TTC: Other Items (catch all)

[turbanplanner]

The fix is for the TTC to enforce its by-laws, using their own transit police and resources. The by-laws have the solution for pretty much every negative situation on the TTC. Just enforce them.

It’s not that simple, I get not letting people on who don’t pay. Though you’d have to get the constables to drive over and meet with the bus to fine the dude.

If you look at a lot of the incidents like I’m stopping or the shoving, the people didn’t commit an offence until they did the act. We also currently only have 4 teams of 2 constables per shift

 

[Northern Light]

They have had to deal with people who have killed other passengers with knives, sure they need guns, and can be done, those officers who can't or won't carry them can work in other roles, there are plenty of them in the TTC. Also. If the TTC is too crowded for armed officers then cops should be leaving their guns behind when they enter the system.

Absolutely not. @crs1026 was correct, and you have no evidence to support your assertion at all.

Toronto shootings are at a 5-year low (50% below last year for January, 33% below the lowest year in the last 5); we've had only one homicide so far this year, knock-wood may that continue.

The idea that arming TTC personnel in response to fewer shootings and fewer homicides is illogical and defies reason.

The TTC now has more transit constables than at any time in its history, for a variety of reasons, they have been relatively low visibility and low enforcement (the reason was not lack of arms or physical ability to use force). Giving them guns is unlikely to change that, just make them more expensive to train, pay and equip; at the minimum; and at worst, risking far greater backlash that has been seen to date against heavy-handed enforcement should it involve gunplay or should the same result in an innocent party being injured or killed.

Strategies should be evidence-based, not fear-based.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It’s not that simple, I get not letting people on who don’t pay. Though you’d have to get the constables to drive over and meet with the bus to fine the dude.

If you look at a lot of the incidents like I’m stopping or the shoving, the people didn’t commit an offence until they did the act. We also currently only have 4 teams of 2 constables per shift

Did the shovers pay? You’re insane enough to kill, but sane enough to pay your fare?

 

[Voltz]

Absolutely not. @crs1026 was correct, and you have no evidence to support your assertion at all.

Toronto shootings are at a 5-year low (50% below last year for January, 33% below the lowest year in the last 5); we've had only one homicide so far this year, knock-wood may that continue.

The idea that arming TTC personnel in response to fewer shootings and fewer homicides is illogical and defies reason.

The TTC now has more transit constables than at any time in its history, for a variety of reasons, they have been relatively low visibility and low enforcement (the reason was not lack of arms or physical ability to use force). Giving them guns is unlikely to change that, just make them more expensive to train, pay and equip; at the minimum; and at worst, risking far greater backlack that has been seen to date against heavy-handed enforcement should it involve gunplay or should the same result in an innocent party being injured or killed.

Strategies should be evidence-based, not fear-based.

So I was just imagining that passengers have been killed by people using weapons that require officers who deal with them to have firearms, good, it's not as dangerous as I thought.

 

[crs1026]

Here are some articles about CBSA that may inform the discussion.

Border guards fired guns 18 times in a decade — accidentally in most cases​

Apparently Transport Canada and CBSA are at odds about whether weapons in an airport are a good idea. There are obvious parallels to transit situations.

Border agency, Transport Canada clash over gun rules​

The government has evaluated the arming program, concluding it was a success - but only after over 10 years' effort

There has been a case of an unarmed CBSA officer being shot while on duty.

The problem with arming on the basis of extreme "threat scenarios" is that it justifies over-building because "something might happen". How long would it be before TTC formed its own tactical squad? Bought an armoured car? This is a very sober discussion, because one is projecting how many officer deaths there might be over a decade or two, and judging those deaths agains the public impact is a very difficult choice. So far, there is no evidence that TTC security would be improved if officers were armed, but there is always some risk to officers, and we have to accept that some tragedy may happen some day.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

Did the shovers pay? You’re insane enough to kill, but sane enough to pay your fare?

Actually, this is quite true about mental illness - people do retain some of their faculties while not retaining others.

I am always struck by what some apparently out-of-control souls do while on TTC - they do pay a fare, find a seat, watch for a stop and get off at an apparently intended destination. All the while, ranting or other wise behaving oddly.

- Paul

 

[picard102]

And like it or not, John Tory has been mayor for eight years. He owns many of the problems. They are his, bought with his "efficiencies" budgets. He could have raised taxes moderately (and/or insisted the TPS get rid of their show pony mounted unit) and better funded shelters, etc. Rob Ford was laughably incapable. But Tory has arguably been worse for the city with his veneer of compassion, when in fact he has neglected the city's foundations.

Council could have raised taxes moderately as well.
In fact the Mayor has been a single vote on council for the last eight years, and outside of soft power, is somehow seen as being the problem.
We'll see what he does now that he has some more power.

 

[T3G]

By-laws cover the what, not the when or how. That’s the good thing about them.

That's not a good thing at all. Much of the TTC bylaw is so vague and underwritten that it would be more useful as toilet paper than a guide for how to behave on the transit system.

The bylaw should clearly and concisely define behaviours which are unacceptable. Leaving it open on any level to interpretation is a problem for everyone: for those doing the enforcing, whose job should not be to interpret various provisions in the bylaw, and for those upon whom the bylaw is being enforced, who may be the victim of unreasonable interpretations of the bylaw from tin pot dictators.

Let's take a look at each of the stipulations you have outlined:

2.1 No person shall travel or attempt to travel on the transit system or enter a fare paid area, or attempt to enter a fare paid area without paying the appropriate fare

No argument here, though the enforcement of this can only get you so far. If someone is homeless and doesn't have the means to pay, booting them out of the vehicle just means that they will get on the next one. Repeat ad nauseam.

3.16 No person shall:
(b) shall solicit members of the public for any purpose on TTC property without authorization.

Again, no argument here.

3.19 No person shall:
(b) lie down on a bench, seat or floor of any TTC property.

3.24 No person, unless otherwise authorized, shall loiter in or on TTC property.

I am grouping these two stipulations together, because they could both be reasonably interpreted as attempting to forbid the congregation of homeless people on the system.

I am sure no one actively celebrates the presence of homeless people on the system and wishes that they would get the services and care that they require, the reality of the situation is quite a bit messier than that. We have a city that has completely and utterly failed to deal with the homeless crisis in any reasonable way, so if you boot these people off without having a clearly defined location for them to go, they'll just go there, instead. At best, it might mean more homeless encampments in parks - at worst, it could mean that someone who might have otherwise survived would freeze to death in the streets. And before you have a go at me for being a bleeding heart liberal, I'm fairly certain it is in everyone's interests, no matter how little sympathy they have to the plight of the homeless, to not find a frozen body on the street. So it's hard for me to actively support the enforcing of these bylaws, provided the person is not otherwise threatening the well being of other passengers, until such time as this goddamned city gets its shit together.

The other problem is that 3.24 is, outside of this context of interpretation, a completely worthless provision that says nothing and achieves nothing. What is defined as loitering, and on what grounds is that a problem?

If someone is waiting for a friend on the subway platform and doesn't board the first train that is available to them, is that considered loitering? A railfan who idles on a platform longer than the average person in search of a specific vehicle to photograph or ride could almost certainly be interpreted as loitering, but only a complete moron would actually think that booting that person off the transit system is in any way justifiable.

Maybe 3.24 should be rewritten: "No person shall, unless they have reasonable grounds to believe there is a threat to life or property, stick their nose into other people's business."

3.25 No person shall cause a disturbance or act contrary to the public peace on TTC property, including:
b) using profane, insulting or obscene language or gestures;

Could theoretically have some weight to it, but is too vague. If a friend of mine shows me something on their phone and I reply with "oh shit", well, that's quite a bit different than someone who is not of sound mind uttering curses and threats towards those around them, is it not? But this provision makes no attempt to distinguish between the two.

c) behaving in an indecent or offensive manner;

f) behaving in a manner which would interfere with the ordinary enjoyment of persons using the transit system.

No argument from me on indecent behaviour. "Offensive" behaviour, or "behaving in a manner which would interfere with the ordinary enjoyment of persons using the transit system" is, again, far too vague to be of any value at all.

What constitutes this behaviour? If you get down to the nitty gritty of it, there are a lot of passengers who may be offended at the otherwise harmless actions of another person that could theoretically have a grievance under this provision, so it needs to be made much less vague in order for it to be of any use.

If a devout Christian sees a person with a pentagram t-shirt board their train, should they have the right to demand that person be booted off the train? If a devout religious person of almost any faith sees a woman wearing "provocative clothing" such as exposed ankles, hair, or midriff, that causes them offence, should their grievance take priority over the right of that woman to dress how she pleases? If someone looks over their shoulder and sees the person next to them watching a tv show which may depict violence, should their grievance be heard out? Or should all of them fall under my much improved revision of 3.24?

I am not a fan of provision f) and I think that it is mindless word salad that says nothing at all. At the very least, modifying the provision to state "...manner which could reasonably interfere with..." should be a requirement.

3.34 A proper authority may refuse passage on the transit system to:
a) a person behaving or appearing to behave in a manner that would interfere with the ordinary enjoyment of persons using the transit system or that may result in harm to themselves or others.
b) a person whose conduct is or is likely to be objectionable to other passengers;

Neither of these provisions adds anything new that hasn't already been mentioned.

I don't respect the TTC bylaw, because it is vague and extraordinary unhelpful. Paul has brought up several examples of situations which are not black and white and the enforcement of which could have dubious value. Rather than insisting that the rules are the rules, the bylaw should be rewritten in a way that is clear, concise, understands the nature of human behaviour and is all around compatible with reality, doesn't waste time persecuting silly imaginary offenses such as loitering, and leaves no room for confusion on the part of anyone, be they passengers or bylaw officers. Then we can push for the TTC to enforce this bylaw.

 

[gabe]

Whether it's the case or not is kind of irrelevant, the perception is that this is the case - that getting on the TTC is a risk. Perception is enough to keep a lot of people from taking TTC. Did anyone else receive phone calls form parents or family members from outside of the GTA saying they have been seeing all the crime on the TTC on the news, and pleading with us not to take TTC? I know I did.
I'm not sure if it's just in my circles, but for people who take TTC on occasion (let's say a few times/week, for social outings, not daily for work), these people in will opt to take Uber, drive and pay to park, or (and I think this is the scariest thing for Downtown Toronto), not make it a priority to go downtown for that weekly dinner or show.

Out here in suburbia, i know plenty of people who are too afraid to go downtown let alone ride the TTC. They work from home, dine and shop everywhere but the downtown, which is incredibly scary and sad. But i understand it, especially if you're a woman. A lot of my female friends no longer take the TTC. Women are at a greater risk of sexual harassment and unwanted attention when traveling on public transit than men.


I can't live in a bubble, i will take my chances on the TTC and support the small businesses downtown.

 

[turbanplanner]

Council could have raised taxes moderately as well.
In fact the Mayor has been a single vote on council for the last eight years, and outside of soft power, is somehow seen as being the problem.
We'll see what he does now that he has some more power.

Taxes are already effectively higher than most other major cities in Canada considering we also all pay the second land transfer tax, which no other city I know does.

I ride the TTC every day. It is not the wild west. Yes, there are problems. However, reading the news (and this thread), you would think you risk death and dismemberment with every ride. That's not the case.

There are people who look at this as an opportunity to acquire increased police budgets. The reality is that this is years in the making. Yes, lots of provincial governments have underfunded mental health. However, it is the Ford government that stopped the minimum basic income pilot projects. This would likely have helped many people.

And like it or not, John Tory has been mayor for eight years. He owns many of the problems. They are his, bought with his "efficiencies" budgets. He could have raised taxes moderately (and/or insisted the TPS get rid of their show pony mounted unit) and better funded shelters, etc. Rob Ford was laughably incapable. But Tory has arguably been worse for the city with his veneer of compassion, when in fact he has neglected the city's foundations.

I'm pissed at the situation, but I hope property owners enjoy their low property taxes.

The mounted unit is important for large events and areas where a car would be hard to get through. And you're giving ford crap for not doing something no other government did as well?
The mincome scheme was only really for ODSP people afaik who are NOT the people starting shit around the city. I spoke to a paramedic and was surprised to hear CERB lead to a lot of overdoses by giving a bunch of homeless or nearly homeless people 2000 a month.

 

[DSC]

Land Transfer Tax is paid ONCE, property tax is annual - it makes no sense to try to equate them.

 

[turbanplanner]

Land Transfer Tax is paid ONCE, property tax is annual - it makes no sense to try to equate them.

LTT is the cost of several years of property tax. Taxes in 2022 were about the same as every other city, now there is going to be a huge increase and likely another next year. But people who either don't live in Toronto or likely don't pay property tax have always suggested we should raise it.

 

[PL1]

LTT is the cost of several years of property tax. Taxes in 2022 were about the same as every other city, now there is going to be a huge increase and likely another next year. But people who either don't live in Toronto or likely don't pay property tax have always suggested we should raise it.

Property taxes are lower in the City of Toronto than surrounding municipalities, and indeed any other major city in Ontario https://www.zoocasa.com/blog/ontario-property-tax-rates-2022/

 

[Northern Light]

Taxes are already effectively higher than most other major cities in Canada considering we also all pay the second land transfer tax, which no other city I know does.

Others have taken you to task, and rightly so, for bad comparisons.

I won't repeat their arguments, but I'll add.

Ontario spends less per capital on hospitals than almost any other province, it also spends less on Universities......

Ontario's sales tax is 2 points lower than Quebec, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, PEI, and NB.

Ontario's entry-level income tax is lower than anyone else's including Alberta.

So yes, Toronto has to make up for under-spending by its senior partner in government, as do most GTA municipalities

In addition, choices by said municipalities exacerbate Toronto's problems.

York Region not only offers relatively few shelters per capita for the homeless, it also offers anemic transit that doesn't run 24/7.

Guess where the ultra-poor from York Region end up, and who has to pay the bill?
.

The mounted unit is important for large events and areas where a car would be hard to get through.

Washington D.C, Baltimore Maryland, Kingston, ON, and many, many more have cut their mounted units. They're comparatively rare utility, largely limited to public order (riots) which can be alternatively addressed, at lower risk to officers and animals suggests that retaining this rarely used function is questionable at best.

The mincome scheme was only really for ODSP people afaik who are NOT the people starting shit around the city. I spoke to a paramedic and was surprised to hear CERB lead to a lot of overdoses by giving a bunch of homeless or nearly homeless people 2000 a month.

Basic Social Assistance rates in Ontario (OW) are at $733 per month for a single person.

Do explain to me how one can achieve being housed, fed, and have a phone, never mind buy a pair of socks on said budget.

ODSP is at least ~$1250, but that's still brutal.

BC and Quebec both provide over 1k to those on basic assistance.

Ontario is being miserly by any standard.

It should be said, most people on a subsistence income such as OW or ODSP for any length of time tend to require public housing.

Said housing, being rent geared-to-income automatically reclaims 30c on the dollar from said recipients.

So if you raise the amount, you're really eating only 2/3 of the gross amount as the rest will be recovered in increased rent.

The notion that you are so callous about people starving and homeless is really rather disturbing.

 

[Northern Light]

For the record, here's a very interesting factual data spread for ODSP.

The actual caseload statistic:

The numbers are declining year over year.........notwithstanding how anemic the benefits are. Showing that people are making every effort to get off the system......on the whole.......

Below is OW, which tracks about neutral over the last two years, but is up in the last year and a bit, modestly.

Interesting that the program with lower benefits and stiffer penalties for working is underperforming the more generous program with lesser penalties for working, yes?