pstogios
Senior Member
Last time I checked, Scarborough is Toronto.
|
|
|
TTC: Budgeting, Fares and Financials
- Thread starter TheTigerMaster
- Start date
Last time I checked, Scarborough is Toronto.
muller877
Senior Member
How about looking at efficiencies instead of asking for more money? How do I provide the same service for less?
The problem when a different level of government funds is that there is little or no cost management.
Have you seen a change when you go to Tim Horton's after the merger with Burger King? No. Same service (and actually improved growth). But they were able to cut SG&A expenses by almost 1/2 ($42M to $23M) through bottom-up budgeting at head office in less than 1 year.
Bottom-up budgeting is simple. Just like how I do it at home...before every purchase I ask myself do I need it? Can I buy it elsewhere or get something else cheaper?
The TTC needs to be doing the same thing at head office. I've never seen how much of the budget is borne by the head office. I count 41 department heads and senior management (2013 financials) most of which will have a large contingent of staff and managers. This is in need of serious rationalization.
Then there is the front line. We know how much is saved if we privatize the operations of a city-managed process (i.e. garbage). You set the same delivery standards and you let someone else run it for you. Garbage saved $10M with only 300 people outsourced (if I recall?). Imagine doing the same with bus operations. At least explore it (I'm not saying 100% private...just like garbage the city is responsible but has let a private company drive the vehicle around)
Amare
Senior Member
I wont argue with you that there may be a need to streamline some operations at the TTC (because let's be honest, management is a big mess over there), but you are giving an a true apples to oranges comparison here.
First off, the main reason there was "improved growth" after the Tim Hortons/BK merger is because the owner of BK (3G Capital) has a reputation for hacking and slashing jobs as soon as they complete a merger. I wont get into details, but a quick Google search will show what I am talking about. This is why you have heard of Tim Hortons laying off employees and offering early buyout packages.
Secondly, the TTC has already gone down the path of "seeking efficiencies". Remember the Rob Ford/Karen Stintz era where they told the TTC to cut 10% of their budget. Where exactly did that lead us again?
Don't get me wrong the TTC does waste money in various places, but the amount is not too significant and they often focus their attention in the wrong places when they do make cuts.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
CodeMonkey
Active Member
Transit in cities like Vancouver get subsidy funding directly through fuel, property and parking tax, along with bridge tolls and "power levy" to fund transit. In Ontario, we operate on a micromanage central funding model. All or any transit subsidies are funded through general revenue. Even with the gas tax that the federal government gives us for transit goes into general revenue before it's mulled over how much should be dolled out. We should look at duplicating the BC Translink model. The government still controls the rate that Translink gets from those revenue sources, but those revenue sources go directly into Translink accounts, instead of getting lost in general revenue.
dowlingm
Senior Member
And yet the referendum was lost out there because the public does not trust Translink to spend the revenue wisely. Can it be doubted that any such move here would have the Canadian Taxpayers Taliban shrieking about the "disaster" in BC?
ksun
Senior Member
simple, don't build subways where it is sure to lose tens of millions every year because the ridership is simply not there. In reality a King subway will make 10 times the sense than a Scarborough or Vaughan subway, but we don't care about King, do we?
ksun
Senior Member
I have pointed out before to that these numbers are hugely misleading. They don't show the well fundedness of a system, why? Because the denominators are too different, and it costs the bus/subway the same money to transport 40 people versus 5 people.
TTC shows low funding per rider mostly because ridership is high (same reason NYC is lower than others), but higher ridership doesn't mean the system is more costly to operate. Let's imagine this:
1) in 2015, TTC ridership increases by 20%. It will have little impact on funding requirement because the system goes as usual, only difference is buses are 50% full instead of 35%. But subsidy per rider will be 8.5% lower automatically. Does that mean TTC now is worse funded?
2) ridership plummets in 2015 due to various reasons, let's say by 50%. All of a sudden subsidy per rider is 100% higher although the amount is exactly the same. Does that mean now TTC is better funded? This is what happens to cities like Mississauga or York, or to a less extent Chicago.
Subsidy per rider is misleading because it allows ridership to askew the number without considering other factors, because it assumes ridership is directly proportional to operation cost, which is hugely wrong. Actually I don't know who came up with this metric, as to me it really says very little.
Last edited:
ksun
Senior Member
I don't think the possible efficiencies are not significant. You are probably right that Rob/Karen era the TTC sought efficiency in the wrong place, but that doesn't mean it is nowhere to be found.
Everyday I see a fare inspector sitting beside the turnstile at Queen station, often chatting with a colleague while looking at passengers passing by. This is in addition to the inspector in the ticket booth 10 feet away. Why does this person have to be there? He practically does nothing the entire day and we are paying for his $70k salary plus benefits.
You know what is more funny about those ticker sellers? Once I asked to buy 4 tokens, and was told I could only buy 3 or 5, because the cost for 3 or 5 is posted on the window and he couldn't figure out how much 4 tokens should cost. Seriously what kind of transit system doesn't allow a passengers to buy 4 tickets (but 3 or 5 is fine)?
wopchop
Building Toronto
Many of those collectors are there on light duty. If they weren't, you and I would be paying them to stay home on comp anyway.
Even if you did do away with fare collectors, there would still likely be a person in the station as a sort of watchdog.
Even if you did do away with fare collectors, there would still likely be a person in the station as a sort of watchdog.
ksun
Senior Member
I am fine with fare collectors. Most stations especially the bigger ones should have one or even two, but I don't like to pay the salary of those whose job means close to nothing to the city.
And we all know the TTC salary/pension is the big elephant in the room. They should make what a person will get in the competitive private sector. Ask a truck driver of grocery stores how many he makes, and TTC drivers should make similar salary.
dowlingm
Senior Member
ksun, even for someone as wrong as you have often been on this forum, comparing TTC customers to vegetables probably plumbs a new low.
CodeMonkey
Active Member
I'm talking about the idea, not the referendum, something that can never happen here in Ontario, that not even possible.
The idea that funding and decisions are done separate from city council is an idea. But we can go further, have the transit board elected like we do with school board officials. Who cares about the "Canadian Taxpayers Taliban shrieking", they've been shrieking for years, even over things that makes sense like rid school board officials who haven't had any power or decision making since the late 90's, and their still there and not leaving anytime soon, so we proved we can tune them out.
muller877
Senior Member
I'd rather have trained station helpers. The ones on staff as part of the PanAm Games are exactly what we need (and probably you can pay them 1/2 of what collectors are making).
How about LTD for these collectors? Normally you get paid 70-85% of your base salary (less CPP disability payments) when you are on LTD. You get paid this if based on a medical examination you cannot do your job for the first 2 years. After that it's any job (i.e. you have to retrain and get a different career). Instead of paying significant salaries potentially for 10+ years.
muller877
Senior Member
I am very familiar with the transaction and 3G methods.
The growth was in the top line....i.e. management is preforming better even with less management and staff in the home offices.
So they are growing revenue and shrinking management and head office. Exactly what the TTC needs. Get rid of desks and replace them with more busses and drivers!
Why Ford/Stintz failed is they tried to be hands off as the shareholder representatives. 3G is very much hands on. Direct people where to cut. And if they don't....they are replaced. It's a very cutthroat approach but at times every organization needs this to stay lean and focused.