News   Jun 28, 2024
 2.3K     2 
News   Jun 28, 2024
 1.5K     1 
News   Jun 28, 2024
 574     1 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

Does the same theory apply to transit? Make transit users pay for the opex and capex costs? But how many would want to pay $8 for a TTC ride ($4 for the operating costs and $4 for the capital costs)?
Or a future when a stamp costs $2?
Or $1000 if you need a MRI?

The point i'm making is that we subsidize a lot of things. Including TRANSIT and ROADS. In fact we subsidize transit more than roads. Not a pittance like you suggest.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...-of-road-costs-study-reveals/article14901607/
Where did I suggest there was a pittance of subsidy?

This sub-discussion started about whether it is wise to build garages...then it morphed into whether or not improved public transit was the way to avoid building garages...I countered with a station that has very good (might even say excellent) public transit service yet very few use public transit to connect to the GO trains...then some others suggested a re-vamped approach (similar to dial a bus type service) might be the solution....all that I countered with was that perhaps it is the case that this sort of service would cost as much as more than building garages which brought us back to maybe that is why they are building the garages.
 
The MTA pays interest on its debt from the operating budget!

The TTC does not!
The farebox recovery ratio (also called fare recovery ratio) of a passenger transportation system is the fraction of operating expenses which are met by the fares paid by passengers. It is computed by dividing the system's total fare revenue by its total operating expenses.
Paying interest is not an "operating expense" save for the MTA's skewered accounting. Remember that when NYC went into bankruptcy, the state bailed them out, and took over the MTA and other municipal agencies. Paying interest is a *capital cost* by standard measures.

The point stands on GO and the TTC:
Out of a sampling of 34 North American cities, commuters in the Toronto area pay the highest percentage of their transit operation costs at 82% for the Toronto Transit Commission and 71% for the broader regional GO Transit system.

This is call the farebox recovery ratio: The percentage of operating expenses that are recovered from riders purchasing fares.

Edmonton, Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa all have farebox recovery ratios over 50%. The average farebox recovery ratio in Canada is 58%, while in the United States it’s only 36%.

The most expensive systems on a per-ride basis are in the United States, though. With Long Island (part of the New York City transit system) and the Las Vegas monorail each costing about $5 to ride. The cheapest rides are also in the U.S., with Austin, Los Angeles and Detroit all under $2 per fare.

Check out our interactive map and find your city, including the transit system, a map of the system, average fare and its farebox recovery ratio.
http://o.canada.com/business/money/...re-paid-by-riders-in-34-north-american-cities

Here's what you're missing in arguing the point you do: (LA as an analog for Toronto)
[...]
Transit Riders Pay Twice

First of all, transit users pay twice for public transportation. Obviously they pay when they swipe their Tap cards on train platforms or when they get on the bus. Each weekday, Angelenos partake in this activity over 1,350,000 times. Second, transit users pay in the form of taxes. Sales taxes, to be precise: under the county-wide referenda Proposition A (1980), Proposition C (1990), and Measure R (2008), transit riders contribute again to Metro’s bottom line via a 1.5 percent sales tax. Close to 70% of Los Angeles County transportation investments come from these 3 county sales taxes, and a 4th is under consideration for the ballot in November 2016. A large portion of the funds raised under these measures admittedly flows to capital projects, not operating expenses. Still, the fact remains that transit users pay to ride, whereas drivers are not charged for entry onto the freeway.

Drivers Get Subsidies Too

The inescapable fact remains that driving (and parking) is hugely subsidized in Los Angeles County. The freeways may be free to use, but they were certainly not free to build, and they are not free to maintain. The myth that gas taxes pay for roads has been thoroughly discredited: today, less than half of U.S. highway spending is paid for by user fees such as the gas tax. Indeed, user fees also fail to cover operating expenses at the airport: under projections for 2014, only 23% of LAX operating revenue came from user fees, while a remarkable 17.2% came from parking (suggesting that Metro is also ignoring a potentially vast revenue stream by generally providing free parking at park and rides). In addition, the cost of providing parking of all varieties is bundled into land development costs and passed on to tenants in the form of higher rents. In short, everyone pays for highways and parking lots, even if they don’t own a car. Just as the non-transit riding drivers pay for Metro through sales taxes, so to do the transit riding non-drivers pay for the highways via their tax dollars. The incidental benefit conferred on drivers by the bus and rail systems is also enormous. While congestion is already an issue in LA, imagine if the daily 1,350,000 trips taken by bus or rail were made from behind the wheel instead. Congestion would be significantly worse.
[...]
The farebox recovery ratio fixation leads transit into a dangerous conceptual space: fare hikes and service cuts. But there are ideas outside this straightjacket: the pattern of development itself, the exponential power of reliability, and the untapped financial power of land near transit stops. Metro should focus on incentivizing walkable urban places around train and bus stops and focus on frequency. Funding the ideas and strategies outlined in its 2014 first/last mile strategic plan would go a long way towards realizing these aims (and putting a price on parking might be a first step towards finding the necessary funds). Achieving these goals will maximize ridership, the only sure way towards securing the financial solvency of the transit system.
[...]
https://investinginplace.org/2015/10/27/the-farebox-recovery-ratio/
 
Where did I suggest there was a pittance of subsidy?

This sub-discussion started about whether it is wise to build garages...then it morphed into whether or not improved public transit was the way to avoid building garages...I countered with a station that has very good (might even say excellent) public transit service yet very few use public transit to connect to the GO trains...then some others suggested a re-vamped approach (similar to dial a bus type service) might be the solution....all that I countered with was that perhaps it is the case that this sort of service would cost as much as more than building garages which brought us back to maybe that is why they are building the garages.

I didn't quote you...sorry if you misread who was quoted. I quoted stevieintoronto "(and gasoline tax is a pittance towards it)"
 
Paying interest is not an "operating expense" save for the MTA's skewered accounting. Remember that when NYC went into bankruptcy, the state bailed them out, and took over the MTA and other municipal agencies. Paying interest is a *capital cost* by standard measures.

The point stands on GO and the TTC:

http://o.canada.com/business/money/...re-paid-by-riders-in-34-north-american-cities

Here's what you're missing in arguing the point you do: (LA as an analog for Toronto)
https://investinginplace.org/2015/10/27/the-farebox-recovery-ratio/

So instead of adjusting Toronto's we should be adjusting others? Sounds fair. And btw...Montreal has the same skewered accounting as the MTA so even Ontario's are not comparable.

And many DBFM contracts will include capex and interest in the annual costs...so almost all newly built lines are also skewered.
 
I believe the LA Unified school district owes something like $10 billion in debt. Ontario school boards are banned from ever borrowing money.
Every US state but one has a "balanced budget amendment" so debt is kept off the books the opposite way to what Cdn provinces do. Point stands, The TTC and GO have the highest farebox recovery of any transit orgs in North Am.
 
Last edited:
I didn't quote you...sorry if you misread who was quoted. I quoted stevieintoronto "(and gasoline tax is a pittance towards it)"
oops sorry....hazard of having a (short) ignore list...I did not see who you quoted and it appeared in my list under one of my posts...sorry sorry sorry.
 
Anyone know what became of this?
Tolls considered for Gardiner, Don Valley Parkway
By David RiderCity Hall Bureau Chief
Mon., Sept. 14, 2015
Forcing drivers to pay tolls to use the revamped Gardiner Expressway and the Don Valley Parkway could fund all the freeways’ costs with extra cash left over for transit projects, city staff say.

They envision flat-fee tolls, for a single trip on either or both roads, of between $1.25 and $3.25, with trucks paying double those amounts.

If council opted for tolls but preferred a distance-based system, like that of Highway 407, staff suggest between 10 cents and 35 cents for each kilometre travelled, again with trucks paying double.

Stephen Buckley, Toronto’s transportation general manager, outlines the scenarios in a report going to Mayor John Tory’s executive committee, but warns that more research is needed before city council should tackle the controversial electronic tolling system proposal.

In June, while narrowly approving the “hybrid” proposal for the east Gardiner, city council asked staff to report back this month on tolling as a possible revenue source.

Buckley says a full study was not possible in that time frame. He asks city council to authorize his department to report back next year with “in-depth impacts on the network and particularly on parallel adjacent roads and facilities, impacts on the environment, or how to address implementation issues.”

The Gardiner now carries, on average, a total of 228,000 vehicles east of Highway 427. Some 110,000 drivers use the DVP north of the Bayview Ave./Bloor St. interchange each weekday.

Staff peg the 30-year cost of the Gardiner, including rebuilding the elevated link to the DVP, at $3.8 billion. Costs for the at-grade DVP are $200 million. The 30-year cost of the toll system is estimated at $1.7 billion, for a grand total of $5.7 billion.

That could be recouped with a flat-fee toll of $1.25 for cars, and $2.50 for trucks, or 10 cents per kilometre for cars and 20 cents for trucks.

To recoup the long-term costs in only 10 years, flat-fee tolls would be $3.25 per car trip and $6.50 for trucks, or 35 cents per kilometres for cars and 70 cents per kilometre for trucks.

“Revenue from toll rates higher than what is required to cover all (costs) ... could be directed to other transportation alternatives for the city, for example transit,” the report states. “A reserve fund could be established by council to set aside the toll revenues.”

Tolling would reduce gridlock on the highways, the report suggests, forecasting that a $3 flat fee would reduce average trip times by three to five minutes.

Even if city council agrees next year to move ahead with tolling, Toronto would need the Ontario government to pass two enabling regulations.
[...]
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...dered-for-gardiner-don-valley-expressway.html

Toronto studying road toll technology for Gardiner, DVP
A consultant will look at various road pricing scenarios for the Gardiner and Don Valley Parkway.
By Tess KalinowskiTransportation reporter
Tues., March 15, 2016
Politicians, including Toronto’s mayor, don’t like them. But the prohibitive cost of rebuilding the east end of the Gardiner Expressway means the city is moving forward on a study of road tolls.

Last Friday city staff issued a call for a consultant to report on suitable tolling technologies and potential impacts of road pricing on the Gardiner and Don Valley Parkway.

The tolls, which would be a tough sell on city council, would be designed to recover the estimated $2.5 billion cost of rebuilding the east end of the Gardiner and potentially reducing congestion and raising money for other infrastructure projects.

A mayor’s spokeswoman reiterated Tuesday that John Tory doesn’t particularly like the idea.

“A broader discussion around new ways of raising revenue will begin in April when the city manager presents his long-term financial plan. Road and congestion pricing will almost certainly be part of that as one item on a long list of possibilities,” said Keerthana Kamalavasan.

“The mayor does not wish to pre-empt that discussion but his views on road tolls are well documented: it would not be his preferred way to pay for road infrastructure,” she said.

According to a request for proposals, the city’s study, expected to take about six months to complete, will look at no fewer than eight tolling scenarios. Those would include pricing schemes based on a flat rate; a distance-based price; fees that vary according to the number of passengers in a vehicle or type of vehicle; and a bulk buy or monthly pass system.

It will also consider the potential impacts of a gantry toll system such as that used on Highway 407 or a cordon system similar to that in London, England, where drivers pay for entering a certain area.

The consultants will look at where the toll points would be across the entire length of both roads — the Gardiner between Highway 427 and Leslie St., and the Don Valley Parkway between Highway 401 and the Gardiner.

The toll feasibility study will include variable pricing options based on the time of day or day of the week, as well as financial targets over a 30-year timeline assuming that the tolls wouldn’t be implemented until at least 2024.

A city staff study last year found that a $3.25 flat rate on the Gardiner and 35-cents-per-kilometre distance fee could recover the Gardiner capital and maintenance costs in 10 years.

During the recent city budget cycle the city manager and some councillors warned that Toronto can’t afford to maintain the services it wants without new revenue tools to help pay for them.

Tory has asked the province to allow the city to use photo radar as a means to reducing policing costs.

The road pricing report, approved by the city’s executive committee in September, would come back to council later this year.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...ng-road-toll-technology-for-gardiner-dvp.html
Road tolls are unpopular — but only at first, expert says
Residents in other cities warmed up to tolls once they saw the results, proponent says
CBC News Posted: Mar 16, 2016 12:12 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 16, 2016 12:12 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/programs/metromorning/road-tolls-toronto-1.3493873
 
Every US state but one has a "balanced budget amendment" so debt is kept off the books the opposite way to what Cdn provinces do. Point stands, The TTC and GO have the highest farebox recovery of any transit orgs in North Am.

Direct quote from the MTA financial statements:

"Farebox recovery ratio has a long-term focus. It includes costs that are not funded in the current year, except in an accounting-ledger sense, but are, in effect, passed on to future years. Those costs include depreciation and interest on long-term debt."

Page 18 of this PDF


I don't understand what is so complicated about this for you. Farebox recovery is an accounting figure based on a whole different set of standards from US to Ontario and Wikipedia is not picking that up (which is no surprise). If the MTA is doing it, I assume many other US agencies are and we have no idea what the direct debt service costs.

The numbers are right there. Printed and facts. That wiki article compares apples to oranges.

Every US state but one has a "balanced budget amendment" so debt is kept off the books the opposite way to what Cdn provinces do. Point stands, The TTC and GO have the highest farebox recovery of any transit orgs in North Am.

You are confusing the concept of debt and budget deficits. You borrow money to keep your budget balanced and pay interest on it later. The TTC is not allowed to do this. Many US transit agencies are.
 
Last edited:
So instead of adjusting Toronto's we should be adjusting others? Sounds fair. And btw...Montreal has the same skewered accounting as the MTA so even Ontario's are not comparable.

And many DBFM contracts will include capex and interest in the annual costs...so almost all newly built lines are also skewered.

Given GO's small revenue base and the massive amount of capital expense, pro-rata over the whole of Ontario's debt issuance to pay for GO capital projects over time, with bonds still outstanding at over 9% annual interest payments, I wouldn't be surprised if GO's true farebox recovery is negative when including interest.
 
I don't understand what is so complicated about this for you. Farebox recovery is an accounting figure based on a whole different set of standards from US to Ontario and Wikipedia is not picking that up (which is no surprise). If the MTA is doing it, I assume many other US agencies are and we have no idea what the direct debt service costs.

The numbers are right there. Printed and facts. That wiki article compares apples to oranges.
Yeah, so best you set these folks straight as well as APTA and others:
FINAL
Transit Farebox Recovery and US and International Transit Subsidization: Synthesis
Prepared for
Katy Taylor
Director
Public Transportation Division
Washington State Department of Transportation
Prepared by
Kathy Lindquist, WSDOT Research Office
Michel Wendt, WSDOT Library
James Holbrooks, WSDOT Public Transportation Office
[...]
Toronto (TTC) 65.2% 2008
Toronto, Hamilton and area (
GO Transit)
83.6%
2008
[...]
http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/transit_farebox_recovery_and_subsidies_synthesis_taylor.pdf

From Metrolinx:
GO Transit consistently
recovers 85% to 90% of operating expenses from the farebox – one of the
best financial performances for any transit system in the world – and as a
result has reduced its provincial operating subsidies. Strong financial outcomes
are due to GO’s focus on peak-period service to the Toronto core, using
lower-cost buses to complement peak-period trains, lengthening trains to
carry more passengers, and optimizing use of labour, vehicles and rail infra
-structure
http://www.gotransit.com/public/en/docs/publications/Strategic_Plan_GO_2020_lowres.pdf

And the TTC:
The TTC last made an operating profit in 1972, when Metropolitan Toronto convinced the TTC to eliminate the 2-fare zone structure that had existed up to that time. Before that, the TTC had been relying on capital subsidies from the Province of Ontario and Metro throughout much of the 1960s; in other words, despite the fact that the TTC makes 75% of its operating funds from the farebox (one of the best performances of any transit system in North America), it depends upon government subsidies to continue to do what it must do.

In the glory days of the 1980s, the TTC received 75% of its capital funds from the province, 25% of its capital funds from Metro and 34% of its operating funds from both the Province and Metro. Then, through the 1990s, funding got cut, and the provincial government backed out of funding municipal transit altogether. While things have improved since then (the province now offers a portion of the gas tax to municipalities, and covers a third to two-thirds of capital expenses on a case-by-case basis), the TTC is still expected to make almost three-quarters of its operating funds from the farebox.
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/spare/0011.shtml

And Steve Munro:
The full set of charts used in this article is available in the following PDF:

2000 2015 Subsidy Summary_Revised

Caveats:

  • This analysis consolidates information from several parts of the notes to the financial statements and is presented in a different manner from those statements to simplify tracking by year and source of subsidies. Although the numbers all come from “official” sources, the arrangement and presentation is my own.
  • In 2015, the City’s operating subsidy included a “capital from current” payment of $19.2 million that purchased 50 new buses. Although this was booked as an operating subsidy (for reasons shrouded in the mysteries of that year’s budget fiddling by the Mayor and Council), it is really a capital subsidy and I have counted it in that category for consistency. This one-time subsidy disappears in 2016, but this is not a “cut” in operating funding.
  • [...continues at length...]
https://stevemunro.ca/2016/05/23/who-pays-for-the-ttc-20002015/

You can use whatever methodology you like, Johnny, I use the accepted one by the trade.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, so best you set these folks straight as well as APTA and others:
You can use whatever methodology you like, Johnny, I use the accepted one by the trade.

And there you have the difference between perspective and perception.
 
It's a case of published stats, Johnny. The perception deficit is yours. You completely confuse "profit" with "recovery".

No. It's that I don't confuse political spin. I'm done here. Mods can delete my account. It's been a great 9 years, but the site has tricled down to Trump levels of willful ignorance. "I don't care the facts say I'm worng. You're wrong!"

Goodbye all.
 
No. It's that I don't confuse political spin. I'm done here. Mods can delete my account. It's been a great 9 years, but the site has tricled down to Trump levels of willful ignorance. "I don't care the facts say I'm worng. You're wrong!"

Goodbye all.

Damn bro it ain't that serious.
 
It's a case of published stats, Johnny. The perception deficit is yours. You completely confuse "profit" with "recovery".

Jonny56 is correct in a way. There is no comparison between Ontario's farebox recovery and other jurisdictions. Some include debt or leases in their operating costs (which distorts the comparison). Toronto distorts it by deleting "state of good repair" costs and a lot of these should be operating.

The computation of the recovery is 100% political and there are no apples to apples comparisons. I've tried and Toronto's is too high and others are too low...but there just isn't enough public information available to get to an accurate number.

You shouldn't skewer the messenger...he brings a valid point....his delivery may not be ideal but on a macro level he is correct. We can't compare the TTC to the MTA or Montreal and say that we are really efficient or users pay too much. There is not an apples to apples comparison and we have to dig deeper.
 

Back
Top