Civic Elections: Transit issues
Thanks for the new thread, Cue.
It should be noted, that the transit fare structure in Toronto functions as a highly regressive tax on transit riders, who are predominantly working people.
http://www.urbanrail.net/index.html
http://fakeisthenewreal.org/subway/
Vancouver which is subject to similar funding problems as Toronto has 58 km of SkyTrain with another 18 km being planned, compared to Toronto's 70 km of subways. Vancouver has only about half the population and started building 30 years later. Boston built a subway system over a hundred years ago with a population of only 500,000. Cities all over Europe with smaller populations than Toronto have more impressive subway systems: Barcelona, Stockholm, Milan etc. I am not even comparing Toronto to the Alpha cities: London, New York, Moscow, Tokyo, ... because it would just be too sad.
I thought you didn't like light rail?
I agree that the Vancouver transit system is absolutely fantastic. I was there this summer. The experience of riding transit in Vancouver was eerily similar to the experience I had when I first moved to Toronto in 1975. I was struck then by how advanced, modern and clean the Toronto system was in comparison to the pathetic Vancouver system. Now returning to Vancouver the experience is pretty much the opposite.
It's all to do with that numskull Pantalone and the rest of stodgy fat cas socialists at city hall. His years as Mel Lastman's budget chief and later his stint as deputy Mayor under Miller have been write off. Well, ok, the we can ignore the fact that the per rider subsidy in Vancouver is three times higher than the Toronto system, and that everything they have is because the city and province have spent lavishly to have an up-to-date system while Pantalone and co have been forced to operate on one of the lowest per rider subsidies of a major transit system in North America.
The real problem is that they are afraid to "think big" and are completely irresponsible and wasteful with the 60 cents per rider they receive, while Vancouver has to struggle along with only $2.50 cent subsidy per rider. How do they manage?
CITY FAREBOX REVENUE RATIO SUBSIDY PER RIDER
TTC 75% $ 0.59
Mississauga 54% $ 1.63
Brampton 49% $ 2.25
York Region 40% $ 4.55
Calgary 55% $ 1.07
Vancouver 55% $ 2.40
Montreal 59% $ 0.83
Ottawa 50% $ 1.76
Chicago 33% $ 2.37
New York 55% $ 1.71
Philadelphia 36% $ 2.93
Some people might think that Pantalone is some kind of genius for helping make a system of 500 million riders a year run on so little money, but we all know he is a wild overspending socialist in the pocket of the unions, who is afraid to "think big". Looked at another way if you add subsidy and fare together a single ride in Vancouver costs $5 dollars, while a single fare in Toronto costs $3.50 -- 30% less. Perhaps the reason nothing gets built is because the per rider subsidy has actually dropped since the Mike Harris years during 1990's from 80 cents to 60 cents.The reality is that Vancouver does not have "similar funding problems as Toronto" as you state and that Europeans pay far more tax per capita than the citizens of Toronto, and the Europeans get what they pay for.
Torontonians get what they pay for too. They get shit for shit.
Same old formula: Underfund a public project. Ruin it. Blame failure on the government managers and the unions. Then sell it to private interests (your friends). Bust the unions. Take the money saved on labour costs and put it in your pocket. If things don't go right, go bankrupt and leave the taxpayers with the bill for keeping the necessary service on line.
Works every time!
Cueball, do you mean the Chair of the Budget Advisory Committee? If so, Tom Jacobek and David Shiner were Chairs under Mel Lastman, not Joe Pantalone.
Sorry I mean Chair of the Planning and Transportation Committee. I think he was a TTC commissioner too, then,
A nice break down on Thomsons plan, and the problems therein:
Thomson recently admitted that she hasn't yet turned her business-like focus to the small matter of the operating side of her grand vision. So allow me:First, she'll need to almost double the size of the subway fleet, so add up to $2 billion to her tab.
Second, the TTC, like most transit agencies, operates at a loss: fare and ad revenue covers 74% of expenses, and the city pays the balance (the subsidy was $140 million in 2008, and is now closer to $400 million due to ridership growth). In other words, more TTC means more subsidy, payable by Toronto residents and businesses. There's no easy way to calculate how much 58 kilometres of new subway line will add to the operating deficit*; suffice it to say the number won't be trivial.
Third, she'll need to account for financing costs, overruns, business interruption fees, contingencies, strike delays and profit margins. Had enough?
No one expects Subway Sarah to win in October, but the persistence of this dream -- Jane Pitfield ran on a similar pledge in 2006 -- points to two unavoidable conclusions: one, that a city this size should, indeed, have a much more extensive subway system than it does; and two, that the disconnect between the Toronto's aspirations and its wherewithal has never been greater.
The oft-touted panacea of private sector involvement doesn't necessarily lead to savings, and can, in fact, backfire, as London's spectacularly over-budget Jubilee Line extension showed (the final tab exceeded $7 billion Cdn. for the 16-km project).
On the other hand, the Region of Madrid, over the past twenty years, managed to drive ahead with a massive expansion of its now 284-km Metro, underwritten by very long-term bonds, innovative project management and -- here's the kicker -- the financial heft of a regional government serving a national capital.
Torontonians get what they pay for too. They get shit for shit.
Same old formula: Underfund a public project. Ruin it. Blame failure on the government managers and the unions. Then sell it to private interests (your friends). Bust the unions. Take the money saved on labour costs and put it in your pocket. If things don't go right, go bankrupt and leave the taxpayers with the bill for keeping the necessary service on line.
Works every time!
Because I want Toronto to have a transit system worthy or a world class city rather than the 'shit' that you agree that Torontonians get, somehow you think that 'private interests' are my friends and that I want the money in my pocket? WTF?
I am a transit taker and pay for my monthly metropass. I would personally be happy to pay higher taxes for a better system transit system that everyone can use, but that simply isn't an option on the table.
So then, without that option, Joe has proposed a very reasonable system that will improve transit, even if it is not the transit dream world created by Nikita Kruscheov in Moscow in the 1930's.
Above is a very nice break down of the practical problems of Thomson's plan, and a some good examples of the risks of P3's. This stands out:
The oft-touted panacea of private sector involvement doesn't necessarily lead to savings, and can, in fact, backfire, as London's spectacularly over-budget Jubilee Line extension showed (the final tab exceeded $7 billion Cdn. for the 16-km project).
CITY FAREBOX REVENUE RATIO SUBSIDY PER RIDER
TTC 75% $ 0.59
Mississauga 54% $ 1.63
Brampton 49% $ 2.25
York Region 40% $ 4.55
Calgary 55% $ 1.07
Vancouver 55% $ 2.40
Montreal 59% $ 0.83
Ottawa 50% $ 1.76
Chicago 33% $ 2.37
New York 55% $ 1.71
Philadelphia 36% $ 2.93
I didn't respond to this part yesterday because I was too busy at work, but I wanted to add that these numbers actually support my point, not refute it. The TTC is underfunded, I agree, but that is the city of Toronto's fault including Miller and Pantalone. The Greater Vancouver Regional District has a 6.0 cent municipal gas tax called a "Transit Tax" that goes to fund Translink. Why doesn't the GTA have this or something similar? I am sure it is not because no one has ever thought of it. David Miller mentioned something about tolls on the DVP years ago then backpedalled rather than stick his neck out for what is needed. Sarah Thomson actually had the guts to run on a platform that said we will build subways on our own, raising the money with tolls on the downtown highways or other means. I would rather see a Vancouver-like gas tax, but none of the other major candidates has come close to advocating for that. If Pantalone will make a gas tax part of his platform, rather than just whining that Toronto needs more money from other levels of government (which it does), then I would be happy to vote for him. That would be a game changer, and unless there is a game changer soon, it is Smitherman or Ford.
We both agree that current transit in Toronto is sub-par and that Transit City is a bit better, but my point is that we shouldn't be settling for it just because of cost. In fact this is the usual narrative:
Progressive dude: "We need a universal health care system for all Canadians"
Conservative jerk: "Sure that would be great, but it is not realistic, it would just cost too much. I have always had the access to health care that I needed without this costly idea."
--
Progressive dude: " We need a good public education system so that people of all incomes can get an education to determine their own future, and benefit the greater good."
Conservative jerk: "Sure that would be nice, but think how much it will cost us in taxes. Let's just keep schools private, it will be fine."
--
Progressive dude: "We need a wold-class pulbic transit system including expanded subways, so that people of all incomes can get around the city easily and in a sustainable way instead of creating more pollution and traffic from so many cars.'
Joe Pantalone supporter: "We all want subways, but let's be realistic, that would cost way too much. Let's just go with this cheaper plan called Transit City."
--
As for Eglinton not having the density needed for a subway. I just don't buy that. Is Bloor really that much denser and if it is, how much of it is a result of the subway as opposed to justification for it? When Bob Rae was premier of Ontario he supported an Eglinton West subway and they actually started the digging the tunnel. That was about 16 years ago, but Mike Harris cancelled it. Are you telling me that Mike Harris was right?
The vehicle registration tax was enough to inspire a taxpayers revolt in Toronto. Now you want people to advocate for a transit tax as well? It's all very well to come up with great new taxes, but first and foremost you have to understand that the what Toronto is allowed to tax, and what it is not is strictly controlled by its constitution as set out by the province, which gives it its mandate to govern.
I don't know if it is even legal for Toronto to institute a "transit tax". The fact is that Queens Park wants to keep a tight control over the Toronto budget, otherwise they would simply hand over the money for expanded transit.
Indeed, Pantalone and Miller did a good job weaseling money out of Queens Park for transit city and have a signed agreement on hand: The system under way. It's nice to dream, but at the end of the day someone has to get something done. Pantalone, has proven that he has the ability to get things going in this area, which is precisely why I am voting for him. As he says, we have missed "a generation" of TTC expansion because of infighting between the levels of government, and now, for some reason, just when the first major transit expansion plan to be put into place in 20 years is underway, a whole bunch of people want to send everything back to the planning stages.
At this rate we will miss another 5 to 10 years, when expansion is needed now.
and now, for some reason, just when the first major transit expansion plan to be put into place in 20 years is underway, a whole bunch of people want to send everything back to the planning stages.
Funny how that works, isn't it. All in the name of painting themselves as "pro-transit". When it comes to spending billions of dollars on police budgets, new fighter jets, new prisons, the occupation of Afghanistan, the Olympics, Pan Am Games and corporate tax cuts and bailouts for those who need it the least, there's never any problem finding the money.
This whole election is about McGuinty trying to dodge the bullet of having to pay for the plan that he promised in 2007 in order to get relected by sending Smitherman here to sell off the juicy routes of Transit City to his corporate friends, who no doubt are flush with ready cash from the last tax cut they got.
--
Progressive dude: "We need a wold-class pulbic transit system including expanded subways, so that people of all incomes can get around the city easily and in a sustainable way instead of creating more pollution and traffic from so many cars.'
Joe Pantalone supporter: "We all want subways, but let's be realistic, that would cost way too much. Let's just go with this cheaper plan called Transit City."
--
As for Eglinton not having the density needed for a subway. I just don't buy that. Is Bloor really that much denser and if it is, how much of it is a result of the subway as opposed to justification for it? When Bob Rae was premier of Ontario he supported an Eglinton West subway and they actually started the digging the tunnel. That was about 16 years ago, but Mike Harris cancelled it. Are you telling me that Mike Harris was right?
That's not entirely accurate. Eglinton West was suppose to be a busway, based on the population density, until local politicians pushed for what they regarded as their share of the pie. Bob Rae's government, to appease the mayors of Etobicoke and York, altered the transit plan to include a subway line along Eglinton West. The tradeoff was that Sheppard and Eglinton could only be partially built with the funding that was available. The Eglinton West line would only have five stations which stopped well short of the airport.
There was no guarantee that the Eglinton West stub would extend beyond the York Centre stop. Transit City will get people to and from the airport in an efficient manner and far sooner than digging a subway out there.
When you look at the way the city is splintering into three economic zones, with the outer corners lagging further and further behind economically, it is clear Transit City is needed to get the people in those areas integrated back into city life. It is a project that can get better transit there first to the people who need it. No, it isn't a sexy or perfect plan but it is not as expensive as subways or as unproven as the Scarborough RT was when it was constructed.
Furthermore, subways have not been forgotten in this mix as the extension of the Spadina line is happening.
Oh yeah, one more point. People frequently question Sarah Thomson's numbers and use costs for the Shepherd line or the York U extension to say that her numbers are unrealistic. Most of the new subway stations that Toronto has built or plans to build are costly low density buildings which are a waste of money and poor urban form. I have travelled on subways in 18 different cities accross the world and these stations stand out as being ridiculous odd outliers compared to most other cities. In Japan, transit agencies build a multi-level building above the subway station which they then own. It is usually a commercial building that they rent out and collect revenue from to cover the costs of building and operating the station. I heard Sarah mention that Toronto should try to do this too. Assessments of how realistic her costing was, never acknowledge this, they just say that her numbers were wrong. Unfortunately, the TTC has said in the past that they have no interest in getting into the "property management business" and perhaps most lefties on here would prefer it to stay that way, but I think it is OK to think outside the box and consider creative financing options like that. As stated, it does not compromise any of my principles and could be a simple way to bring down the cost of building subways and increasing urban density in the right places.
By "low density buildings" I assume you mean peoples homes?
On paper, Smithereen's transit plan doesn't look too bad. Am I missing something? How does this differ from Transit City?
This whole election is about McGuinty trying to dodge the bullet of having to pay for the plan that he promised in 2007 in order to get relected by sending Smitherman here to sell off the juicy routes of Transit City to his corporate friends, who no doubt are flush with ready cash from the last tax cut they got.
By "low density buildings" I assume you mean peoples homes?
Not peoples' homes, the above-ground portion of the actual subway stations. These tend to be single-story buildings which are low density. I have seen a few concept palns for future stations on the Spadina extension that will have green roofs. Yawn. The space could be way better spent by putting a tall commercial or residential building above them so that needed density is right at the transit hub.
So your vision for Toronto is something along the lines of Tokyo?
Efficiency of usage is one thing. Humanity of usage another.
I wonder how Thomson would feel if someone referred to her homw and neighborhood as a place where inefficient "low density buildings" should be subject to land expropriation for the creation of a multifloor cubicle emporiums.
Not exactly. The population of the Tokyo metropolitan area is 34 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity), which is about equivalent to all of Canada. Toronto or the GTA will not have those numbers in my lifetime or yours, but if we are not careful it could soon look like Los Angeles (without the beaches and palm trees).
Issue is not population. It is population density. Your proposal increases density.
Efficiency of usage is one thing. Humanity of usage another.
I wonder how Thomson would feel if someone referred to her homw and neighborhood as a place where inefficient "low density buildings" should be subject to land expropriation for the creation of a multifloor cubicle emporiums.
Density done right is a good thing. Please tell me that you are not advocating for suburban sprawl and somehow claiming to be progressive.
I didn't claim to be anything.
The City's official plan calls for higher density around subway stops / transit hubs. Hence, new condos at Bathurst & St. Clair, Yonge & Eglinton and elsewhere.
I've never lived in a highrise and have no desire to do so. I'm lucky to have a good deal on a rental. But allowing for density around subways makes sense doesn't it?
Just look at Thornhill/Richmond for example. Traffic is a nightmare but they just keep building more and more condos. If each condo has 300 units - that's probably somewhere around 450 new cars brought into those neighborhoods which are already poorly served by public transit.
On paper, Smithereen's transit plan doesn't look too bad. Am I missing something? How does this differ from Transit City?
That is what I thought too, but closer examination reveals a serious lack of interst in dealing with the transportation problems of the inner suburbs in favour of increasing core capacity by building Subways. Pantalone's plan extends better service, father out to residential areas where many people who require transit live.
First of all, I see no reason why Smitherman wants to replace the existing LRT link in scarborough with subway, since this would be way more expensive than improving the line as per Pantalone's Transit City plan. As a result of the this expense it then cuts into other extension of the light rails system in Transit City.
- The LRT along Eglington does not extend out to Pierson.
- The LRT into Scarborough along Sheppard no longer extends out to Meadowvale Road
- The Finch LRT no longer connects to Finch Station.
- For some reason, Smitherman sees no reason to complete the LRT loop connecting the planned Subway that replaces the existing Scarborough LRT with the Sheppard line to create a loop.
Without getting out a ruler, all in all, it looks to me like the Smitherman plan chops off about 1/3rd off the entire plan for the sake of replacing an existing system with sexy subways and a "relief line" of dubious value connecting the Yonge line and the Spadina line along Sheppard. And that is just comparing the "priority" construction of Transit City with Smitherman's full plan.
Smitherman's full plan, simply takes major routes planned for connecting the inner burbs that are in the full Transit City plan:
- Don Mills LRT
- Malvern LRT
- West Waterfront LRT
- Jane LRT
All in all, about half as much coverage, as the full Transit City plan.