2018 Provincial Election Transit Promises

[Disparishun]

GO Transit is too expensive and impractical to be used by lower income people. Indeed, an argument could be made that the service is unaffordable for daily commuting for anybody who isn't relatively wealthy (consider that the GTHA median family income is just $68,000)

The whole discussion was about radically dropping GO fares so that they're equal to TTC fares -- by distance. The above begs the question.

In it's current state, GO Transit operates as a shuttle for relatively wealthy people to travel between Toronto and their outer suburban homes. We should not be satisfied with this, especially in light of increasing income inequality

Really? Anecdotal: in every financial-district job I've had, the highest-income professionals either walked or streetcarred (younger folks in condos), or took the subway up to the fancier neighbourhoods (older folks in houses) -- with the glaring exception of Oakville. GO trains, other than Oakville I guess, were mostly support staff who couldn't afford subway-accessible housing.

Except TheTigerMaster isn't wrong. That's exactly what charging per kilometer would do in Toronto. Other than GO, transit services in the region are predicated on one fare rides.

Disagree. Drop GO fare pricing to TTC levels, make both per-kilometre, make them all affordable.

And, considering the various reports David Hulchanski has published in recent years showing that the poor are disproportionately more likely to live on the edges of Scarborough and Etobicoke, it is almost certain that any increase in transit fares will harm those least able to afford it.

Wouldn't cheaper GO fares from the edges of Scarborough and Etobicoke -- and for that matter, Pickering and Mississauga -- make it easier for those who commute long distances? Wouldn't cheaper fares locally promote more local employment?

That said, I've always thought that a way to have the best of both worlds on this issue would be to raise taxes to pay for a reduction in fares. Just throwing numbers out but say make the base fare $1.50 and then add to that up to $3 within the megacity boundaries.

Exactly.

 

[crs1026]

Conservative Leaders etc said they were sticking with the peoples guarantee.

The peoples' guarantee is pretty loose. It proposes $5B in additional subway funding - not enough to assure the DRL if the Line 2 extension cost escalates. Nothing said about RER except GO will have good wifi. (Really? No new trains, but wifi?)

The ominous part is the homage paid to drivers. Look out for highways over transit. Maybe more GO parking lots.

- Paul

 

[SunriseChampion]

I got a phone call today from EKOS (I always do their polls so I'm on the list) and it was a typical government poll about policy proposals. It was pretty wide-ranging but I'll only mention the transit-related proposals here. First I'd like to mention that the whole thing seemed like a Liberal election platform design by phone committee.
They asked, among the many other things if I supported or opposed the following: GO train service increases before RER is fully implemented; funding of the DRL; two-way, all-day GO train service now (they didn't specify which lines).

The rest of the poll was about all sorts of other proposals that had nothing to do with transit.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Why should the transit system be used to address social issues? This is simply more crap tossed on to an already inadequate transit system.

You want to deal with transit being too expensive for people? Have the social services offices pay for fare discounts for low income persons. This mentality is a huge part of why transit is crap in the US ("It's for poor people.") and why it's great for Europe (they build it to service the middle class above all else).

In effect you're asking all of Toronto to suffer worse service, to subsidize fares for the poor. And worse, you're doing this on the backs of municipal ratepayers. If transit was actually more expensive, it'd be the province providing those subsidies through the welfare system.

It's bad enough that we have people who insist on building subways and aren't willing to pay for them with higher taxes. How is it any different when we discuss expanding the network or improving the service and nobody is willing to entertain fare increases.

Want to help the poor? Give them a transit system that works. One that actually is marginally competitive with a car from home to work. Stop worrying about the ticket price.



I was talking about GO inside the 416. What happens in the 905 is not as relevant. When GO RER happens, very few people will be driving to a GO station. They'll be getting there by bus or LRT or streetcar, inside the 416. Integration on that needs to improve.

There are certain broad societal goals that are so fundamental to our collective success that concerns regarding their impact extend to all areas of government planning. These societal goals include things such as, reducing crime, reducing obesity, increasing literacy and education, improving healthcare. Reducing income inequality is one of those goals.

You say that transit planning oughta not be concerned with its impacts on income inequality, because it’s not a social program. Now imagine if we were to apply that same thinking to other areas of government planning:

• The school board shouldn’t be concerned about poor nutritional content in lunches. Nutrition is the concern of the health department
• Transportation Service shouldn’t be concerned with how removing streetlights will affect crime rates. Crime is the concern of the police
• City Planning shouldn’t think about the health benefits of active transport (walking, cycling). Health isn’t their concern
• Ministry of Transport shouldn’t be concerned about the ecological impact of cutting down forests for highway. Ecology is the concern of the Ministry of the Environment.

Further, for the sake of efficiency and saving money, the government should avoid implementing policy that is counter to these broad goals whenever possible. Spending money to implement a program, and then spending more money to undo the damage that policy created is wasteful and inefficient, when the government had the option of not implementing the damaging policy in the first place.

It’s not as if the policy changes you suggest will only negatively affect a very small niche of the population, such that containment of the negative effects will be cheap and simple. More than a third of Torontonians commute by transit. More than a third of Torontonians are low income. After the implementation of your proposal, we’re going to be spending a ton of money on very expansive bureaucracy fixing what we just broke for hundreds of thousands of Torontonians.

 

[Northern Light]

Why should the transit system be used to address social issues? This is simply more crap tossed on to an already inadequate transit system.

You want to deal with transit being too expensive for people? Have the social services offices pay for fare discounts for low income persons. This mentality is a huge part of why transit is crap in the US ("It's for poor people.") and why it's great for Europe (they build it to service the middle class above all else).

In effect you're asking all of Toronto to suffer worse service, to subsidize fares for the poor. And worse, you're doing this on the backs of municipal ratepayers. If transit was actually more expensive, it'd be the province providing those subsidies through the welfare system.

It's bad enough that we have people who insist on building subways and aren't willing to pay for them with higher taxes. How is it any different when we discuss expanding the network or improving the service and nobody is willing to entertain fare increases.

Want to help the poor? Give them a transit system that works. One that actually is marginally competitive with a car from home to work. Stop worrying about the ticket price.



I was talking about GO inside the 416. What happens in the 905 is not as relevant. When GO RER happens, very few people will be driving to a GO station. They'll be getting there by bus or LRT or streetcar, inside the 416. Integration on that needs to improve.

I have to say, while I'm not necessarily prioritizing a massive lowering of GO fares, I find this response to the idea a bit lacking.

First, let's separate the issue of service level from price. Of course, there is a relationship in so far as there is only so much money to go around; but I don't believe the notion proposed was to finance lower fares out of service cuts.

The question is rather whether investing new money in GO is a priority; let's assume we can all agree on this; then how to divvy up that investment between service improvements and pricing modifications; and how much one should spend on these.

Second, I completely oppose 'low-income' targeted passes and the like. I think it imposes a real indignity on people to have to ask for help in one more place. Moreover, its very expensive,
because it involves administrative complexity. Forms to be filled out, qualification, who delivers the pass, blah blah.

For those who are truly in poverty/state-dependent, I favour raising social assistance rates to something greater than their current meager and inadequate level.

***

That said, price modification has its value when targeting the working poor, and the middle class.

My personal personal preference in this would be to charge for parking at GO lots, but directly lower the price of train trips by a commensurate amount at the same time.

Inject new subsidy to simple correct for irrationally high short-haul trips (charging far more per km than long-haul ones); and address the cross-regional fare issue w/the same co-fare program as GO.

That would modestly reduce financial barriers, have the pricing system make more sense and reduce arbitrary price barriers; while costing relatively modest sums.

 

[kEiThZ]

You say that transit planning oughta not be concerned with its impacts on income inequality, because it’s not a social program. Now imagine if we were to apply that same thinking to other areas of government planning:

• The school board shouldn’t be concerned about poor nutritional content in lunches. Nutrition is the concern of the health department
• Transportation Service shouldn’t be concerned with how removing streetlights will affect crime rates. Crime is the concern of the police
• City Planning shouldn’t think about the health benefits of active transport (walking, cycling). Health isn’t their concern
• Ministry of Transport shouldn’t be concerned about the ecological impact of cutting down forests for highway. Ecology is the concern of the Ministry of the Environment.

Wow. Talk about strawmen, red herrings and non-sequiturs are rolled into one.

1) School boards aren't concerned with nutrition. In fact, Canada is the only developed country in the world without a school lunch program. But, to address your point, nutrition has a direct impact on learning. So the reason any school would be concerned with nutrition is because it impacts their core deliverable: education. Transit's core deliverable is transport. Not poverty alleviation. And poverty alleviation does not substantially impact transport. In fact, one could argue that alleviating poverty may actually reduce demand for transit.

2) Toronto Roads does not even manage streetlights. Toronto Hydro does. And I don't see where they look at crime rates at all when they are concerned with disconnection. If you can provide a source otherwise, I'd love to read it. Again, Toronto Hydro sticks to their mandate: maintaining power. They aren't planning out where the lights are placed.

3) City Planning does not base planning around health benefits at all. They may look at the impact, but can you show where health is a primary planning concern, rather than impact to be studied? Again, city planning sticks to their mandate: planning. They aren't there to make you live healthier. That's your doctor's job.

4) The Ministry of Transport is only concerned with cutting down trees on the side of a highway, because they are required to by environmental laws. Protecting forests is not their concern. Again MTO sticks to their core mandate: delivering and managing transport infrastructure.

Again. The primary purpose of a transit system is to move people. Beginning and end of story.

And you'll note that nowhere in the TTC's mandate is poverty alleviation mentioned at all:

http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/index.jsp

It's actually not mentioned in the TTC's Philosophy or Vision or Core Principles either. And I hope it stays that way. Combating socioeconomic inequality is the job of provincial ministries. It's not the job of a local transit service.

 

[kEiThZ]

I have to say, while I'm not necessarily prioritizing a massive lowering of GO fares

I've not argued for the lowering of GO fares. I've argued that the TTC should be split and the subway uploaded to Metrolinx, so as to improve coordination with GO. I've further argued that this could lead to an implementation of fare by distance, or zoned fares, or other schema not using today's flat fare philosophy.

Second, I completely oppose 'low-income' targeted passes and the like. I think it imposes a real indignity on people to have to ask for help in one more place. Moreover, its very expensive,
because it involves administrative complexity. Forms to be filled out, qualification, who delivers the pass, blah blah......For those who are truly in poverty/state-dependent, I favour raising social assistance rates to something greater than their current meager and inadequate level.

I agree with this. We should simply be giving people on welfare enough to deal with higher transport charges.

To the extent that discounted passes are offered though, it's really not that hard going forward. Presto makes it really easy for a government agency to implement this. They can simply offer up codes to put on your pass that would provide discounts for x amount of time. And they can do this province wide since Presto is province wide.

That said, price modification has its value when targeting the working poor, and the middle class.

Agreed. The primary reasons I argue against today's flat fare:

1) Penalizes short-haul travel. Which reduces asset utilization of the transit system and actually increases car dependency in the suburbs since the marginal cost of occasional transit usage is higher than the marginal cost of driving.

2) Promotes sprawl. How different would the 416 be if you couldn't get from Rexdale or Malvern to Union for $3.25? GO's higher fares mean that the McMansion buying public in the 905 actually knows that sprawl has a cost.

3) Reduces the pressure for capital intensive transit expansion. Why do people want a subway to Scarborough? Because they believe it will save them time and improve the comfort of their comfort. How do you change that calculus? By reducing the differential with GO, so that many will consider GO instead (especially with RER) and by making clear that using the subway for long commutes will have a price. You'll get people moving closer to work eventually. And you might even be able to reduce some peak ridership as you get more people looking at alternatives like tele-commuting.

I'm not even worried about ridership to be honest. If the flat fares for surface route (bus, streetcar, LRT) is lowered, and if the base fares on the subway network are low enough to make quick trips possible, I think we'll see higher ridership.

 

[crs1026]

If you ever want to see social policy ignored by transit, go to Albuquerque, NM. Albuquerque is a pretty stereotypical North American city - poor live centrally, middle class live in the burbs, remarkably little gentrification. The big employers with the high tech middle class payroll are located centrally. There is an extensive and progressive express bus system to bring all the well off folks into the city for work. And there is a pretty average city transit system that serves the inner city - ie the poor peoples' system.
By chance, or by design, the two systems only intersect on paper. The suburban folks ride nice fancy artics with all the bells, but never see a poor person. And the lower class folks never have occasion to step on the nice buses, because those don't go anywhere that they need to go.The twain never meet.
Personally I am happy to see my transit dollars spent on enabling employment and educational opportunities, and access to social support, for the less affluent, and operating on a one for all basis.
- Paul

 

[MisterF]

3) City Planning does not base planning around health benefits at all. They may look at the impact, but can you show where health is a primary planning concern, rather than impact to be studied? Again, city planning sticks to their mandate: planning. They aren't there to make you live healthier. That's your doctor's job.

While I agree that it's not be job of a transit system to alleviate poverty, this part of your post isn't correct. Planning for healthy communities is very much a part of the planning profession. In its modern incarnation it stems largely from the fact that people's behaviour responds to the surrounding built environment. Pedestrian-oriented communities tend to have healthier residents and less obesity than car-oriented communities. There's a focus on active transportation, energy conservation and pedestrian friendly urban design. Planning for healthy communities is part of provincial policy and municipal Official Plans.

Relying on doctors to keep people healthy is a very reactive and expensive way of doing things and the idea is that reducing car dependence through community design is more proactive and can reduce health costs. There's a lot of material available online about this subject. That being said, how successful planning has been in creating healthy communities is a whole other debate.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Historically planning has tons to do with health - especially post-industrial revolution. Garden cities, segregation of land uses, radiant cities, sanitation campaigns, etc - these are all driven at least partly by health concerns - and we are now dealing with the detriments of modern planning from the past 50 years and how it basically fails at being age-friendly.

AoD

 

[Disparishun]

I've not argued for the lowering of GO fares. I've argued that the TTC should be split and the subway uploaded to Metrolinx, so as to improve coordination with GO. I've further argued that this could lead to an implementation of fare by distance, or zoned fares, or other schema not using today's flat fare philosophy.

It's me that argued for the lowering of GO fares. But I mean, I guess, on average. Charge by as-the-crow-flies kilometres (and, I agree, charge for parking), on the same scale across modes, and based on a rate that would keep the longest-haul fare within the 416 relatively constant and drop everything else:

- Within the 416, this would significantly drop GO fares, do away with the farewall disincenting GO train use when it makes sense, and as you say, facilitate shorter-haul travel.

- As among service revenues, this would raise parking and lower fares as a proportion of the total.

- Overall, this would require more public investment in transit.

I haven't really thought much about flat-fee for buses. My gut instinct is for fares per kilometre across all modes, so that people are taking the bus when that's what makes sense for their route, and the subway or train when that's what does. Tied to this is my honest belief that we will see more and more innovation in how bus service is delivered in a digital environment -- the UberPool thesis again -- so that, in addition to serving as the near-last-mile leg, buses will hold their own in a number of ways.

 

[Disparishun]

Historically planning has tons to do with health - especially post-industrial revolution. Garden cities, segregation of land uses, radiant cities, sanitation campaigns, etc - these are all driven at least partly by health concerns - and we are now dealing with the detriments of modern planning from the past 50 years and how it basically fails at being age-friendly.

+1. And +1 to lunches in schools, too. We could also be doing a lot more to encourage more jobs to move to neighbourhoods, rather than staking everything on people trekking halfway across the city to get to where jobs are at. I was reading something about creating sales-tax-free zones for small businesses in designated areas. That's no magic bullet, but coupled with BIAs and the kind of entrepreneurship support the city and its counterparts are already providing -- why not?

 

[kEiThZ]

Planning for healthy communities is very much a part of the planning profession. In its modern incarnation it stems largely from the fact that people's behaviour responds to the surrounding built environment. Pedestrian-oriented communities tend to have healthier residents and less obesity than car-oriented communities.

Sure. But we don't plan pedestrian oriented communities for health reasons explicitly. That's my point. No planner is sitting around going, "How do I design this area so people walk more to get exercise for their benefit?"

Historically planning has tons to do with health

To be precise, it had to do with what was termed hygiene back then. A lot of their health problems were essentially public health issues caused by hygiene. Even back then nobody was planning cities to be walkable because their goal was to improve the health of individuals. Walkable neighbourhoods were the default because there was no real transport that was cheap, publicly accessible and available on demand.

And let's recall the origin of this tangent: an insistence that the transit system should have a fare structure that explicitly targets poverty alleviation. I contend that this should not be a planning impetus when designing a fare structure.

An effective transit system will alleviate poverty by improving connectivity and mobility. The fare structure is just one component of that and in our case, often has goals counter to actually improving mobility (for example our high flat fares that discourage short-haul transit usage).

 

[MisterF]

Sure. But we don't plan pedestrian oriented communities for health reasons explicitly. That's my point. No planner is sitting around going, "How do I design this area so people walk more to get exercise for their benefit?"

Actually those kinds of questions are exactly what planners ask. There are conferences and seminars where a whole bunch of planners and health care professionals get together and ask those questions. Sure, health isn't the sole reason that communities are designed to be pedestrian friendly, but it's one reason among many.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

All the PC leadership candidates have now come out against the carbon tax. The tax would’ve provided some $4 Billion in revenue, which is how Brown was to pay for much of his campaign promises. This does not bode well for transit and infra.