Transit City Plan

[TheTigerMaster]

1) That would complicate the fare collection system substantially. Someone boarding at Vaughan Centre and traveling to Steeles West only pays the "905" fare. If he travels further south on the same train, how do you make sure that he pays the "416" fare as well? Have the train sit for 5 or 10 min at the Steeles West station, and send fare collectors through each car?

2) Double fare will apply to reverse commuters as well: someone living within 416 (and paying Toronto's taxes) but traveling to work at VCC will have to pay double fare.

A proper way to make the region contribute to TTC is to collect a region-wide transit tax, and distribute it in a way that compensates the TTC for serving non-Torontonians.

I doubt that a region-wide transit tax will work because of the politics involved. I suggest that the City of Toronto sends every Torontonian a Presto card that knows where their residence is located. If someone lives in Toronto and uses the Presto they'll pay the regular $3.00 fare. If you live outside of Toronto and use the Presto card you get charged a little more.

And the double fare wouldn't apply in reverse. The TTC is Toronto's transit system and I believe that Toronto still retains control of fares. So if a Torontonian travels to Vaughan on the subway the TTC wouldn't have to charge extra.

 

[nfitz]

But if the city doesn't want to implement toll roads and the Vaughan extension is too expensive to maintain we could always have trains turn around at York University station (just before it leaves Toronto) and send one train to Vaughan every 12 hours or so.

I'm sure Metrolinx would be keen to take the subway off of Toronto's hands very quickly.

But seriously, I think that an inter-municipal border crossing where people pay tolls would only cause traffic delays on the Vaughan side of the border and hurt business here in Toronto. The TTC needs to implement some kind of zone based fare system.

Oh, you don't do it like that. You just charge extra at the 2 stations in question when they board. So if the cost per trip extra is $1 ... then you charge an extra $2 per entry at Vaughan Centre and Highway 407, and not worry about the cost of those exiting there.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I'm sure Metrolinx would be keen to take the subway off of Toronto's hands very quickly.

As long as Vaughan uses their own subway cars that never enter Toronto and runs the subway independent of Toronto, I'd be glad if Metrolinx took the Vaughan subway off our hands. I'm completely OK with the idea of Vaughan running their own mini subway "system" with two stations.

Oh, you don't do it like that. You just charge extra at the 2 stations in question when they board. So if the cost per trip extra is $1 ... then you charge an extra $2 per entry at Vaughan Centre and Highway 407, and not worry about the cost of those exiting there.

I'm not a big fan of this either. Torontonians would still be paying more then Vaughaners (or whatever their demonym is) to use TORONTO'S transit system. The people Vaughan would need to pay the same or a little more then Torontonians (with TTC fare and Toronto taxes taken into account) to make the fare system fair for both municipalities. I would personally prefer this idea that I wrote in a previous post:

I suggest that the City of Toronto sends every Torontonian a Presto card that knows where their residence is located. If someone lives in Toronto and uses the Presto they'll pay the regular $3.00 fare. If you live outside of Toronto and use the Presto card you get charged a little more.

 

[MetroMan]

Does council need a simple majority, or at least a 60% majority to remove the TTC Commission?

I'd have to look into it but I believe another special meeting like the one Stintz called could be summoned with TTC Commission appointments set to be made. A simple majority would pass the motion.

 

[goreckm]

I'm not a big fan of this either. Torontonians would still be paying more then Vaughaners (or whatever their demonym is) to use TORONTO'S transit system. The people Vaughan would need to pay the same or a little more then Torontonians (with TTC fare and Toronto taxes taken into account) to make the fare system fair for both municipalities. I would personally prefer this idea that I wrote in a previous post:

I think your idea is a little on the not feasible side for a few reasons. The first, is that each Presto card would have to have the user's location built in. This can be easily scammed (family member that lives in TO, doesn't use transit, gives the Presto card to someone living in Vaughan, etc). How about tourists who arrive in TO? What fare should they pay? Unfortunately, in any zone based, integrated system, the TTC will not get their fare share, as it would otherwise. We will have to find other ways for the TTC to get the money back. Maybe, we can have Metrolinx, which is technically responsible for the regional transit, to pay for the difference between the full fare and what the TTC actually receives. This would also put us back on the right track with the Province at least in small part subsidizing transit operational costs again. As for what the TTC receives, I'm not sure how this will be figured out, maybe by the number of kilometers travelled on each system, or maybe number of transfers. We could maybe takes some ideas from systems that use revenue sharing with GO (I'm pretty sure YRT is one of them, and they also have a zone system that works with Presto).

Also, it's not like we would make the fare cheap, I think that travelling from Vaughan to Downtown should cost a similar amount to what GO charges now, which is about $5.50 each way. And if you count the km's travelled, the TTC is likely to get the lion's share of the proceeds.

 

[Rational plan]

The simple problem (Ha) is that there is not enough money for a decent transit system. Big City transit systems, should in theory not require much in the way of operating subsidies. They need the big bucks for capital expenditure. Smaller towns and outer suburbs need bigger operating subsidies.

The problem all systems have, is the same problem a lot of government services have. Politicians love mandating service without providing sufficient taxes to pay for it.
In america it is all about incredibly low fares as a form of welfare for the poor that leave systems more dependent on tax than fare revenue. This often leads to systems designed to cover an area as widely as possible rather than concentrate on core routes that actually attract passengers.

In Toronto we've ended up with problems of financial support to the TTC, yet outrage about proposed fare increases or service cuts.

In London (UK) we've ended up with free travel on buses and the tube, all day (compared to after 9.30 on buses in the rest of the UK) and free travel for the under 16's others in full time eduction, the unemployed, veterans and the disabled. All paid for out of taxes that no one dares touch, even in these times.

As a rule of thumb, if a system can be run as commercially as possible, it should be. Then all it has to contend with, is wrestling taxes from government for capital expenditure.

For a system to expand, it's governing authority needs to show it can implement big projects and keep costs under control. After lots of project blowouts in the UK over the decades the Treasury is extremely averse to large projects, so lots of hoops need to be jumped through. For example when assessing a scheme it routinely applies a 60% optimism bias in any costs and does the BCR's on that basis. What is becoming clear is that certain systems seem to find it easier to get money than others. The ones that do, have one thing in common, a track record in building projects on budget with very strong passenger numbers on opening.

There have been a number of schemes in the UK in the last few decades that either blew their budget or had very disappointing numbers. i.e Birmingham metro, Sheffield Supertram, Tyne & Metro to Sunderland and the current ongoing horror of the Edinburgh tram.

The two biggest systems that have grown are the DLR in London and the Manchester Metrolink. The main thing in common has been a small cheap system at the start that used old rail alignments and simple stations. Since then the booming passenger numbers and strict cost control have allowed them to win extension after extension.

You can plan as many subway lines as you want, but they won't get built. Build a relatively inexpensive system first, that can either be upgraded or expanded. Surface LRT's can have platforms extended very easily and they can certainly run more frequently than every 5 minutes. The first lines should only be built in the highest traffic areas. As traffic levels grow then extensions further out can be contemplated.

If the lines are rammed, people will bitch and moan about 'how you should have a built a subway' forgetting there was not the money or the political will to do that.
Once a line is full, then people will be bitching to their representative about more capacity and other neighbourhoods will clamour for similar investment. While with the benefit of hindsight it might have been cheaper in a hundred years time to build a four track subway, people will bitch and moan about underused capacity for the first 50 years, and no one will agree to fund lines anywhere else. On the other hand if people see full trains they think it's money well spent and maybe we need some more! Plus with more avenues with their own LRT, you will see a bigger network effect.

As more people use live within walking distance of high order transit, the higher the percentage of trips are taken on transit. As the network grows each line will grow busier creating for more demand for lines on other avenues leading even greater
network effects. Once everyone is bitching and moaning about how full all these tram lines are then there will be support for more subways. By that time the city will have grown much denser around the LRT network and it will need those subways. If there are LRT's above then a new subway system will need many stops.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Very well put, rational plan, thank you!

AoD

 

[leopetr]

Employers in Toronto who hire Torontonians also pay Toronto's taxes. That means that non-torontonians are still paying less then torontonians.

But non-Torontonian employers who hire Torontonians don't pay Toronto taxes. It balances out.

e.g. I live downtown but work in Markham.

 

[Tulse]

As a rule of thumb, if a system can be run as commercially as possible, it should be.

That to me seems to be a grave misunderstanding of the purpose of government-provided mass transit (and government services in general). Mass transit is indeed in part a subsidy for those with less money, and serves a greater good by providing those people with greater opportunities for employment. Transit can also help to stimulate economic activity by improving the mobility of the population in general. It can also reduce costs to drivers by helping moderate traffic, thus reducing travel times and fuel costs. All of these, and other, benefits are not easily captured directly by the transit system itself, but are benefits that accrue more broadly. As a result, simply increasing fares to avoid an operating subsidy would actually be counterproductive, as it would reduce transit use and thus reduce all these broader benefits.

Transit is not a profitable, or even sustainable, stand-alone business. If it was, there would be far more companies clamouring to provide private transit.

 

[andrewpmk]

The DLR is totally grade separated - it is an elevated subway not a tram system. Tram systems generally haven't been very successful in huge cities as big as Toronto. If we want rapid transit we should use elevated railways and existing rail corridors to cut costs, not build slow streetcar lines that stop at every fence post. We are in danger of ending up like Los Angeles (which has a crappy light rail system hardly anyone uses) if we don't build subways.

 

[Tulse]

Tram systems generally haven't been very successful in huge cities as big as Toronto.

That doesn't seem to be the view of transit experts -- what is your evidence of this?

 

[Electrify]

That's the thing.........sometimes evry close stops are warranted and elsewhere stops can be much further apart but there needs to be a general guideline as to the "average" space stopping such as 1 per km.
I alasp agree with the comment about stopping should not ever be influenced by local coundillors. They often know little about transit but everything about getting themselves re-elected. They want to promise everyone a stop in front of their door regardless of the effect on the system as a whole.
Toronto's "balls are missing" because if they weren't they would tell the people along the route the truth.........if you want true rapid/mass transit them you are going to have to get use to walking to the station. They should be very firm about the number of stations they will allow and if they get flack them they should get some backbone {or grow some balls} and tell the residents that if you demand rapid transit then you must accept the fact that you will probably have to walk longer to get to your station. There is no such thing as rapid transit that stops every 2 to 3 blocks............that is very much local service.
Hell, a lot of local surface routes don't even stop that often as they skip stops where no one wants to get on or off while LRT POP will require stops at all stations.
As far as this "don't have enough money" story goes, that is a load of crap. I cannot, nor have even heard of, a city getting $8.2 billion for rapid transit from a senior level of government where the city itself doesn't have to chip in one nickel. EVERY city on this planet {including other ones in Ontario} would give their left nut to enjoy such largess. The reason Toronto doesn't have enough money for full subway expansion is because the feds and especially the people of Toronto refuse to pay for it.
Vancouver realized that you don't get "money for nothing and chicks for free" in the real world. They paid $500 million for the Canada Line and are putting $400 million towards the soon to be built new 11km Evergreen SKyTrain line which is only coming in at $130 million per Km including a 1 km tunnel.
Calgary, Edmonton, and even Ontario sister city Ottawa are all putting in their own money for their LRT expansion programs.
Maybe Toronto should look itself in the mirror and realize that they are the biggest block to mass transit expansion in Toronto and not senior levels of government. Toronto can bitch all it wants at Ottawa about not providing enough money for rapid/mass transit expansion but they are contributing $330 million towards the Sheppard Line which is exactly $330 million more than Toronto is willing to anti up.

Updated my map with the changes mentioned: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=213339431073365769289.0004b8b9854c3716d4f0b

When I zoom it out, it becomes apparent that we really need some kind of north-south route west and east of the Yonge-University line. Even if it isn't a fleshed out DRL and remains north of Bloor and Danforth, having some kind of higher order route along those corridors will help those who are transit and geographically illiterate get around the city with transit. You really can see the reasoning behind the Don Mills and Jane routes. GO will help, but even then it won't hit the Finch line in the west and will still be relatively infrequent in the east.

Speaking of GO, the province really needs to step it up. While we are looking at rapid transit as a means to connect Scarborough to Humber College, the reality is that a comparable commute by car would be to take Sheppard and Finch Aves, even with my proposed stop spacing. GO is pushing for frequent service along the Lakeshore and 407 corridors, but they need it along all the 400 series highways. This morning I had a job interview at Huontario and the 407, coming back by car to Richmond Hill it took about 1 hour and 15 minutes (with the 401). While if I were to take the 407 GO bus services it would be fairly competitive, there are many places in Toronto where getting to with GO that would be much simplified if they ran a frequent 401 bus line across the GTA.

 

[rbt]

But if the city doesn't want to implement toll roads and the Vaughan extension is too expensive to maintain we could always have trains turn around at York University station (just before it leaves Toronto) and send one train to Vaughan every 12 hours or so.

This does not reduce maintenance costs. Much of the cost in maintenance is rebuilding the concrete and closing water leaks so it doesn't collapse.

If you ever intend to use it again you need to maintain it, otherwise fill it with dirt to prevent a cave-in on the surface. See debates on the Rochester subway system. We know exactly what happens when you let it sit for 60 years unattended.

 

[ssiguy2]

Updated my map with the changes mentioned: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=213339431073365769289.0004b8b9854c3716d4f0b

When I zoom it out, it becomes apparent that we really need some kind of north-south route west and east of the Yonge-University line. Even if it isn't a fleshed out DRL and remains north of Bloor and Danforth, having some kind of higher order route along those corridors will help those who are transit and geographically illiterate get around the city with transit. You really can see the reasoning behind the Don Mills and Jane routes. GO will help, but even then it won't hit the Finch line in the west and will still be relatively infrequent in the east.

Speaking of GO, the province really needs to step it up. While we are looking at rapid transit as a means to connect Scarborough to Humber College, the reality is that a comparable commute by car would be to take Sheppard and Finch Aves, even with my proposed stop spacing. GO is pushing for frequent service along the Lakeshore and 407 corridors, but they need it along all the 400 series highways. This morning I had a job interview at Huontario and the 407, coming back by car to Richmond Hill it took about 1 hour and 15 minutes (with the 401). While if I were to take the 407 GO bus services it would be fairly competitive, there are many places in Toronto where getting to with GO that would be much simplified if they ran a frequent 401 bus line across the GTA.

The province is "stepping up" to the tune of $8.2 billion. It is Toronto that is not stepping up to the plate.
Remember when TC was first announced by Miller years ago, he wanted the feds to put in a third as well as Queen's Park and Toronto would put up it's third. If Toronto put up it's third right now {about $2.7 billion}, Eglinton could be a full Metro from Malvern all the way to Pearson.
I find it interesting how little Kitchener is willing to anti up one third of the cost of it's LRT but when mentioning Toronto should put up anything they are treated as heretics.
Where did Toronto get this idea {and nerve} to demand that senior levels of government pay for all their transit infrastructure anyway?

 

[Tulse]

Where did Toronto get this idea {and nerve} to demand that senior levels of government pay for all their transit infrastructure anyway?

Tell the mayor we need a tax increase for subways, and see how that goes.