[kEiThZ]

I strongly agree on this. The present system just does not work. It's not optimal for delivering the best services to Torontonians and it leaves us at the mercy of the union. I can understand avoiding private involvement in health care, but for transit? At very minimum, turning the TTC into several not-for-profit corporations would change things...ie. a bus company and a subway company...

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

To argue TTC having bad service is one thing; to say that abolishing the monopoly is the only possible solution is another entirely. The problem with the former is, above all else, bad management.

AoD

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

In 1921, the Toronto Transportation Commission (TTC) took over nine (9) different transit systems and fares within the old city of Toronto.

In 1954, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) took over the Toronto Transportation Commission within the old city, along with four (4) individual bus companies in the old suburbs of the Metropolitan Toronto.

That makes a total of thirteen (13) different transit companies. Breaking up the current Toronto Transit Commission would be wrong.

 

[kEiThZ]

In 1921, the Toronto Transportation Commission (TTC) took over nine (9) different transit systems and fares within the old city of Toronto.

In 1954, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) took over the Toronto Transportation Commission within the old city, along with four (4) individual bus companies in the old suburbs of the Metropolitan Toronto.

That makes a total of thirteen (13) different transit companies. Breaking up the current Toronto Transit Commission would be wrong.

I wouldn't argue for breaking it up into 13 different transit companies. What about creating a subway and a bus company. The subway company could then cooperate with GO to create a truly regional rail network. And the bus company could be made to compete with other private bus companies.

 

[Whoaccio]

Well, if you were going to "break it up", the best solution would probably be to the keep the subway under public ownership and contract out operations, maintenance ect.. Bus operations could be privatized in a number of ways. Bus transit isn't a very monopolistic field (all you need is a bus...) so there would be significant room for competition. Say, award the 36 Finch bus to Veolia and the Steeles bus to Arriva, or something like that. Every 3-5 years, tender the contract based on operational performance (how well they adhere to the schedule, how cheaply they deliver the service, ect..).

When people say "break up the transit monopoly", I don't think they mean create 13 smaller government monopolies. They mean actually letting private companies compete.

 

[urbanfan89]

If we're going to do anything about transit, the average user should not have to pay an entire array of fares to half a dozen different companies.

The single fare structure is the TTC's greatest strength, and that sould not change.

 

[AKS]

yes, the single fare structure is great but it's not economically feasible. They need to earn money to build more rails. It has to be funded somehow. If everyone pays same fare structure no matter the distance, it would be harder to raise the money to continue building. I think it's great in Toronto is one fare because no other country does that. They all charge by distance, but they also have money to constantly upgrade their transportation and improve it. Now the choice is, pay one fare, have a stagnant transit that won't improve. Or pay by distance and have the transit expand and improve year over year. It's a trade off. Also, I think following examples of other countries, it would be best to privatize TTC.

 

[urbanfan89]

yes, the single fare structure is great but it's not economically feasible. They need to earn money to build more rails. It has to be funded somehow. If everyone pays same fare structure no matter the distance, it would be harder to raise the money to continue building. I think it's great in Toronto is one fare because no other country does that. They all charge by distance, but they also have money to constantly upgrade their transportation and improve it. Now the choice is, pay one fare, have a stagnant transit that won't improve. Or pay by distance and have the transit expand and improve year over year.

We will probably have zone fares or fare by time.

But someone travelling from Malvern to Downtown should only have to pay once, whatever the fare is.

As for your second point, most systems in the world rely on government $ to operate and expand. It's that simple.

It's a trade off. Also, I think following examples of other countries, it would be best to privatize TTC.

And what are those other mythical "other countries" you refer to?

 

[AKS]

And what are those other mythical "other countries" you refer to?

The countries aren't mythical. I noticed in Japan there are many different rail systems. JR, Metro to name some. And in HK there's KCR, MTR then there's the mini buses. The city's change is never ending. Every time I go back there's always changes on their system. In Korea I didn't stay long enough to notice how many different rails exist but even they are getting sophisticated. Those all charge by distance traveled. 1-2 station are same price but past 3rd might cost slightly more and builds up as distance becomes longer.

 

[urbanfan89]

The countries aren't mythical. I noticed in Japan there are many different rail systems. JR, Metro to name some. And in HK there's KCR, MTR then there's the mini buses. The city's change is never ending. Every time I go back there's always changes on their system. In Korea I didn't stay long enough to notice how many different rails exist but even they are getting sophisticated. Those all charge by distance traveled. 1-2 station are same price but past 3rd might cost slightly more and builds up as distance becomes longer.

I've lived in HK for seven years, so I know what I'm referring to.

I think there might be a few, you know, land use planning and infrastructure differences between Toronto and the Asian megalopolises. Like, say, a complete lack of suburban McMansions over there and a complete lack of 40-storey towers with 600 sq ft apartments cluttering the landscape over here.

There's also the HK Government which actively makes the personal automobile harder to access, in contrast with the government here which has been subsidizing it for decades.

Just sayin'.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think there might be a few, you know, land use planning and infrastructure differences between Toronto and the Asian megalopolises. Like, say, a complete lack of suburban McMansions over there and a complete lack of 40-storey towers with 600 sq ft apartments cluttering the landscape over here.

There's also the HK Government which actively makes the personal automobile harder to access, in contrast with the government here which has been subsidizing it for decades.

Just sayin'.

Does that make the management aspect of a broken up TTC less valid though? I agree that we need to increase density. That's a different public policy issue, however. Managing the provision of transit services is a completely different matter. Most of Europe does not have 40 storey apartment towers yet they have private delivery of various transit services. I am not arguing for private delivery necessarily, I am just saying that the current monolithic TTC structure might not be the most effective.

Personally, I would like to see the TTC broken up into two entities: a subway and light rail company and a bus company. While both could remain in public hands, I would then like to see the bus company compete with private providers. For obvious reasons, the rail services would remain immune from competition. We could even go one step further and perhaps combine GO and the subway/LRT provider, to form a regional rail transit company.

 

[Whoaccio]

York Region Transit is a public service which is being provided by a private company. Viva seems to do well enough.

 

[urbanfan89]

Does that make the management aspect of a broken up TTC less valid though? I agree that we need to increase density. That's a different public policy issue, however. Managing the provision of transit services is a completely different matter. Most of Europe does not have 40 storey apartment towers yet they have private delivery of various transit services. I am not arguing for private delivery necessarily, I am just saying that the current monolithic TTC structure might not be the most effective.

Contracting is something I won't oppose, as long as everything is thought through. Just look at the London Underground PPP fiasco to see how not to contract out work.

Personally, I would like to see the TTC broken up into two entities: a subway and light rail company and a bus company. While both could remain in public hands, I would then like to see the bus company compete with private providers. For obvious reasons, the rail services would remain immune from competition. We could even go one step further and perhaps combine GO and the subway/LRT provider, to form a regional rail transit company.

No. Absolutely no. This is a waste of resources and we want to encourage people to take the fastest way possible in order to maximize space-time efficiency.

Example: there are 120 subway and SRT trains in circulation at peak hours (about). Once the Eglinton/Yonge/Spadina/all the GO Trains are extended and improved, we will waste literally THOUSANDS OF BUSES plying routes on which an efficient rail service already exists.

You tell me if that's at all a rational use of tax dollars.

 

[Voltz]

It would be very hard for a private bus company to break even on fares alone, impossible if you include the capital cost. Such a company would only care about the most heavily used routes, and pack riders in like sardines.

public transit is there to provide a service, not make money

 

[Voltz]

York Region Transit is a public service which is being provided by a private company. Viva seems to do well enough.

Except that York Region calls the shots, and provides a subsidy that would make the TTC look bad