[kEiThZ]

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.

And we can learn from that....but I haven't advocated handing over the subway to a PPP.

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.

You imagine it like that.

I imagine a seamless system where I can swipe a card to get on a bus, then swipe for a subway/lrt and transfer without swiping to a GO train to speed me downtown. I would have uniform zone/distance based fares on subway and GO. It would be a public system.

The bus routes would be tendered to private companies who bid for the right to run on certain routes, with an expectation of minimum standards of service. They would also be expected to put up the capital for the buses. It would run a flat fare.

Seems like a dream doesn't it? Or remarkably like many European systems....ie London. How in that vision do you see taxpayer dollars being wasted?

Does it make sense that a transit agency has to run Canada's largest subway network and its largest bus network. Can they really do both well? Even aside from the debate about private sector involvement, I would argue that there are efficiencies to be had from running two separate transit systems: a bus company and a rail company.

 

[Whoaccio]

Does it make sense that a transit agency has to run Canada's largest subway network and its largest bus network. Can they really do both well? Even aside from the debate about private sector involvement, I would argue that there are efficiencies to be had from running two separate transit systems: a bus company and a rail company.

I am pretty sure the TTC's subway/RT operations have a positive operating cash flow. The surface routes average a fare box recovery of 50-60%. Given that the system as a whole has a recovery rate of 75%, that should imply that subway/RT division subsidize the surface division. If there was any serious structural reform to the TTC, this would inevitably be an issue. If you separated the proceeds from the subway, bus routes would presumably have to either raise fares or reduce service.

 

[kEiThZ]

If you separated the proceeds from the subway, bus routes would presumably have to either raise fares or reduce service.

Which brings up some excellent policy ideas....it might be possible to lower fares along rail lines, or increased bus fares will actually promote more growth along subway lines or promote better practices (for example right sizing buses along routes and time of day) or draw in more private competitors willing to compete on service.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

It's not so much that profitable subways subsidize money-losing surface routes, it's that surface routes must lose money to funnel enough people into the subway stations for them to be profitable (except in hyperdense cities with compact transit lines, like Hong Kong). If you raise surface fares or reduce surface service, you will damage subway profitability.

 

[doady]

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

Provided by at least two different private companies actually. So it split up similar to the way you prose the TTC to be split up and privatized.

And yet it is significantly less efficient than both Mississauga and Brampton Transit, with only around 40% cost recovery compared to approx 55% for MT and BT.

 

[kEiThZ]

And yet it is significantly less efficient than both Mississauga and Brampton Transit, with only around 40% cost recovery compared to approx 55% for MT and BT.

I suspect that has less to do with Viva/YRT and more to do with the nature of transit use in York Region.

 

[RedRocket191]

I suspect that has less to do with Viva/YRT and more to do with the nature of transit use in York Region.

It's a leftover from the days when the former Markham, Vaughan, Richmond Hill and Newmarket systems were all contracted out.

VIVA was contracted in order to implement it quickly. It was started around the same time as Acceleride (which is in-house), and the difference is very clear.

There have always been rumours that YRT plans to bring transit in-house once the individual contracts expire.

 

[Glen]

And yet it is significantly less efficient than both Mississauga and Brampton Transit, with only around 40% cost recovery compared to approx 55% for MT and BT.

Cost recovery is not an indication of efficiency. If it was, transit operators would simply raise fares to cover 100% and then scream from the roof tops "we are 100% efficient".

 

[DavidH]

Cost recovery is not an indication of efficiency. If it was, transit operators would simply raise fares to cover 100% and then scream from the roof tops "we are 100% efficient".

A high cost recovery is a policy choice on the part of senior governments to put the cost of transit operations on transit users rather than society as a whole.

 

[Hydrogen]

I'm a bit dubious about looking to suburban transit as a scheme to replace the TTC.

In an ideal world, the region would have a well-integrated subway/rail/bus system through which you could go from those suburbs to downtown in a reasonable amount of time.

But then there are the territorial mayors and councils, the rate-payers pissed at the idea of paying for Toronto transit, and the transit advocates who would generate endless unaffordable plans and fight tooth and nail against any alternative they see as unworthy.

 

[urbanfan89]

I imagine a seamless system where I can swipe a card to get on a bus, then swipe for a subway/lrt and transfer without swiping to a GO train to speed me downtown. I would have uniform zone/distance based fares on subway and GO. It would be a public system.

The bus routes would be tendered to private companies who bid for the right to run on certain routes, with an expectation of minimum standards of service. They would also be expected to put up the capital for the buses. It would run a flat fare.

Contracting is not something we should jump into if it isn't proved that costs will be lowered.

Seems like a dream doesn't it? Or remarkably like many European systems....ie London. How in that vision do you see taxpayer dollars being wasted?

If that were implemented on the TTC then you can guarantee that bus ridership would fall sharply and bigger parking lots will be needed at Finch, Kennedy, Kipling, etc.

London may not have this problem if they threw massive amounts of cash at the bus services (and even striking a deal with Hugo Chavez for free fuel in return for urban planning assistance).

You still haven't answered my question about the massive waste and duplication of services.

What's the point of running a bus every five minutes on Bloor/Danforth during rush hour when something faster and more efficient exists under your feet? Each operation dollar is still coming from the same source.

Does it make sense that a transit agency has to run Canada's largest subway network and its largest bus network. Can they really do both well? Even aside from the debate about private sector involvement, I would argue that there are efficiencies to be had from running two separate transit systems: a bus company and a rail company.

And I can name plenty of transit agencies in Europe where all modes of transit (metro/suburban rail/light rail/local bus/etc) are under one roof, and which work very well.

In fact it's universally agreed that Britain lags behind continental Europe when it comes to public transit. Not a model we should aspire to.

We will never have the density needed to sustain the private for-profit systems of Asia.

 

[kEiThZ]

Contracting is not something we should jump into if it isn't proved that costs will be lowered.

Agreed. But we have not even looked at it yet.....

What's the point of running a bus every five minutes on Bloor/Danforth during rush hour when something faster and more efficient exists under your feet? Each operation dollar is still coming from the same source.

Agreed. All in favour of scrapping bus service on Bloor say aye!

And I can name plenty of transit agencies in Europe where all modes of transit (metro/suburban rail/light rail/local bus/etc) are under one roof, and which work very well.

I haven't argued that we should only look at contracting out. What about just splitting up the subway and bus components into 2 separate entities? I would argue that we should put all our rail under on house...ie TTC subways and LRT and the GO Rail network.

In fact it's universally agreed that Britain lags behind continental Europe when it comes to public transit. Not a model we should aspire to.

Given the state of our system...I'd say London style transit is something we should aspire to.

We will never have the density needed to sustain the private for-profit systems of Asia.

Contracting out and privatization can mean not-for-profit corporations as well. The GTAA and Viva are good examples.

 

[urbanfan89]

Agreed. All in favour of scrapping bus service on Bloor say aye!

This is a strawman, and a pretty bad one at that.

You've also conveniently deleted my previous questions.

I haven't argued that we should only look at contracting out. What about just splitting up the subway and bus components into 2 separate entities? I would argue that we should put all our rail under on house...ie TTC subways and LRT and the GO Rail network.

So what's the relationship between a GO Train and a streetcar other than the fact they have steel wheels? This is a completely arbitrary distinction that serves no public benefit.

I say everything needs to be under one roof: any journey you make anywhere in the region, no matter what mode you take, involves one fare. The cheapest way will be the fastest way.

Each mode of transport will operationally be separate for obvious reasons.

Given the state of our system...I'd say London style transit is something we should aspire to.

So what makes the, say, Paris or Madrid or Berlin systems so bad?

Our current system is broken in part because people have to pay an array of fares across imaginary lines. We don't need to make it worse.

Contracting out and privatization can mean not-for-profit corporations as well. The GTAA and Viva are good examples.

Viva is run by Veolia, a conglomerate that runs buses and trains all over the world.

 

[kEiThZ]

This is a strawman, and a pretty bad one at that.

You've also conveniently deleted my previous questions.

My apologies I was being facetious....and which questions did I miss...I will answer them

So what's the relationship between a GO Train and a streetcar other than the fact they have steel wheels? This is a completely arbitrary distinction that serves no public benefit.

I wasn't talking about streetcars. I was referring to LRT and subway...the network backbone basically. I guess what I envision is a seamless rail system for the city where regardless of where you live in the GTA you can use rail to get anywhere....ie easy/low or no cost transfers from GO to subway, etc.

I say everything needs to be under one roof: any journey you make anywhere in the region, no matter what mode you take, involves one fare. The cheapest way will be the fastest way.

Each mode of transport will operationally be separate for obvious reasons.

I have advocated separate companies because I believe this would allow each entity to be specialized, focused and more efficient at what it does. You are certainly entitled to the contrarian view.

So what makes the, say, Paris or Madrid or Berlin systems so bad?

Excellent systems all of them. That does not mean that they are all 100% right for Toronto just like London or Hong Kong is not necessarily 100% wrong for us either.

Our current system is broken in part because people have to pay an array of fares across imaginary lines. We don't need to make it worse.

This is exactly why I envisioned a rail entity, so that someone getting on in Pickering or Mississauga wouldn't have to pay 2 fares to get from there to Bloor station. Or for that matter, residents in the 416 should be able to use GO trains at the same prices as the TTC to get downtown. In my view a seamless system would help this process along.

All I am saying is, there has been no research or studies done on this. How do we know that the model we have is the best? And the TTC would certainly never advocate its own demise. If unified authorities are good, then we w should study them and see why Paris, Madrid or Berlin has accomplished so much and the TTC not as much. I am sure it involves more than just government funding.

Viva is run by Veolia, a conglomerate that runs buses and trains all over the world.

Fair enough. But you would agree that Viva is fairly effective. And you missed my example of the biggest not-for-profit private entity in the region, the GTAA. It seems to be doing a great job, arguably better than any government entity that ran the airport before.

 

[urbanfan89]

My apologies I was being facetious....and which questions did I miss...I will answer them

If that were implemented on the TTC then you can guarantee that bus ridership would fall sharply and bigger parking lots will be needed at Finch, Kennedy, Kipling, etc.

London may not have this problem if they threw massive amounts of cash at the bus services (and even striking a deal with Hugo Chavez for free fuel in return for urban planning assistance).

Anyway, you still can't ignore the problem of using tax dollars to fund two entities that compete against each other.

I wasn't talking about streetcars. I was referring to LRT and subway...the network backbone basically. I guess what I envision is a seamless rail system for the city where regardless of where you live in the GTA you can use rail to get anywhere....ie easy/low or no cost transfers from GO to subway, etc.

Why should there be a distinction between modes of transport?

I have advocated separate companies because I believe this would allow each entity to be specialized, focused and more efficient at what it does. You are certainly entitled to the contrarian view.

The TTC/MT/YRT/GO/etc will still exist. They will be guaranteed a set amount of subsidy every year and decisions about routes and schedules will be left to them.

They will all participate in one fare system, eliminating the array of fares needed to pass imaginary lines.

Excellent systems all of them. That does not mean that they are all 100% right for Toronto just like London or Hong Kong is not necessarily 100% wrong for us either.

Urban planning wise, Toronto is truly unique in the world. We share a bit of European-level density and transit modal split, Asian-like clusters of residential skyscrapers clustered in the region, and North American-like cultural values and suburban sprawl.

Therefore the solution must be unique as well.

This is exactly why I envisioned a rail entity, so that someone getting on in Pickering or Mississauga wouldn't have to pay 2 fares to get from there to Bloor station. Or for that matter, residents in the 416 should be able to use GO trains at the same prices as the TTC to get downtown. In my view a seamless system would help this process along.

Why not extend it further and declare that someone travelling from Mississauga to, say, the zoo will have a seamless system and only pay one fare?

All I am saying is, there has been no research or studies done on this. How do we know that the model we have is the best?

If there are people taking a slower route just to save a few dimes every day, then the model is flawed. If buses and trains are actively competing for passengers (when both are being funded by the same source), then something's wrong. If it's easy to understand how fares are paid, then this is success. Etc...

And the TTC would certainly never advocate its own demise. If unified authorities are good, then we w should study them and see why Paris, Madrid or Berlin has accomplished so much and the TTC not as much. I am sure it involves more than just government funding.

No one has advocated abolishing the TTC.

It used to be the pride of the city. Thanks to a decade of being choked for funding and political neglect (to the extent that huge sections of the subway need urgent repairs NOW), that's no longer the case.

Fair enough. But you would agree that Viva is fairly effective. And you missed my example of the biggest not-for-profit private entity in the region, the GTAA. It seems to be doing a great job, arguably better than any government entity that ran the airport before.

GTAA...I can't remember how many times I've been nickeled and dimed for things that are supposed to be free.

It's also the world's most expensive airport to use, which can partly be blamed on Ottawa for charging a high rent.