Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[Palma]

I do not see how that makes sense - having the Eglinton line be distance based for ie. but not the other subway lines. I just do not see how that would work. The whole system has to be distance based and this needs to happen soon.

 

[sixrings]

Personally I live close enough to downtown that a fare by distance would more then likely save me a good amount of money. That being said I dont think its right to charge a fare by distance to transit users until there is a fare by distance for auto use. I heard amsterdamn was considering some gps technology that calculates how far ypou drive and then sends you a bill once a month for how many total Kms you drove. That would be the equivelant to what is being proposed for transit. Without such a system we are simply encouraging more driving in the suburbs where we need more transit riders to begin with. Also as a formal resident of downtown toronto, I'd like to say that I bought a transit pass every year for convenience purposes. Did I get 125$ of value out of it every month? Probably not. But I always looked it as convienent for me and whatever I didnt use was a donation to the TTC. The fact is I could afford it so whats the difference. Fare by distance more then likely is just going to help the downtown core, and those people can afford the ttc at any price, so it really doesnt make much sense to me.

 

[Palma]

Many major cities in the world have a distance based transit system so there is no reason why Toronto cannot. Sure there will be people who do not like the idea and thsoe are the ones that need to go the furthest distance. Does a flight cost more to go to Montreal or Halifax? The same principle should apply to public transit. This only makes sense. For cars, there should be a price. No free parking, reduced parking spaces and speed limits and tolls (congestion charges)for the damage they do to roads and what it costs to upkeep them plus the air we breathe.. For sure in 50 years time driving habits will be different in Toronto.

 

[rbt]

Flight pricing is a poor example. Flights on Air Canada for today are more nearly double the price to Montreal ($450) as Halifax ($240).

Oddly, even the connection to Halifax via Montreal is cheaper than a flight to Montreal.

Airline pricing does have a distance component but that is only one of many items used for setting pricing.

If you adjusted TTC fares by congestion level (I.e. significantly more expensive on snow days), distance, competition availability, then flights are a better example.

 

[Eug]

That being said I dont think its right to charge a fare by distance to transit users until there is a fare by distance for auto use. I heard amsterdamn was considering some gps technology that calculates how far ypou drive and then sends you a bill once a month for how many total Kms you drove.

Quite frankly, that's just moronic.

Anyone proposing that here would be handily defeated in an election, as they should be.

 

[Mapleson]

I do not see how that makes sense - having the Eglinton line be distance based for ie. but not the other subway lines. I just do not see how that would work. The whole system has to be distance based and this needs to happen soon.

The whole system does not have the infrastructure in place to do distance-based billing, so the whole network cannot do so until we have the money to add the necessary infrastructure. Presto will allow distance-based billing and Eglinton will have Presto. That's all I was saying.

Many major cities in the world have a distance based transit system so there is no reason why Toronto cannot.

We have a multi-billion dollar infrastructure deficit, which is the reason why Toronto cannot for the next 5-10 years.

 

[Palma]

The Europeans always have been ahead of North Americans.

Quite frankly, that's just moronic.

Anyone proposing that here would be handily defeated in an election, as they should be.

 

[officedweller]

Why are people assuming that a privately operated line would have a different fare structure than TTC fares?
The contract can easily provide that TTC fare structure will apply to the new line (and the contractor and payments to it work within that structure).

Fares on the Canada Line in Vancouver are established by TransLink, not ProTrans/InTransitBC.
(I think you've had a very, very bad experience with Hwy 407 due to a poorly negotiated contract).

 

[ssiguy2]

Exactly.
Fares, service frequency, everything is determined by Translink. All fares are what they were before the line, transfers.......only the 0.01% who work at Translink see any differecne from regular transit.

 

[UrbanAffair]

Quite frankly, that's just moronic.

Anyone proposing that here would be handily defeated in an election, as they should be.

Actually its quite smart if done right, and very progressive. The negative thinking towards ideas like this is what actually holds us back.

 

[nfitz]

The negative thinking towards ideas like this is what actually holds us back.

It's the negative blow-back from the electorate that's the issue. Look at the electoral reaction from quite reasonable things like the vehicle tax in Toronto ... or the reaction to the Progressive Conservative HST federally in the late 1980s.

To get stuff like this through, you have to make the electorate beg for it ...

... which is how Miller sold the big TTC hike a few years ago (by making it look like a much more reasonable alternative than closing the Sheppard subway and severely reducing TTC service ... as if that was ever really going to happen). (it's also amusing that Ford has taken the same approach ... he knows that people will be practically begging for tax increases, over what has been suggested of late ... Ford must be laughing himself silly with Atwood leading the campaign for tax increases ...

 

[k10ery]

To get stuff like this through, you have to make the electorate beg for it ...

... which is how Miller sold the big TTC hike a few years ago (by making it look like a much more reasonable alternative than closing the Sheppard subway and severely reducing TTC service ... as if that was ever really going to happen). (it's also amusing that Ford has taken the same approach ... he knows that people will be practically begging for tax increases, over what has been suggested of late ... Ford must be laughing himself silly with Atwood leading the campaign for tax increases ...

I agree that's the strategy, but I can't see Ford wanting to raise taxes. He wants to cut, only probably he doesn't want to cut libraries. We'll find out in September and we're supposed to be relieved "it's only that". (My guess: asset sales.)

 

[gweed123]

I agree that's the strategy, but I can't see Ford wanting to raise taxes. He wants to cut, only probably he doesn't want to cut libraries. We'll find out in September and we're supposed to be relieved "it's only that". (My guess: asset sales.)

I think that's part of it. The other part is he's using the threat of library cuts to make smaller, less publicly noticeable cuts to other programs and services. You raise a big stink about libraries, then sneak the other cuts through the back door when no one is paying attention.

 

[k10ery]

I think that's part of it. The other part is he's using the threat of library cuts to make smaller, less publicly noticeable cuts to other programs and services. You raise a big stink about libraries, then sneak the other cuts through the back door when no one is paying attention.

The Ford boys want to run Toronto like a business, right? This is a classic business technique: the bait-and-switch.

 

[gweed123]

The Ford boys want to run Toronto like a business, right? This is a classic business technique: the bait-and-switch.

I think running a city like a business is a fundamental ideological flaw. It's not a business, nor should it ever be.

I'm not opposed to the idea of Ford cutting some 'gravy', but I think the way he went about it is entirely wrong. Many city departments are pretty bloated, and I do agree that something needs to change in that department. However, in my opinion the way he should have gone about it is to locate the inefficiencies, reduce them (either by procedure change, staff levels, or the way contracts get awarded), to give a total amount of reduced expenditures. Then, given that number, you cut revenue to match it. For example, if Ford had found $300 million worth of inefficiencies and cut them, that may not have been enough to eliminate the vehicle registration tax entirely, but would have been enough to reduce it (disclosure: I think that is a good tax, and I don't think it should have even been touched, I'm just going with what Ford wanted to do).

Cut expenses first, then reduce the revenue to match, not cut revenue and then try and find enough expense cuts to balance the budget. The conversation should have gone: "Ok, I have done an evaluation of the City expenses, and I have found this much that could potentially be cut without impacting services. Given that, we can give you an X% tax break." That would have been much more civil and forward thinking than the "Ok, I have just cancelled Transit City, removed the Vehicle Registration Tax, and frozen property taxes. Now, let's find some places where we can cut in the budget so that we don't go bankrupt."