TTC: Other Items (catch all)

[Admiral Beez]

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:


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.


Again, no argument here.



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."


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.



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.


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.

A good summation of the challenges and nuance of interpretation and enforcement of the bylaws. I suggest we start with the more binary, black and white ones.

 

[allengeorge]

I know it’s normally 30% but was 50% during the Syrian crisis and I don’t see why it would be lower now with the Ukraine issue. A lot of homeless in Toronto are from other parts of the province as only we have the resources to at least try and help them

Ukrainians are not considered refugees, and - as a result - aren’t allowed to access the shelter system in the same way as actual refugees. Many of them are privately housed by the Ukrainian community.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/ukrainian-refugee-canada-ukraine-authorization-for-emergency-travel-1.6498928

 

[turbanplanner]

Not in the least. I'm not particularly angry, somewhat disgusted, but not angry.

Also, you're not right, so the entire statement is without value.



This is somewhat misleading. You can earn 200k per annum and be $200 per month from having to dip into savings.

For some Canadians, the problem is not that they are $200 per month from having to cut one of their streaming services, or maybe flying economy on their next vacation, but instead that they already are $200 short of the money they need for groceries.

*****

Lets further note, this is actually an opinion poll, and both sources you cited refer to the same poll. Not exactly sound data points.

*****

Then lets note that if the average Toronto homeowner saw a 10% property tax hike, that would be ~$400 more, per YEAR, not month.

An extra $33 per month roughly.

So what do you think the reality is? Everyone is swimming in cash and nobody is on the brink? Especially with people on variable interest?

We have another 10-15% hike next year to maintain things as they are.

Gas will go back to around $2 a litre, groceries are way up. It’s like people here are totally detached from reality

 

[allengeorge]

So what do you think the reality is? Everyone is swimming in cash and nobody is on the brink? Especially with people on variable interest?

I mean, clearly the article was wrong: supposedly, interest rates increasing from 1.75% in 2019 was going to be catastrophic and we were going to see a rise in financial insolvencies as Canadians were right on the brink. That didn’t happen.

I don’t think that people are swimming in cash, but I don’t think that the article you cited as proof lived up to its characterization of the situation either.

 

[allengeorge]

A lot of homeless in Toronto are from other parts of the province as only we have the resources to at least try and help them

Seems like you should direct your frustration at the provincial government then. They got rid of license plate fees ($1 billion that could have gone to helping with homelessness) and have done nothing to help with the incidents on the TTC (has Doug Ford said anything? He’s usually very visible when it comes to his opinion on how Toronto has to be run)

Also, fun fact: according to the city’s own stats, the provincial government has put the least into helping with affordable housing after the city and the federal government. If there’s a level of government slacking, you have to start there.

 

[crs1026]

A lot of homeless in Toronto are from other parts of the province as only we have the resources to at least try and help them

This may come as a surprise to those other parts of the Province who have huge homeless issues of their own.

Waterloo Region is one that I am aware of - they are grappling with homeless encampments and trying to implement small-structure alternatives.

You seem to want "everybody else" to be the problem.

- Paul

 

[PinkLucy]

Once again, let’s keep the focus of these discussions on how they relate to the TTC, as interesting as they are. There are other threads more relevant to the ongoing discussions of economics, the homeless and more. For example: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/how-to-solve-homeless-issue.28200/

 

[W. K. Lis]

Ukrainians are not considered refugees, and - as a result - aren’t allowed to access the shelter system in the same way as actual refugees. Many of them are privately housed by the Ukrainian community.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/ukrainian-refugee-canada-ukraine-authorization-for-emergency-travel-1.6498928

Not just the Ukrainian community. Polish and other Slavic communities as well. Even Russians, who tend to be anti-Putin, as well. See link.

 

[toaster29]

Umm, you do realize I think before I post, and responding as if to suggest I'm an idiot does nothing but make you look bad. If you don't understand the gist of my point, a question like "Why do you view that as a problem?" might be a more reasonable take.

****

Evidence: (most recent data I could grab)

View attachment 453148

https://www.ontariohealthcoalition.ca/wp-content/uploads/Provinces-Hospital-Beds-Per-1000-Population-2015_16.pdf

Family Doctors per capita by province:

View attachment 453149

https://www.cma.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/Physician%20Data/14-FP_per_pop.pdf

*****

Notice something?

For less spending per capita, you're getting a lesser result, way fewer hospital beds, and fewer doctors.

That's not efficiency, its negligence.

It's much more expensive to serve 800k people who are spread out over thousands of KMs than it is to serve that same number of people who live in one dense city. You can even compare within Ontario - the cost to service Northern Ontario is much higher per capita, the number of hospitals you need to serve all those people spread out, the number of CT, MRIs, and technicians to operate these machines at each location, it's a high cost. I'm not sure if you've taken that into consideration or not, nobody is trying to make anybody look like an idiot. When the bulk of a province's population lives in urban dense areas - there are economies of scale, capital costs of not requiring 10 hospitals to serve 800k people, 10 Hospital CEO salaries, running 10 endoscopy clinics, when all those people could be serviced in one unit in a GTA hospital. It should be of no surprise that it's more expensive to serve people who live in low density, rural, remote provinces. That's not to say our system isn't flawed or underfunded, but saying we should be spending more per capita than a place like the Norwest Terroritories is absurd. Where do you think Ontario should be on a list of per capita spending, given our high densities? Do you think we should be in the middle? At the top?

 

[Northern Light]

It's much more expensive to serve 800k people who are spread out over thousands of KMs than it is to serve that same number of people who live in one dense city. You can even compare within Ontario - the cost to service Northern Ontario is much higher per capita, the number of hospitals you need to serve all those people spread out, the number of CT, MRIs, and technicians to operate these machines at each location, it's a high cost. I'm not sure if you've taken that into consideration or not, nobody is trying to make anybody look like an idiot. When the bulk of a province's population lives in urban dense areas - there are economies of scale, capital costs of not requiring 10 hospitals to serve 800k people, 10 Hospital CEO salaries, running 10 endoscopy clinics, when all those people could be serviced in one unit in a GTA hospital. It should be of no surprise that it's more expensive to serve people who live in low density, rural, remote provinces. That's not to say our system isn't flawed or underfunded, but saying we should be spending more per capita than a place like the Norwest Terroritories is absurd. Where do you think Ontario should be on a list of per capita spending, given our high densities? Do you think we should be in the middle? At the top?

It would help if you actually read my post, as I included the information your now seeking in said post.

I won't repeat it. Go look.

 

[nfitz]

Sure; but that might be said of income taxes too, in as much as the rate is the same for all Ontarians, but those in the GTA earn more money and therefore pay more...

In terms of tax fairness, if a tax is charged as rate, based on income or assets; the rate itself is the fair basis of comparison.

But is a house really an asset if it's mortgaged to the hilt? In which case, perhaps the mortgage holder should be paying their share!

The proper comparison is what the average (mean ... or median) valued home pays in municipal taxes. Toronto get's close to this as they occasionally publish these numbers for various communities - but it would have more meaning if it removed the education taxes (which would then expose that Toronto average taxes are even lower than one would think!).

The bottom line though, is that a house in Pickering with a 60-foot street frontage and a deep lot, are going to disproportionately use a lot more city services than than a Toronto-house with a 14-foot wide shallow lot.

Of course there's other taxation alternatives, such as a municipal income tax and sales tax (both of which we see in some USA cities). An asset tax would be tough if it went beyond property - on the other hand, it might help densify areas like Bridle Path - currently a transit desert.

Sure, but doesn't take away that Toronto's property tax rate per assessed dollar of value is notably lower than peer-municipalities.

This is true. And this is what you'd expect, with the economies of scale you get with densification. Look at the per ride cost of running public transit in Toronto compared to York Region. If the Toronto subsidy per ride was as high as York Region, they'd be paying us to take the TTC!

That being said, I do think Toronto municipal taxes are too low. And in the absence of a completely new source of income (like using road tolls or annual mileage fees) to pay for transit, we need to raise municipal taxes to fund TTC, not to mention other department that have taken the brunt of funding cuts over the years, like the library system (which also is impacted by the current social issues, and is a de-facto service provider to the poor these days). And park maintenance (simple things like emptying garbage cans, and keeping bathrooms running - again related to the current social issues).

The current move to cut TTC service (far beyond that necessary to match pre-Covid service to current ridership) is short-sighted and will only make the city even more unlivable.

No one should expect Canada or Toronto to be a "low tax" environment . Canadians demand a social structure that includes excellent health care, education, wealth redistribution, and infrastructure. Those things cost money. In our social vision the country I would most compare us to (with considerable affection and respect) is Norway.

Absolutely!

And it's far beyond TTC. The province's recent move to again cut into Toronto's own funding stream from development charges is obscene.

 

[turbanplanner]

It would help if you actually read my post, as I included the information your now seeking in said post.

I won't repeat it. Go look.

I don't see why you're being so rude to everyone?

But is a house really an asset if it's mortgaged to the hilt? In which case, perhaps the mortgage holder should be paying their share!

The proper comparison is what the average (mean ... or median) valued home pays in municipal taxes. Toronto get's close to this as they occasionally publish these numbers for various communities - but it would have more meaning if it removed the education taxes (which would then expose that Toronto average taxes are even lower than one would think!).

The bottom line though, is that a house in Pickering with a 60-foot street frontage and a deep lot, are going to disproportionately use a lot more city services than than a Toronto-house with a 14-foot wide shallow lot.

Of course there's other taxation alternatives, such as a municipal income tax and sales tax (both of which we see in some USA cities). An asset tax would be tough if it went beyond property - on the other hand, it might help densify areas like Bridle Path - currently a transit desert.

This is true. And this is what you'd expect, with the economies of scale you get with densification. Look at the per ride cost of running public transit in Toronto compared to York Region. If the Toronto subsidy per ride was as high as York Region, they'd be paying us to take the TTC!

That being said, I do think Toronto municipal taxes are too low. And in the absence of a completely new source of income (like using road tolls or annual mileage fees) to pay for transit, we need to raise municipal taxes to fund TTC, not to mention other department that have taken the brunt of funding cuts over the years, like the library system (which also is impacted by the current social issues, and is a de-facto service provider to the poor these days). And park maintenance (simple things like emptying garbage cans, and keeping bathrooms running - again related to the current social issues).

The current move to cut TTC service (far beyond that necessary to match pre-Covid service to current ridership) is short-sighted and will only make the city even more unlivable.

Absolutely!

And it's far beyond TTC. The province's recent move to again cut into Toronto's own funding stream from development charges is obscene.

A mileage toll is a great way to get people to register their car outside the city, or even worse everyone's car will be "mileage corrected" yearly. And I think a municipal income tax would just get people to move out of the city and wfh

 

[PinkLucy]

Further posts unrelated to the TTC will be deleted.

 

[mildlyamusingusername]

I essentially agree with what you're saying above.....but I do want to break some of it out.



Oddly, I think this isn't true. I know its common political instinct to cut ribbons. But I think operating investments can actually produce better, results w/the public, done properly. Let me acknowledge, up front, that small increases or decreases in personnel don't really move votes; and further that jobs that aren't public facing, or where the results of any under-staffing aren't seen quickly can be a tempting place to 'cut' from a political perspective to fund something with more flash.

But the thing w/operating expenses in many areas it that a wise increase can be seen and felt quite quickly, where a capital project may take years to come to fruition.

As an example, most Toronto recreation centres close mid-afternoon on Saturdays and Sundays around 4pm'ish.

For a comparatively small sum, 10-15M per year, you could open most of those facilities until 10pm on weekends. Not only would them being open be instantly felt, but so would reduced crowding in earlier portions of those weekend days.

Likewise, strategic improvements in TTC service can be felt pretty quickly. Particularly for routes w/low service frequency. Taking an every 20M bus to every 15M is possibly on many routes by adding a single bus to one shift. Most long-haul routes w/lots of vehicles are already more frequent.

So if you took 10 low-service routes and bumped them to every 15M or better, you might be able to do that 5M per year. Boost overnight frequency for about the same; add some additional overnight routes for maybe 10M per year.

Taken in the context of a 15B budget, these are relatively small sums that can create a very visible effect and a halo for politician who delivers them.

You’re right, visible increases in services can be a very powerful political tool. Sadly I feel that services tend to be very cyclical in popularity, especially in a municipal setting, where the idea of cutting waste (not to say that our municipal government is allocating resources particularly efficiently) can really grab hold of a population seeing expenses increase in all other areas of their life. However, given the attention the decay of the TTC, as well as the rest of Toronto’s infrastructure and services have gotten in the media lately, I think that we’ve hit a breaking point, and anecdotally, I see a lot of sentiment that people are generally fed-up with the state of affairs in a city that has been booming for over a decade now.

 

[turbanplanner]

You’re right, visible increases in services can be a very powerful political tool. Sadly I feel that services tend to be very cyclical in popularity, especially in a municipal setting, where the idea of cutting waste (not to say that our municipal government is allocating resources particularly efficiently) can really grab hold of a population seeing expenses increase in all other areas of their life. However, given the attention the decay of the TTC, as well as the rest of Toronto’s infrastructure and services have gotten in the media lately, I think that we’ve hit a breaking point, and anecdotally, I see a lot of sentiment that people are generally fed-up with the state of affairs in a city that has been booming for over a decade now.

The route I live near generally has bad frequency. When I see it pass at 3am it runs every 30 mins like most overnight routes. I see at most 1 passenger. (Let's also ask ourselves what is the potential demand and 1 or 3 am? Would 15 min service make any difference at that hour?)

I personally will drive to the subway because even if the bus is running every 15 mins when I leave (which is frequent enough I'd consider not driving) the issue is coming back home there's nothing worse than waiting 25+ mins in a station because it's now the evening and that 15 or 20 min frequency runs out at 8pm.