New Transit Funding Sources

[crs1026]

A three dollar fare does not seem outrageous and is not far above other large cities. But the statement that this will cost the TTC a million riders is troubling. It makes no sense to turn away any ridership towards other forms of transportation for any reason.

I would like to know more about how this statistic was arrived at. I can't imagine that this difference would really stop even the poor from riding - although accumulated over a year it would impact some aspect of their household spending materially. And a student working a part-time job would see their minimum wage earnings reduced by five cents on the hour, if they were working a four hour shift. The minimum wage doesn't go up annually. So people will feel the bite, but will they actually choose not to ride versus, say, avoiding some other purchase?

As noted, the real culprit is Mr Tory with his loosely camouflaged anti-tax agenda and the cuts imposed on basic operations. If the TTC doesn't recoup costs at the fare box, the cost will pass to the taxpayer, but more of that can be drawn from the more affluent. Seems fairer to me to do that than raise fares.

- Paul

 

[TOareaFan]

A three dollar fare does not seem outrageous and is not far above other large cities. But the statement that this will cost the TTC a million riders is troubling. It makes no sense to turn away any ridership towards other forms of transportation for any reason.

I would like to know more about how this statistic was arrived at. I can't imagine that this difference would really stop even the poor from riding - although accumulated over a year it would impact some aspect of their household spending materially. And a student working a part-time job would see their minimum wage earnings reduced by five cents on the hour, if they were working a four hour shift. The minimum wage doesn't go up annually. So people will feel the bite, but will they actually choose not to ride versus, say, avoiding some other purchase?

As noted, the real culprit is Mr Tory with his loosely camouflaged anti-tax agenda and the cuts imposed on basic operations. If the TTC doesn't recoup costs at the fare box, the cost will pass to the taxpayer, but more of that can be drawn from the more affluent. Seems fairer to me to do that than raise fares.

- Paul

I would suspect a fare increase would impact choice ridership for short trips the most. If someone is at King and University and headed to, say, the Eaton Centre their quick cost/value calc in their head may just lead to them using ped power to get there rather than TTC if the price goes up.

You only need about 2,300 such return trips to go by foot each work day to get to your lost a million riders.

For people taking longer trips for daily commute to work I doubt a 10 c increase is going to see them headed out to their local car dealer to find an alternative way to commute.

 

[Kitsune]

The problem with the metro pass is even at 146... you need to take 49 trips a month for it to be cheaper. For comparison - one month has 20 to 23 work days, or 40 to 46 round trips. If you are only using it to go to/from work, its cheaper to stick with Presto or tokens. For cash the break even is 45 trips, so its almost still cheaper even to just use cash.

 

[crs1026]

For people taking longer trips for daily commute to work I doubt a 10 c increase is going to see them headed out to their local car dealer to find an alternative way to commute.

Deciding to walk (on nice days, especially) may well be a major explanation.

There may also be lots of situations where people have the ability to get a ride without buying a car. For instance - my comment about the student working four hours at the mall is my son. I'm conscious that after he takes the bus there and back, and maybe buying a snack along the way, he's not making a lot of money. So from time to time I offer to drive him or pick him up after.
Knowing that the fares just went up makes me that little bit more sympathetic, so while I might not be willing to drive him every time, I may offer him a ride an extra time or two. It may cost me a buck in gas and tire wear, but it deprives the TTC of $3, and saves him the equivalent of 30 fare increases. I don't miss the gas money in my overall budget. Or maybe I'm going somewhere anyways.

It's a one-of story, I know, but I suspect there are lots of other scenarios. Maybe my neighbour sees me at the bus stop as they drive by, and the fare increase makes them that little bit more inclined to stop and ask if I'd like a ride instead.

Maybe these one-of's add up. I can live with people walking, and sharing rides is good too - but my extra car trip is counterproductive to what we want TTC to offer the city.

- Paul

 

[W. K. Lis]

Expect hording of tokens should the $3.00 token (up from $2.90) is passed by the sheep at city council, if not sooner. This is one reason for PRESTO, since price increases would be automatic changed on the day of. Unless they forget where their hoard is hidden, and the last day for tokens is passed by.

 

[rbt]

The problem with the metro pass is even at 146... you need to take 49 trips a month for it to be cheaper. For comparison - one month has 20 to 23 work days, or 40 to 46 round trips. If you are only using it to go to/from work, its cheaper to stick with Presto or tokens. For cash the break even is 45 trips, so its almost still cheaper even to just use cash.

If you're only using TTC for work then you should be using single-trip fares. Metropass is a vehicle alternative; and a lage %age of metropass holders are making 70+ trips per month (see customer journal reports).

 

[TrickyRicky]

"As noted, the real culprit is Mr Tory with his loosely camouflaged anti-tax agenda and the cuts imposed on basic operations. If the TTC doesn't recoup costs at the fare box, the cost will pass to the taxpayer, but more of that can be drawn from the more affluent. Seems fairer to me to do that than raise fares."

I'm not sure I get this. There are not transit riders and tax payers. Everyone pays taxes. Raising fares is probably more progressive than raising taxes. The City does not levy taxes on income etc. So raising taxes also impacts riders. The assumption may be that property taxes come from wealthy home owners and therefore you can squeeze them more while not passing costs on to low income renters and ttc riders? I don't find this a solid argument. Even if we isolate property taxes, much of the property tax base is made up of commercial, industrial, and multi-residential property. You cannot raise property taxes without having these costs passed on to end-users in the form of higher rent or business operating cost cuts thereby eroding affordability and employment (which always disproportionately impacts low income people. There is no free lunch.

 

[crs1026]

You cannot raise property taxes without having these costs passed on to end-users in the form of higher rent or business operating cost cuts thereby eroding affordability and employment (which always disproportionately impacts low income people. There is no free lunch.

The same amount will be collected from within the City either way.

I was not thinking of "soaking the rich", but I was thinking of how that cost would be spread out across the full spectrum of people paying taxes to the city. The current shortfall - and the additional amount that we ought to be collecting to put the TTC on a better operational and capital footing - is not that big an impact when it's spread out that far. It will have an impact, yes....and the most affluent can indeed pay more than the less affluent.

Some form of taxation that collects that money won't drive ridership downwards whereas it appears a fare increase will.

If we truly believe that this full cost can't be absorbed within the City's economy without "eroding affordability and employment", then we should be cutting back TTC operations to fit the revenue stream that the City can manage. I believe we should do the opposite, because cutting back the TTC will choke, not improve, the economic activity in the City whereas correcting the service deficiencies we have will improve mobility and attract more riders.

As I said, I believe our politicians are wrongly worried about small and manageable tax increases "just because". As a city, we have the ability to pay.

- Paul

 

[Euphoria]

The argument that higher taxes are better because the wealthy pay more of them is simply untrue. The rich know how to dodge taxes. Taxes are largely paid by the mushy middle class, who are better off than the poor, but they have to constantly work for it. From now on, if you want to build anything, you have to think of creative ways that, through the various benefits created by certain temporary debts, allow you to essentially build for nothing. If the future is user fees, make sure those fees are only paid for luxuries over and above what we currently have, and that they at least partly serve the public interest. User fees on highways can help pay for transit. But these highways must be extras over and above the highway infrastructure we have come to expect, which should remain free (of user fees). From now on, if you want new luxury such as new highways, you'll have to contribute to the public trust. Otherwise, join the mushy middle, undistinguished by style (cars, motor boats, private jets, and monster homes with huge carbon footprints) or wealth, and working their asses off. Essentially, now is the time to set the price on wealth. That's really what a carbon tax is, a tax on carbon-based life. We have to be really careful not to set this price too high, to one we can't afford. That's the problem in Ontario right now: The price of wealth is simply getting far too out of reach. The cost of living is very high.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The PRESTO card has the recipient's address information on account. Included in the address is the city and postal code of the recipent.

Once PRESTO is fully implemented, PRESTO should bill the recipient's city for the 90¢ it costs each rider (adult, senior, student, or free child fare) to subsidize each rider, for each and every fare.

Of course, if a Toronto resident uses one of the 905's cities' transit, the city of Toronto should be billed for each rider. It's only fair (or is it fare?).

Of course, it would be better is the province pays a portion of all the transit agencies' operating subsidies. Maybe the lowest subsidy to each of Ontario's transit agency (90¢).

 

[ssiguy2]

Are these subsidies inclusive of local/city taxes? If so to get a more meaningful comparison there should be a stt to see how much of the subsidy the other cities get that the cities themselves pay. This would give clearer information about whether these subsidies are more a result of provincial/state support or city support which Toronto has 100% control over.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Some increases are more palatable than others...

Cameron MacLeod@c_9
25 mins ago
TTC looking at $0.10 (at least) fare increase. I got curious about TTC fares and the inflation rate. Oh hey, what's that blue line?

View attachment 92108

Gas tax is effectively going up in January because of the Carbon Tax.

 

[MetroMan]

I would suspect a fare increase would impact choice ridership for short trips the most. If someone is at King and University and headed to, say, the Eaton Centre their quick cost/value calc in their head may just lead to them using ped power to get there rather than TTC if the price goes up.

You only need about 2,300 such return trips to go by foot each work day to get to your lost a million riders.

For people taking longer trips for daily commute to work I doubt a 10 c increase is going to see them headed out to their local car dealer to find an alternative way to commute.

I'm at King and Spadina and I'd rather walk to the Eaton Centre than pay the same exact full fare that someone riding all the way from deep in Scarborough pays. This increase doesn't help. Short ride fares need to be implemented if the TTC wants to increase ridership.

Time based fares would make this equitable for everyone.

$1.00 30 min window
$3.00 2hr window

I'd pay the $1 to quickly hop on the streetcar downtown or the $3 if I were travelling farther or to run some errands and return home within that 2 hour window. It works the same way if you're in Scarborough. You pay $1 to do a quick hop on the bus somewhere local or $3 to get downtown.

As it stands right now. The TTC is likely missing a very large category of casual riders who refuse to pay such a high fare for short trips and would rather walk, cycle or worse, drive.

 

[ssiguy2]

I agree it's unfair but the problem with time-based fares is that they make the assumption that the system is working fine. What if you are on the subway and it breaks down? It would be a real slap in the face if not only were you stuck for 30 minutes underground but because of it your fare actually goes up. What if there is an accident along the streetcar/LRT route, should you pay extra for that inconvenience? What if your trip takes longer than it should because 3 buses have gone by but couldn't stop because they were packed?

I appreciate what you are saying but I don't think time-based fares are practical or even fair. Travel by distance or a zone system is preferable.

As for my earlier point, how much of a subsidy does the TTC receive from Toronto and how much does this compare to other city subsidies?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I agree it's unfair but the problem with time-based fares is that they make the assumption that the system is working fine. What if you are on the subway and it breaks down? It would be a real slap in the face if not only were you stuck for 30 minutes underground but because of it your fare actually goes up. What if there is an accident along the streetcar/LRT route, should you pay extra for that inconvenience? What if your trip takes longer than it should because 3 buses have gone by but couldn't stop because they were packed?

I appreciate what you are saying but I don't think time-based fares are practical or even fair. Travel by distance or a zone system is preferable.

As for my earlier point, how much of a subsidy does the TTC receive from Toronto and how much does this compare to other city subsidies?

Sorry, avoiding moving to a time-based transfer system because of fear of the "unfairness" from breakdowns is the wrong policy solution to a wrong problem. Besides, such "unfairness" already exist - in the form of individuals who paid and have to wait an extended amount of time (if not inability to complete the trip) due to breakdowns, shutdowns, whatnot.

AoD