indication the TTC is working on any plans for improved public transit beyond the scope of the proposed Sheppard Subway to Scarborough Town Centre (STC).  Cho asked that at least a time limit for such a report be included in the motion, but this idea was not acceptable as an amendment by Stintz.

Councillor Joe Mihevc (former TTC Vice-Chair) argued that avoiding discussion now would lead to a finished product being presented for an up-or-down decision with no time for debate or public input.  He argued that people affected by the cancellation of Transit City want input into alternative plans now.  Stintz replied that Metrolinx is running a series of meetings regarding the Eglinton line, but what these have to do with service on Sheppard and Finch is hard to fathom.

Councillor Anthony Perruzza (another former TTC Commissioner) asked about the cost to the city of the cancelled Transit City projects.  Stintz went into a convoluted explanation claiming that Transit City was put together before Metrolinx existed, that it was worked out as input to The Big Move, and that since Metrolinx decided to change its plan, there was no cost to the City.  Stintz claimed that since Transit City was never funded, there could not have been any costs.

This is simply not true on a few counts.  Metrolinx was created as the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority in 2006, and changed to its current name in 2007.  At the beginning of David Miller’s second term as Mayor in December 2006, it was already known that Queen’s Park was working on a comprehensive new transit plan in anticipation of the fall election.  Whatever Toronto had on the table would likely become part of it.  Transit City was announced early in 2007, and in June 2007, Premier McGuinty announced MoveOntario2020.  Metrolinx was charged with sorting through all of the projects in a long shopping list from the GTA regions and this, eventually, became The Big Move.

The TTC, with the approval of City Council, undertook a number of Transit City studies, and carried their costs on its own books.  Once the projects were officially funded, Queen’s Park reimbursed Toronto for the costs to date.  Some projects, such as Jane and Don Mills, never reached funded status, and the sunk costs on those projects remain on the City and TTC books.

The Memorandum of Understanding between Mayor Ford and Queen’s Park explicitly states that Toronto is on the hook to repay any subsidy already paid on Transit City projects (such as preliminary engineering and Environmental Assessments)  that are no longer part of the overall plan.  This affects the Finch and Sheppard LRT projects, and probably the SRT extension.

As for Metrolinx changing its plans, it was no secret that Mayor Ford was immovable on the elimination of surface LRT from the plans, and that Queen’s Park needed to salvage the Eglinton Crosstown line by making it an LRT subway.  The decision to cut Finch and Sheppard East out of the plan was simply a way to placate Ford, to free up additional funding for Eglinton, and to get out of the way of Ford’s Sheppard Subway.  This was not a unilateral Metrolinx decision.

As the debate continued, it was clear that Stintz was being too clever for her own good by trying to treat work-to-date as not part of “Transit City”.  This is an example of the gyrations through which Mayor Ford’s team will go to warp history to fit their agenda.

Councillor Adam Vaughan grilled Stintz on the issue of tolls, a subject recently raised by Gordon Chong who is running Toronto Transit Infrastructure Limited (TTIL), a TTC subsidiary.  Stintz attempted to claim that she has no reporting relationship with Chong even though she Chairs TTIL’s parent body.  Isolated by the TTIL board on which she does not sit, Stintz claims she has no responsibility for what Chong might say.  The irony here is that Chong, as a Ford crony, really doesn’t report to Stintz who is more and more only a figurehead at the TTC where major financial decisions are concerned.

Vaughan continued with questions about funding of the Sheppard line and the amount of development needed to generate revenues that would finance its construction.  He proposed that the Chief Planner report on development sites along the corridor and the potential effect of large-scale redevelopment at densities much higher than have been contemplated as part of Transit City.  Councillor Peter Milczyn (chair of the P&GM committee and vice-chair of the TTC), punted that idea off the table by suggesting that this be done as part of the quinquennial review of the Official Plan that will get underway later this year.  Vaughan and others responded that people should know now, not in the indefinite future, the implications of Ford’s financing schemes for development in their neighbourhoods.

Councillor Ana Bailão spoke laughingly to Vaughan as if Transportation City were already a done deal when in fact neither it nor the Ford MOU has ever been to Council, unlike Transit City which required both funding approvals and Official Plan Amendments.

The entire debate took on a surreal tone with the Ford faction (who control both the committee and the TTC) weaving a fable about how discussion now would be premature, and that the new “Transportation City” plan was getting the same level of debate and consideration as “Transit City”.  In fact, it is getting almost no debate, the very issue this faction complains about every time they talk about Miller’s exclusion of the right in the Transit City planning.

The Ford team spends far too much time justifying its actions, its lack of consultation and transparency, by reference to the Miller years.  That was a weak excuse months ago, and now it’s positively laughable.  A city is not governed on resentment for a man, for a regime no longer in power, but on a coherent, believable vision for the city.

In the end, the same fate met the requests for additional reports on both Sheppard and Finch — the issues, even a request for information, are deferred until the TTC gets around to proposing something specific for each of the corridors.  We already know what the Finch report looks like complete with its confusion of a golf course for a college in the route planning.  Nothing has been presented to the TTC on the Sheppard east corridor.

“Transparency” is not a word I would use to describe transit planning in Toronto under Mayor Ford.  In time we may see what, if anything, the TTC comes up with for the two corridors.

Meanwhile, the 2012 operating budget, almost certain to bring service cuts and fare increases, is expected to surface at the June 8 TTC meeting.  The city’s huge deficit going into the budget process will make any talk of new service on Finch, Sheppard or any other corridor seem like a distant memory.

by

Service Changes Effective June 19, 2011

Many service changes will come into effect on June 19 thanks to the two common factors influencing summer schedules:  seasonal riding changes and construction.

The service changes are detailed in the usual spreadsheet form.  This will be a point of comparison in the fall when we see when and if these changes are reversed, what improvements are funded from the May service “reallocation”, or if budget problems start Toronto into a downward spiral.

Construction Diversions

The 504 King diversion in Parkdale for track and overhead reconstruction between Roncesvalles and Close will continue until the end of the summer.  The operation of streetcars on Roncesvalles itself should resume at the end of July.

The 506 Carlton car will divert around the Gerrard Street bridge over the Don River during reconstruction until the end of the summer.  Westbound service will run via Broadview, Dundas and Parliament.  Eastbound service will run via Parliament, Queen and Broadview.  Cars will be added to the schedule to compensate for the added mileage.

The 505 Dundas diversion around street reconstruction west of Spadina will continue through the summer.

The 502/503 services on Kingston Road will be converted to bus operation until late November for watermain construction.

Rapid Transit Service

On the Yonge Subway, the only service change will be the withdrawal of one standby train and one of three scheduled gap trains.  The scheduled headways are not changed.

Service on the Yonge subway has been lower than budgeted because of the late arrival of the Toronto Rocket trains.  The first of these is expected to enter service in June.  There is no word yet on when this will trigger headway improvements.

On the Bloor-Danforth subway, peak period service will be reduced by 12-15%.

On the Scarborough RT, running times will be increased to reduce top speeds during hot weather.

Details are shown in the spreadsheet.

2011.06.19 Service Changes