News   Apr 23, 2024
Shimmy
 13     0 
News   Apr 22, 2024
Ferris + Associates Merges with NAK Design Group, Reshaping the GTA Landscape
 821     0 
News   Apr 22, 2024
UrbanToronto Webinars: Building Sustainably — Industry and Individuals
 284     0 

TTC: Other Items (catch all)

Ran into enforcers on 2 lines yesterday and the first time seeing 2 on different routes on cars the same day.

Got talking to one enforcers who was standing by a fare machine out of service and a standard thing these days. Got around talking about machines out of service since I saw 2 types at Kipling earlier. One was out of service for mechanical reason with a notice posted on it saying that. The other said out of service.

The enforcer said there is nothing wrong with the machines that say out of service, it had to due that the machine is full of money/tokens to take anymore. Does this mean the box that holds the money and tokens are too small or not clean out daily? One reason why TTC loose fare money if this is true.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TTC Board approves 2020 budgets with enhanced services

December 16, 2019

The TTC's Board today approved the 2020 operating and capital budget that protects recent service improvements while adding 128,000 hours of new service, funds a new anti-racism strategy and boosts revenue protection measures.

Service enhancements include hiring 121 operators to increase service on 25 surface routes across the city, new anti-racism training, improvements in the Wheel-Trans call-centre to reduce wait times and 50 new staff to reduce fare evasion.

Services protected in the budget include the two-hour hop-on, hop-off transfer and kids ride free programs and more subway, bus and streetcar service.

In developing the $2.14 billion operating budget for conventional and Wheel-Trans services, the TTC found $31.6 million in efficiencies and offsets without impacting service. The budget calls for an additional $27 million subsidy from the City of Toronto and another $26.4 million in revenue protection and cost recovery. A 10 cent per ride increase on all fares except adult cash, which remains at $3.25, raises another $31.4 million. The fare increase comes into effect on March 1, 2020.

The Board also approved the TTC's $7.4 billion 2020-2029 capital budget that invests in longer term projects to reduce crowding, keep the system in a state of good repair, improve accessibility and increase capacity at Bloor-Yonge Station.

While the TTC has authority on matters related to fare policy, the budgets still go to full City Council for final approval.
 
Northern Light said:
Second set of eyes required............

But after a careful read I have come to a conclusion.

None of the City Building Fund (the Mayor's proposed tax hike) appears to be allocated in the capital budget.

If that is the case, expect a raft of funding announcements shortly.

But others can double-check me........
Click to expand...
The City-Building fund isn't yet council approved and therefor is not yet official city policy. Once it's past council I imagine it will be allocated out and a lot more TTC capital projects will get money.
 
Last edited:
drum118 said:
Ran into enforcers on 2 lines yesterday and the first time seeing 2 on different routes on cars the same day.

Got talking to one enforcers who was standing by a fare machine out of service and a standard thing these days. Got around talking about machines out of service since I saw 2 types at Kipling earlier. One was out of service for mechanical reason with a notice posted on it saying that. The other said out of service.

The enforcer said there is nothing wrong with the machines that say out of service, it had to due that the machine is full of money/tokens to take anymore. Does this mean the box that holds the money and tokens are too small or not clean out daily? One reason why TTC loose fare money if this is true.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TTC Board approves 2020 budgets with enhanced services

December 16, 2019

The TTC's Board today approved the 2020 operating and capital budget that protects recent service improvements while adding 128,000 hours of new service, funds a new anti-racism strategy and boosts revenue protection measures.

Service enhancements include hiring 121 operators to increase service on 25 surface routes across the city, new anti-racism training, improvements in the Wheel-Trans call-centre to reduce wait times and 50 new staff to reduce fare evasion.

Services protected in the budget include the two-hour hop-on, hop-off transfer and kids ride free programs and more subway, bus and streetcar service.

In developing the $2.14 billion operating budget for conventional and Wheel-Trans services, the TTC found $31.6 million in efficiencies and offsets without impacting service. The budget calls for an additional $27 million subsidy from the City of Toronto and another $26.4 million in revenue protection and cost recovery. A 10 cent per ride increase on all fares except adult cash, which remains at $3.25, raises another $31.4 million. The fare increase comes into effect on March 1, 2020.

The Board also approved the TTC's $7.4 billion 2020-2029 capital budget that invests in longer term projects to reduce crowding, keep the system in a state of good repair, improve accessibility and increase capacity at Bloor-Yonge Station.

While the TTC has authority on matters related to fare policy, the budgets still go to full City Council for final approval.
Click to expand...

They don't want to pay someone to empty the machines of tokens and coins, even if it is simple procedure to do it.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The City-Building fund isn't yet council approved and therefor is not yet official city policy. Once it's past council I imagine it will be allocated out and a lot more TTC capital projects will get money.
Click to expand...
This is what TTC is saying since this is from TTC in the first place.
 
Amare said:
Ladies and gentlemen of Toronto, here are your city councillors at work! Exhibit A as to what happens when you blindly vote in someone in with no knowledge of city affairs.
Click to expand...
This is why any potential political candidate needs to take a political affairs test (which includes a language component even for English-only tests to test fluency of the English language) on top of paying a fee before they can register. Even having them pass at 50% would be an improvement over the current method. After all, all drivers need to take a test before they can legally drive and students must pass a certain number of courses and tests to graduate and/or get the appropriate diploma/certificate/degree. A certified candidate who knows how jurisdictions are run is better than an uncertified candidate who only says things to make the populace happy.
 
Last edited:
W. K. Lis said:
They don't want to pay someone to empty the machines of tokens and coins, even if it is simple procedure to do it.
Click to expand...
I been told this issue was in the City Auditor Report as it is done by Metrolinx once a week if that, not TTC. Metrolinx needs to see their 10% cut of X in the machines first before passing the 90% onto TTC, as well to keep their cost low doing this. Still a lost of revenue for everyone and Metrolinx ability to do things right.
 
Council are discussing a Report today on Value-based outcomes review and among its recommendations is:

The City could develop and adopt a consistent set of principles that will guide the application of means-testing of all programs. This could include the adoption of consistent measures to determine who qualifies for support. The City could then move to means testing for certain universal programs, so that the principle of increased access is adhered to, but those who have the ability to pay for services continue to do so. Two specific areas that could be considered are the free programs offered by Parks, Forestry & Recreation, and the fare discounts offered by the TTC.

See: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-140893.pdf
 
DSC said:
Council are discussing a Report today on Value-based outcomes review and among its recommendations is:

The City could develop and adopt a consistent set of principles that will guide the application of means-testing of all programs. This could include the adoption of consistent measures to determine who qualifies for support. The City could then move to means testing for certain universal programs, so that the principle of increased access is adhered to, but those who have the ability to pay for services continue to do so. Two specific areas that could be considered are the free programs offered by Parks, Forestry & Recreation, and the fare discounts offered by the TTC.

See: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-140893.pdf
Click to expand...

I would personally agree with streamling concession pricing, but I would equally support increased funding such that general prices are reduced in both cases.

For the TTC, my personal preference would be to eliminate youth and seniors concessions; and the low-income pass.

However, I would support lowering the general fare to $2.90 per ride (presto) and the fare multiple for the monthly pass to 40 fares per month from 48.75.

The result, for an adult rider a decrease of .30c per ride; but a much cheaper monthly pass of $116 per month.

For a student/senior with no pass, an increase of .65c per ride (presto); however, the monthly pass would actually drop by $12.15.

The new pass price would also be comparable to the current student/snr presto fare at 40 rides. So for most people, no actual increase in spending would be required.

The new monthly pass - all ages - would be cheaper than the current low-income pass, as such the latter would be discontinued.

******

For recreation, I'd prefer to scrap the 'welcome policy' and the 'everything free centres'.........

In favour of: - All programs targeting those under 18, would be FREE.

- All drop-in programs (self serve, ie. lane swim, fun swim, pick-up basketball, or the fitness centre) would be free.'

All adult and senior programs that require an instructor or referees etc would be paid; but at the current seniors price, improving affordability across the board.

Result, far more equity geographically, no stigma asking for low-income programs or attending certain facilities; streamlined easy to understand and access programming; a net reduction in user fees of at least 50M per year.

****

To me, more means-testing is bad, as it promotes social stigma, its invasive, and its cumbersome to administer.

Better to improve affordability in a universal way, up to a reasonable, affordable limit.
 
Northern Light said:
I would personally agree with streamling concession pricing, but I would equally support increased funding such that general prices are reduced in both cases.

For the TTC, my personal preference would be to eliminate youth and seniors concessions; and the low-income pass.

However, I would support lowering the general fare to $2.90 per ride (presto) and the fare multiple for the monthly pass to 40 fares per month from 48.75.

The result, for an adult rider a decrease of .30c per ride; but a much cheaper monthly pass of $116 per month.

For a student/senior with no pass, an increase of .65c per ride (presto); however, the monthly pass would actually drop by $12.15.

The new pass price would also be comparable to the current student/snr presto fare at 40 rides. So for most people, no actual increase in spending would be required.

The new monthly pass - all ages - would be cheaper than the current low-income pass, as such the latter would be discontinued.

******

For recreation, I'd prefer to scrap the 'welcome policy' and the 'everything free centres'.........

In favour of: - All programs targeting those under 18, would be FREE.

- All drop-in programs (self serve, ie. lane swim, fun swim, pick-up basketball, or the fitness centre) would be free.'

All adult and senior programs that require an instructor or referees etc would be paid; but at the current seniors price, improving affordability across the board.

Result, far more equity geographically, no stigma asking for low-income programs or attending certain facilities; streamlined easy to understand and access programming; a net reduction in user fees of at least 50M per year.

****

To me, more means-testing is bad, as it promotes social stigma, its invasive, and its cumbersome to administer.

Better to improve affordability in a universal way, up to a reasonable, affordable limit.
Click to expand...
At least those with disabilities still get the lower fares.
 
Johnny Au said:
At least those with disabilities still get the lower fares.
Click to expand...

I'm not a huge fan of that either.

I'd prefer that someone whose disability makes them unable to work, has their income topped-up/replaced; and they get to decide how to spend it.

Be it on transit/accessible cabs or an accessible car; be that on ramps for their home, shower bars/seats or help with homecare beyond what the medical system provides, etc.

I'm not keen on prescribing to someone whose limitations impair their income how to spend their money.

At least no more than is arguably necessary.

In a world in which regular transit users are typically full-time students or workers, I'm not sure that a fare break is logically justified across the board.

That's no lack of sympathy. I'm very pro social spending. But with as few caveats as is practical.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
I would personally agree with streamling concession pricing, but I would equally support increased funding such that general prices are reduced in both cases.

For the TTC, my personal preference would be to eliminate youth and seniors concessions; and the low-income pass.

However, I would support lowering the general fare to $2.90 per ride (presto) and the fare multiple for the monthly pass to 40 fares per month from 48.75.

The result, for an adult rider a decrease of .30c per ride; but a much cheaper monthly pass of $116 per month.

For a student/senior with no pass, an increase of .65c per ride (presto); however, the monthly pass would actually drop by $12.15.

The new pass price would also be comparable to the current student/snr presto fare at 40 rides. So for most people, no actual increase in spending would be required.

The new monthly pass - all ages - would be cheaper than the current low-income pass, as such the latter would be discontinued.


****

To me, more means-testing is bad, as it promotes social stigma, its invasive, and its cumbersome to administer.

Better to improve affordability in a universal way, up to a reasonable, affordable limit.
Click to expand...
Said as everyone is born equally and have accessed to the same opportunities.

I'm am not a big fan of your suggestions. A lot of youth take the bus to school and to have part time jobs. By increasing their fares, it's like asking them to skip school and work more cause they can't earn enough. This would just increase crimes as more of them would likely drop out, especially the low income families.

As for seniors, some of them couldn't even afford their ride back. They only take it one way and walk the other way back. You might as well tell them to commit suicide because they can't get around this expensive city and have a social life. OAS+GIS doesn't pay them enough for rent, food and transit.

For the middle class, they can definitely afford a fare increase. Lowering adult fare in favour of eliminating concessions would have a really bad effect in society and encourages a wider poverty gap. It will definitely result in more crimes and higher fare evasion rates. I'm sure low income users would love to live closer to their regular destinations but they can't afford to live there. There's a reason why concession fare exist in every city.

Maybe a better way is to eliminate concessions and issue concession presto cards with photo ID to qualifying low income users. If the point is to not subsidize users who can afford it.

---

I am also not a big fan of this soon to be 5 cent gap between cash fare vs presto. The situation has become having single trip riders subsidizing 2 hour pass riders. Ridership is going up while revenue is going down.
 
Steve X said:
Said as everyone is born equally and have accessed to the same opportunities.

I'm am not a big fan of your suggestions. A lot of youth take the bus to school and to have part time jobs. By increasing their fares, it's like asking them to skip school and work more cause they can't earn enough. This would just increase crimes as more of them would likely drop out, especially the low income families.

As for seniors, some of them couldn't even afford their ride back. They only take it one way and walk the other way back. You might as well tell them to commit suicide because they can't get around this expensive city and have a social life. OAS+GIS doesn't pay them enough for rent, food and transit.

For the middle class, they can definitely afford a fare increase. Lowering adult fare in favour of eliminating concessions would have a really bad effect in society and encourages a wider poverty gap. It will definitely result in more crimes and higher fare evasion rates. I'm sure low income users would love to live closer to their regular destinations but they can't afford to live there. There's a reason why concession fare exist in every city.

Maybe a better way is to eliminate concessions and issue concession presto cards with photo ID to qualifying low income users. If the point is to not subsidize users who can afford it.

---

I am also not a big fan of this soon to be 5 cent gap between cash fare vs presto. The situation has become having single trip riders subsidizing 2 hour pass riders. Ridership is going up while revenue is going down.
Click to expand...

This is a genuinely offensive as a post.

Your language is so extreme; suicide?

You realize if you read my post properly that any student would find the pass cheaper than 40 rides (going to school every day) now; right?

Same for seniors.

You're welcome to disagree with my proposal; but to cast aspersions about my background and to reach so far as a modest change in concessions in fares inducing suicide is just gross.

Additionally, for the record, I grew up in a single-parent household, where money was tight, and was the first in my family to graduate HS, never mind Uni, not that that info was any of your business.

My proposed changes would make it cheaper for anyone who goes to school full-time or works full-time; something.

Before you go casting aspersions, kindly read the post you seek to critique properly; and don't imply a lack of social conscience about a person you've never met without extraordinary cause.

Finally, don't absurdly exaggerate, it reduces rather than increases the quality of your argument.

Edit to add: In respect of seniors, a subject with which I also have great familiarity; I don't suppose you considered that it would more efficient to raise OAS/GIS than to the subsidize transit fares?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top