TTC targets farebox cheaters

[picard102]

We want to discourage private vehicle usage, and charge no up-front user fee.

You're kidding right? Between getting a drivers licences, buying a car, registering it, and paying for insurance, I'd say there is quite a bit of fee's to own a car.

 

[nfitz]

Not to mention Victoria Street also serves St. Mikes Hospital. Its definitely a stop worth saving.

As the only time I've ever used this stop myself was my wife and newborn to visit the hospital ... I really think this is over-rated. If this was the criteria, the stop would be further east closer to Bond (at least westbound). However the biggest challenge in such trips is getting to the streetcar in the first place; not having to walk an extra block.

If you look at other hospitals many have much further walks from transit (Mount Sinai for example).

This is the same logic that gives us the useless 504 southbound stop at Simpson. Standing at the corner of Broadview and Gerrard on a busy day, you'll quickly notice that most of the people getting on the streetcar on that stop have walked from the Gerrard stop, because they have a better chance of getting on there is the streetcar is full. The distance is about 90 metres. Given I've seen 3 streetcars sitting there many a time (say two 504s and a 505) and even four occasionaly, with the new 30-metre streetcars there were literally be streetcars from one stop to the other! The Simpson stop isn't even that convenient to the hospital ... it should be further south really (making it about 60 metres from the Gerrard stop)

 

[Transportfan]

I think the biggest way they're doing 'fare evasion' now is 'transfer refreshing'. If you can get into the subway system with an old surface transfer, there's nothing stopping you from picking up a new subway time stamped transfer.

I used to go transit-geeking as a kid by doing this. I'd pay my fare on the first bus and when it got to the subway, take it to say, Kennedy, get a transfer, got on a bus and transferred to an intersecting route that went west to the Yonge line, refresh the transfer again, and find another route to take. It was especially convenient with single routes that ran between two stations with fair-paid transferfacilities such as the Flemingdon Park bus. I did this all day for one fare and never saw it as fare evasion as such.

Later, I used to do something similar in Mississauga and circle the perimeter of the city by getting a new transfer when boarding a new bus (as was MT's policy until a few years ago). Now with MT's time-expired transfer system, you'd have to pay two fares to complete the loop.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Though I'm certainly in favour of eliminating some stops ... some are shockingly close together.

The only outdated/pointless stops that should just simply be illuminated immediately, are "Sunday stops" (AKA church stops).

This isn't victorian Toronto any more folks...nobody goes to church any more, and those few that do don't rate special treatment. There's a sunday stop at a church about 150 feet east of the Jameson stop. It never fails that the streetcar needlessly stops there assuming the passengers dinging and standing at the door after the previous stop want to get off there...of course nobody does and is yet another delay for what is always a difficult few hundred feet for the bloody 504 to travel (thanks to left turning cars at Jameson).

If you need yet another reminder of just how utterly stupid we are...we allow left hand turns on streetcar routes. It's quite clear we just don't want things to work...and we're prepared to go to any lengths to achieve that.

As the only time I've ever used this stop myself was my wife and newborn to visit the hospital ... I really think this is over-rated. If this was the criteria, the stop would be further east closer to Bond (at least westbound).

At first glance, that might "seem" like a superfluous stop, but when you consider all things, you see why it is there.

1...It is a hospital, so access is important.
2...It's at the lights, so the streetcar will be stopped a lot of the time anyway.
3...It's a switch, and they have to stop before taking a switch anyway.
4...It relieves some of the loading/unloading that can be out of hand at Yonge.
5...That stop needs to stay there because it is used when the streetcars divert down Victoria because of problems further west.

You're kidding right? Between getting a drivers licences, buying a car, registering it, and paying for insurance, I'd say there is quite a bit of fee's to own a car

.

You must be the one kidding.
What does purchasing, insuring, fuelling or maintaining your personal property have to do with it?

Nobody has to pay an upfront user fee to use public roads. But the problem lies in the fact that private vehicles take up 99% of the road space, and are the main cause of the congestion and pollution. Yet it is all of us that subsidize car drivers by letting the road hogs get away with not paying any more....not to mention all the wasted space and money subsidizing them to park their cars on public property.

Again...a prime example of just how nutty we really are. We say we want to encourage more transit use and discourage more private cars on the public roads, yet we do the exact opposite.

The High Cost of Free Parking
Humble "free" parking is largely responsible for the catastrophic failures of postwar North American cities.
By Ryan McGreal
Published April 14, 2005


There is no righteous ire like the ire of people who believe they deserve something for nothing. In that light, don't expect many motorists to appreciate Donald Shoup's new book, The High Cost of Free Parking.

An UCLA professor in the Department of Urban Planning, Shoup dissects the economic, social, and environmental impacts of current parking regulations and proposes a new approach that can help free cities from the pernicious effects of auto dependency.

Originally limited to the curbside, parking was destined to become a scarce resource. Cars take up a lot of space, the total area of curbside parking is limited, and certain areas, like workplaces and commercial districts, experience peaks in demand when large numbers of people arrive at once.

Planners concluded that the solution was physical: create enough additional parking to offset the projected increase in demand. What seemed like good public policy at the time has been a slow-motion time bomb for cities. Too much parking is much worse, in the long run, than not enough parking.

When planners calculate how many parking spaces to provide1, they assume parking is free. Obviously, demand for a "free" service will be much higher than demand for a service that must be purchased. If people don't have to pay for parking, they are much more likely to drive.

There's just one problem: parking isn't free. In fact, according to Shoup, "the cost of all parking spaces in the U.S. exceeds the value of all cars and may even exceed the value of all roads." Parking costs billions of dollars a year.

Shoup is an economist, and it shows in the perspective he brings to bear. "[E]conomists do not define the demand for food as the peak quantity of food consumed at free buffets." Nevertheless, planners define the demand for parking as the peak quantity of spaces used when parking is free.

Developers simply pass the cost of "free" parking to property owners, who pass it to tenants, who pass it to all customers in the form of higher prices. "Off-street parking requirements encourage everyone to drive wherever they go because they know they can usually park free when they get there."

Huge expanses of asphalt push buildings far back from the street and away from each other. "Free" parking increases demand for driving lanes, which further separates destinations, making it difficult to get anywhere without a car. This further increases demand for more lanes and more parking in an insidious positive feedback loop.

Markets normally use price signals as negative feedback to contain demand. When demand goes up, the price goes up, and the higher price lowers demand. However, for price signals to work, the people using a good or service must be the ones paying for it.


Professor Donald Shoup kindly helps to subsidize your driving expenses
By breaking the relationship between use and payment, "free" parking eliminates the negative feedback that keeps the system in balance. As a result, everyone decides to drive everywhere, and the car crowds out other forms of transportation.

Even paid parking is often underpriced. In Hamilton, for example, motorists can park for 50 cents an hour at most curbside meters. Assuming about 60 square feet for a parking spot, that's six dollars per square foot per month - an order of magnitude lower than the equivalent monthly cost for a square foot of building space.

The tantalizing promise of underpriced parking leads motorists to cruise around the block until a spot opens up. In studies Shoup cites that analyzed traffic congestion, 30 percent of cars on the road were trying to find a parking spot.

Of all the transport systems available, including public transit, shipping, and rail, cars are unique in that terminal costs (doing something with your vehicle when the trip is finished) are offset to the rest of the economy. This "provide a huge subsidy to motorists, and thus increase the demand for cars, parking spaces, and vehicle travel."

Only walking, which has effectively no terminal costs, is comparable. All things being equal, most people would rather drive than walk. The problem is that all things aren't really equal; parking requirements just make it seem that way.

Worse still, "free" parking provides the biggest per-mile subsidy to the shortest trips, meaning drivers have a major incentive to drive to destinations they would otherwise be able to reach with ease by foot or bicycle. A huge proportion of traffic congestion is made up these short trips.

Shoup concludes cities should eliminate zoning requirements for off-street parking, end free municipal parking, and charge whatever price will maintain about 15 percent vacancy - the optimal rate to ensure easy entry and exit. To balance variable demand against a fixed supply, he recommends setting different prices according to time of day and day of week.

Anticipating the righteous ire of those drivers accustomed to free parking, Shoup notes that the biggest barrier to eliminating this subsidy is political, not technical, and proper implementation is critical.

The best way to implement market priced parking is for cities to remit all of the revenues from parking to what he calls "parking benefit districts", akin to business improvement areas. This way, decisions on how to collect and how to spend are made by the citizens most affected.

The benefits are potentially tremendous: with less parking, there is more room for both people and businesses, and the right balance between supply and demand means less congestion from cruising, less noise, and less air pollution. Reduced parking requirements also ease entry for investors who might otherwise build elsewhere. As the area becomes more appealing to pedestrians, it attracts both visitors and investors.

For Hamilton in particular, this kind of arrangement can provide the momentum and investment to restore and revitalize our beautiful downtown neighbourhoods that preceded cars and are already designed with pedestrians in mind.

Donald Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking, American Planning Association, 2005, ISBN: 1884829988

 

[archanfel]

Again...a prime example of just how nutty we really are. We say we want to encourage more transit use and discourage more private cars on the public roads, yet we do the exact opposite.

Who say that? Mayor Ford, who was democratically elected by the people of Toronto, said he wanted to stop the war on cars. He specified said he would eliminate the vehicle tax and the people voted for him. I think the people of Toronto said very loudly, we want the war on cars to stop.

Car owners pay gas taxes and various license fees to the government, whereas public transit can't even cover its own operating costs. Therefore, I am always puzzled why people say "it is all of us that subsidize car drivers". I'd say it's far more likely that car drivers are the ones are forced to subsidize transit users. Of course, it's also possible that all of us are subsidizing both drivers and public transit users. However, since most of us either takes public transit or drive, I suspect it's still drivers subsidizing transit users at the end after you count all the taxes.

I am not against reasonable fees. However, they have to be usage based and fully competitive. Road tolls are good ideas, but the proceedings have to be used on improving the driving experiences. Of course, IMHO, building public transit IS improving the driving experiences for drivers. Unfortunately, public transit supporters like to paint their platforms as anti-cars to attract votes. Well, now they got a mayor they deserve.

p.s. Just on the topic of free parking. Free parking is not to subsidize drivers, it's to subsidize businesses. Most free parking are provided by businesses to accommodate either their customers or their employees. Therefore, public free parking is to subsidize businesses who are unable to provide them. High parking prices would not encourage drivers to drive less, it would only push them to shop somewhere else. And I wonder if we stop all subsidizing (aka taxes), how long before the good professor starve to death.

 

[PinkLucy]

This isn't victorian Toronto any more folks...nobody goes to church any more

Huh, then I wonder who all those people are filling the pews with me every Sunday? Just a bunch of nobodies ... at any rate, there's stops right at the corner, so we're not causing anyone grief.

 

[archanfel]

Back to the topic of fare evasion. I like Viva's system. You pay a heavy fine if you are caught without a ticket (although I'd like a smart card instead of wasting paper). The transit cops escort you off the bus, no delaying for other customers. May not work on the more crowded routes though.

 

[nfitz]

The only outdated/pointless stops that should just simply be illuminated immediately, are "Sunday stops" (AKA church stops).

What about intersections that have stops on both side of the traffic light?

At first glance, that might "seem" like a superfluous stop, but when you consider all things, you see why it is there.

1...It is a hospital, so access is important.
2...It's at the lights, so the streetcar will be stopped a lot of the time anyway.
3...It's a switch, and they have to stop before taking a switch anyway.
4...It relieves some of the loading/unloading that can be out of hand at Yonge.
5...That stop needs to stay there because it is used when the streetcars divert down Victoria because of problems further west.

I think if you start looking at some of the stops in particular, you'd start questioning them. It's hard to justify stops that are only 100-metres apart on the same block.

 

[Asterix]

Car owners pay gas taxes and various license fees to the government, whereas public transit can't even cover its own operating costs. Therefore, I am always puzzled why people say "it is all of us that subsidize car drivers". I'd say it's far more likely that car drivers are the ones are forced to subsidize transit users.

Gas taxes, car licensing and other various fees don't even come close to covering the infrastructure costs required for the car. They are heavily subsidized from the rest of the tax revenues. It's just that it isn't broken down into as defined a format as: TTC budget = $X; revenue from fares = $Y (where X>Y).

 

[Mapleson]

Who say that? Mayor Ford, who was democratically elected by the people of Toronto, said he wanted to stop the war on cars. He specified said he would eliminate the vehicle tax and the people voted for him. I think the people of Toronto said very loudly, we want the war on cars to stop.

Car owners pay gas taxes and various license fees to the government, whereas public transit can't even cover its own operating costs. Therefore, I am always puzzled why people say "it is all of us that subsidize car drivers". I'd say it's far more likely that car drivers are the ones are forced to subsidize transit users. Of course, it's also possible that all of us are subsidizing both drivers and public transit users. However, since most of us either takes public transit or drive, I suspect it's still drivers subsidizing transit users at the end after you count all the taxes.

I am not against reasonable fees. However, they have to be usage based and fully competitive. Road tolls are good ideas, but the proceedings have to be used on improving the driving experiences. Of course, IMHO, building public transit IS improving the driving experiences for drivers. Unfortunately, public transit supporters like to paint their platforms as anti-cars to attract votes. Well, now they got a mayor they deserve.

p.s. Just on the topic of free parking. Free parking is not to subsidize drivers, it's to subsidize businesses. Most free parking are provided by businesses to accommodate either their customers or their employees. Therefore, public free parking is to subsidize businesses who are unable to provide them. High parking prices would not encourage drivers to drive less, it would only push them to shop somewhere else. And I wonder if we stop all subsidizing (aka taxes), how long before the good professor starve to death.

It'd probably be the billions spent by all levels of government to prove with no apparent cost: local streets and lights, overpasses and highways. Also, there is the hidden fee for all the stores that maintain parking facilities, but don't charge for them to lurk in more drivers. Public transit and trains have to pay for the maintainance of their own right of way. If all businesses had to charge a minimum parking fee, like the bag tax, it would most definately discourage car trips over foot or transit trips, just like we use 70% less plastic bags than before the nickle charge.

I believe the "War on Cars" is just political spin. We want to reduce vehicle use, so that there is ample capacity in the future, because vehicle use is increasing. It's faulty reasoning to promote any one type of transportation in favour of another. They all must be considered as a whole to give people the best option of getting where they need quickly and without congestion. As we've passed the point of being able to build our way out of congestion, going forward more people will have to share vehicles in order to continue with our relatively free-flowing roads.

 

[Electrify]

What about intersections that have stops on both side of the traffic light?

Has ANYONE at the TTC ever thought of where there is enough volume for two stops at an intersection, have it so passengers disembark at the first one, and then load at the far side one? Or is such an idea too obvious and makes too much sense for them to pursue?

 

[nfitz]

That's sounds like a terrible idea. I have no idea how you'd enforce it. And what do you do at 3 AM?

The obvious answer is to simply have one stop, like one does at many intersection - that are busier than those I have seen with 2 stops.

 

[archanfel]

I admire people's desire to have more public transit. However, it has to be done strategically. People need to feel that you are working for them, not against them. I have yet to see an ads on the highway: "Imagine half of the drivers in front of you take the transit. Support public transit, get a more smooth drive". I think it might work a little better than "We are subsidizing you, pay up!".

Of course, if we moved to a pure use fee based system, it could settle all these talks about who subsidizing whom. However, first of all, I am not sure that's practical. Secondly, it would be regressive. I would have no problem with it, not sure the rest of the people.

The fact is we ended up with a pro-car (not necessarily pro-driver) mayor after all the efforts of transit promoters. I think it's time they get off their moral high horses and be a little bit more practical. It's not transit users' votes you need, it's the drivers'.

 

[archanfel]

That's sounds like a terrible idea. I have no idea how you'd enforce it. And what do you do at 3 AM?

The obvious answer is to simply have one stop, like one does at many intersection - that are busier than those I have seen with 2 stops.

It's farebox cheaters that big a problem to have two stops? I have never seen one on the TTC. Illegal transfer renewal yes, but how many people hop on the back door? I still think heavy punishment (rather than just force the guy to purchase a ticket) would be a cheaper and more effective deterrence.

For the card reader, is it cheaper to install them on the buses or at the stops?

 

[rbt]

Of course, if we moved to a pure use fee based system, it could settle all these talks about who subsidizing whom. However, first of all, I am not sure that's practical. Secondly, it would be regressive. I would have no problem with it, not sure the rest of the people.

There really isn't a "who subsidizes whom" in Canada -- both are very heavily subsidized from sales/property/income taxes for everything from oil company tax breaks down to repaving of municipal streets. Toronto allocates over $200M per year to roadway budget for maintenance. The only reason it isn't higher is the department has a hard time writing up the contracts and tendering the work. What isn't as obvious is that about 1/6th of the police force, ambulance, fire handles traffic related issues (~$300M per year) to keep traffic moving, safely and clean up when there are problems. If you start to include health-care related expenses due to accidents or air-quality (not a big impact in Ontario -- our air quality sucks thanks to the Ohio valley) then it can increase significantly.

Obviously, the city also puts about a half billion per year (at the moment) into public transit too. It certainly isn't cheap. Plus a fair amount of police, fire, ambulance service for it too.

They're both very heavily subsidized. Counting indirect costs like health-care, they're easily subsidized up in to the 80% range in Canada.


Britain is one of the few countries I know of where they earmark revenue from drivers (fuel tax, plate fees, etc.) for roadway maintenance. You will find looking at their budget that they've pretty much balanced the direct costs (repaving, rebuilding roads after floods, etc.) with the revenue taken from drivers. Indirect costs (police, fire, ambulance, health-care, etc.) are still funded through other means.


Hong Kong is probably the only place in the world where transit profits have built roadway sections that drivers can use though you can debate whether that was the transit or real-estate arm of the company.