DavidH
Senior Member
Absolutely. It's out of print so you'll have to search for it (I got mine from ebay about 8 years ago) but it's well worth it.^^I would highly reconmend John F. Bromley's book "50 years of progressive transit". Great book.
Absolutely. It's out of print so you'll have to search for it (I got mine from ebay about 8 years ago) but it's well worth it.^^I would highly reconmend John F. Bromley's book "50 years of progressive transit". Great book.
Weird, I thought someone pointed out the obvious success of European transit agencies as an indicator that the TTC should go private.European cities don't have profitable transit systems...What does "being more like Europe have to do with this topic?
Weird, I thought someone pointed out the obvious success of European transit agencies as an indicator that the TTC should go private.
You should go see privatized transit in cities in Melbourne. There really isn't much gains in efficiency outside of state subsidizing the operator. Besides TTC is well-run, with buses and subways providing excellent service.
The subway with its 2-3 inter-peak minute frequency is quite good vs. the 30-minutes common in DC, Melbourne, Sydney and elsewhere. The gripe may be from outer suburban users who are not well connected to the TTC.
GO and the pro-car municipalities are the issue imo and it's not like those suburbs aren't affluent. That can be improved, benefiting the city greatly. I could see pretty fast service if the damn lines were electrified like the commuter system in European cities.
*** COMPETITION = BETTER SERVICE ***
When the Blue 22 is complete, you can either pay:
a) $3.00 dollars and take the TTC - 1 hour and 15 minutes to get to Union
b) $55.00 and take a cab - which tons of people currently do
b) $22.00 and get to Union in 22 minutes by rail - much cheaper than a cab!
Yes, it is. It is a commuter service akin to GO. The difference is that its frequencies are much higher at the 15-30 minutes range, vs the hourly range of the GO.I thought Sydney's CityRail is more like GO Transit, so the frequencies are in-line with suburban commuter service in Toronto.
The successful agencies are tendering routes or entire areas and basically partially privatizing transit (in some cases a public bus company still exists), but maintaining control and regulation... The goal isn't to make a profit but to reduce costs and therefore reduce the government subsidy needed for transit.
Conversely, private coach operators are moaning about lost revenue with GO service now going to Niagara. Bus Lines Feel GO's Pinch:
Jim Devlin, president of Coach Canada, said he has been forced to slash prices on some fares to match the provincial taxpayer-subsidized GO Transit, which started running a bus service in Niagara in September.
Last month, the company's average fare was down $3.65 per passenger compared with 2008.
Ridership dropped to 39,000 last month from 41,000 in October.
"The bottom line is, financially, we're losing money on the route," said Devlin.
I believe that there may be many opportunities for private operators to offer targeted services at a higher price point than the TTC, but less than a cab.
What if, rather than completely privatizing the transit system, they simply allowed private operators to offer service if they wish?
For instance, why should I not be allowed to buy a bus and sell service to commuters by running an express bus from a residential area (such as Forest Hill or Rosedale) to downtown at rush hour? The TTC currently offers only a very limited rush hour express service.
As for these so called 'unprofitable routes'. Doesn't logic tell us that if a route is unprofitable no matter what you do (down to running a TTC mini-van 4x/hour), perhaps it's just not worth doing in the first place?