News   Oct 06, 2022
 169     0 
News   Oct 06, 2022
 369     0 
News   Oct 06, 2022
 537     0 

Transit City Plan

Which transit plan do you prefer?

  • Transit City

    Votes: 87 81.3%
  • Ford City

    Votes: 20 18.7%

  • Total voters
    107

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,373
Reaction score
6,455
Now. "Those folks" in Malvern and what you keep calling the "inscrutable" Jane line (found a quote to latch on to?) participate in residential property tax payments, yes. But said property tax payments contribute about 15% of the TTC's costs. (Ironically, almost as much property tax is paid out by those employers who take advantage of the 905's and 416's infrastructure to shuttle in workers, fed by public transit from all over the place. Heck, those workers even buy lunch and go shopping while they're in town. Labour, shoppers, tourists. Every day! Can you imagine how much this is worth? )

Ahem. Anyway, those residential tax payments defraying about 15% of the TTC's operating costs. As it happens, the subway is the highest cost-recovery portion of the TTC. Not only is it the subway that those 905ers are taking into town every day to be good productive units for 416's employers and merchants, the subway doesn't even go to them -- it's pure marginal revenues!

In other words, it's likely that the small portion of TTC operating costs funded by City of Toronto residential property-owners (many of whom are City of Toronto residents, too, I should note) simply goes to paying for services used only by residents of the City of Toronto (of whom many are City of Toronto property-owners, natch).

This disinformation campaign that Toronto's residents only pitch in 15% is getting tiresome. First off, you conveniently ignore the contribution of business taxes and the fact that a good portion of the businesses in Toronto are sustained by Toronto's residents. Next you ignore the fact that the vast majority of the TTC's patrons are Toronto residents. So your assertion that Toronto residents only pitch in 15% of the TTC's funding is ludicrous at best. And an insulting attempt at discounting the support that the TTC gets from the residents of Toronto.

It should be noted too, that the TTC has far higher non-peak ridership than most cities in Canada, and I am willing to bet money that those riders are by and large local residents not suburban commuters.

Lastly, even if your ridiculous argument that Toronto residents only pitch in 15% was valid (It's not), that's still far more than any 905 resident is putting into the system. So the priorities for the TTC should remain serving Torontonians. Last time I checked Malvern, Jane/Finch, Don Mills, Eglinton, etc were all full taxpaying Torontonians who deserve to be serviced by adequate transit. We may disagree on what that level of service should be. But surely a tax paying Malvernite should have more say than someone who merely coughs up an extra token or two on weekdays. And we should note, they are not getting subways, just LRT. Scarberian may peg the whole 2 billion investment as targeting Malvern. However, that's like saying the entire cost of the Yonge extension is solely to benefit RHC. The lines merely intersect in Malvern and serve various points of interest and communities along the way.

The needs of the 905 should be a distant second. I stand by my assertion that if the 905 wants the TTC to become a regional service they should take it up with the province to split of the subway from the TTC. And they should take on the cost of the whole network, not just the half-dozen stations in York region. If they want to make it the Greater Toronto Transit Commission, they should go all the way. Otherwise, the Mayor of Toronto is spot on when he puts the needs of those who elected him first. If I were a Yonge/Eg resident, I'd be giving Karen Stintz a piece of my mind right now for putting the 905s interests above those of her own constituents.
 

scarberiankhatru

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,274
Reaction score
6
And what numbers in any of those links back up what you have to say?!?!? Oh dear,... I just used question marks and exclamations marks,... better throw in an emoticon too! :rolleyes:

Try reading them.

And was it your ghostwriter who wrote a very long post (#987) agreeing with me, and not yourself? If you know that the Spadina and Yonge extensions are remarkably padded and inexplicably more expensive than a line like Sheppard and that subways can be built much cheaper, you're really shooting your own argument in the foot.

But surely a tax paying Malvernite should have more say than someone who merely coughs up an extra token or two on weekdays. And we should note, they are not getting subways, just LRT. Scarberian may peg the whole 2 billion investment as targeting Malvern. However, that's like saying the entire cost of the Yonge extension is solely to benefit RHC. The lines merely intersect in Malvern and serve various points of interest and communities along the way.

No, it's not $2 billion, it's far more, since you're conveniently neglecting the RT extension and a new GO line. All these lines will compete for the same riders in one city ward.

The lines intersect in Malvern because Malvern is being targeted. This is quite transparent, and even reinforced by Metrolinx, which used a map of social need as the first piece of 'evidence' in the case for their transit plans.
 
Last edited:

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,373
Reaction score
6,455
Now, while a Pittsburgh's T type system might be needed for Eglinton, it would be an overkill for all other planned TC lines.

The Pittsburgh example is more in line with what Ottawa is doing with Transitway, ie cheap substitute for a subway. It's not an apt comparison with Transit City which aims to use light rail as some sort of really quick local bus/tram service.

I doubt we would incur the Pittsburgh T kind of costs on TC, because the lines (with the exception of Eglinton) are not built the same way. We won't have extensive grade separation and elaborate stations.
 

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,373
Reaction score
6,455
No, it's not $2 billion, it's far more, since you're conveniently neglecting the RT extension and a new GO line. All these lines will compete for the same riders in one city ward.

The lines intersect in Malvern because Malvern is being targeted. This is quite transparent, and even reinforced by Metrolinx, which used a map of social need as the first piece of 'evidence' in the case for their transit plans.


Let it be 3 billion or 5 billion. Whatever it is, my point stands. You cannot tag the cost of the entire line on one point of intersection. Are we to say that the TTC spent 1 billion on the Sheppard line to serve Fairview? Are we going now peg the final cost of every line on its terminus? Wow a billion dollar BD extension just to serve Scarborough Town Centre. Even worse, a 3 billion dollar extension of Sheppard to connect to a GO station!

You regularly and conveniently ignore the fact that these lines target several points of interest that were on the TTC's hit list: UTSC on the Morningside line, Centennial College on the RT extension, etc. And Sheppard for example goes on to serve communities in Meadowvale and probably the Toronto Zoo. Malvern does offer a convenient terminus in the east end. And so it's great that the community derives something from the transit investment that will really serve the entire eastern end of Toronto. Now, we can debate whether the lines should be truncated or re-designed, etc. but the assertion that billions are being spent to SOLELY service Malvern is as ridiculous as Disparishun assertion that Toronto residents only pay 15% of the TTC's budget.
 
Last edited:

Brandon716

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
0
Location
Niagara Region
Yes, the Pittsburgh system is missing from the cost comparison page. However, it is reviewed elsewhere on that site: http://www.lrt.daxack.ca/Pittsburgh/index.html

Now, while a Pittsburgh's T type system might be needed for Eglinton, it would be an overkill for all other planned TC lines.



(?) I thought that POP is planned for TC lines ... and that requires least capital investment (not sure about the enforcement cost though).



The capacity to handle long trains certainly makes sense, and should be doable (although that does not guarantee that TTC will actually do it). The central, tunneled section could be built for long trains, which would short-turn at Jane and Don Mills (two logical points to switch from full grade separation to street median). Shorter 2-car trains would traverse the whole line.

Not sure if attended fare booths are mandatory. After all, the GO train system operates on POP.

A system like the T is too small for what Toronto needs. Remember, the max Pittsburgh has is 2 cars per train during rush hour, and its 1 car trains during off peak hours, and the fare booths are unattended in non-rush hours.

What I'm saying is that Toronto needs a more heavy built system than the T for its crucial lines if its going to rely on LRT, Eglinton is one of those primary lines.
 

scarberiankhatru

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,274
Reaction score
6
Let it be 3 billion or 5 billion. Whatever it is, my point stands. You cannot tag the cost of the entire line on one point of intersection. Are we to say that the TTC spent 1 billion on the Sheppard line to serve Fairview? Are we going now peg the final cost of every line on its terminus? Wow a billion dollar BD extension just to serve Scarborough Town Centre. Even worse, a 3 billion dollar extension of Sheppard to connect to a GO station!

You regularly and conveniently ignore the fact that these lines target several points of interest that were on the TTC's hit list: UTSC on the Morningside line, Centennial College on the RT extension, etc. And Sheppard for example goes on to serve communities in Meadowvale. Now, we can debate whether the lines should be truncated or re-designed, etc. but the assertion that billions are being spent to SOLELY service Malvern is as ridiculous as Disparishun assertion that Toronto residents only pay 15% of the TTC's budget.

Communities in Meadowvale? C'mon, it's all Malvern. It's one city ward.

You're not quite understanding what's going on here. Morningside is getting a line (instead of more suitable roads like Ellesmere or McCowan or Lawrence) to serve Malvern. Sheppard is getting a line (instead of extending the subway) to serve Malvern. The RT is being kept and extended (instead of extending the Danforth line) to serve Malvern. These projects exist to serve Malvern, to spend money on Malvern. If you add up the physical lengths of them in ward 42, you probably end up with almost $2 billion dollars being spent on and in Malvern, over $1B, anyway. They divert transit dollars away from other areas of the city, areas with equally bad or even worse existing transit, undeniably worse traffic, and larger populations. There isn't really anywhere else in the entire city, including downtown, that's getting this many lines and is receiving this much money for so relatively few people. The new GO line will just skim even more riders off these lines.

Of course, there's no guarantee that any of these lines will actually be of great use to transit riders in Malvern.
 

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,373
Reaction score
6,455
Communities in Meadowvale? C'mon, it's all Malvern. It's one city ward.

Meh, south of Sheppard ut at Meadowvale, does not count as Malvern to me. Most buddies I know who live there are certainly proud to tell me that it's Dean Park to them. And they actually are in a different ward, for the record.

You're not quite understanding what's going on here. Morningside is getting a line (instead of more suitable roads like Ellesmere or McCowan or Lawrence) to serve Malvern. Sheppard is getting a line (instead of extending the subway) to serve Malvern. The RT is being kept and extended (instead of extending the Danforth line) to serve Malvern. These projects exist to serve Malvern, to spend money on Malvern.

That's a little too much conspiracy theory analysis for me. In my view LRT was deployed because it was cheaper. For the price of the Sheppard line alone the TTC will get a good chunk of Transit City, LRT which will serve the entire city not just the Sheppard corridor.

I am open to debate whether LRT is appropriate for certain corridors (like Sheppard) but to say that all the lines were targeted at Malvern is far fetched. The RT perhaps. Even then the RT extension has been on the books forever. Serving Centennial College with the RT was always a goal of the TTC. And likely the same with Malvern Town Centre. And perhaps the TTC will come to the right conclusion and use cheaper (and quieter) LRT along the corridor.

As for the Sheppard line, using a generous measure 7.4 km out of 13.6 km resides directly in Malvern. So at best half the cost falls in Malvern. This does not even account for the fact that construction in Malvern will be far cheaper than elsewhere along Sheppard. That said, I am fairly certain that service to Malvern is merely a bonus that came from completing part of the previously planned subway and the possibility to connect into Durham region. Aside from this, Malvern lies to the north of Sheppard. The line will also serve all the residents who live to the south.

The Morningside LRT was aimed at UTSC. Extending it Malvern Town Centre merely provided a convenient terminus where other lines would meet. In the presentations I've attended the staff have admitted that the routing is not final, that the line could terminated at UTSC or be routed down Sheppard instead. That hardly sounds like it was purpose built for Malvern. Also, serving Kingston is just as important to the city as serving UTSC, let's not forget that.

If you add up the physical lengths of them in ward 42, you probably end up with almost $2 billion dollars being spent on and in Malvern, over $1B, anyway.

It's rather tiresome and simplistic to say all that money was spent solely for Malvern. Perhaps Malvern benefits disproportionately from the lines, but your tag line about 2 billion worth of lines in Malvern is a gross oversimplification of the situation and you know it.

They divert transit dollars away from other areas of the city, areas with equally bad or even worse existing transit, undeniably worse traffic, and larger populations.

I am willing to concede on this. And I have stated before that for us east-enders only the RT corridor extension is important, since it will turn Malvern into a mini-bus hub. The rest I will agree is too much capacity for Malvern. However, you should still avoid discounting the importance of providing service to places likes UTSC. The capacity is along the entire line not just in Malvern, and none of those lines serve Malvern exclusively. I am tired of everyone citing Malvern as the goal of the line as though the Sheppard line does not serve any other portion of Sheppard or the RT extension won't serve anybody but Malvern.

There isn't really anywhere else in the entire city, including downtown, that's getting this many lines and is receiving this much money for so relatively few people.

...because downtown needs subways not LRT. I see it as the city taking a hit on the Sheppard subway so they can blanket the entire city in an LRT network. ie trading an 11 km subway extension for 120 km of LRT. The downtown portion will come down the road. Lastly, I would be patient with TC. I am confident the lines and plans will change with the time as the TTC and the city get the benefit of experience.

The new GO line will just skim even more riders off these lines.

1) The line is not finalized yet.
2) Depending on where the station is built it could be very inconvenient for most Malvernites.
3) It's going to peak-hour service only.
4) Why should Malvernites be relegated to paying GO fares like a 905er when they pay taxes in the 416?
 

sunnyraytoronto

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
924
Location
Willowdale 150 Canada
Try reading them..

You try reading them,... reports from 2007,... very relevant. :rolleyes: At least the links I use support what I have to say.


And was it your ghostwriter who wrote a very long post (#987) agreeing with me, and not yourself? If you know that the Spadina and Yonge extensions are remarkably padded and inexplicably more expensive than a line like Sheppard and that subways can be built much cheaper, you're really shooting your own argument in the foot.

Agreeing with you??? I've just shown that the Yonge Subway extension from Finch to Richmond Hill Centre is overpriced by 75%,... not the mere 25% "contingency" amount you refered to.

If you give a little child 75% more money than needed at a candy store,... wouldn't that little child buy 75% more candy? If you give them 75% more money than needed on this project,... don't you think they'll spend it all? Keep in mind "them" refers to the TTC,... the project managers on these subway extensions. Keep in mind what we're giving them,... our taxpayer money! When has the TTC or the City of Toronto ever said,... "oh, this is too much money, we don't need all this, here have some back,.. or we'll set it asside for something else". You mind as well kiss that 75% "contingency" amount good bye. And you can be sure,... they'll be asking for more. Subway projects always go over-budget.

Look what they're doing on the Spadina subway extension already,... hiring top UK designers to design the subway stations at $8-15 million per station! Just to design each station,.. not to build them! And these UK designers have lots of experience working on that London Tube Jubilee extension bottomless moneypit.

Keep in mind,... during the recessions of the early 90's Bob Rae's Ontario government approved a number of subway lines in Toronto,.... then when we're coming out of that recession, Mike Harris and is common sense revolution cut the Sheppard line and stopped construction on the Eglinton subway line,.. which already had "funding" previously,.... and still has a long empty tunnel under Eglinton Avenue West. And this current recession will be far worst than that one in the early 90s. So even when lines have funding like Spadina does now,... remember it ain't over til the fat lady sings. BTW, you know I'm referring to Vaughan mayor Linda Jackson at the Spadina subway extension openning ribbon cutting ceremony, right? :D That is, if her councillors doesn't impeach her first.
 

scarberiankhatru

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,274
Reaction score
6
Meh, south of Sheppard ut at Meadowvale, does not count as Malvern to me. Most buddies I know who live there are certainly proud to tell me that it's Dean Park to them. And they actually are in a different ward, for the record.

There may be two small subdivisions on the south side of Sheppard around Meadowvale, across the street from ward 42, but even if we add these pockets of people to "Malvern," you end up with a small population receiving billions of dollars of infrastructure, none of which is especially warranted or viable based on what the rest of the city needs.

That's a little too much conspiracy theory analysis for me. In my view LRT was deployed because it was cheaper. For the price of the Sheppard line alone the TTC will get a good chunk of Transit City, LRT which will serve the entire city not just the Sheppard corridor.

It's not conspiracy theory, it's the truth. The city clearly has no interest in doing things cheaply or they wouldn't have proposed so many billions of dollars of projects, none of which have gone through even the slightest streamlining process to keep costs under control.

I am open to debate whether LRT is appropriate for certain corridors (like Sheppard) but to say that all the lines were targeted at Malvern is far fetched. The RT perhaps. Even then the RT extension has been on the books forever. Serving Centennial College with the RT was always a goal of the TTC. And likely the same with Malvern Town Centre. And perhaps the TTC will come to the right conclusion and use cheaper (and quieter) LRT along the corridor.

The RT was never extended and when the time came to replace it, the belief that it needed to go Malvern trumped the common sense and economic sense option to extend the subway (a move that would improve transit for Malvern riders). Instead, the rest of Scarborough suffers so that money can spent on Malvern. Keeping the RT helps fewer people and costs more to do so, but some people see it as better for Malvern, so it was recommended.

As for the Sheppard line, using a generous measure 7.4 km out of 13.6 km resides directly in Malvern. So at best half the cost falls in Malvern. This does not even account for the fact that construction in Malvern will be far cheaper than elsewhere along Sheppard. That said, I am fairly certain that service to Malvern is merely a bonus that came from completing part of the previously planned subway and the possibility to connect into Durham region. Aside from this, Malvern lies to the north of Sheppard. The line will also serve all the residents who live to the south.

Yeah, half the cost falls in Malvern, and the only way Malvern can get this LRT is if the areas to the west don't get a subway extension. Miller et al are fine with that trade-off, though. Malvern also lies south of Sheppard. Malvern = the northeast quadrant of Scarborough.

The Morningside LRT was aimed at UTSC. Extending it Malvern Town Centre merely provided a convenient terminus where other lines would meet. In the presentations I've attended the staff have admitted that the routing is not final, that the line could terminated at UTSC or be routed down Sheppard instead. That hardly sounds like it was purpose built for Malvern. Also, serving Kingston is just as important to the city as serving UTSC, let's not forget that.

It's blatantly obvious that UTSC is best approached from the west, meaning a line along Ellesmere. If it is routed along Sheppard, that'll be overlapping lines in Malvern. The Eglinton line should be ran over to Kingston.

It's rather tiresome and simplistic to say all that money was spent solely for Malvern. Perhaps Malvern benefits disproportionately from the lines, but your tag line about 2 billion worth of lines in Malvern is a gross oversimplification of the situation and you know it.

It's not that Malvern benefits disproportionately, they exist because Malvern will benefit. You know that the only reason the money is being spent on these projects (and not other projects) is because of Malvern, for Malvern, and it'll largely get spent in Malvern. What's tiresome is pretending that these lines are A) useful, or B) affordable. You brought the subject up again in this thread, not me.

...because downtown needs subways not LRT. I see it as the city taking a hit on the Sheppard subway so they can blanket the entire city in an LRT network. ie trading an 11 km subway extension for 120 km of LRT. The downtown portion will come down the road. Lastly, I would be patient with TC. I am confident the lines and plans will change with the time as the TTC and the city get the benefit of experience.

I'm including subways - all transit lines - in what each area's getting. Malvern is getting three lines, all of which will require massive subsidies due to the low ridership they'll see.

1) The line is not finalized yet.
2) Depending on where the station is built it could be very inconvenient for most Malvernites.
3) It's going to peak-hour service only.
4) Why should Malvernites be relegated to paying GO fares like a 905er when they pay taxes in the 416?

Relegated? They'll have three TTC lines to choose from. In the future, there will be fare integration - spending billions of dollars to build parallel transit systems instead of spending millions of dollars on an integrated fare system is obscene, but it's what you're suggesting we do. Peak service is the only service that really matters and since demand is highest then, it dictates what gets built.
 

scarberiankhatru

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,274
Reaction score
6
You try reading them,... reports from 2007,... very relevant. :rolleyes: At least the links I use support what I have to say.

Surely you're not that incapable. That report from 2007 is more recent than whatever you linked to.

"""It should be noted that the $6.1 billion figure included early estimates of vehicle requirements, however it did not include costs for the necessary maintenance and storage facility requirements to support this expanded LRT network. Vehicle requirements have also been reassessed to determine more realistic assumptions for LRV loading standard capacity, average operating speeds and maintenance spares ratios. Total costs for Transit City are currently estimated to be in the order of $8.3 billion."""

And does that $8.3B estimate include the full final cost of the lines, such as a potential Jane LRT tunnel? Unlikely. It'll only go up. If subway projects can balloon in scale and cost, so can LRT projects, particularly the underground segments. $8.3B becomes $10.5B if a contingency cost like Spadina's is added.

Agreeing with you??? I've just shown that the Yonge Subway extension from Finch to Richmond Hill Centre is overpriced by 75%,... not the mere 25% "contingency" amount you refered to.

If you give a little child 75% more money than needed at a candy store,... wouldn't that little child buy 75% more candy? If you give them 75% more money than needed on this project,... don't you think they'll spend it all? Keep in mind "them" refers to the TTC,... the project managers on these subway extensions. Keep in mind what we're giving them,... our taxpayer money! When has the TTC or the City of Toronto ever said,... "oh, this is too much money, we don't need all this, here have some back,.. or we'll set it asside for something else". You mind as well kiss that 75% "contingency" amount good bye. And you can be sure,... they'll be asking for more. Subway projects always go over-budget.

Agreeing with me...maybe not. Accidentally supporting my argument...yes.

If I give a little child a link to the Spadina extension cost breakdown, he might succeed where you've failed and discover that there is a separate contingency component amounting to an additional 26% of the project total, or $500M after inflation. The Yonge extension's contingency costs are included in the 'engineering and other costs' section, probably over $300M worth (before inflation, and that rough figure was quoted to me at a recent public meeting by a YRT consultant).

The contingency I spoke of is on top of the inexplicable rise in costs compared to a line like Sheppard, the fact that both extensions are 100% underground, the fact that yard improvements are included, the fact that stations are wildly overbuilt, requiring small fortunes in expropriations, etc., etc., which combined can seriously reduce the cost of building a subway line.
 

Disparishun

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
600
Reaction score
44
Apologies. This one is a bit long.

This disinformation campaign that Toronto's residents only pitch in 15% is getting tiresome. First off, you conveniently ignore the contribution of business taxes and the fact that a good portion of the businesses in Toronto are sustained by Toronto's residents.

Well, first off, it's not a "disinformation campaign", it's an argument. It's made here. You're free to rebut it. That's the point here. But deep breaths, okay?

The usual tag-line is about how Toronto residents are paying taxes to the TTC, and 905ers are not, so 905ers are free-riding. Well, that's just not true. Toronto residential property-holders, which is about as close as it comes, are contributing about 13% in taxes. Technically, if you are renting your dwelling then you are not contributing any property tax at all although, just like everyone else, your farebox revenues and your economic activities that supports businesses that do pay taxes, are indirect contributions.

I am not "ignoring" business taxation. In fact, I trumpet it constantly. Every 905er who makes an informed choice and takes the subway to a Toronto job, is contributing to the business taxes that go to paying for the subway. The entire GO train system is a massive infrastructure set up to ensure that employers in and around the Financial District can continue to draw in people who live in other municipalities, and can continue to pay taxes to the TTC. It is an enormous boon to Toronto. The idea that 905 salarymen working in Toronto are somehow free-riders on Toronto is just silly.

Next you ignore the fact that the vast majority of the TTC's patrons are Toronto residents.

Why on Earth would I ignore it? Seven of every 10 TTC funding dollars come from fares. Fares are paid by whoever uses the system. It's terribly egalitarian. When 905ers use it, they pay. When 416ers use it, they pay. Tourists, too. Even politicians!

The ironic thing, of course, is that 416ers' fares stretch much further than those of all the other groups I list above, because -- unlike people who do not reside in 416, and therefore only use the TTC when they get themselves to and from the 416 -- there are bus routes and so one which cater them. Those who come into the 416 just to use the system and contribute their fares that way, in contrast, are generallly piling into the subway. The TTC doesn't have to come to them; they go to it. Higher cost recovery all 'round.

Now, to be clear, since there seems a bit of slippage here: the TTC is, indeed the Toronto municipality's transit system and noone else's, and it is up to the City of Toronto to do as it sees fit. It should be running buses all over the 416, for sure, and that's its job. I'm just trying to illustrate that it is, at least to some extent, doing that job, and that when 905ers use the TTC in order to participate in Toronto's economy, they are not the free-riders that some would like to paint them as.

So your assertion that Toronto residents only pitch in 15% of the TTC's funding is ludicrous at best. And an insulting attempt at discounting the support that the TTC gets from the residents of Toronto.

I think it will be easier for both of us if you avoid trying to read my mind or divine my intentions. I also think it would be grand if the City of Toronto decided that, as a matter of policy, the TTC -- which, to this day, is entirely a City of Toronto service and only ventures outside it when someone else picks up the tab (I do not, obviously, have a problem with this) -- was something whose operational costs they were going to pay more than 24% of, all res/bus muni taxes in. But there's for them, and you as a voter, to decide, I guess.

It should be noted too, that the TTC has far higher non-peak ridership than most cities in Canada, and I am willing to bet money that those riders are by and large local residents not suburban commuters.

Right. Well, I am also willing to bet money that a whole bunch of those are students, many of whom live in suburban areas in the 416, and in suburban areas in the 905, and in urban areas in either. But we are getting off topic here, no? What does high non-peak ridership have to do with demonstrating that my taking issue with portraying 905ers as free-riders is secretly an attempt to insult Toronto the Good?

Lastly, even if your ridiculous argument that Toronto residents only pitch in 15% was valid (It's not), that's still far more than any 905 resident is putting into the system.

Again, I do not think that you are accurately capturing what I have been saying. It is simply this: when 416ers talk loudly about how they live in Toronto and pay for the TTC with their taxes and 905ers don't, and they would really like a seat, please, and maybe the 905ers could get out of the subway and drive cars or stay home or just generally stop making those so darn crowded, they're being disingenuous. The TTC just doesn't raise more than 13% or so of its operating revenues from said taxes, and to the extent it does, 416ers nervous about not having beggared their 905 neighbours should rest assured that they do have buses and local transit that the 905ers aren't getting from the TTC so, hopefully, that 13% is going to good use.

So the priorities for the TTC should remain serving Torontonians. Last time I checked Malvern, Jane/Finch, Don Mills, Eglinton, etc were all full taxpaying Torontonians who deserve to be serviced by adequate transit. We may disagree on what that level of service should be. But surely a tax paying Malvernite should have more say than someone who merely coughs up an extra token or two on weekdays.

Absolutely. We agree on almost all of this. If the TTC wants to put up firewalls at Toronto's borders, or to decide that moving people in and around the city in order to participate in the city's economy is, in fact, undesireable, or wants to hike property tax and raise more money from sources other than fee-paying customers and hand out metropasses to Torontonians and increase fares for everyone else -- hey, that's certainly their prerogative. It might not even be a bad thing, in some instances.

But I hope you won't mind if folks dare to debate these policies. Even those aren't among the 2.5 million who live in the 416. Even those who think that the Toronto we want and need and already live in does not correspond to the magical 416-905 boundary, and that we need better regional coordination and planning and service delivery in order to better align our infrastructures and services with our lives and social networks.

The needs of the 905 should be a distant second. I stand by my assertion that if the 905 wants the TTC to become a regional service they should take it up with the province to split of the subway from the TTC. And they should take on the cost of the whole network, not just the half-dozen stations in York region. If they want to make it the Greater Toronto Transit Commission, they should go all the way.

I'm afraid you've lost me again.

First, this business about the 905 wanting the TTC to become a regional service is a bit hyperbolic, isn't it? If I live, say, a kilometre north of Steeles, and I take the family out for a bite on Steeles -- just for fun, I will not tell you whether on the north or south side -- or want to use the Goodlife at Finch station (yes, it is a whole 4 kilometres away from me), is that regional? How 'bout when I am at North York Centre? Maybe when I nip down to visit my brother at the Minto and Eglinton, am I "regional" then (and if so, do I get to ride a GO train to Eglinton?)? When you talk about the 905 needing to be a distant second and everything that happens to move between the two as being "regional" then, I'm very sorry, but to me this is the kind of thinking that does not good urban planning or placemaking make.

Second, what kind of costing are you talking about? Reading the above, I have no idea what you are railing against. Most of us are for a fair apportionment of costs, I think. Are you? If so, what is it? If 10 people get on at Steeles (ooh! border!) and 10 at Langstaff and 10 at North York Centre, are you saying you don't cost operating responsibilities at half Toronto and half York Region?

Like, is what you want to do to measure how far each of those people goes, so that if the Langstaffer heads to Union and the North York Centrer heads up to Clark and the Steeleser goes to Eglinton, you'd kind of want to count how many stops (or km, or whatever) each one goes, call that a cost-of-transit, and apportion the costs to the origin point accordingly? Because, yeah, I guess that could work (we'd have to move to a DC style fare system, mind you) but you're still stuck with what you do with return trips, and defining (for that matter) which is a return trip. Maybe all pre-noon trips get charged to the origin point, and all post-noon trips charged to the destination point? It all sounds very complicated to me -- but I'd be curious to know what it is you have in mind.
 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
3,174
Reaction score
1,797
Well said Disparishun.
Aside from a few years at Yonge/Eg I've lived my whole life within 3 or 4 km of Steeles Ave - both sides. So these arguments have always driven me crazy.

No one is asking for TTC to become a regional service with lines extended indefinitely into the burbs. Two major development/transit nodes are going in on Hwy 7 and that's why those extensions make sense.

There will be regionwide transit funding in the next few years which will render some of these territorial arguments moot. The logical solution still may be for Metrolinx to take control of the subway but TTC will never let that happen.

What they need to do in the meantime is understand that they are the largest component of a regional transit plan. Yes, their job is the Toronto part of that but they can't keep dithering on subways or integrated fare cards that everyone else needs to make the OVERALL system work. I think that's the heart of the issue: TTC finding a "Toronto-first" philosophy that gels with regional needs and realities. Right now their philosophy seems to be "Toronto only" and that won't cut it anymore.
 

taal

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
6,703
Reaction score
183
Location
NYCC
Last time I recall the TTC recommend the extension North on Yonge so what's the big deal here ...

Secondly, the stipulations they put - at least in part to the new capacity issues due the extension seem fair and reasonable.

Moreover, I really like the complete solution here. DRL + Sheppard West extension + Yonge line extension + VCC extension. The TTC should be made to cut some of the TC lines to accommodate for this
 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,867
Reaction score
2,876
Last time I recall the TTC recommend the extension North on Yonge so what's the big deal here ...

Secondly, the stipulations they put - at least in part to the new capacity issues due the extension seem fair and reasonable.

Moreover, I really like the complete solution here. DRL + Sheppard West extension + Yonge line extension + VCC extension. The TTC should be made to cut some of the TC lines to accommodate for this

This makes sense. But the portion of Spadina extension north of Steeles should be cut, too. A terminus a Steeles West and perhaps a busway between Steeles and Hwy 7 is all that's needed. Funds saved by that will pay for 25 or 30 % of the first section of DRL (downtown to Danforth).
 
Last edited:

Top