by

Toronto’s Taxes and the TTC

Last night, Toronto Council, by a majority of 23 of 22, deferred a move to levy new taxes on vehicle licences and land transfers until the fall.  This will likely cost the city over $350-million in lost revenue in 2008 toward an expected deficit of $500-million.

This move is all politics and no common sense.

  • Advocates of deferring the vote argue that this will hold Queen’s Park’s feet to the fire and make funding Toronto, specifically uploading social services costs, an election issue.  Please don’t insult our intelligence.  Running on a platform of screwing Toronto is a basic part of Provincial politics.  Maybe John Tory will claim that he will fix the problems of downloading, but like his promises on the gas tax, what does he plan to cut so that he can pay to upload Toronto’s costs?
  • The right wing organized a very strong lobby against these taxes even though the lion’s share of the cost (the land transfer tax) would not apply to most Torontonians.  The same business groups who wanted Queen’s Park to give Toronto more taxing powers screamed like the well-fattened pigs they are when Toronto actually tried to exercise them.
  • Many homeowners think, incorrectly, that Toronto Council and Mayor Miller are responsible for tax hikes due to Market Value Assessment.  In fact, this was a provincial initiative that McGuinty & Co. have done little to redress other than reining in the agency that handles assessments for one year, long enough to get past the election.  Opponents of new taxes are more than happy to take the misguided support this situation creates.
  • Opponents of new taxes want the City to “get its house in order”, but cite only small-change projects and privatization when asked how this would be done.  Although renovations to City Hall (especially to the Mayor’s office) may have brought criticism, and might have been deferred, the total saving is only a few millions on a one-time basis out of a budget much, much larger.  Privatization is a pet project of the business community who want to get their snouts into the municipal trough, and of the anti-labour folks whose solution to every problem is to get rid of the unions.  In case anyone hasn’t been paying attention, the TTC, one of the largest blocks of organized labour in Toronto, is having trouble attracting new employees.  Imagine what would happen with lower wages and poorer working conditions.

On the Mayor’s side, there has been a great reluctance to publicize the impact of a large budget deficit in 2008.  No doubt this is an attempt to take the high road, to avoid accusations of unfounded scare tactics.  Miller likes to be diplomatic, but the city needs to know the truth of what will happen without the new revenues.

The total operating budget is $7.8-billion, and the new taxes would have raised about 5% of that amount.  Let’s see where “sharing the pain” will take us at the TTC.

The TTC will receive just under $250-million from the City this year.  Even without additional service, inflation will push up the total TTC budget of $1.1-billion by $33-to-55-million in 2008 (3-to-5%).  If we add a 5% cut in City funding ($12.5-million), this will leave the TTC with a gap of $46-to-67-million going into 2008 before they even consider additional services such as the Ridership Growth Strategy, additional security staff and improvements in the level of facility maintenance.  A gap of $100-million would not be unreasonable, all things considered, and it could be higher.

Assuming no other cuts in funding sources (beyond the City share), this would translate to a fare increase of 15-20%, possibly more depending on tradeoffs between improving service, keeping ridership healthy and minimizing the impact on fares. 

My preference, even if it comes to this, is to preserve and improve service even if we must increase fares.  Service quality is the single greatest complaint existing riders have about the TTC, and potential new riders will stay in their cars if we don’t offer them a better product.  The worst possible scenario is to keep fares low for sociopolitical reasons while the service declines and the “choice” riders (who also have more political clout) exercise their options.  Driving people away from transit is completely contrary to what politicians of every stripe profess to support.

On the capital side, the ability of the City to borrow for capital maintenance and expansion is directly related to its ability to raise revenue and carry the debt.  Say goodbye to many cherished transit projects unless all responsibility for transit capital funding is taken up by Queen’s Park and Ottawa.  Even then, we will get the projects they want to fund, not the projects we actually need.

I hope that yesterday’s vote was mainly grandstanding by Councillors who will vote for more taxes when they absolutely must, but who want to be seen on the “right” side of the argument for one brief moment.  Tweaking the mayor’s nose on an issue this big may play well in the press, but in the long term it is deeply irresponsible. 

Today, opponents of new taxes bask in the glow of their “reasonable” alternative position.  Tomorrow, as the potholes grow, the community centres close and the buses don’t even have room on the roof, their folly will be revealed for all to see.

by

Our Not So New Streetcars

When I was digging in my files for the Queen Subway post just below this one, I ran across a report from December 1972 entitled Streetcar Replacement Policy that discussed the implications of the decision on November 7, 1972, to retain the streetcar system.

Late in 1971, the Commission forces establish a set of parameters for new streetcars if the replacement of all or part of the present fleet was to be considered.  These were discussed with Hawkey Siddeley Canada Limited [now part of Bombardier] who advised that they would be interested in the manufacture, and at a price of approximately $173,000 per car.

The report goes on to say that with some simplification of the control system, this price could be reduced by about $22K, and compares these estimates with those for more complex articulated cars proposed for Boston and San Francisco at a cost of about $400K.  Those would turn out to be the ill-fated Boeing cars.  Philadelphia is mentioned as a possible partner with the TTC for new streetcars, and a joint venture with that system is proposed. Continue reading →

by

From The Archives: The Queen Street Streetcar Subway

Today’s Star contains an article beginning a series about the hidden corners of the TTC with a look at the ghost station at Queen and Yonge.  This was built back in the 50s with the Yonge Subway, and passengers crossing between the northbound and southbound platforms walk through an underpass on the platform level of that station. 

Back in 1968, a few years after the original Keele-Woodbine section of the Bloor-Danforth subway had opened, the TTC was thinking about the Queen Street subway.  One proposal floated through the Commission for streetcar subway through downtown operation.  The full report is interesting reading because clearly, in 1968, the TTC was still thinking of new ways to use its streetcars.

The proposal was for a subway from west of Sherbourne to east of Spadina.   Schemes for streetcar subways had been around for a while, and I described an earlier one in a post last year.

The report throws cold water on this scheme saying that it would not materially improve the capacity of the streetcar line, and it is clear their sympathies lie with a full subway scheme.  Things did not change much for decades thereafter.   It is worth noting that in the late 1960s, there were more than 60 cars/hour on Queen Street east of Yonge.  Today, the service is equivalent to 23 cars/hour allowing for the larger size of the ALRVs. Continue reading →

by

One Tiny Correction

In today’s Star, Murray Whyte’s article states that I never worked for the TTC.  That is an error, although one from very long ago.

I worked at the TTC for three years from 1966 to 1969, but decided that it was clear that there were limits to what could be done within the organization especially starting off from a lowly position.  Streetcars for Toronto came along in 1972 launching my activist career.

by

Analysis of 504 King: Part I – General Observations [Updated]

This post is a summary of the major issues I have seen so far in the CIS data for the King route.  The supporting detailed analyses will follow in separate posts, but I wanted to get the main issues out early so that readers would see where this is going. 

Acknowledgements and Disclaimers

I wish to thank Bob Boutilier and Steve Perron at the TTC for making available the data that allowed this and many other analyses to come.

The opinions expressed here are my own and do not represent the position of the TTC.  They provided the data.  I did the analysis, and I am sure that there are changes and improvements that will come to light with feedback, official or otherwise.

For those readers who are ATU 113 members, I want to clearly state that my intent is not to point fingers at anyone, but to provide some of the raw material needed to address how service can be improved.  Although CIS records them, I specifically asked that operator badge numbers not be included in the data I received from the TTC. 

Inevitably, some dubious operating practices, most commonly “soaking” (running early so that your vehicle is near-empty and the operator behind is overworked), are clearly visible in some of the charts, but this is fairly rare.  Indeed, I must ask how two vehicles can be left running nose to tail for hours with no intervention.  The responsibility falls at least as much on line management as on the operators involved.  Other problems are evident and far more common.

Continue reading →

by

Where Did “Transit City” Come From?

From time to time, the question arises of where the TTC got the name Transit City and I have quietly claimed authorship for this in various conversations.  Now the truth will be revealed!

Back in December 2004, the TTC was working on a response to the new Official Plan showing the potential role of surface rapid transit.  The report didn’t have a name yet, and although many ideas had been floated within the TTC, none had hit the mark. Continue reading →

by

Analysis of Transit Operations: Massaging the CIS Data

In a previous post, I introduced the subject of analysing route operations using data from the TTC’s vehicle monitoring system called CIS.

Before I get into comments about any routes, this post is intended as an overview of how the data from CIS works (or doesn’t) and the limitations of any analysis based on it.  In a way, this is a gigantic footnote, but the information here is common to everything that will follow in this series, and I don’t want to spend my time answering questions about how the analysis was actually conducted.

For those of you who just want the gory details on the King car, wait for the next post. Continue reading →

by

Ride The Dundas Bus While You Can

Track construction on Dundas Street, a long overdue project to replace decrepit rails and roadbed, has diverted the Dundas car for much of its length up to the Carlton route.

One particularly hard-hit area is Regent Park where streetcar service was removed long before road work actually started, and where streetcars will not return until late fall after completion of work on the bridge at the Don River.

In early May, at ward Councillor McConnell’s request, the TTC approved a shuttle bus to provide a clockwise loop via Broadview, Queen, River, Dundas, Parliament and Gerrard.  The problem with this scheme is that the bus runs every 15 minutes, and there is not much point in waiting for it unless you happen to be at the stop when the bus comes by.  Walking from a nearby route on Queen, Broadview, Gerrard or Parliament is generally faster and these routes, unlike the shuttle, actually go to real destinations like the subway or downtown.

The bus was implemented at a projected, unbudgeted cost of $350,000 to run through to November when the bridge will re-open and streetcars will return to Dundas between Parliament and Broadview. 

According to the staff report, this bus has carried an average of two passengers per trip and often runs empty.  The most I have ever seen is one.

Today, despite an attempt by Chair Giambrone to advocate on behalf of Councillor McConnell, the Commission had the good sense to kill off this waste of service.  The last day of operation will be Sunday, July 15. 

by

St. Clair & Dufferin: Public Meeting

On Thursday evening, July 12, at 7:00 pm, there will be a special meeting of Etobicoke-York Community Council at York Council Chambers to discuss the design of the St. Clair and Dufferin intersection. 

Please note that erroneous information has appeared elsewhere stating that this meeting will be at the Etobicoke Civic Centre.  This is incorrect, and if you schlepp out to Burnhamthorpe and The West Mall, you won’t find any meeting.

The background for this meeting is that the proposed configuration for this year’s construction on St. Clair is opposed by “Save Our St. Clair” for the elimination of the east to north left turn lane at Dufferin.  The TTC/City proposal uses this space for an eastbound nearside safety island and, by doing so, avoids a major curb cut on the southeast corner. Continue reading →

by

Signage at Eglinton Station [Updated Again]

[Updated Monday, July 9 at 10:45 pm]

I have been advised this evening by Adam Giambrone’s office that the Paul Arthur signage will not be removed at St. George Station.  This will not be considered again until this station comes up for modernization, something that is not in the cards for the near future.

The removal had been planned as part of a general cleanup of the station, something that was long overdue. 

[Updated Monday, July 9 at 1:10 pm] 

The proposed work at Eglinton Station does not involve moving the outer walls of the station back two feet.  What is proposed is that safety alcoves 5 x 7 feet will be cut into the walls to provide refuges for workers when trains come through the station.  With some careful placement, the existing signage should not be disturbed at all.

As for other stations, there is a press conference later this week that will cover already approved changes at various locations.

[Original post follows] 

Earlier today, a reader asked me to comment on the proposed redesign of Eglinton Station and the need to preserve original signs.  In writing this, I hope not to engender a slugfest among the design mavens of this town, but we shall see.  Worthwhile comments will be posted, repetitive rants will not.  If you must rant, at least be original about it.

First, it’s worthwhile asking just what we are asked to preserve, and to that end I visited Eglinton Station earlier tonight.  The only original signage still in place is the repeated word “Eglinton” on the station walls in large letters, and along the banner at the top of the wall in a smaller version of the same typeface.

For those who remember the original signs, there were not many, and they disappeared one by one from the station.  They included the “Way Out” signs to Duplex and to Yonge Street (pre Canada Square building) as well as the signs at the washroom entrances.

Completely separate from this debate (and the subject of previous threads here — please don’t post again) is the matter of hand-written signs and tattered, out of date announcements.  That is a different issue affecting the entire system including surface routes.  With luck, nobody will find a service change sign so antique that it qualifies for historic preservation.

Continue reading →