New Transit Funding Sources

[W. K. Lis]

Great Mass Transit Doesn't Have to Cost a Fortune

Read More: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/11/12/hong_kong_mtr_costs_great_transit_at_low_cost.html

.....

MTR does things other than Hong Kong transportation operations, but their Hong Kong transportation division spent 7.82 billion Hong Kong dollars in 2012. By contrast, the Washington Metrpolitan Area Transit Authority had $2.13 billion in 2012 operating expenses. At the current exchange rate of 7.75 Hong Kong dollars per U.S. dollar, that means MTR is spending less than one-half of what WMATA spends.

- Now, of course there's nothing wrong, per se, with spending a lot of money on your city's transportation system in order to obtain better transportation. But if you compare the level of service MTR delivers to Hong Kong with what WMATA delivers for D.C., I think you'd find it hard to make the case that what we're getting is twice as good. MTR has excellent train frequencies, about the same number of train stations, and over five times as many riders as WMATA. The only downside is that MTR's operating hours are a bit more restrictive than WMATA's. Beyond that, they're spending less money and delivering a better service—a valuable reminder that cost effectiveness counts for something.

- I've heard it said by U.S.-based transit activists that the success of MTR in providing a high level of service without ongoing operating subsidies is attributable to the fact that the company is also a substantial real estate developer and landlord around rail stations. It's true that they do those things, but it's simply not the case that landlording is subsidizing the transportation operations—the transportation is profitable on its own terms.

- Conversely, I've heard it said by U.S.-based conservatives that the success of MTR is due to it being a private for-profit firm rather than a government agency. But while it's true that MTR is company listed on the Hang Seng Stock Exchange, it's also true that over 70 percent of the shares in the company are still held by the Hong Kong government.

- MTR is cost-effective because the Hong Kong government demands cost-effective transit. Conversely, I bet MTR isn't nearly as good a place to work as WMATA or other American transit agencies for rank-and-file employees. But whatever the case may be about this, whatever MTR is doing with its workforce isn't undermining its ability to hire enough people to run an effective transit system.

.....

Its also nice that the transit agency OWNS buildings at its stations. It gets rental (both residential and commercial) income. The TTC may own some of its buildings, but rents offices scattered around the city. The TTC should OWN buildings at its stations, both for its offices but more for the income.

 

[TOareaFan]

So, I attended the TransitPanel discussion last night in Mississauga. Some rambling thoughts.....

- They said it was the best attended one yet out of the 3 (the final one is tonight in Pickerning)....this is kinda sad because while there were a few folks there (~75) it was not the crowd I expected and when you subtract the municipal politicians and panel members...the number is probably closer to 60.

- Very few "regular" citizens. As I milled around and introduced myself to people prior to the event I noticed that most had some sort of company/organization name on their "hello my name is.." sticker. When we sat at our roundtable it was kinda funny all 6 of the other people at our table were there "representing" (one tenants assocation, one from OMERS/SQ1, one from a property manager and 3 from a labour union)...it led to a weird moment as they had a hard time understanding why I was there and I had a hard time understanding why "who do you work for" was such an important question. When I finally got them to understand I was just a "regular taxpayer guy with an interest in this stuff" they gave me a collective and very patronizing "oh, good for you"...if you combine the pretty low number of people and then note that when you take away the politicians and the people there for corporate/organizational reasons...you get the idea that no one really cares about the topic of transit and gridlock unless they are in their cars or on buses that happen to be stuck in gridlock.

- As for the night itself, it was interesting to hear Anne Golden speak...but not so much the other politicos who had to "get their word in" but other than that the night had what I call "a real cooking show feel to it". You know those shows where they have half an our to show you how to make this wonderful dish..they waste 10 minutes with chatter, then 15 telling you what ingredients you need and how to prep them and then "well, we are almost out of time so we prepared one earlier" and they show you what it should look like. Last night there was lots of "we need your input" "we value what you say" etc etc. but in their closing remarks it became clear that their report is pretty much written and Ms Golden actually said "You will like what we are presenting".

- it was good having a face to face open discussion with 6 strangers about this stuff but I have very little doubt that what happened last night will have no impact.

 

[nfitz]

And the problem with this is?

I don't think there is any. Last night, I did just this with a Metropass for a trip of 4 stops and then another of 5 stops. With me were people who used tokens and tickets for the same trips. It was cold and windy last night. I've even used a child's ticket (and Metropass) for 2 stops on occasion. A Metropass by myself for 2 stops uphill is probably the minimum I've done - depends how far the stops are, the weather, how hilly, what I'm carrying, how late I am, how many children I've got with me, etc.

 

[TOareaFan]

I don't think there is any. Last night, I did just this with a Metropass for a trip of 4 stops and then another of 5 stops. With me were people who used tokens and tickets for the same trips. It was cold and windy last night. I've even used a child's ticket (and Metropass) for 2 stops on occasion. A Metropass by myself for 2 stops uphill is probably the minimum I've done - depends how far the stops are, the weather, how hilly, what I'm carrying, how late I am, how many children I've got with me, etc.

I agree...mine was a rhetorical question.

 

[Johnny Au]

The TTC can rent out the upper floors of the house that is used as the entrance to Spadina station (Kendal exit) to university students as a start.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

And the problem with this is?

Technically speaking, nothing. But as an able bodied person, I can't help but feeling like a total douchebag for stopping a bus so I can travel a block or two, unless I really need to. Wasting all those people's time by slowing the bus, costing the TTC extra money etc..

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

So, I attended the TransitPanel discussion last night in Mississauga. Some rambling thoughts.....

- They said it was the best attended one yet out of the 3 (the final one is tonight in Pickerning)....this is kinda sad because while there were a few folks there (~75) it was not the crowd I expected and when you subtract the municipal politicians and panel members...the number is probably closer to 60.

- Very few "regular" citizens. As I milled around and introduced myself to people prior to the event I noticed that most had some sort of company/organization name on their "hello my name is.." sticker. When we sat at our roundtable it was kinda funny all 6 of the other people at our table were there "representing" (one tenants assocation, one from OMERS/SQ1, one from a property manager and 3 from a labour union)...it led to a weird moment as they had a hard time understanding why I was there and I had a hard time understanding why "who do you work for" was such an important question. When I finally got them to understand I was just a "regular taxpayer guy with an interest in this stuff" they gave me a collective and very patronizing "oh, good for you"...if you combine the pretty low number of people and then note that when you take away the politicians and the people there for corporate/organizational reasons...you get the idea that no one really cares about the topic of transit and gridlock unless they are in their cars or on buses that happen to be stuck in gridlock.

- As for the night itself, it was interesting to hear Anne Golden speak...but not so much the other politicos who had to "get their word in" but other than that the night had what I call "a real cooking show feel to it". You know those shows where they have half an our to show you how to make this wonderful dish..they waste 10 minutes with chatter, then 15 telling you what ingredients you need and how to prep them and then "well, we are almost out of time so we prepared one earlier" and they show you what it should look like. Last night there was lots of "we need your input" "we value what you say" etc etc. but in their closing remarks it became clear that their report is pretty much written and Ms Golden actually said "You will like what we are presenting".

- it was good having a face to face open discussion with 6 strangers about this stuff but I have very little doubt that what happened last night will have no impact.

This all rings true with my Vaughan experience. Part of the problem is they didn't publicize this process at all, especially problematic given all the pre-existing cynicism about it. The first one, especially, was very short notice and at an inaccessible location. There were also lots of industry-type reps at the Vaughan one.

That said, Anne Golden knows her stuff. I don't expect the input to sway what they're thinking of doing. I do think it will give them ideas in terms of how to "market" it. Like, I don't think it's a surprise that most people believe "everyone should pay" for transit.

I'm still rather wary of the process but at least happy that they seemed to have the "right people for the job" on the panel and hopefully that will give Wynne the ammo to put this in the budget with the ability to say, "This isn't just a METROLINX idea or a LIBERAL idea, but an idea the people are behind..."

Time will tell.

 

[TOareaFan]

This all rings true with my Vaughan experience. Part of the problem is they didn't publicize this process at all, especially problematic given all the pre-existing cynicism about it. The first one, especially, was very short notice and at an inaccessible location. There were also lots of industry-type reps at the Vaughan one.

On the subject of location...last night was at the Living Arts Centre....some of the people there gave the impression that they had never been to Mississauga before and witnessed the gridlock first hand last night (of course, as luck would have it, the 403 was in abnormally bad shape last night).

That said, Anne Golden knows her stuff. I don't expect the input to sway what they're thinking of doing. I do think it will give them ideas in terms of how to "market" it. Like, I don't think it's a surprise that most people believe "everyone should pay" for transit.

I think we experienced something very similar here. On that first question "who should pay" the room was pretty much unanimous that "All Benefit....All Pay"....but I wondered how much that is influenced by the the audience. People inclined to go to such event aren't necessarily (I think) reflective of the population at large. I think the population silos are going to become more evident after the small groups who attend have done their roundtabling.

I'm still rather wary of the process but at least happy that they seemed to have the "right people for the job" on the panel and hopefully that will give Wynne the ammo to put this in the budget with the ability to say, "This isn't just a METROLINX idea or a LIBERAL idea, but an idea the people are behind..."

Time will tell.

I will say that I was a bit conflicted. I did, and do, resent the very existence of this panel but hearing her speak, and speaking to a couple of the panel members, does give you some confidence that they know their stuff.

 

[TOareaFan]

Forgot to mention that one of the things that stuck out at me last night was how hard/harsh the panel were when discussing two particular transit lines. One was their mocking of the decision to replace the SRT with a subway rather than a LRT..they called it "a waste" then said it will be like the Sheppard Subway....and to show some people what they meant they quoted two stats......they claimed that for every $3 fare a rider on Sheppard pays, the taxpayer subsidy is $16 (they gave no source...it was one of those "Ms Golden said it so it must be true" things) then they said it cost $1B to build and moves 50,000 people a day....as much as the Yonge line moves in an hour.

They said we need to allocate our dollars better and make use of the dollars invested.

As some of you might know ( ) I have been very critical of the $1.2B spend on the GTS and it only producing the ability to move 7,000 people a day (the capacity of 5 10 car GO trains) each way. When I mentioned that to a panel member and wondered why if Sheppard is so bad why they are not commenting on an even worse decision he, literally, just walked away.

 

[innsertnamehere]

and I have explained before about how the GTS project is more about future projects feeding into it than immediate opening day benefits. Think of it as "phase 1" of all day 2 way GO. the $1.2 billion absolutely does not only go to the UPX.


It also won't be subsidized nearly as much as the sheppard subway.

Scarborough subway comments sound silly, it is projected to have similar ridership figures as the DRL, roughly quadruple what the Sheppard subway has. Sheppard is only around 3000PPHD right now I believe.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

insert, with Ford gone, do you think the transit plans will change at all?

 

[innsertnamehere]

current plans won't change unless Hudak takes office. Some things might be added if Chow or Stintz take office though. Even if Ford wins again, he won't be able to touch the LRTs.

 

[TOareaFan]

current plans won't change unless Hudak takes office. Some things might be added if Chow or Stintz take office though. Even if Ford wins again, he won't be able to touch the LRTs.

depends on what plans you are talking about. If you are talking about the Big Move being the current plans I would bet you they will change.

To quote one of the panel members "The Big Move is not a regional transit plan. It is a transit plan with bits spread out over the region. It has to be changed".

So, change of government or not, the plans are changing.....how much we will find out soon.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I meant currently funded projects.

How much re-jigging could really occur? I wouldn't be surprised if we saw some changes, but beyond maybe moving around some BRT projects, what can change? I know there has been talk of cutting the Yonge extension so it only goes to Steeles, but that's the only major project that I can see freeing up funds. That gives you $2ish billion to work with, but agian, for what? the "Big U" line the panel has been discussing?

 

[TOareaFan]

I meant currently funded projects.

How much re-jigging could really occur? I wouldn't be surprised if we saw some changes, but beyond maybe moving around some BRT projects, what can change? I know there has been talk of cutting the Yonge extension so it only goes to Steeles, but that's the only major project that I can see freeing up funds. That gives you $2ish billion to work with, but agian, for what? the "Big U" line the panel has been discussing?

He didn't/wouldn't say (in fact that was a bit of a theme last night...willing to critique existing transit/plans but unwilling to tell us what they are going to recommend in a month) but he was very strong/firm/serious in his criticism.