Toronto Transportation Idiosyncracies

[golodhendil]

???? Montreal has fare zones. You can't even get to the end of the longest subway line without paying extra.

Not according to STM's own website. And even if it were the case, TTC services north of Steeles also require extra fare, but that's not technically a "fare zone" division.

Not to mention

http://www.amt.qc.ca/tc/tarifs/pdf/Systarifaire_2009.pdf

That's the commuter rail fare zones. As I said, GO train also has fare zones so the situation is not different.

 

[nfitz]

That's the commuter rail fare zones. As I said, GO train also has fare zones so the situation is not different.

Those passes are also good for travel on local buses, and the Metro. And if you look on STM's site you'll see that there are fares for the more distant Metro stations; the one's in Lavel are Zone 3 ... and that's the AMT zone 3 (and it says

It's a bit different in Montreal than Toronto, because the commuter train and bus/subway fares are integrated.

It's not different than London really ... the buses there are all the same fare, no matter how far you go. The tube downtown in London is one fare, and the further you get from downtown, the tube fare goes up; however Montreal only has the one line that goes far enough to trigger higher fares.

 

[valkoholic]

Here's another thing I've noticed that's unusual in Toronto: The person you buy tickets off of in TTC stations is also a fair collector/ pass validator. Most other cities I've been to have fully automated entries into the subway system and a separete booth off to the side where tickets are sold, directions given, etc. This helps seprate lineups and reduce congestion around the entry points into the subway.

Montreal is one city I can think of that has the same system as Toronto so maybe it's a hoser thing. I've seen things done the 'normal' way in New York and throughout Europe.

 

[kettal]

Tunnelling by deep bore, albeit more expensive, does not require significant expropriation of properties.

Legally, it does.

I don't know if there's an exception for something really deep into the earth's crust, but by some point the subway loses its capacity, accessibility, and attractiveness by requiring lengthly elevator rides to access a station.

 

[kettal]

Precisely, that is why they are called roads or streets, not sidewalks

What are you trying to prove? These words are not specific to cars. Roads and streets predate the invention of the automobile.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Part of idiosyncrasy to me implies peculiarity. I've don't think I've ever heard something referred to as idiosyncratic because it is the best. Usain Bolt?

Being the best isn't necessarily peculiar, but being so far beyond everyone else in your field (whether it's running or North American transit delivery) is idiosyncratic. Usain Bolt setting the 100m World Record without even really trying was pretty damn peculiar.

If you look at transportation as an industry though (moving people/goods from point a to point b), the overwhelming majority of it is based on the idea that fares should be the primary source of income. A cab company that operated otherwise would go out of business.

How far do you take that, though? Should Wheel Trans be expected to cover their costs through fares?

There is undoubtedly a difference between public and private transit, inasmuch as public transit serves a more universal role in providing essential mobility for everyone. Privately-operated planes, trains and automobiles serve a less fundamental role.

As to the military comment, if you are going to compare transportation to national defense I won't bother: Public Goods are the magic word.

I'm not really wanting to debate semantics, but I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. Public transit and national defense parallel one another as public services that greatly affect quality of life.

 

[Whoaccio]

How far do you take that, though? Should Wheel Trans be expected to cover their costs through fares?

Well, at least a portion of them, yes. If we want to say that there are x,y and z disadvantaged groups that need help getting around town and we, society, should help them I am okay with that. There is a bit of a difference between that and thinking it is okay, or even good, for something like the Queen car to loose 50cents on the dollar, not even considering the costs of capital.

That said I am usually in favor of consumer as opposed to producer subsidies. If we come to the conclusion that x,y,z groups need help, I would rather just give them an appropriate sum of money and let them decide what to do with it.

There is undoubtedly a difference between public and private transit, inasmuch as public transit serves a more universal role in providing essential mobility for everyone. Privately-operated planes, trains and automobiles serve a less fundamental role.

Lots of things serve very fundamental roles in our society but are expected to break even. Think food. I'm not really under the impression that public transit will be some massive cash cow, but I do think the idea that it should rely as little as possible on operating subsidies is a good one.

I'm not really wanting to debate semantics, but I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. Public transit and national defense parallel one another as public services that greatly affect quality of life.

Its not semantics, a public good is something non-excludable and non-rivalrous. So, you can't directly charge people for national defense, and you can't very well stop them receiving the benefits of it either. You can, and we already do, charge people for transit and exclude those that don't pay.

 

[Northern Light]

Semantics and other Silliness

I think Whoaccio is just a bit bored and having fun......

So I'll join in!

"Its not semantics, a public good is something non-excludable and non-rivalrous. So, you can't directly charge people for national defense, and you can't very well stop them receiving the benefits of it either. You can, and we already do, charge people for transit and exclude those that don't pay."

Hmmmm.

Who says National Defense can't be excludable? If a foreign country declares war we could just turn over citizens who are delinquent in paying their national defense fees!

And While we're at it....who says it has to be provided by the public sector...The Swiss made fortunes renting out their mercenary armies a few centuries back.

We could just contract out the National Defense! And we could contract it out to multiple providers! Well armed Somali Pirates on the West Coast, Swiss Mercenaries and some Al Quaeda agents at the land borders, the Brit. Navy is under-utilized let's give them the Atlantic contract, for the north will just let install some nukes on motion detectors!

And Since apparently we can and should recover full costs on transit; how about roads? No, I don't mean just tolls.

I mean let's privatize EVERY road to a different company, including the one leading to your driveway. If you are delinquent in paying your tolls/fees then no access to the road for you!

911 can bill people for responses, and refuse to come if your VISA isn't valid.

This is great fun!

We can recover every cost, everywhere, and just abolish government

Of course, your drive to work now costs 1/2 a days' wages, 1/3 of people lack health insurance, and the army might leave for a better contract, or just go on strike......

But that's free enterprise at work!

I wonder how we can turn a profit on welfare????

 

[Whoaccio]

What is it with this forum and people not being able to understand public goods? I'd just like to point out that it isn't my idea, its a pretty uncontroversial component of modern economics.

If people are stupid enough to think that you can somehow charge for national defense and still call it national defense, then there isn't really much I can say to convince them otherwise. Its like arguing with creationists.

 

[Northern Light]

Sarcasm

Whoaccio, I trust the fact I had my tongue planted in my cheek was rather obvious.

Notwithstanding that, you would do well not to suggest people who poke fun at, or holes through your ideological positions are stupid. This is most particularly true when your position is subjective and can't be substantiated.

Though my tongue was in cheek; I would venture to point out that there is no reason 'National' Defense can't be a private service or contracted out service.

After all, Canada doesn't make its own tanks or combat aircraft; We BUY them, from the private sector, including foreign corporations whose interest in selling us equipment or maintaining or servicing it is solely that of profit.

Why can't you do the same with soldiers?

****

While I would venture to say, in all seriousness that one could hardly deprive someone of the benefit of National Defense, I might add that directly or indirectly this is true of roads, and transit. Can I really block you into your home if you don't pay the toll for your side street?

And even if you don't pay the user fee for public transit, wouldn't you derive the benefit of your neighbours not clogging the road or spewing air pollution?

My point was not to suggest that we ACTUALLY contact out Defense, but rather to suggest that privatized transit is no less silly an idea.

After all, public transit solely on the merits of its system does not turn a profit anywhere on earth. The Hong Kong system does, some years, but only due to its vast real estate holdings, and not as a direct by-product of its transit operations.

Further, we're people to be billed the real cost of transit, no one would take it. This would in turn lead to grossly overcrowded roads and sidewalks etc.

And if the real cost of roads we're billed to users (that is land-value, capital cost, routine operations (line painting, snow plowing etc.) and the cost of servicing car accidents with police, fire, healthcare etc.) very few could afford the cost of travel on roads either.

There is a roll for the state sometimes, that doesn't mean the state couldn't manage certain enterprises or infrastructure better; nor that there is no roll for the private sector; its just that blind and myopic ideology will not create any new, real or better solutions; its pragmatic realism that will.

Now SMILE, take a deep breath and enjoy the debate.

 

[golodhendil]

Legally, it does.

I don't know if there's an exception for something really deep into the earth's crust, but by some point the subway loses its capacity, accessibility, and attractiveness by requiring lengthly elevator rides to access a station.

I am not sure how the applicable legal processes work in Canada, but in some other common law jurisdictions what is needed in the situation is simply the resumption by the government of the underground strata of the affected properties. The foundation and aboveground portion of the property is not expropriated, and with the necessary engineering studies done the property will not even be largely affected.

As for deep stations, there is no indication that they will substantially affect a system's capacity or attractiveness. TTC is actually one of the shallowest subways around; many stations in the Tokyo and HK metro, for example, are between 20-30 m below ground, some of the stations to be constructed on the one of current extensions in HK will be between 50-100 m below ground, and the average depth for Moscow's is around 50 m. The depth certainly hasn't prevented these systems from becoming the busiest and most accessible metros in the world. As long as the demand is there, and the transit authority can be held to account to have escalators and elevators always functional, there is no reason that depth is concern.

Besides, having deep tunnels does not necessarily mean the stations need to be deep. The stations can still be built slightly shallower, eg under major roadway intersections or more open space, with the tunnels dipping down in between stations. This provides the additional benefit of natural acceleration and deceleration gradients for the subway.

Edit: ultimately, I don't think it is that crucial for metro lines to deviate significantly from the existing road grid, since as I've pointed out before most metro systems around the world do follow the streets since it is the cheapest way to do it. For short distances or turns, though, it certainly isn't something to be discounted.

 

[cowpie]

Speaking of articulated buses, I'm pretty sure the Viva Van Hools fared pretty well last winter, even on the enormous hills at Clark and Royal Orchard, except for one of the first snow storms last year or the year before where they couldn't get up the hill. Regardless, that was also true of the normal, non-articulated buses that YRT used.

 

[Whoaccio]

After all, public transit solely on the merits of its system does not turn a profit anywhere on earth. The Hong Kong system does, some years, but only due to its vast real estate holdings, and not as a direct by-product of its transit operations.

How many times do I have to say that I don't expect transport to make some massive profits? I don't. What I do expect is that the costs of providing a service should come close to the services revenue as often as possible. Without any debt on its books, this really isn't such a challenge. That the TTC, or about any other public transit operator in N.America, hasn't realized the benefits of an integrated real estate and transport business is proof that running these operations with the goal of loosing money is a bad idea. We understood that it was a good idea in the 19th century, yet somehow we can't seem to monetize billions in land assets today. (Please note, I'm not under the impression that the TTC can get a third of it's revenues from development. But it should be able to get something)

There is a roll for the state sometimes, that doesn't mean the state couldn't manage certain enterprises or infrastructure better; nor that there is no roll for the private sector; its just that blind and myopic ideology will not create any new, real or better solutions; its pragmatic realism that will.

What is pragmatic about setting out to loose money? The myopic aspect to all of this is this arbitrary delineation made between public transit and everything else that has the exact same goal of moving people.

 

[golodhendil]

After all, public transit solely on the merits of its system does not turn a profit anywhere on earth. The Hong Kong system does, some years, but only due to its vast real estate holdings, and not as a direct by-product of its transit operations.

That is a lie, and a pretty well-propagated urban legend about HK. The MTR has been making multi-million (in recent years, billions) dollars of profit solely from its railway operations since at least 1992 (the furthest back I can find data for with a casual search), and that portions' contribution to MTR's massive profit has only occasionally fallen below 50% (more frequently in recent years because of major real estate developments along new lines, but the operation revenue still more than enough covered for the operating cost). In FY2008, MTR made a profit of $1 billion CAD from operations alone (plus a further billion from real estate).

Other systems that make profit from operations: Taipei Metro ($20.5 million in FY2007), Singapore MRT (which also operates buses; $150 million in FY2008), Tokyo Metro ($1 billion in FY2007).

 

[Northern Light]

A lie?

Hmmm,

I really do detest extreme language.

First of all, a lie by definition is an INTENTIONAL deception. Which I certainly am not guilty of; I'm uncertain if you have evidence that anyone else is....

***

While I would be happy to stand corrected........

In respect of MTR's operations.....I'm not sure that I'm wrong (That's HK's system for those trying to follow)

I went over to their website and read their books from the last fiscal year.

Now I will grant you they show an operating profit on their rail lines.

However....

What they include in those revenue allocations bares scrutiny.....'Station and Commercial Revenue" is a very big line item, it is also discrete from fare revenue.

As Stations do not spontaneously produce money aside from collected fares, one must assume that developments within or on-top of stations are producing revenue which is being directly attributed to the rail system.

If one were to reduce the revenue of the HK system to fare revenue (now I realize there are ads etc. ) ...

And then charge the full weight of system expenses the profit is all but wiped out.

Depreciation costs are not broken out for Rail vs property development and so hard to allocate to an outsider, but if one assumed an allocation that was even in proportion to gross revenue, then the rail system's profit is basically gone.

If, we assume from the MTR books that depreciation represents wholly a cost to rail operations, and is not charged to development (because this was done prior to showing development profits) then one would likely show a net loss for rail operations.

We could debate at some length as to how gross revenues, profits and depreciation are used in the MTR's accounting practices.

Relatedly, I was unable to find out how much the governments initial investments represented and whether they were represented on the books as debt, and I wonder how one might value the land concessions and the benefit of expropriation which MTR has made use of in order to construct its rails and related developments.

I will investigate the profits of the other systems mentioned when I get a chance.