News   Dec 20, 2024
 987     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 748     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.3K     0 

January 2012 Service Cuts

Getting rid of the union opens the door to pay whoever whatever he/she is actually worth in a completely competitive market.
I agree that wages for ticket collects are a small percentages. but aren't the drivers overpaid as well? Why do the ttc get their jobs in the first place? Did they compete in the market?

Why not do this, without the influence of any unions, let's recruit ticket collects, drivers and system operator from the open labour market. I am sure thousands will kill to do the ticket collector jobs for $30,000 a year with half the existing benefits (which I think is what their skills are worth). Bus/subway drivers would make no more than $40,000 a year. Yes, there is some skill there, but anyone with an IQ over 80 can drive those vehicles after some training program.

TTC is responsible for the taxpayers. It is supposed to recruit whoever can do the job at the lowest cost. I think it can easily cut its operating budget by more than 20%. Let's not say they have tough jobs and deserve this and that. In this world, nobody deserves anything. If there is someone out there who is willing to do the jobs at 20% the wage (assuming both can do equally well), the latter should be hired and the more expensive one should be fired, because the lowest available wage is the market wage - what their skills are really worth.

But the way, what's with the job of leaning out of the window of the subway cars and looking at both sides to make sure no passenger is stuck between doors? It seems each subway has one employee exclusively doing that job. And how much are they paid? Are there any other city in this world which actually has this kind of jobs positions?

I do not want to be riding a bus with a driver being paid the lowest cost. I want them well paid and beyond. There are people it seems who always begrudge others that belong to a union and make more money. No I do not belong to a union but wish I did. The TTC should have done what the police dept did. Karen Stinz should have stood up for the TTC or Webster should have (think thats his name) who is the GM of the TTC.
 
TTC already has the highest cost recovery rate of any local transit system in US or Canada. Zone fares or any other form of fare increase is not the answer.
Of course it is. The previous poster just restated what another posted had stated and that was that the last time the TTC turned a profit was when they had zone based fares. Just because they have the highest cost recovery rate does not mean anything if they still cannot turn a profit.
 
Of course it is. The previous poster just restated what another posted had stated and that was that the last time the TTC turned a profit was when they had zone based fares. Just because they have the highest cost recovery rate does not mean anything if they still cannot turn a profit.

Palma, do you have a source for this? I'd be interested in reading it. I wonder if there was a subsidy from the Province/Feds back then as well helping underwrite that profit.
 
Well I will have to search the different forums to find the post. I will try to do it to night
 
I have copied some sections on the history of TTC fares

METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND THE CAR CHANGE THE PICTURE
The TTC continued to make an operating profit until 1972 when, under political pressure from the suburban majority on council, the TTC eliminated its fare zone system which previously obliged suburban residents to pay an additional fare. By the late 1980s, the annual cost of keeping the TTC afloat was now up to a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money, although at 32% of all revenues, this was the lowest subsidy required of any city in North America.

FLAT FARE VERSUS FARE BY DISTANCE
In 1921, one of the goals of the City of Toronto in establishing the Toronto Transportation Commission was enabling Toronto residents to travel throughout the city on a single fare, regardless of the length of the trip. Transfers between routes were free. The city was compact enough, and ridership high enough, that the Commission was able to perform this service while making back most of its costs (operating and capital expenses) from the farebox.

But the fact remained that public transit ran most profitably when people used it to take short trips. On routes where there was a good cycling of passengers on and off at each stop, each vehicle ended up carrying far more passengers enroute, and this efficiency covered expenses well. But as Toronto’s suburban growth spilled out beyond the city’s boundaries, commutes began to lengthen. This meant transit vehicles had to travel farther to carry the same number of passengers. There was less cycling of passengers on and off at each stop. Revenues decreased and expenses increased.

As the suburbs around Toronto were not part of the city proper, City Council had no qualms of charging these passengers extra to cover the extra expenses, or even imposing fare zones so that revenues per trip more closely matched the costs per trip, but after 1954, the suburban municipalities around Toronto sat with Toronto on Metro council. Also, the pace of urban sprawl increased. The densities of the suburbs decreased, meaning that public transit could no longer efficiently serve the outer suburbs and make back its costs. At least, not without a fare system that recognized the higher costs of longer commutes.

The zone fare system, while not perfect, at least managed to do this, but it was unpopular with suburban residents and their politicians who felt that all residents within Metropolitan Toronto should be covered under the same fare, regardless of the distance travelled. In the 1960s, debates over TTC fares and service on Metro council were often rancorous. At one point, the boroughs of North York and Etobicoke went to court to overturn Metropolitan Toronto’s subsidy of the TTC, unless Metro Council acceded to their demands for improved service.

When the province of Ontario reorganized Metropolitan Toronto in 1967, it gave the suburban municipalities surrounding Toronto a majority of seats on council, reflecting the increase in their population growth, and the suburban view of public transit as a subsidized public service rather than a utility that paid its own way, won out. On January 1, 1973, the two zone fare system within Metropolitan Toronto was abolished, and the zone fares outside of Metropolitan Toronto’s boundaries were combined into one. The TTC had now become wholly dependent on government operating subsidies to balance the books.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUBURBAN TRANSIT AGENCIES
Earlier this decade, Mississauga Transit asked the TTC to extend the 32 Eglinton West bus into the Airport Corporate Centre northwest of the Eglinton/Renforth intersection, in the City of Mississauga. It asked that only the regular TTC fare be charged, and paid for any operating deficit the extension incurred. It later decided that this was too costly and asked the TTC to charge the Mississauga Transit fare west of Explorer Road, which was done effective January 4, 2004. In exchange for the fare increase, passengers on the route could transfer to connecting Mississauga Transit buses.

THE RIDERSHIP GROWTH STRATEGY, THE GREATER TORONTO TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND THE SMART CARD DEBATE
This has sparked a renewed debate about fare management among the transit systems. Although some suburban politicians, like the late mayor of Vaughan, Lorna Jackson, have suggested that the Greater Toronto Area be covered by a single fare, others have pointed out that the deficits that this would unleash, with travel from Square One to the Scarborough Town Centre costing as little as a trip from the Eaton Centre to the Exhibition, would bankrupt any transit organization and weigh it down with subsidies. It is generally agreed that a fare by distance scheme would have to be applied.

One of the top priorities of the Greater Toronto Transit Authority is to create a smart card fare system that would use electronic cards to tailor the amount paid by passengers to the distance travelled. The Toronto Transit Commission has been reluctant to come on board, however. As it is still catching up on the service cutbacks of the 1990s, it fears that the priorities of the GTTA is towards various schemes to benefit suburban riders, and that insufficient funding will be applied to bring services in the core up to adequate levels. The TTC notes that its capital requirements are so much larger than any of the surrounding agencies, and that changing its decades-old gravity-based fare collection system could be very costly — the equivalent of several buses and streetcars that would already be full of passengers were they operating now.

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/spare/0021.shtml
 
Last edited:
Gravy money being used to cancel Transit City and to draw up plans for the Sheppard Subway, could have been used to keep TTC as is or improve them.

Instead, Rob Ford's gravy money is being wasted on Ford's attempts to cancel Transit City, when we already had plans for a better transit network (not just a line).

We could be already constructing a Finch West LRT this year, instead we are to cut service despite increased ridership.

Don't waste any more gravy money, when a better transit plan that would serve more people at less money is already available.
 
Why does the TTC have to be subsidized?

It's just not a sustainable model. How can we expand a transit system or grow ridership, when, if it's being subsidized at 30%, the operating costs will just continue to rise as the system expands.

I think it should break even, just like GO transit does. (For the operating costs, not necessarily capital/expansion).

Who cares if other cities have to be subsidized? Most cities in N.A. don't have the transit ridership/culture to support it (besides the obvious, New York, etc.).

Of course, I don't think that means raising fares to $4. It should be implemented through some sort of fare-by-distance/fare zone system combined with regional fare integration (or Metrolinx takeover;)).

Also breaking even should be achieved by using additional revenue streams, such as through real estate development, etc.
 
Why does the TTC have to be subsidized?

It's just not a sustainable model. How can we expand a transit system or grow ridership, when, if it's being subsidized at 30%, the operating costs will just continue to rise as the system expands.

I think it should break even, just like GO transit does. (For the operating costs, not necessarily capital/expansion).

Who cares if other cities have to be subsidized? Most cities in N.A. don't have the transit ridership/culture to support it (besides the obvious, New York, etc.).

Of course, I don't think that means raising fares to $4. It should be implemented through some sort of fare-by-distance/fare zone system combined with regional fare integration (or Metrolinx takeover;)).

Also breaking even should be achieved by using additional revenue streams, such as through real estate development, etc.

GO Transit doesn't break even.

Neither does the MTA in New York.

Fare zone system would not increase cost recovery. The TTC's cost recovery had already declined significantly for two decades before the abolishment of the fare zone system. Besides, such a fare policy would only mean fare increase for Toronto's for captive riders in poorest neighbourhoods anyways.

High cost recovery means better integration with 905 transit. No more duplicate bus service along Bloor and Burnhamthorpe in Etobicoke, for example.

Other measures include ROWs for buses and streetcars to improve their speed and reliability. Higher speed/reliability = higher cost recovery.

Revenue can also come from outside transit of course, such as road tolls for Gardiner and DVP. Not cutting taxes might help too, which was what the recent property tax freeze was, thanks to inflation. Without last year's property tax cut and the elimination the vehicle registration tax, TTC woudn't be in this situation.

So nothing about the TTC needs overhaul. Only thing that needs to change is that people in Toronto stop being idiots and electing inept, anti-transit, pro-car politicians. Simple.
 
Why does the TTC have to be subsidized?

It's just not a sustainable model. How can we expand a transit system or grow ridership, when, if it's being subsidized at 30%, the operating costs will just continue to rise as the system expands.

I think it should break even, just like GO transit does. (For the operating costs, not necessarily capital/expansion).

Who cares if other cities have to be subsidized? Most cities in N.A. don't have the transit ridership/culture to support it (besides the obvious, New York, etc.).

Of course, I don't think that means raising fares to $4. It should be implemented through some sort of fare-by-distance/fare zone system combined with regional fare integration (or Metrolinx takeover;)).

Also breaking even should be achieved by using additional revenue streams, such as through real estate development, etc.

Hate to burst your bubble but GO does not break even on operations.
 
Hate to burst your bubble but GO does not break even on operations.
They may not break even, however their recovery ratio is favorable in comparaison to other GTA agencies. With that being said, with the kind of fares GO has you have to understand that TTC ridership would diminish. Potentially to the point where it has the potential to compromise a higher recovery ratio than what they already have.
 

Back
Top