TTC: Monthly Pass Prices: Metropasses vs. other North American Cities

[W. K. Lis]

For a history on Fares on the TTC see this link.

For an article on Are TTC fares still the priciest in North America? from January, 2014, see this link.

 

[Electrify]

If it makes you guys feel better, York Region's fares cost $4 cash and $3.30 by ticket or Presto. Yes, it costs more to ride YRT with pre-purchased fare than it does the TTC with cash! Oh, and it gets a 60% subsidy from the municipality too!

Hooray for privatization.

EDIT: On the plus side, we do have two hour transfers. With today being my day off, I went to the bank in the morning and did groceries in the evening. Two round trips for $6.60, which would have cost $10.80 in Toronto.

 

[ksun]

If it makes you guys feel better, York Region's fares cost $4 cash and $3.30 by ticket or Presto. Yes, it costs more to ride YRT with pre-purchased fare than it does the TTC with cash! Oh, and it gets a 60% subsidy from the municipality too!

Hooray for privatization.

EDIT: On the plus side, we do have two hour transfers. With today being my day off, I went to the bank in the morning and did groceries in the evening. Two round trips for $6.60, which would have cost $10.80 in Toronto.

It's bad argument.
York region is hardly a comparable. Since when Toronto compares itself to York region to feel better? HK transit is private and it us hugely successful. You might say Hong Kong is different in terms of transit culture and density, but the same logic applies to York region which is nothing but a large sprawling suburb, and since most people drive, high transit fare means little. I don't know anyone living in York region who doesn't own a car, do you?

The TTC has some of the lowest subsidies per rider of any transit system in North America.

We get about $.0.78 per rider for operating costs.

Montreal gets almost $2 per rider.

Is it any wonder their pass is so cheap?

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/12/12/open_the_purse_strings_ttc_tells_city_hall.html

I know people keep saying that as if it is a full explanation for high fare, but it is not.

Subsidy per ride is calculated by dividing total subsidy by total number of rides. So while lower total subsidy results in low subsidy/ride, so does total ridership. Should we assume when ridership is higher, even though the system remains the same and is able to accommodate it, subsidy should automatically increase to keep this ratio constant?

I don't think so. For example, Chicago has much higher subsidy per ride because its ridership is much lower, not because the subsidy is that much more generous. IF its ridership is twice as much - in which situation its vast system is still able to handle - its subsidy/ride will be cut in half, although the actual funding from government remains the same, and there is only marginal requirement to manage the increasing riders - you don't need twice the amount.

So not surprisingly, NYC is also the city where the subsidy per rider is the lowest in America because is the denominator - ridership is huge. Does that mean NYC system is under funded? Hardly.

I feel it is a tactic TTC always use to justify its high fare, under the completely false assumption that subsidy should be proportional to the number of riders, when the real reason is nothing but high operating cost, especially in terms of employee compensation. In fact I would argue that with high ridership, the cost per rider should decline due to the economy of scale - just like in any industry. Admittedly with more riders, there will be more requirement and cost to maintain the system, but it is nowhere near proportionally higher - do you consume three times the electricity when there are 3 instead of 1 person in your house?

This stat about subsidy per ride is not completely meaningless, but almost so in determining how well funded a system is.

 

[innsertnamehere]

NYC is subsidized at a larger level than Toronto.

 

[ksun]

NYC is subsidized at a larger level than Toronto.

of course. it is a much larger system.

If comparing this subsidy/ride stats, NYC metro is the worst funded system in the US, worse than in the systems in Atlanta or Dallas, but can we honestly believe that?

All I am saying is that it is stupid to use subsidy per ride as a standard for how well funded a system is, or as justification for high fare, because cost is not proportional to ridership. Its significance is very limited I am afraid.

Maybe instead of simply counting the riders, we should consider 1) how many stations and trains to maintain 2) how frequent services are.
I don't think ridership is that relevant. The cost is the same whether a train carries 100 people at or 1000 people. For the station maintenance cost, it is always the same. Same for salaries for drivers and ticket sellers. They don't increase just because there are more riders.

 

[Electrify]

It's bad argument.
York region is hardly a comparable. Since when Toronto compares itself to York region to feel better? HK transit is private and it us hugely successful. You might say Hong Kong is different in terms of transit culture and density, but the same logic applies to York region which is nothing but a large sprawling suburb, and since most people drive, high transit fare means little. I don't know anyone living in York region who doesn't own a car, do you?

Fine, then compare it to Mississauga, Brampton, Durham, or any number of suburban transit systems. Keep in mind YRT also uses a zone fare, which theoretically should cover the extra cost of servicing such a large area. Yet despite this, poor service on numerous major routes, and its large subsidy, still manages to have the highest fares of any local transit system in North America!

Even if there is some merit to privatization, York Region shows how NOT to do it.

Oh, and I don't have access to a car. Besides not being able to afford one right now (can't even afford my rent), I use my bike and am within an extended walking distance of one of the few routes which runs frequently.

I know people keep saying that as if it is a full explanation for high fare, but it is not.

Subsidy per ride is calculated by dividing total subsidy by total number of rides. So while lower total subsidy results in low subsidy/ride, so does total ridership. Should we assume when ridership is higher, even though the system remains the same and is able to accommodate it, subsidy should automatically increase to keep this ratio constant?

I don't think so. For example, Chicago has much higher subsidy per ride because its ridership is much lower, not because the subsidy is that much more generous. IF its ridership is twice as much - in which situation its vast system is still able to handle - its subsidy/ride will be cut in half, although the actual funding from government remains the same, and there is only marginal requirement to manage the increasing riders - you don't need twice the amount.

So not surprisingly, NYC is also the city where the subsidy per rider is the lowest in America because is the denominator - ridership is huge. Does that mean NYC system is under funded? Hardly.

I feel it is a tactic TTC always use to justify its high fare, under the completely false assumption that subsidy should be proportional to the number of riders, when the real reason is nothing but high operating cost, especially in terms of employee compensation. In fact I would argue that with high ridership, the cost per rider should decline due to the economy of scale - just like in any industry. Admittedly with more riders, there will be more requirement and cost to maintain the system, but it is nowhere near proportionally higher - do you consume three times the electricity when there are 3 instead of 1 person in your house?

This stat about subsidy per ride is not completely meaningless, but almost so in determining how well funded a system is.

Toronto is still getting hosed when it comes to covering operating expenses.

Reviewing the 2012 CUTA Fact Book, The total operating expenses for the TTC came to about $1.5 billion rounded. Fares covered $1 billion rounded (67%) of that price tag. The city covered about $300 million rounded (20%) with the province covering $90 million rounded (6%).

Montreal, being the most comparable to Toronto in this country, had total operating expenses at $1.2 billion. Of that, fares covered $600 million rounded (50%). Of that, $300 million rounded (25%) is covered by the city, the province covering $70 million rounded (6%) and regional taxes covering $80 million rounded (7%). This does not include municipal debt service contribution ($70 million rounded, 6% - 31% municipal total) and provincial debt service contribution ($50 million rounded, 4% - 10% provincial total).

I'd give more exact figures, but the CUTA Fact Book is an industry document and the information is somewhat confidential, so I don't feel comfortable giving out more detail without gathering explicit permission. That said, I've seen places online reference it so I don't believe I am breaking any rules or burning any bridges by providing these estimates.

Bottom line is that Montreal gets the same municipal subsidy and nearly $100 million more including DSC from the city total, despite having operating costs $300 million less than Toronto!

EDIT: Math was wrong for TTC.

 

[salsa]

I don't think so. For example, Chicago has much higher subsidy per ride because its ridership is much lower, not because the subsidy is that much more generous. IF its ridership is twice as much - in which situation its vast system is still able to handle - its subsidy/ride will be cut in half, although the actual funding from government remains the same, and there is only marginal requirement to manage the increasing riders - you don't need twice the amount.

You're being overly simplistic. Just because you think it's a vast system doesn't mean it can handle twice the ridership under the same service levels. Firstly you would have to increase bus service substantially, and I doubt the subways have that much room by the time they arrive downtown in the morning rush, unless you add more trains.

I feel it is a tactic TTC always use to justify its high fare, under the completely false assumption that subsidy should be proportional to the number of riders, when the real reason is nothing but high operating cost, especially in terms of employee compensation.

High operating cost is the problem? How do you plan to deal with the multi billion dollar backlog of capital projects without additional funding?

 

[nfitz]

... when the real reason is nothing but high operating cost, especially in terms of employee compensation.

Do you have any documentation to support such an unusual claim which is in complete contradiction to all the experts over the years who have been saying that the operating cost per passenger mile in Toronto is lower than average?

Or are you just pulling it out of your imagination?

 

[ksun]

Do you have any documentation to support such an unusual claim which is in complete contradiction to all the experts over the years who have been saying that the operating cost per passenger mile in Toronto is lower than average?

Or are you just pulling it out of your imagination?

this is where it is wrong - they are using the misleading measurement.
I have no idea why you think OMA cost should be divided by number of passengers to compare cost effectiveness. As I said, a subway with 1000 passengers cost the same as one with 100 passengers. I am not saying higher ridership doesn't result in some extra cost especially when it exceeds a certain threshold, but this whole operation cost per passenger mile thing is so misleading as if cost is proportional to ridership.

Let me ask you, if in 2014 TTC ridership is 15% more than 2010, is it justified that operating cost is 15% higher? I call that BS. You don't need 15% ticket collectors, 15% more drivers, 15% more station cleaning and track maintenance. Higher ridership necessarily results in lower cost per rider, and to compare TTC with a system with half of its ridership is absolutely meaningless. It is like a household with 12 people will always consume less electricity and gas than a household of 1 person on a per person basis. It is not that hard to understand.

A more sensible way is to compare TTC cost with a system with similar ridership, if you think cost/rider should be used.

 

[ksun]

You're being overly simplistic. Just because you think it's a vast system doesn't mean it can handle twice the ridership under the same service levels. Firstly you would have to increase bus service substantially, and I doubt the subways have that much room by the time they arrive downtown in the morning rush, unless you add more trains.

I fully recognize that higher ridership may results in higher overall cost, but to say operating cost increases in proportional to ridership is simply wrong, and this is where the logic of using any metric/rider stops making sense as it will make larger system look unusually cost efficient.

This is especially true for TTC when most of time the buses and subways are only half full or less (outside peak hours). Incremental riders don't translate into higher cost whatsoever. How does it cost TTC more to run bus with 8 passengers versus 20? maybe slight more fuel, but definitely not 2.5 times, does it?

This is why I say using cost per rider is meaningless, and TTC looks good only when comparing with much smaller systems (and almost all NA systems are smaller). Why not compare TTC with the systems in New York, Istanbul etc.

For example, TTC metro system ridership was 300M in 2013, let's compare those metrics with Vienna (570M), Sao Paolo (890M), Santiago (660M), Guangzhou (2000M), Hong Kong (1600M), Berlin (500M) or Tokyo (3200M+), and most definitely TTC's stats won't look that competitive.

 

[Electrify]

I fully recognize that higher ridership may results in higher overall cost, but to say operating cost increases in proportional to ridership is simply wrong, and this is where the logic of using any metric/rider stops making sense as it will make larger system look unusually cost efficient.

This is especially true for TTC when most of time the buses and subways are only half full or less (outside peak hours). Incremental riders don't translate into higher cost whatsoever. How does it cost TTC more to run bus with 8 passengers versus 20? maybe slight more fuel, but definitely not 2.5 times, does it?

This is why I say using cost per rider is meaningless, and TTC looks good only when comparing with much smaller systems (and almost all NA systems are smaller). Why not compare TTC with the systems in New York, Istanbul etc.

For example, TTC metro system ridership was 300M in 2013, let's compare those metrics with Vienna (570M), Sao Paolo (890M), Santiago (660M), Guangzhou (2000M), Hong Kong (1600M), Berlin (500M) or Tokyo (3200M+), and most definitely TTC's stats won't look that competitive.

Look at my post. In Canada's two largest cities it costs about $1.35 billion on average to operate at the current service levels. It does not matter if 5 people use the system in a year, or 500 million. The difference is that despite being on the low end of this average, Montreal receives the same amount, more including debt repayment, as Toronto does from the municipality to operate.

Imagine if the TTC saw an extra $250 million in funding from various sources, meaning that 50% of the operating cost was subsidized. We could not only have fares reduced significantly, but the TTC could stop acting like such a tightwad when it comes to quality of service (transfer structure, presentation, etc).

 

[ksun]

Look at my post. In Canada's two largest cities it costs about $1.35 billion on average to operate at the current service levels. It does not matter if 5 people use the system in a year, or 500 million. The difference is that despite being on the low end of this average, Montreal receives the same amount, more including debt repayment, as Toronto does from the municipality to operate.

Imagine if the TTC saw an extra $250 million in funding from various sources, meaning that 50% of the operating cost was subsidized. We could not only have fares reduced significantly, but the TTC could stop acting like such a tightwad when it comes to quality of service (transfer structure, presentation, etc).

I don't mind more funding if it is used to improve services and lower fare.
However, a significant portion will go to questionable use, such as increasing unnecessary positions and employee benefits. I work for the government, and know for sure that all government entities have the incentive to expand as much as they can even when there is no such need, because as they get bigger, they have more power. Very unfortunate.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Hong Kong does not have the low density suburban sprawl that Toronto has. In addition, their transit agency OWNS buildings where get revenue from office and residential leases.

 

[Electrify]

I don't mind more funding if it is used to improve services and lower fare.
However, a significant portion will go to questionable use, such as increasing unnecessary positions and employee benefits. I work for the government, and know for sure that all government entities have the incentive to expand as much as they can even when there is no such need, because as they get bigger, they have more power. Very unfortunate.

Perhaps, but Montreal's system does have similar operating costs and size, yet is far better run than Toronto's, at least from the passenger's perspective. Despite some of the rhetoric from the Sun and Ford bros, TTC employees don't make all that much more compared to other successful large city systems.

Perhaps a blank cheque from the city is not a good idea, but earlier this year the TTC put forth a number of costed recommendations. Considering the numbers above, I don't think it is unreasonable to fund them.

 

[nfitz]

this is where it is wrong - they are using the misleading measurement.

How? Cheapest per rider of similar, smaller, and larger systems. No one in North America was cheaper. How is this wrong?

A more sensible way is to compare TTC cost with a system with similar ridership, if you think cost/rider should be used.

That's what was done. Look at the 2013 TTC Operating Budget On page 8 they show the subsidy, the revenue cost ratio, number of trips, for systems across North America.

You can use that data to calculate the operating budget for each system, and then the operating cost per rider.

The results are:

System	Cost/Rider
TTC	2.89
Montreal	2.90
New York	2.91
Calgary	2.97
Edmonton	3.01
Hamilton	3.40
Ottawa	3.94
Boston	3.97
Philadelphia	4.27
Mississauga	4.38
Chicago	4.75
Brampton	4.89
Durham Region	5.38
Los Angeles	5.70
Vancouver	6.09
York Region	8.46

When you plot the cost per passenger versus ridership, it's quite clear that TTC is low. Montreal does well as well. Edmonton and Calgary do excellent for their small size. However Toronto is cheaper than all other systems. Given how many seem to bottom out at the same cost, that seems to be about as low as anyone can get it to go.

Note, I've used a logarithmic scale here, so the data isn't as spread out as much.