TTC Boycott: Facebook activism

[sixrings]

THIS IS SOO TRUE THAT NO ONE CAN ARGUE... I dont like rude bus drivers either... But the booth people are the most annoying.

 

[rbt]

Problem is, the surrounding systems will have *more* employees per rider simply because average ridership per vehicle will be lower. Adding them in worsens the staff/ridership comparison.

Adding GO in might help, though.

Does anybody actually work for GO outside of the office?

Train staff, train maintenance, track maintenance are all contracts to 3rd parties. Are GO bus drivers GO staff or are they contracted out too?

 

[DavidH]

Does anybody actually work for GO outside of the office?

Train staff, train maintenance, track maintenance are all contracts to 3rd parties. Are GO bus drivers GO staff or are they contracted out too?

GO Bus drivers and maintenance staff, and station attendants are all employees. Basically, the train operations/maintenance staff are employees of contractors, and everyone else is an employee of GO, with the exception of people on short term contract at head office.

However, for purposes of the LA comparison, it's reasonable to include contracted employees, since LA Metro does in their numbers as well. The issue is the number of people required to operate the system, not who signs their paycheque.

 

[doady]

May 2009: TTC ridership was 470M in 12 months.

http://www3.ttc.ca/News/2009/May/TTC_sets_record_ridership_-_470.8_million_rides_in_last_12_m.jsp

September 2009: Systemwide LA Metro ridership was 39M in one month. Multiply by 12 and we have 468M in 12 months.

http://www.metro.net/news_info/ridership_avg.htm#railsystemwide

Virtually identical numbers. Granted, there is some wiggle room in the extrapolation for LA, but surely not to the tune of 1/3 of the total.

Wanna try a third time? ;-)

Wrong. TTC numbers are for "linked" trips - otherwise known as revenue rides - while the MTA numbers are for "unlinked" trips - otherwise known as boardings.

For 2008, the TTC saw over 766 million boardings. The MTA only saw 486 million boardings in the same year.

http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2008_q4_ridership_APTA.pdf

So yes, the MTA sees less than two-thirds of the riders that the TTC does despite serving almost 3 times the population.

 

[doady]

Well, let's put this into context: the TTC has the largest farebox recovery because its fares are by far the most expensive. I'm sure that if any Canadian city charged $126 for a monthly pass they'd need to rely less on government subsidies. Remember, if you have a large enough captive ridership, you can mask glaring inefficiencies through exorbitant prices which is exactly what the TTC does. In the TTC's case, the inefficiencies stem from their extraordinary labour costs and also from the amount of labour they have: in another thread I argued that LA Metro, an agency with comparable ridership numbers and a much larger fleet operator, manages to get by with 2,000 fewer employees.

Fleet size is not the main factor for the amount of employees. Even if fleet size was similar, that says nothing about the number of employees. For example, LA may only employ 1 or 2 drivers per bus, while the TTC may have 3 or more because there is much more service, especially off-peak service.

And the fact that the ridership per capita of Toronto is 6 times higher than LA's does sort of suggest that the TTC provides a much higher level of service overall than Metro, doesn't it? Bottom line is,transit vehciles in Toronto are in operation longer and travel greater distance than vehicles in LA. This means not only means a greater number of drivers per vehicle but also more maintenance staff per vehicle.

 

[taal]

Wrong. TTC numbers are for "linked" trips - otherwise known as revenue rides - while the MTA numbers are for "unlinked" trips - otherwise known as boardings.

For 2008, the TTC saw over 766 million boardings. The MTA only saw 486 million boardings in the same year.

http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2008_q4_ridership_APTA.pdf

So yes, the MTA sees less than two-thirds of the riders that the TTC does despite serving almost 3 times the population.

It's worse then that! The MTA serves such a large area, to be fair you must include MT, York Region, Brampton. Interesting regarding "linked" vs "unlinked" so I take it a bus ride + subway + bus == 1 trip.

hmm, I figured everyone would use unlinked.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Fleet size is not the main factor for the amount of employees. Even if fleet size was similar, that says nothing about the number of employees. For example, LA may only employ 1 or 2 drivers per bus, while the TTC may have 3 or more because there is much more service, especially off-peak service.

And the fact that the ridership per capita of Toronto is 6 times higher than LA's does sort of suggest that the TTC provides a much higher level of service overall than Metro, doesn't it? Bottom line is,transit vehciles in Toronto are in operation longer and travel greater distance than vehicles in LA. This means not only means a greater number of drivers per vehicle but also more maintenance staff per vehicle.

How do you figure? I think a bus in LA is on the road the same amount of time per day as a TTC bus. Okay, a bus might come every 30 minutes in LA versus every 10 in Toronto, but that bus might also have a 60km one way trip length versus a 20km route length in Toronto. The amount of VMT logged by a bus in LA is probably similar, if not higher than that of a TTC bus. Apart from some winter wear issues, I don't think that the TTC has it much harder in the maintenance department - and besides, this isn't a major contributor to the TTC's surplus labour vs. LACMTA.

By the way, fleet size does matter. There are probably more buses driving around LA county right now than in Toronto and they all have a driver that needs to be paid. Of course, the ridership in Toronto is so much greater because the buses are full while many in LA are probably 2/3 empty. That should technically make the TTC more efficient (ie: requiring less labour) to carry out the same tasks, but it doesn't.

 

[kettal]

Apart from some winter wear issues, I don't think that the TTC has it much harder in the maintenance department

TTC's newest streetcar is older than the oldest LRV in the LA system.

What positions are these "excess employees" holding? Surely it can't be drivers if the fleet size is smaller... I don't often see two drivers driving one bus at any given time. Is it middle-management type positions?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Does LA have routes like the Coxwell bus, where only 3 vehicles are necessary to carry 7100 rides a day? I'm sure that even with lower frequencies, the long routes end up mirroring the Cummer bus, which needs up to 13 vehicles to also carry 7100 rides a day.

 

[doady]

How do you figure? I think a bus in LA is on the road the same amount of time per day as a TTC bus. Okay, a bus might come every 30 minutes in LA versus every 10 in Toronto, but that bus might also have a 60km one way trip length versus a 20km route length in Toronto. The amount of VMT logged by a bus in LA is probably similar, if not higher than that of a TTC bus. Apart from some winter wear issues, I don't think that the TTC has it much harder in the maintenance department - and besides, this isn't a major contributor to the TTC's surplus labour vs. LACMTA.

The total fleet size represents the peak service only. It says nothing about service through out the day and the amount of operators and maintenance required.

Imagine two transit agencies, both with 100 buses each. If one agency provides rush hour only service and the other agency provides 24 hour service, do you seriously think that both agencies will have the same number of operators and maintenance staff, just because they have the same amount of buses?

Of course, LA does have service in the off-peak, but it is much lower than Toronto's, isn't it? How many 24 hour routes does Los Angeles have? What is the evening service like? LA County may have more peak service than Toronto, but the evening and late night service abysmal compared to Toronto. But that allows them to employ fewer operators per vehicle and reduce the km traveled for each vehicle and therefore reduce maintenance.

And then of course, there is the weekend service as well...

By the way, fleet size does matter. There are probably more buses driving around LA county right now than in Toronto and they all have a driver that needs to be paid.

More buses driving around LA County than Toronto at 12:19 AM? Somehow I doubt it...

 

[Hipster Duck]

OK, let's assume you're right. Why don't we look at some transit agencies in the world that provide even more rigorous service than the TTC? By your logic, they should require much more labour input to provide the service they do. Since no North American city other than Montreal has a higher ridership than Toronto, let's look across the pond to Berlin:

Berlin (BVG):

Ridership: 900M unlinked trips
Fleet: 1,200 subway (150km of maintained revenue track), 600 streetcar (300 km), 1,300 buses
Employees: 11,500

vs.

TTC

Ridership: 766 M unlinked trips (yes, I'm using your number)
Fleet: 700 subway/RT (70 km), 250 streetcars (150 km), 1,700 buses
Employees: 11,300

So, if we ignore the labour "efficiencies" of running a system in a sprawling, low transit-use city like Los Angeles, how do you explain the comparative labour advantages of Berlin - a city with much higher ridership, twice the subway and streetcar fleet and twice the length of track to maintain?

PS: you should know that a boarding passenger in LA is the same as a revenue passenger because the LA MTA's fare structure doesn't allow free transfers. A single ride is $1.25, so a passenger who transfered to another bus route would pay a double fare of $2.50.

 

[hbl33]

OK, let's assume you're right. Why don't we look at some transit agencies in the world that provide even more rigorous service than the TTC? By your logic, they should require much more labour input to provide the service they do. Since no North American city other than Montreal has a higher ridership than Toronto, let's look across the pond to Berlin:

Berlin (BVG):

Ridership: 900M unlinked trips
Fleet: 1,200 subway (150km of maintained revenue track), 600 streetcar (300 km), 1,300 buses
Employees: 11,500

vs.

TTC

Ridership: 766 M unlinked trips (yes, I'm using your number)
Fleet: 700 subway/RT (70 km), 250 streetcars (150 km), 1,700 buses
Employees: 11,300

So, if we ignore the labour "efficiencies" of running a system in a sprawling, low transit-use city like Los Angeles, how do you explain the comparative labour advantages of Berlin - a city with much higher ridership, twice the subway and streetcar fleet and twice the length of track to maintain?

PS: you should know that a boarding passenger in LA is the same as a revenue passenger because the LA MTA's fare structure doesn't allow free transfers. A single ride is $1.25, so a passenger who transfered to another bus route would pay a double fare of $2.50.

Sources pleaase? If so, this proves that Europe's model isn't something too phenomenal. TTC is actually comparable to Berlin (which I thought is one of the most efficient metro system in Europe) and is superior to Rome. All the way to this so far, I don't understand why Toronto planners underestimate themselves when comparing to Europe.

 

[kEiThZ]

Sources pleaase? If so, this proves that Europe's model isn't something too phenomenal. TTC is actually comparable to Berlin (which I thought is one of the most efficient metro system in Europe) and is superior to Rome. All the way to this so far, I don't understand why Toronto planners underestimate themselves when comparing to Europe.

How did you reach the conclusion they are comparable?
1200 vs. 700 HRT vehicles
150km vs. 70km of HRT track
600 vs. 250 streetcars
300 vs. 150 km of streetcar track

The only major difference is the bus fleet:
1300 for the Berlin vs. 1700 for Toronto

So Berlin has 17% more transit vehicles, 114% more heavy rail trackage, and 100% more streetcar trackage, yet they only have a workforce that's 2% larger. This, in a country that's more unionized and has a higher cost of living.

 

[SimonP]

Berlin (BVG):

Ridership: 900M unlinked trips
Fleet: 1,200 subway (150km of maintained revenue track), 600 streetcar (300 km), 1,300 buses
Employees: 11,500

vs.

TTC

Ridership: 766 M unlinked trips (yes, I'm using your number)
Fleet: 700 subway/RT (70 km), 250 streetcars (150 km), 1,700 buses
Employees: 11,300

Isn't it pretty obvious? Berlin uses more subways and streetcars while Toronto uses more buses. Buses are by far the least efficient from staff/passenger ratio perspective.

 

[SimonP]

After looking at the employee to rider ratios across North America, this is one of the more baseless things to criticize the TTC for:

From lowest to highest:
*Miami - 348,000 riders - 4,000 staff - 87 riders per employee
*Atlanta - 488,000 riders - 4,729 staff - 103 riders per employee
*Philly - 1,073,000 riders - 9,000 staff - 119 riders per employee
*Chicago - 1,671,000 riders - 11,000 staff - 152 riders per employee
*Los Angeles - 1,490,000 riders - 9,200 staff- 162 riders per employee
*NYC - 11,575,000 riders - 70,000 staff - 165 riders per employee
*Boston - 1,235,500 riders - 6,346 staff - 195 riders per employee
*Toronto - 2,493,000 riders - 11,300 staff - 221 riders per employee

The ridership numbers are all from the the APTA daily rider stats and should be an accurate comparison of systems. The employee numbers are from the agencys' Wikipedia pages.