Toronto's Transit Future - The Full Report by ATU113

WWW. TORONTO TRANSIT FUTURE .CA

A Better Future for Public Transit in Toronto Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113 November 2014

1899. The first elected Executive Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113. Seated, left, is James McDonald, who led the efforts that began in 1893 to unionize the workers of the Toronto Railway Co., a privately-owned and operated transit company that was replaced by the Toronto Transportation Commission in 1921 after a referendum in which 90 per cent of Torontonians voted for the public system.

WWW. TORONTO TRANSIT FUTURE .CA

INTRODUCTION

LETTER FROM BOB KINNEAR

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 6:

Section 2:

Section 4:

BUDGET REALITIES

IMPROVING SERVICE QUALITY

Section 8:

CUSTOMER SERVICE: RIDERS COME FIRST

Section 1:

Section 3:

Section 5:

RIDERSHIP GROWTH: THE TTC’S SUCCESS STORY

MORE SERVICE

MORE BUSES AND STREETCARS

Section 10:

STATE OF GOOD REPAIR

69 Section 7: ATTRACTING NEW RIDERS

BUILDING THE FUTURE OF THE TTC

Section 9: TTC ACCESSIBILITY: IT’S IN EVERYONE’S BEST INTERESTS

MOVING FORWARD

107

REFERENCES

111

APPENDICES

Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transit Future

Subway Janitor and ATU Member Karen Bass rescues a young boy from being kidnapped when she spotted him on a platform after seeing a TV news item on the kidnapping the previous night. 2006

INTRODUCTION The women and men of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113 operate and maintain North America’s third largest urban transit system: the Toronto Transit Commission’s trains, streetcars, buses and Wheel-Trans vehicles carry almost two million riders a day.

The system is the product of several generations of public investment, with a current value of over $14 billion. We are proud of what has been entrusted to us. The most important element about the TTC is that it is owned in common by the people of Toronto which is why we believe the core principle in transit planning has to be increasing service to the greatest number of riders as affordably and sustainably as possible. The TTC shouldn’t be only for those who have no other option. We want Torontonians to be able to choose public transit as their premier mode of city travel. We believe, as do many cities around the world, that a transit-supported lifestyle is the best way of ensuring our city develops as a green, livable and vibrant metropolis. Making transit more peoples’ first choice, however, means it has to be an attractive choice. The TTC has to be speedy, reliable, comfortable and well maintained. It has to make Torontonians proud

of what a public service can deliver and it has to keep pace with ever-growing ridership. While TTC ridership is growing at record levels, reaching 540 million in 2014 (around 15% higher than it was just five years ago), budgets have failed to keep up. There are now fewer hours of service relative to ridership than there were four years ago and as a result, passengers suffer from over-crowding, and wait longer at stops for tardy vehicles – poorer service than they expect or deserve. Today, the per-rider subsidy is lower than it was four years ago, despite inflation. To some, this subsidy is “gravy.” But without this subsidy, as low as it is relative to other cities, our roads would be even more clogged, if that is possible, and smog-laden air would kill even more people than it already does. Even just to keep the current, inadequate system in a state-of-good-repair, will need at least $2.7 billion more over the next 10 years than is now available. And a key question is where is this “just the status quo” money going to come from?

Toronto’s Transit Future

Funding public services is a highly competitive process. Even health care and public safety have to fiercely compete with many other needed services, transit being chief among them, for increasingly fewer dollars per capita, thanks to the reluctance to raise taxes that is slowly but noticeably squeezing the life out of many of our great social and economic achievements. The time to act is now. Over the last few years, investment in transit expansion has increased, but finding ways of growing the investment further is critical. There are many questions, including: what will be the form of the final projects and the timetable for actually initiating them? And – the toughest decision – how are we going to pay for it all? This report outlines a blueprint for the future of the TTC from those who know its workings best. Transit workers want to collaborate with the new mayor, City Council, Commission and citizens’ groups in taking a remarkable, civically owned public achievement with over 90 years of history and returning it to a place where it can legitimately claim, once again, to be one of the world’s great transit systems. Toronto is owed nothing less.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

ATU 113’s 10,000 members come from over 70 countries, reflecting Toronto’s great diversity.

Introduction

“The Commission does not propose to stand idly by and allow this deterioration of its services and of the city itself to take place. There must be a gradual separation of public and private vehicles, both of which are now trying to operate on the narrow streets originally designed for horse-drawn traffic.”

POLICY STATEMENT “RAPID TRANSIT FOR TORONTO” Toronto Transportation Commission (TTC), 1945

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transit Future

President of Local 113, Bob Kinnear, who was first elected in 2004, started his career at 18 as a subway Janitor and later became a subway and bus Operator and Collector. He is also President of ATU Ontario, which works with municipalities and the provincial government to improve public transit throughout Ontario.

LETTER FROM BOB KINNEAR DEAR READER, Like most people who will read at least part of this report, Local 113 members love this city and we want our children and grandchildren to inherit an even better city. Dramatic transit improvement is key to a better future for Toronto. Transit plays a central role in the lives of many newcomers to Toronto, along with many born here, who cannot, mainly for economic reasons, get around this vast and wonderful city in private cars. We in the ATU meet these fellow Torontonians every hour of every day. It is beyond unfortunate that the future of transit has become so politicized. Torontonians are sick and tired of endless funding announcements that are watered down on delivery, if they are delivered at all. They cannot understand why transit services are cut in the face of rising usage and intolerable road congestion. They are both frustrated and bored with all the political jockeying that constricts construction of badly-needed transit projects.

They would like to believe that more and better transit will magically appear at no cost, but in their hearts, they’re willing to pay for service that at least helps them. Politicians with no courage, however, try to encourage the “free or practically free” delusion, so little or nothing gets done. For environmental reasons alone, to actively discourage public transit in Toronto by cutting its services and its financial support borders on highly irresponsible public administration. We all breathe the same air. So will all our children and grandchildren. Over and above environmental considerations, which are ultimately the most important, the failure of political leaders to understand and explain to Torontonians the positive economic and socially cohesive effects of investments in more transit is puzzling, given the obviously great impact the TTC has had on our development as a world city over the last 90-plus years.

So we want to make it clear through this major study and plan which we commissioned, that our union will work with everyone who shares our dream of restoring our public transit to once again be a widely-recognized world leader. It will take a while. But please don’t say it can’t be done. That’s not how our city was built. Sincerely,

BOB KINNEAR President Amalgmated Transit Union Local 113

Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transit Future

In every Labour Day Parade along Queen Street, ATU membersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; children ride an old TTC streetcar on their way to the last day of the Canadian National Exhibition.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As the union that represents most transit workers in Toronto, the ATU wants to contribute to the conversation that is shaping transit, and indeed, our city, for decades ahead.

ATU members come to this from a place quite different than that of the other participants in this lively discussion. Our familiarity with the day-to-day operations of the Toronto Transit Commission allows us a unique perspective on how policy plays out in the real world. ATU’s 10,000 members make the TTC run, drive its vehicles, take its fares, keep its tracks in order, maintain its vehicles and fix its technology. But ATU also has a public transit vision: we want it to be a way of making life easier for everyone throughout Toronto.

SECTION 1 - RIDERSHIP GROWTH: THE TTC’S SUCCESS STORY Torontonians have a deep attachment to their public transit system – that’s the positive side of the transit story. The number of residents using the TTC on a daily basis, both to commute and to enrich their experience of the city, continues to grow year by year.

ATU members know what it looks like when governments fail to provide adequate funding for transit operations. ATU has been witness to the frustrations of riders as they get left at the curb as packed vehicles go by, or try to get on over-crowded buses and streetcars.

And while the challenges this added ridership present will become clear shortly, as the issues of financing, expanding and improving service are presented in this report, we need to start by celebrating the tremendous success of our public transit system. The TTC is one of the faster-growing larger transit networks in North America, one that, unlike many in the United States, suffered no drop in overall ridership during the financial crisis of 2008 or in subsequent years.

Toronto is in a long, developing and drawn-out transit crisis. ATU offers this report as a way of generating discussion about the organizational and financial challenges of returning the TTC to its premier position in the world of transit.

If the 2.5% annual ridership growth pattern holds, it will mean an increase of at least 60 million passengers between 2014 and 2018; maybe more if new services are added. To put this in context, this is about the size of the entire GO

Toronto’s Transit Future

ridership is factored in, there is less service relative to ridership on the road today than in 2010. One fortunate item in this scenario is that ridership, over the last few years, has been growing faster in off-peak periods where there is some capacity, and where adding service is easier and cheaper overall.

SECTION 2 – BUDGET REALITIES Five generations of front-line ATU Local 113 members have built, operated and maintained Toronto’s transit system. From the physically demanding work of laying streetcar rails to the precision demanding challenge of responding quickly to emergencies, their 24/7 contributions to the city’s greatness is embedded in its history.

Transit ridership, and one and half times the size of Mississauga Transit’s total ridership.

It’s important for future planning that there is a clear understanding of the trends fueling this growth. Research shows that key among these are concern for the environment, the preference for urban life-styles, and new heightened anxieties about personal finances, leading to the quest for cheaper transportation options. Traffic congestion has made even suburban dwellers more transit-friendly, as evidenced by a growing use of GO Transit. Besides all that, the Millennial generation, now becoming a dominant demographic force, is fostering a new ethos that places a high value on public transit. Studies show that those born between the early 1980s and the early 2000s tend to seek out dense urban areas, and are far less

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

interested in car ownership. They view transit as part of a transportation package which includes walking and cycling, and view all three as a way of facilitating the activities they value, like exercise, exploring neighbourhoods, interacting with others, and contributing to environmental sustainability. But while more and more Toronto residents flock to TTC vehicles, crowding on the system continues to grow. The lack of major support from provincial and federal governments over the last four years, combined with budget constraints at the City, have meant service cuts, at first occurring in absolute terms, and later, relatively, with current service standards having increased rush hour crowding by 5% over 2010 standards. When the calculations are done on the current system capacity, for example, it is clear that when higher

The good news that residents are boarding TTC vehicles more often than ever is offset by the reality that as more and more people come to depend on the network, the cost of getting them collectively from point A to B increases, as does the need for a larger subsidy coming mostly from the City of Toronto. Ridership, in fact, has been expanding at a rate of more than 2.5% a year at exactly the same time as City Council has been cutting TTC subsidies per rider. In 2010, the per rider subsidy was 93 cents; it’s now at 79 cents and with inflation taken into account, 73 cents - a lower subsidy rate than any other urban transit network in North America, and 20 cents less than in 2010. Keeping up with increasing costs – merely keeping pace with ridership growth, without any enhancements to service – will require over a $110 million in net costs to provide the needed new service by 2018. But the ATU strongly believes in actually upgrading service, not merely offering the current level of service. That’s why the ATU stands behind the TTC’s ideas to enhance service, as detailed

Executive Summary

in Section Three of this report. The reality, though, is that these improvements would incur another $96 million in operating costs. The missing piece in this financial challenge is more assistance from the provincial and federal governments. Toronto riders pay around 68% of the cost of operating the TTC, a higher percentage than any other multimodal transit system in the world. Canada stands alone as the only developed nation where the national government doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have a predictable annual and ongoing transit funding strategy. While the Province of Ontario provides some operating funding through gas tax transfers to the City, dedicated and increased TTC operating funding is vitally needed from both senior levels. In order for our transit system to prosper, it needs a per rider subsidy level that grows at more than the rate of inflation to take into account the increasing ridership, and recognizes the inescapable fact that more passengers mean more service is needed, which requires more subsidy dollars. But there must also be recognition that fares may have to respond to inflationary pressures. Each year of a fare freeze costs the TTC around $23 to $38 million. Nonetheless, even a 1.75% fare increase, equal to five cents on the adult fare, only brings in around $23 million extra dollars yearly, not enough to cover the yearly inflationary costs and desperately needed improvements to service. One objection to fare increases is that they unfairly punish those who are financially pressed. The

From one generation to the next. For 115 years, Toronto transit workers have been passing down their knowledge and experience to the next generation.

answer to this serious equity issue could well be the creation of a low income Metropass, set at the same rate as the senior/post-secondary pass, currently $108, and potentially administered through the same process as the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Welcome Program which provides access to city programs for free or at a reduced cost. The ATU is committed to ensuring reasonably-priced transit for financiallyburdened passengers, and aims to stimulate a discussion and action to make this a reality.

SECTION 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; MORE SERVICE ATU members and TTC riders know first-hand that our transit service has been suffering from deteriorating quality. ATU members have witnessed a persistent lowering of the bar when it comes to predictability, timeliness and comfort for riders on TTC routes.

While expansion of the system is critical, building on and strengthening the existing bus and streetcar network will have a wider impact on more riders than any one new line. After all, over 70% of riders use the surface network as part of their trip. A recent August 2014 TTC report, titled Opportunities to Improve Travel in Toronto, offers a package of proposals on service which the ATU enthusiastically endorses. In this Section, these proposals are detailed along with some additional proposals to increase service.

The first proposal is the plan to reduce wait times and crowding on surface routes. It aims to return to the loading standards in effect after the addition of large numbers of new buses in the fall of 2008 as part of the implementation of the Ridership Growth Strategy. Similarly, the Ten Minute or Better Route Network recommendation would upgrade certain AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

lines by adding service (mostly in the off-peak) to ensure this standard was met throughout the day and create the reliability and awareness of a network of high frequency service across the city. The ATU supports these moves as well as a plan to expand express bus route networks and allroute, all-day, everyday service. Back in 2008 all bus routes were extended to operate from 6:00 a.m. to 1:30 a.m., which meant that all riders could confidently wait at a stop most of the day and night, assured that transit would allow them easy access to the entire city. In 2011, service on many of the routes was cut back or entirely eliminated at some periods and the ATU strongly supports the reintroduction of this level of service. The TTC’s proposal to expand overnight bus and streetcar service in 2015 is also very welcome; the ATU believes this is a vital community service Hopeful transit riders wait and wait while a singleperson auto making a left turn at an intersection holds up 100 people in a streetcar.

and would allow shift-workers (not to mention late-night partiers) to spend less time walking in the dead of night, seeking transportation. One of the long-standing improvement ideas left out of the TTC report, though, is a move to lower the cap on the minimum headway (spacing between vehicles). This issue dates back to a recommendation in the 2003 TTC Ridership Growth Strategy aiming to set a minimum standard of 20 minutes. Today, the cap remains at 30. This, despite the fact that international best practice tells us it ought to be ultimately at no more than 15. The ATU suggests the proposed change to 20 minutes is worthy of consideration in the years ahead and would bring better transit to many routes in the inner suburbs of Etobicoke, Scarborough and North York.

The ATU also supports the TTC proposal for two-hour travel privileges on one fare (time-based transfer). The ATU is committed to encouraging a transit lifestyle and wants to make the TTC as helpful as possible to urbanites going about the business of life. If transit is to challenge the private car as the transportation of choice, it has to offer some of the car’s advantages.

SECTION 4 – IMPROVING SERVICE QUALITY It’s easy to think that meaningful change can be achieved only through large scale investment. So much attention has been given to expansion plans that many of the smaller, tangible, affordable kinds of proposals haven’t had the attention they deserve. This Section discusses a series of small-change reforms which can have big-change effects. Passengers have a right to vehicles that arrive at predictable, regular, intervals with room on them so everyone can relax and enjoy the excursion or commute. On high-frequency routes, no one particularly cares if a specific scheduled bus or one slightly out of sequence arrives at the stop. And yet, operators are still directed to focus on keeping their arrival at different points consistent with the schedule, even though, in many cases, the timing for a particular bus or streetcar route is based on traffic conditions that do not respect schedules. The ATU thinks it’s time, with new GPS systems on board, to keep buses more evenly spaced by switching from a schedule-based to a

We also advocate a “pulse transit’’ kind of system for the TTC’s Blue Night bus system, like what was operated in the past when the TTC’s overnight service was restricted to downtown. This involves scheduling buses to minimize transfer times between routes, an important addition that would greatly benefit those travelling at night on routes where the vehicles mostly arrive only once every half an hour. ATU streetcar operators are very familiar with the common situation of having 100 passengers on board and being stuck behind a car making a left turn, often with only one person in it. This happens hundreds of times a day, which is why we think the City and the TTC should work to increase the number of major intersections limiting left-hand turns, after selecting those corners most suitable to the change. Keeping transit vehicles moving just makes sense, and riders know how much precious time is lost navigating through busy intersections. For this reason, the ATU supports dramatically increasing the number of intersections that use Transit Signal Priority technology, a simple feature that allows transit vehicles to reduce red light delays. There should also be engagement with the city on limiting more on-street parking on specifically-chosen routes, after careful examination of the ramifications to further improve traffic and transit operations.

SECTION 5 – MORE BUSES AND STREETCARS The TTC’s current fleet doesn’t include enough buses. The number of people waiting at transit stops often exceeds the capacity of the vehicles that the Commission has available to put into service. And the demand continues to grow by millions of riders a year, making a difficult situation worse. One major problem is that staff in bus garages are under pressure to “make service” – that is, to send out the number of buses budgeted for a route, despite the fact that often there has not been enough time allocated to do proper maintenance. Every day, many of these buses break down and need to be towed, leading to angry passenger off-loading, poor customer service, and a cost of millions of dollars a year. Penny-wise…

While 2014 will see an estimated total of 142 new articulated buses (the equivalent of 200 regular buses) delivered, the fleet plan then reverts to 100 new regular buses a year (400 over the 2015-2018 period). And even these planned purchases depend on stable capital funding. At the same time, the TTC is planning to retire 530 buses from 2014 to 2018, meaning not only a shortfall in current service but also the impossibility of new and improved service.

Executive Summary

“headway-based” system on some of the TTC’s busier routes. Allowing all-door loading on all busy surface routes would also help speed up service.

Regrettably, that’s not all the bad news. The new hybrid vehicles, it turns out, do not have the same durability and reliability as regular diesel buses, and will have to be retired years earlier than expected. On many days, due to breakdowns there are easily 40-50 fewer buses on the road than have been budgeted, and customers

Behind the scenes, over 3,000 skilled maintenance staff keep the fleet moving but aging vehicles and retiring mechanics are an ongoing two-pronged challenge to the TTC.

Toronto’s Transit Future

some of the roughly 287 diesel buses slated for retirement, creating a mid-life extension for them. This overhaul would keep many of the older buses on the road for the next three to four years, smoothing out the procurement of new buses, ensuring adequate vehicles for service and providing the increased spares required for better maintenance. The plan would give the Commission around 90 more buses to help deal with pressures of ridership growth at very affordable costs.

Vehicle seat-making is a specialized TTC Maintenance trade, balancing comfort and durability.

are facing the worst of publicly funded transportation: stalled vehicles, delays, overcrowding and unpredictable schedules.

The TTC should move quickly on the purchase of the equivalent of around 250 new standard buses, in addition to the current planned purchases over the next three years and should, as well, move up the start of construction of the McNicoll garage. At the same time, the Commission should immediately seek to hire new mechanics and expand the apprenticeship program. A retinue of new mechanics would have multiple spin-off benefits. The Commission could move to a more proactive vehicle care schedule. But besides keeping vehicles in working order and preventing breakdowns, these new hires could retrofit

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

The experience of ATU mechanics and other cities’ transit systems suggest that a majority of hybrid buses slated for retirement between 2014-2018 (after only 10 years of service), could likely be kept on the road by retrofitting them to clean diesel buses. A similar mid-life extension program should be enacted for the older streetcars currently slated for decommissioning when the new streetcars go on line, to ensure the Commission has enough streetcars over the next few years while waiting for the new low-floor streetcar order to be fulfilled.

that speaks to the entire transit experience. When there isn’t enough transit for all, riders are kept waiting for their vehicle, only to find when it does arrive, there is no room left for them. We’d say that’s not good customer service. In fact, service expansion is better customer service. But not all plans to improve customer service need be large and expensive. For example, extending the Next Vehicle Arrival system’s visual and text options to all surface stops by 2015 is not a very expensive project since the mechanisms are already in place, but would add greatly to passenger service. As well, the experience of the ride can be improved by ensuring enough Customer Service representatives are available to help passengers navigate the system at busy hubs and where there is service disruption, or to answer questions on the phone.

While there has been much focus over the years on the importance of friendly, congenial interactions between system users and the folks who make it run, the reality is, everything TTC employees do is about serving the rider.

Investing in the staffing and training of ATU professionals is just as important for customer satisfaction as investing in new technology. In this vein, as the system moves to electronic fare payment, the new situation should be used as an opportunity to improve the rider experience. Collectors freed up from selling fare under the new Presto system should be reskilled and redeployed into front line customer service roles. As well, the TTC should advocate to allow direct credit card, debit and app–based payments.

Without at all diminishing the value and importance of courtesy and responsiveness, customer service has to be a broader concept

The TTC could also create a corps of retired TTC employees who have maintained their basic training and a commitment to transit, and who

SECTION 6 – CUSTOMER SERVICE: RIDERS COME FIRST

Executive Summary

are willing to help out on short notice. These “reserves” would aid the TTC in responding professionally to unexpected closures by directing passengers and answering questions.

SECTION 7 – ATTRACTING NEW RIDERS Some people will always take transit because they have no choice. But public transit should not rely on captive markets or be seen as a last resort service. Rather, it should be the favored mobility option because it’s in all our interests to foster a transit-oriented lifestyle. The start to making the TTC a truly attractive choice is, of course, ensuring enough and reliable service. But beyond that, the system has to be attractive to everyone – it has to be comfortable and user-friendly, it has to signal respect for those who use it, and it has to contain a network of high quality public spaces that are well maintained and that people really want to be in. Today’s younger riders, especially Millennials, partially choose transit because it allows them to access their smartphones and tablets. Attracting young riders and keeping them in transit’s orbit should be a priority. While installation of new service is dependent on the cell phone carriers’ participation, the Commission should move quickly to get WiFi installed in all stations. As well, when the aesthetic is eroded in stations, passengers can come to feel that their transit choice is less appealing. Station tiles, ceiling panels and terrazzo flooring, among other things, are in need of repair accross the system, and while a small program is in place to do this, it is too slow

Steadily increasing demand for a fully accessible transit system will put additional–and unavoidable–financial pressure on the TTC.

and needs expansion. Transit riders expect stations to be clean, but also in a state of good repair and that they be modernized from time to time.

what additional data can be cost effectively provided through the City’s Open Data protocols to allow for further development of online tools.

For many transit riders, getting around also means cycling, walking or taking a car. Committing to a transit lifestyle should mean that for those times when transit isn’t the best option, there are alternatives. The TTC should look for ways to team up with car-sharing companies and the Toronto Parking Authority’s Bike Sharing program to expand mobility options.

TTC riders should also be rewarded for their loyalty through the Metropass Affinity Program which now needs new energy. The concept – offering discounts and other benefits through a network of partners – costs the TTC little, but could attract new riders and keep others in the transit fold.

Similarly, seeking user participation is important. Open and transparent information, and the public engagement that comes with it, can provide a rich source of innovation that should not be wasted. The TTC should establish an Open Data Committee that includes app-builders and transit advocates. The mission would be to examine

And lastly, for those days when rain or freezing wind chills the city, riders deserve cover. The TTC should work with the City’s street furniture program and recommit to the TTC’s 2009 decision to provide a shelter to any stop serving more than 100 customers per day.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

SECTION 8 - STATE OF GOOD REPAIR ATU members share the concern about worn-out infrastructure and vehicles for which there is no money to fix to the standard they know Torontonians expect. Provincial and federal levels of government have not lived up to their responsibilities for ensuring transit in Canada’s largest city has the resources to keep deterioration at bay. The ATU notes with alarm that the list of core, state-of-good-repair and safety projects (track replacement, building upkeep, tunnel fix-ups, fire ventilation modifications, etc) will cost around $9 billion over the next 10 years, and that around $2.7 billion of this amount is, at the moment, unfunded. But in addition to the official state-of-good repair backlog, there is an unofficial one. When certain capital projects are necessary, but the need has not become absolutely acute, they are left out of the capital budget because of the need to contain capital budget forecasts for debt rating agencies and other constituencies. ATU strongly believes that the budget should reflect the actual backlog and capital needs of the TTC; it’s the only way to do sound planning. The Commission also needs to more accurately differentiate between state-of-good-repair, upgrades made for legislative or safety reasons, new capacity enhancement requirements, and expansion programs – all to make it clear how much and why specific funding is required.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Today the 2014 base capital plan of around $1.17 billion is roughly one-quarter financed by provincial and federal governments, leaving three quarters of the amount (over $850 million) remaining for the City to finance. At the same time, the Federal Gas Tax will continue to represent a smaller and smaller portion of the TTC’s capital budget as a result of the formula used for its calculation. Unfortunately, it’s not realistic for cities to maintain and grow their transit systems without assistance from other levels of government. As the people who maintain the TTC, we’re frustrated when old, tired stations cannot be made to look good, regardless of how much cleaning is done, among other symptoms of disrepair. As a consequence of the growing repair backlog we see every day, we propose a serious

Similar to what has happened with many transit “public-private partnerships” around the world, the provincial government’s reliance on P3s for transit expansion and their higher financing costs will place a burden of millions of dollars annually on Toronto taxpayers. The ATU is concerned that riders will end up subsidizing private sector borrowing costs and that fares will be unequally split between Metrolinx and the TTC.

advocacy campaign, particularly in the leadup to the 2015 federal election, in cooperation with other municipalities to pressure the federal government to enact a National Transit Strategy.

SECTION 9 – TTC ACCESSIBILITY: IT’S IN EVERYONE’S BEST INTEREST While recent improvements have been added to make services accessible to those with mobility challenges, progress is disappointingly slow. This disturbs ATU members, who want to run a transportation system that is useable by everyone The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) sets out accessibility requirements that must be met by 2025, but those are minimum legal stipulations, and 2025 is a long time away for someone who isn’t served by the system now.

It’s important to note that Wheel-Trans today does not receive any provincial subsidies. In the past, however, the province funded the operating costs at a higher rate than it did the conventional system – a 75% subsidy for the program. Likewise in the United States, state and federal governments often provide upwards of 80% of the cost, recognizing its impact on city finances.

Unfortunately funding is not even currently in place to allow the TTC to install elevators in all of the remaining stations by 2025 when the law requires it. The TTC needs to aggressively continue and accelerate its station upgrade program, installing elevators at each of them. Today, riders on the conventional system have the option of travelling on relatively little notice, whereas Wheel-Trans riders must book the day before or risk not being accommodated. This must change to allow guaranteed same-day booking. Just this year the TTC introduced 24-hour service and same-day booking with four hours advance notice, but the latter is a service not guaranteed in the same way as trips booked the day before. Furthermore, four-

The provincial government used to subsidize 75% of the operating cost of Wheel-Trans. Today it is 0%. Nothing.

hour service still does not offer the full mobility that should be the right of all patrons. Cities like Chicago and Houston already provide on-demand service (as do many smaller U.S. cities like Westchester County, NY, and Garden City, NY) in a cost effective manner, and their costs do not exceed the average paratransit costs across the U.S. Surely those with mobility challenges deserve a guarantee of 1.5 hour Wheel-Trans service by 2016.

Executive Summary

Each ride on Wheel-Trans costs around $36 to provide (approximately $1.81 in fare revenue, the rest in subsidy), compared to a cost of around $2.80 on the conventional system (around $2.00 on average in fares and around a $0.80 subsidy) – and demand for the service is inexorably increasing with the aging population at an average of close to 10% per year, based on past experiences over the last decade.

SECTION 10 - BUILDING THE FUTURE OF THE TTC When it comes to a vision of TTC expansion, the ATU lens is the one of practicality. From our perspective, transit decisions should be about getting lines up and running as quickly and as costeffectively as possible. That means upgrading bus routes to light rail transit (LRT) or bus rapid transit (BRT) where warranted, or building subways where LRT or BRT can’t handle the capacity, as well as using GO lines to increase mobility within the city. But we do have some concerns about the current state of expansion projects. For one thing, we notice that there is little discussion about completing the Eglinton LRT to Pearson International Airport, as originally planned. This would serve the large population of near-airport industries generating ridership, along with passengers and employees of the airport itself.

The Eglinton LRT is currently envisioned to be operated by the TTC, but maintained (track and vehicles) by the consortium building and financing it. Industry best practices tie those two areas

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

14,000 per hour, a 50% increase over the original projections of 9,500 made by the TTC in July of 2013. If 14,000 people per hour, per direction, is correct, this route is at the bottom end of where subway construction makes financial sense.

Customer service is much more than smiles. Safety is paramount. Navigating a 40-foot bus full of passengers through rush hour traffic in often inclement weather requires training, focus and fast reaction to the unexpected.

together; accountability should rest with one entity to prevent lapses that could cause accidents.

The ATU feels that this entity should be publiclyowned and publicly accountable. Experience around the world with public transit privatization has shown that in many cases, privatized systems have gone on to experience higher costs and longer term problems than those associated with the maintenance of publicly owned infrastructure. Given the provincial government’s faith-based commitment to transit P3s, however, we can only insist that a better way forward would be for Metrolinx to work with the Eglinton Crosstown consortium to subcontract maintenance to the TTC. The TTC, after all, is an international leader in low cost maintenance operations. Toronto taxpayers could end up paying a higher subsidy than expected to the Eglinton

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

LRT when fares are divided between the TTC and the consortium. Even small changes in the allocations for passengers riding multiple transit lines could result in the TTC losing millions of dollars, to be made up for through higher fares, higher taxes, most likely both. The ATU calls on the provincial government to conduct a full transparent review of the the P3 model on Eglinton prior to entering into further P3s in order to ensure that lessons are learned and any mistakes are not repeated. We advocate for using Vancouver’s process as a model wherein reviews of the P3 Canada Line led to significant change in how future additions to that city’s network are being financed and operated. There are also concerns around the process leading to the replacement of the Scarborough Rapid Transit. The current projections for future subway ridership in the corridor are around

We believe in objective accurate analysis and there have been some concerns raised that the projections for the Scarborough subway are based on feeder lines that are unfunded and unlikely to be built in a generation, and a service level not budgeted for in the cost projections (i.e. the purchase and operation of trains). There is also the challenge of dealing with the growing price tag that often occurs when engineers’ reports firm up estimates and elaborate on technological issues. Will the added cost deprive other important transit expansion projects of their needed funding? City Council and the Commission should refrain from further discussion on the replacement options for the Scarborough SRT until the Environmental Assessment studies are complete on the subway proposal, and the LRT options can be accurately compared. Scarborough Malvern LRT construction should be considered at the same time as replacement options for the Scarborough SRT, to ensure that a plan is ultimately adopted that most increases the quality of transit in Scarborough. Chanting “subways, subways, subways” at public consultation meetings is hardly a substitute for objective economic analysis. On another front, one of the most critical projects in the TTC’s long-term plans and Metrolinx’s 25 year Big Move is a new transit line from the

SmartTrack is a new proposal to provide an augmented rapid transit route into the downtown from the northwest and northeast parts of the city. The ATU supports moving quickly to begin detailed studies of the SmartTrack project. The City should immediately advance the estimated $8-$15 million for the required engineering studies, to allow quick implementation and be refunded by the province if the project funding is approved. As the proposal is for SmartTrack is to be delivered and operated by Metrolinx, and to serve residents regionally with integrated fares (no additional fares for transfers), agreement must be reached quickly with the Province on the revenue share between Metrolinx and the TTC. Generally left out of the public discussion on expansion has been the challenge of servicing Waterfront Toronto’s projects. The TTC has completed studies for a new Waterfront East LRT line to serve the East Bayfront Area and West Donlands, and it’s likely this line would ultimately be extended to connect to the Cherry street spur line currently under construction. This would provide a link to King Street as well as ultimately extending to serve the Lower Donlands and Portands.

The problem is that this project is mostly unfunded. The ATU supports the recommendations of Waterfront Toronto’s Community Liaison Committee (CLC) that Waterfront Toronto use the available money to build a right-of-way on Queens Quay East, matching the design of the right-of-way being redone for the Harbourfront streetcar line, so that the Bay bus can use it until such time as funds are secured to construct the full Waterfront East LRT.

NEXT STEPS Finally, a word on moving forward. Nearly a century ago, ATU members were instrumental in converting Toronto’s then privately-owned patchwork of inadequate transit services into one of the world’s most admired systems. A 1920 public referendum for a publicly-owned transit system won by 90 per cent, despite fierce resistance from the private interests that claimed, as always, that “businessmen know how to do these things more efficiently than bureaucrats.” Torontonians overwhelmingly put their faith in a public system. The ATU wants once again to play an important and objective role in resisting those who want to turn back the clock to the mythical good old days of private transit operations. Union members are eager to play an active role in shaping the discussion on making transit better in our city, and look forward to continuing our working relationship with the residents, activists and politicians sharing our goals.

operating and capital budgets to make sure the system can not only expand with large capital projects, but also accommodate new riders on the existing system and keep it in a proper state of repair. With 2015 being a federal election year, the ATU will work with others to push for strong commitments from all federal political parties around the need for better transit and a national transit strategy, while at the same time holding the provincial government accountable for the transit funding promises it has made.

Executive Summary

east end to the downtown core. New LRTs in the east and north parts of the city will push more riders onto the Bloor-Danforth and Yonge subway, as will the proposed Scarborough rapid line. A new line is needed to accommodate future ridership growth and the ATU endorses the construction of some sort of relief line to allow transit expansion to continue.

Business leaders and others are already starting to talk about Toronto being a less desirable place to locate because of deteriorating transit service. We’re ready to stand with them, the new Mayor and City Council and residents to promote a strong public transit system owned by the people of Toronto. We also want to emphasize our willingness to work with the City and Commission to keep costs down and make the system more efficient. We want to be part of making the system better and more affordable. Together we can get past the paralysis by analysis and the lack of funding that has plagued the City for the past 20-plus years.

There’s lot of work ahead, but the ATU believes Toronto is up to the challenge of building a transit system that Torontonians can be proud of. Let’s do it and let’s do it together.

It’s our intention to step up discussions with City Councillors and other orders of government to push the need for ongoing sustained higher

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transit Future

The positive economic impact to Toronto of encouraging people to use transit instead of the private car is potentially large, as spending is shifted from autos (and fuel) produced elsewhere into local businesses.

RIDERSHIP GROWTH: THE TTC’S SUCCESS STORY Torontonians have deeply bonded with their public transit system – that’s the positive side of the transit story. The number of residents using the TTC on a daily basis both to commute and to enrich their experience of the city continues to grow year by year.

The challenges of financing, expanding and improving the system will become evident later in this report, but we need to start by celebrating the tremendous success of our public transit system. The TTC is one of the faster growing large transit networks in North America. It distinguished itself by not suffering a drop in overall ridership during the financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent years, unlike many in the United States. For much of the 1990’s, transit suffered from an economic downturn, major cuts to service, and large fare increases that drove away roughly 20% of riders.1 Since then, improvements to service, strong economic growth, and increasing population and population density have resulted in ridership recovering in a big way. Between 1999 and 2014, ridership increased by over 150 million rides. If the 2.5% annual ridership growth holds, that will mean an increase of over 60 million passengers between 2014 and 2018. To put this in context, this is about the size of the entire GO Transit ridership, and one and half times the size of total Mississauga Transit ridership.

But unfortunately, as the number of passengers rises, City Council has been cutting TTC subsidies per rider as part of general budget paring – as it did last term amidst protracted discussions; in some years, the subsidy has been allowed to fall by over $18 million per year. Section 2 will explore the subsidy shortfall. What explains the new popularity of the TTC? A search for answers reveals some important new trends that need to be understood in planning for the next decade of improved transit in Toronto.

Projected increase in ridership between 2014 and 2018 is about the size of the entire GO Transit ridership.

Toronto’s Transit Future

RIDERSHIP – UP, UP AND UP Typically TTC ridership was very closely tied to economic performance, but over the last decade this relationship has uncoupled, a phenomenon not unique to Toronto, but present across North America to greater or lesser degrees. While research in the broader transit world continues as to the exact nature of this trend and its causes, early findings focus on the generalized concern about personal finances due to the fact that wages and salaries over the last decade have failed to live up to the growth rate of the previous decades of the post-war economy. Even where people have jobs, these are often precarious, making the less-expensive transit option more often the favoured choice. At the same time, concerns for the environment and a desire to live a more urban (as opposed to suburban) lifestyle are leading to more downtown construction of housing and work units in cities across North America at levels not seen in the last 50 years. This trend is especially true in Toronto where an estimated 150 tall residential buildings are under construction, the large majority downtown. At the same time, commercial development is once again focusing on spaces in the core so as to be closer to the high-skilled workforce. This higher-density lifestyle is driving transit, as is congestion, a fact evidenced by the increased use of GO Transit by suburban dwellers. The other side of this trend is that lower income, more transit-dependent people are being increasingly pushed into the less-pricey inner

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

The tech-savvy Millennial generation likes transit for many reasons, including the freedom to use electronic accessories to work and communicate while traveling.

suburbs which is contributing to more per capita transit use and less car commuting. This is evidenced by the fact that the rush-hour use of transit is now around 31-32% (if GO Transit ridership in the city is included) of all trips, up over the last decade for the first time since the 1940s.

MILLENNIALS’ TRANSIT LOVE AFFAIR And finally, cultural change is also favouring public transit. This is all the more challenging since the current ridership growth is likely going to intensify, fed by a new ethos generated by Millennials placing a high value on transit. Studies show that those born between the early 1980s and the early 2000s tend to seek out dense urban areas and are far less interested in car ownership than earlier generations, a trend that signals major pressures from here on in.

But is transit ready for the next generation of riders? Evidence suggests that this tech-savvy cohort tends to use a mix of cycling, walking and transit, and is increasingly drawn to places that have these choices in quantity and quality. They view these modes as best for exercise, exploring neighbourhoods, interacting with others, and contributing to environmental sustainability.2,3 According to a U.S. Public Interest Research Group Study, A New Direction, “Young people aged 16 to 34 drove 23 percent fewer miles on average in 2009 than they did in 2001 – a greater decline in driving than any other age group…driving significantly less than previous generations of young Americans.”4,5 The trend is similar in Canada, with reports across the country of fewer drivers’ licenses issued to

This generation is also demanding more information and access to the Internet while traveling; 40% prefer to work and communicate as they move around – not a possibility while driving. Transit agencies are going to have to be serious about stepping up their connectivity.7 Will we as an industry be ready to accommodate this group of enthusiastic transit travelers coming onto the scene? You

can bet they’ll expect more much from their ride than the current status quo offers.

LESS SERVICE RELATIVELY THAN JUST A FEW YEARS AGO Toronto residents and TTC riders deserve better service. The lack of support from senior governments, combined with budget constraints at the City have meant service cuts, at first occurring in absolute terms, and later, relatively, with new standards increasing rush hour crowding by five percent over 2010 standards. While riders will tell you that they feel there is less service on the road based on their experience, actually evaluating how much service is available today relative to four years ago is more difficult.

FIGURE 1

EQUIVALENT CAPACITY OF LOW FLOOR BUSES

2010 SERVICE LEVELS Scheduled number of buses

Adjusted to low floor bus equivalents

2014 SERVICE LEVELS Scheduled number of buses

Adjusted to low floor bus equivalents

High Floor Buses

1.1

Lift Equipped Buses

1.1

194

213

180

198

Low Floor Buses

1119

1259

Articulated Buses

1.4

118

1557

1575

TOTAL BUS NUMBERS *Courtesy of Steve Munro

1388

1415

The complication is that the recent addition of articulated buses, with their added back sections and ability to carry 40% more people, and differences in capacity between the low floor and high floor buses (high floor buses carry ten percent more travelers than low floor buses), make it necessary to further adjust the calculations. (High floor buses have no space lost to wheel wells as do low floor buses.) Since low floor buses make up the largest portion of the fleet (now 80%), they have become the standard, and the capacities of other types of buses are expressed relative to theirs. This is the meaning of “adjusted’’ in Figure 1.

COMPARING 2010 RIDERSHIP WITH 2014 IN AN ACCURATE FASHION

COMPARING 2010 SERVICE LEVELS TO 2014 SERVICE LEVELS VEHICLE TYPE

In order to make comparisons from one year to another, it is necessary to count the number of vehicles on the road and the number of passengers each can carry (as Figure 1 demonstrates), and then factor in the total number of people using the service, i.e. the ridership.

The “Scheduled” column is the actual number of each type of bus scheduled (from TTC’s “Scheduled Service Summary”) for morning peak service, whereas the “Adjusted” column is the number of buses multiplied by the “equivalent capacity” factor which produces the roughly equivalent number of standard low floor buses. (If we didn’t adjust the number of buses by using the low floor capacity as the base comparison, we would be comparing vehicles quite different in the number of riders they carry, and it would be difficult to get an accurate reading of trends over time.)

1. Ridership Growth: The TTC’s Success Story

young people. According to the Calgary Herald, Alberta Transportation reports that “since 2001, the proportion of young people in Calgary with a driver’s license has fallen by 6.6 percent for those aged 16 to 24, and by 15.8 percent for those aged 24 to 34.” While we have not seen specific data for Toronto, anecdotal reports indicate similar results.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

The comparison is further complicated because the increase in service was not uniform across the system due to a recent lack of buses. It should also be noted that these calculations do not take into account that riders are being left at the curb because of over capacity buses, or that there has been almost no real change in peak streetcar or subway service as a result of fleet and operational constraints. This process produces a more accurate view of service on the road between 2010 and 2014. Figure 1 shows that in 2014 there are 11.3% more buses scheduled in the morning peak than in 2010. But, factoring in the ridership boom, from 477 million (actual) in 2010 to 540 million (projected) in 2014 (a 13.2% increase), it is obvious that there is less service on the road today than in 2010 and hence far more crowding. Articulated buses can carry 40 per cent more passengers.

RIDERSHIP IS GROWING FASTER IN THE OFF-PEAK Our computation only counts buses in the morning peak and doesn’t take into account the difference in growth patterns between off-peak and peak ridership, nor does it address the fact that there has been no increase in rush-hour streetcar service because of fleet shortages, or that because of signal system limitations, little rush hour subway service has been added. But luckily for the City, ridership over the last few years has been increasing faster in offpeak periods where there is more flexibility to accommodate increasing ridership, and where adding service is easier and cheaper (there are buses and streetcars available outside of rushhour as they are not in service). The possibility exists, though, that the constriction of peak hour

growth might be a result of the fact that with packed vehicles, rush hour riders are beginning to look for other transportation options. It should also be noted that Figure 1 shows the amount of planned service; the fact that buses break down either before or after they leave the garage doesn’t appear in these numbers. Thirty-five to 50 buses (3-4% of the fleet) break down daily, exacerbating the problem.

A FINAL NOTE ON TRANSIT’S ECONOMIC REWARDS With all the discussion of diverting more tax dollars to the TTC, some may conclude that the cost of obtaining decent transit is a major drain on the public purse. While it may be difficult to find the money, it’s not just better transit that an improved TTC offers, but also economic stimulus. There are many ways transportation spending is an economic multiplier in the local economy. On the most obvious level, high-quality transit has the capability to lessen that $6-11 billion (depending on the study) economic loss everyone is talking about due to congestion, by enticing more people out of their cars. In the same way, more people on transit and fewer at the wheel means, as the Board of Health points out, a reduction in the pollution that leads to respiratory illness and hospital visits, and the opportunity to save healthcare dollars that are already stretched. But there are other more hardcore ways that transit creates economic spinoffs.

Using the Montreal Board of Trade model for Toronto, but factoring in inflation and the fact that Toronto has 60% more people than Montreal, an estimate can be derived of what transit saved Toronto residents: $1.38 billion in 2014. The more Torontonians jump on our transit vehicles, the more money gets pumped into the Toronto economy via shopping, investing in a bigger house/condo, eating out, or buying services, thus creating even more local jobs. The Montreal report notes that the extra money “freed up for personal expenditures has an economic impact on jobs that is about 20% greater than expenditures on cars.” While unlike Montreal –Toronto, or rather its outskirts, has a vibrant auto sector – the fact remains that a large percentage of cars purchased in the Toronto area are not made in Toronto or Ontario, and are run on non-Ontario produced fuel. Looked at another way, a yearly TTC pass costs $1,470 currently, and even if we assume that some households (with two adults) spend another $125

a month on taxis, car sharing, child/youth transit charges and cycling, we would likely find that the average cost for transportation would be around $4,500 per year for the two to four person family. This represents a cost saving for those who weren’t car-owners (of one car) of over $5,000-$6,000, or over $6,000 to $7,000 on pre-tax income, based on the Canadian Automobile Association’s 2013 report “Driving Costs – 2013 Edition”. This all translates into a huge impact on the local economy. A 2014 study by the American Public Transit Association reported that for every $1 billion in public transit operating funding from governments, 24,200 people years of employment are created. While there are slight differences between the U.S. and Canadian labour markets, they are not so different that a rough comparison cannot be made. If we used this formula, we could assume that the $428 million subsidy the City gives to the TTC produces10,500 jobs directly and indirectly. Further, the entire TTC operating budget supports around 38,700 jobs using the same calculation method, and Toronto area transit in general would produce much more once the other transit agencies like GO were factored in. This same document reports that each billion invested in transit operations produces $1.8 billion in salaries and $2 billion in GDP. In this way, it’s likely the TTC budget generates $2.88 billion directly and indirectly in salaries to the economy, and $3.6 billion in GDP growth. And this all quite apart from the jobs generated by personal savings using transit or from transit facilitation of moving people and goods around the region.

When it comes to capital investment, i.e. the purchase of new buses or the building of LRT or subway lines, each billion brings 23,800 direct and indirect years of employment, $1.5 billion dollars in GDP growth, and $1.1 billion in labour income. One can imagine, if the $2 billion, as proposed by Metrolinx transit expansion plans, were invested each year in the Toronto area, it would create over 47,000 good paying jobs a year, and contribute $3 billion to our GDP while generating $2.2 billion in wages. If one factors in the direct investment, the indirect spin-offs and associated benefits like reduced commuting costs and higher local spending capacity, then APTA calculates that for every $1 communities invest in public transportation, approximately $4 is generated in economic returns. This means that the TTC capital and operating budgets of $2.6 billion create $10.4 billion worth of economic rewards a year. Worth the investment, wouldn’t you say?

1. Ridership Growth: The TTC’s Success Story

A few years ago, the Montreal Board of Trade issued a report, Public Transit: At the Heart of Montreal’s Economic Development, and noted that even though half of households owned cars, using transit saved residents of that city $826 million a year in 2010, money they mostly invested back into the local economy through purchases of goods and service. Imagine the savings and boost to local enterprises if even more people chose transit over private automobiles, and there was even more excess cash to spend locally.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transit Future

Time-based transfers will encourage greater transit use by allowing riders to economically attend to more than one travel purpose.

BUDGET REALITIES The good news that residents are boarding TTC vehicles more often than ever is followed by the grimmer reality that as more and more people come to depend on the network, the collective cost of getting more riders from point A to B increases, as does the need for a larger subsidy coming mostly from the City of Toronto.1

THE BASIC PREDICAMENT Here’s the problem. In 2014, TTC budget expenditures are at $1.6 billion dollars, financed by $1.15 billion in fare revenue, another $65 million in non-fare revenue, and a City subsidy of $428 million. But happily, or unhappily, TTC ridership is growing at 2.5% per year and will reach somewhere between 606 and 624 million rides (Table 1, Appendices 1-9) in four years, based on the amount of service and the continuation of existing trends. Assuming that Council agrees to allow the TTC to continue adding basic service so no one is left at the curb, the total budget will grow to around $1.85-1.95 billion, an annual expenditure increase of between 4.5%-5.5%, depending on whether new service enhancements are implemented or not. Estimating the amount of new basic service needed in any one year is a product of complex planning considerations, but we’ve made an attempt in our projections (see Tables in this section and Appendices 1-8), to show what the cost of adding

2 new service to meet ridership growth would be by using the average subsidy per ride multiplied by the projected ridership for each year. Figuring budget inflation at 2.75%2, we arrive at the conclusion that, in addition to basic cost increases, the price tag3 for providing service at the current standard will cost on average $13.4 million per year for the next 4 years. The budget analysis provided here recognizes that the increasing shift of riders to the Metropass means that these new rides don’t necessarily bring in new revenue. However, the associated effect is that likely more passengers are taking their rides in off-peak times when providing additional capacity may be handled more cost effectively. If new service is added at the average subsidy cost per ride ($0.79 in 2014 rising to $0.90 in 2018 in our base scenario) there will be incremental cost increases of $11.7 million in 2015 to $13.4 million in 2018. While the amount and cost of service will vary based on the new riderships’ route, mode and time of travel, this allows us a rough measure.

Toronto’s Transit Future

But beyond increasing the current level of service, the ATU strongly believes that the TTC needs to actually upgrade the quality of service to meet riders’ rising expectations, and guarantee a less congested, more reliable and faster ride than is now on offer. In this vein, we support augmenting existing services with more express buses, new 20-minute maximum headways (vehicle arrival spacing) and other ideas the TTC has suggested in the past, and is currently proposing. We detail some of these in Section 3. The combination of maintaining current service for more passengers, upping the level of service, and accommodating inflationary pressures will be a very expensive proposition.

WHY COST CUTTING ALONE WON’T SOLVE TTC’S BUDGET PROBLEMS In our survey of possible revenue sources, we’ve looked at more government support, increased per rider subsidies, and fare increases. But where do efficiencies fit in the search for more transit funding?

The TTC can be said to be the largest single expenditure by the City, even larger than the police, once the capital budgets are factored in. (The police have a large operating budget, but small capital budget, whereas the TTC has both). The fares the TTC collects represents around 10% of the City’s entire operating budget, although this is not very transparent since they are lumped into the general “user fees” category of the budget. The TTC has taken many steps to reduce costs, and the result is that according to international benchmarking, our transit system remains one of

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

the lowest cost multimodal operations in the world. TTC employees, many of them ATU members, have helped in creating this climate of efficiency. Comparing costs between transit operations can be misleading without extensive data standardization. There are problems with the comparability of data sets, issues of purchasing power parity, discrepant regulatory regimes, and differences in the design and running of the systems. But the independent organizations CoMet and Nova, coordinated by the Imperial College London’s Railway and Transport Strategy Centre (RTSC), have worked to get around these difficulties and to accurately and neutrally present data comparing transit properties around the world. They cite the TTC’s subway system as having the 3rd highest employee productivity level of over 20 metros in

Canada is the only major developed nation that does not have a predictable, annual and ongoing transit funding strategy. Torontonians of all political stripes must come together to make permanent federal transit funding the number one issue in the 2015 Federal election.

the same class, and the 6th lowest overall costs among the top 30 metros over the last few years.4 The same studies note that the TTC’s subway has low administration and operations costs, along with “very high driver productivity” although they do not address the surface system’s cost effectiveness. While the push for added efficiency needs to continue, it’s time to recognize that the major problem plaguing the TTC is low government funding. As we have noted, TTC riders pay around 68% of the cost of operating the system, a higher percentage than any other multimodal transit system listed above, or otherwise. To attempt to deal with this shortfall, the TTC has initiated cost-cutting moves over the last few years, such as using vehicles that carry more people –

The Commission has also contracted out certain services, reduced hours of bus services on many lines, and merged some TTC management services with the City of Toronto. Some of these initiatives like the merging effort made sense, as did using larger vehicles. But other measures simply diminished the quality of service to riders, while the contracting out of cleaners, which reduced the budget a mere couple tenths of a percentage, damaged employee morale, an outcome that can impact operations and efficiency over time. The realities of the last four years of TTC cost-containment are examined in detail in Appendix 1-9.

It’s not clear that there are major opportunities for large savings over the next few years, certainly not enough to dramatically change our budget projections. Many of the suggested economies coming from cuts to service, reduction in insurance costs (due to changes in legislation5) and easy contracting out opportunities have already been seized. Further outsourcing isn’t realistic given the new collective agreement that makes it much more difficult, and the negative impact on employee morale which can entail future added costs.

Nonetheless the ATU wants to work with the TTC to find any areas where economies can be found. Previously the TTC and the ATU agreed to create a committee on this matter; that was more than 18 months ago and our members are eager to be part of the process. We suggest that membership of this Efficiency Committee be decided, and that it begin convening in the next 60 days to allow for suggestions to be included in the 2015 budget. We further propose that any savings from found efficiencies be allocated to improving TTC service.

It should also be noted that at best these savings, while in the millions of dollars, represented around $15-20 million yearly in one or two years, or around 0.5% to 1% of the total budget and more often in the low single millions of dollars per year. So while the search for efficiencies must continue, it will not solve the bigger transit funding issue.

The search for budget efficiencies must be ongoing, but real TTC budget stabilization will come from recognition by all three governments that public transit is a worthy investment in building great cities.

Toronto transit riders pay the highest percentage of their system’s operating costs (69%) than in any other city in North America and Europe, even though the service continues to deteriorate.

2. Budget Realities

new articulated buses, new subway trains which hold 8-10% more riders, and new streetcars – all of which reduce labour costs relative to ridership.

Non-Fare Revenue: Little Room to Grow Given the cash shortfall, there have also been many discussions over the years about raising non-fare revenue, (now mostly from charters, rental properties, parking fees and advertising). Today this source represents only a rough 4% of revenue. None of the ideas on offer have proven capable of delivering large revenue increases. While the Commission should continue to consider new funding opportunities, experience internationally tells us that there is no easy way to dramatically increase this limited revenue source.

This form of revenue has remained flat in the most recent years (after a bump from a new advertising contract) and is mostly constrained by long-term structured contracts. Parking revenue is now based on market rates, advertising revenues are on par proportionally with other

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

The TTC receives the lowest per rider subsidy of any major multi-modal transit system in the developed world.

transit systems and governed by a competitively bid contract, and expanding rentable space in stations will require expensive upgrades that are unlikely to pay for themselves. Other potential sources such as revenue from the TTC agreement to offer cellular service in the subway that was negotiated are still years away because of the fact that the telcos are not cooperating, which may mean the arrangement in place needs to be renegotiated.

The Costs of Enhancing TTC Service

Our calculations suggest that enhanced service, as outlined in previous TTC reports, would have operating costs of around $96 million dollars. The additional revenue derived from these service enhancements will be around $15 million dollars. The net costs (factoring in fare revenue from new riders and inflation) is around $81 million dollars. These service enhancements will add around 17-18 million rides by 2018. By comparison, the Spadina Subway Extension is expected to add 10.5 million new rides.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

If we add to this, the costs of adding new service yearly without service enhancements will be roughly $13.4 million (average) yearly to accommodate the roughly 15.7 million new riders per year that are as a result of 2.5% annual rider growth (Table 1). The total could result in costs of roughly $67 million by 2018 (from 2014). This is, of course, on top of the base cost increases of $40-50 million the TTC experience every year. Together these costs lead to the TTC budget growing to over $1.95 in 2018 (Table 4), an increase of over $351 million. Even without the enhancements the budget grows by $255 million.

New Subway and Streetcar Carhouses Costs In addition to the pressures of inflation, more passengers and demands for better service, the model must factor in special large budget increases associated with the Spadina Subway Extension opening in mid-2017. The full operating cost of the extension is estimated to be $37 million in its first full year of operations in 20186 and it will add 10.5 million new rides. Likewise the new Leslie Carhouse is expected to cost $10 million (2014 dollars) to operate when it experiences its first full year of operations in 2017 and this report has factored these into the costs.7

The Costs of Not Adequately funding the TTC In considering the effects of the funding gap, it is necessary to explore the ways in which budget shortfalls generate their own new costs. One can see this clearly in the case of passenger crowding. Not only is it a negative rider experience, but onboard congestion also plays havoc with the efficiency and reliability of the service as a whole

– a scenario ATU operators are all too familiar with. As buses and streetcars take longer to load and unload, and people are forced to squeeze their way through vehicles and then have difficulty exiting, delays become routine, contributing to the bunching of vehicles and reduced ability of operators to adhere to schedules. In this way, the cost of neglecting to relieve crowding can become expensive in its own right. In summary, we do not believe that the new Council is willing to allocate (on average) $72.1 million per year (2014-2018) to cover basic operating needs (including the cost of the new subway extension), and up to an average of $91.4 million per year (includes the basic operating costs and the cost of the new subway) by 2018 for the proposed enhanced service. That is precisely why we have to think more broadly about where funding comes from, and why the ATU is so determined to join others in campaigns to remind the provincial and federal government of their responsibilities, as well as initiating a conversation about the amount riders contribute.

The Dilemma of Falling Per Rider Subsidies in the 2010-2014 Period and What it Means for the TTC’s Bottom Line There are several numbers that provide an insight into the health of the TTC. One of them, the “subsidy per rider”, tests the relative support of the government (mostly the City of Toronto) for the TTC. The subsidy per TTC rider is actually a simple formula; it is calculated by taking the total subsidy from the city (in 2014, this is $428 million) and dividing it by the total ridership.

TTC TOTAL EXPENDITURES, REVENUE & CITY SUBSIDY, 2014-2018 2,000

$ (MILLIONS)

TOTAL EXPENDITURES

1,500

CITY SUBSIDY

1,000

TOTAL REVENUE*

TTC revenues grow at around 3% (mostly as a consequence of new passengers), with no fare increase, but with expenses growing at around 4%, our models predict that the City subsidy would need to go from $428 million in 2014 to just under $546 million in 2018. This represents an average subsidy increase of just over $34 million dollars (see Table 1), or close to 8% per year.

500

2014

2015

2016

2017

(FORECAST)

2. Budget Realities

But we know that the constrained City budget cannot shoulder the needed subsidy hikes alone. It’s time for the federal and provincial governments to do their share. Currently, the TTC receives the lowest per rider subsidy of any multi-modal urban transit system in the developed world. Canada stands alone as the only major developed nation where the national government doesn’t have a predictable annual and ongoing transit funding strategy.

2018 * 96% from fares ** Without fare increases

USING KEY METRICS TO UNDERSTAND THE TTC BUDGET The problem is that because ridership is on the rise, growing by 59 million rides, from 477 million in 2010 to 540 million in 20148 and budget increases have not kept up, the per ride subsidy has fallen dramatically. It was 93 cents in 2010, and now, in 2014, it’s 79 cents. Once inflation is factored in, this becomes the equivalent of 73 cents, a drop of 20 cents, and a total subsidy decline of 21.5%. Today’s 79 cent subsidy is far less than New York’s subsidy of $1.03, Boston’s $1.93, Montreal’s $1.16 and less than a fifth of the per rider subsidy of $4.49 that York Region Transit gets (YRT) just to name a few examples.9

SUBSIDY PER RIDER COMPARISON Transit System

Subsidy/Rider

TTC

$0.79

Montreal

$1.16

Boston

$1.93

New York

$1.03

York Region Transit

$4.49

Another related statistic that describes the funding source of the TTC is the “Revenue Cost Ratio” which shows the percent of the budget provided by riders. Again, the TTC has the highest cost recovery (or percent paid by the riders) of any multi-modal transit system in North America.

While some in the transit world may be proud of this, this also demonstrates the lack of governmental support relative to other cities across North America, let alone even more subsidized services in developed nations in Europe and Asia.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

TABLE 1: BASE PROJECTIONS WITHOUT SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS AND NO FARE INCREASES1

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)2 Fare “Passenger” Revenue ($M)

Actual

Budget

2013

2014

1,120 1,053

1,166 1,101

TABLE 4: BUDGET PROJECTION WITH SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS & NO FARE INCREASE1,21,22,23

Forecast

2015 1,166 1,129

2016

(12)

1,226 1,157

2017

(12)

1,268 1,197

2018

(34)

Budget

Forecast

2013

2014

2015

2016(12)

2017(12)

2018(34)

1,310

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)

1,120

1,166

1,199

1,234

1,279

1,325

1,237

Fare Passenger Revenue (with Enhancements & Improvements) ($M)4,23,33,36,38

1,053

1,101

1,132

1,166

1,209

1,252

N/A

2.9

1.8

4.4

8.2

Year over Year Revenue Growth ($M)

N/A

48.0

28.1

28.2

39.6

40.4

Fare Revenue Growth Rate (%)6

N/A

4.56%

2.56%

2.50%

3.43%

3.37%

375

428

463

491

530

546

Additional Fare Passenger Revenue from Enhancements ($M)36

N/A

City Revenue (Subsidy) ($M)9 Annual Subsidy Growth Rate (%)

N/A

14.13%

8.24%

6.03%

7.86%

2.98%

Year Over Year Revenue Growth ($M)

N/A

48.0

31.0

33.6

43.0

43.8

N/A

4.56%

2.82%

2.97%

3.69%

3.62%

Yearly Required Subsidy Increase ($M) Subsidy/Rider ($)

Increase in Subsidy/Rider (%) Total Expenditures ($M)

New Service to Meet New Riders ($M)

N/A

53.0

35.3

27.9

38.6

15.8

Fare Revenue Growth Rate (%)6

$0.71

$0.79

$0.89

$0.87

$0.90

City Revenue (Subsidy) ($M)9

375.0

428.0

480.3

553.5

602.2

627.0

N/A

14.13%

12.23%

15.23%

8.79%

4.12%

N/A

11.60%

12.42%

-2.83%

4.29%

-0.38%

Annual Subsidy Growth Rate (%)

1,495

1,601

1,659

1,717

1,797

1,855

Subsidy/Rider ($)10

$0.71

$0.79

$0.86

$0.95

$1.00

13.4

Total Expenditures ($M)13

1,495

1,601

1,679

1,788

1,881

1,952

18.80

New Service to Meet New Riders ($M)

6.4

16.6

11.7

12.4

13.1

13.4

TTC Proposed Service Enhancement Costs ($M)15

N/A

19.9

70.6

84.0

96.4

Incremental Costs from Leslie Car House and Spadina Extension ($M)4,16

N/A

3.0

3.03

22.9

18.8

Yearly Expenditure Increase ($M)

N/A

105.6

78.6

108.7

93.6

70.5

Annual Expenditure Growth Rate (%)

N/A

7.06%

4.91%

6.47%

5.23%

3.75%

Ridership (with Enhancements ) (Million Rides/Year)18

528.0

540.0

558.3

581.2

602.3

624.3

6.44

16.6

2.95

12.4 3.03

13.1

N/A

Yearly Expenditure Increase ($M)

N/A

105.6

58.6

58.0

80.2

58.1

N/A

7.06%

3.66%

3.50%

4.67%

3.23%

Ridership (Million Rides/Year)

N/A

11.7

Incremental Costs from Leslie Car House and Spadina Extension ($M)4,16 Annual Expenditure Growth Rate (%)11

22.93

528.0

540.0

553.5

567.3

586.8

606.6

Yearly Ridership Growth (M)

N/A

12.0

13.5

13.8

19.4

19.8

Ridership Growth (%)19

N/A

2.27%

2.50%

3.43%

3.37%

18, 4

Budget Ratios

Actual

Revenue/Cost (RC) Ratio

70.43%

68.79%

68.05%

67.40%

66.60%

66.69%

Additional Riders from Enhancements (M)

N/A

4.8

10.7

12.2

14.4

Percentage of Budget from Subsidy

25.08%

26.74%

27.92%

28.60%

29.48%

29.41%

N/A

3.2

3.3

3.4

2.83

2.96

3.00

3.03

3.06

Additional Riders from Twenty Minute Or Better Service Improvement (M)23 Yearly Ridership Growth (M)

N/A

12.0

18.3

22.9

21.1

22.0

Ridership Growth (%)19

N/A

2.27%

3.39%

4.10%

3.63%

3.65%

Revenue/Cost (RC) Ratio20

70.43%

68.79%

67.42%

65.20%

64.24%

64.17%

Percentage of Budget from Subsidy

Average Cost ($) Per Ride

Budget Ratios 25.08%

26.74%

28.61%

30.96%

32.01%

32.12%

Average Cost ($) Per Ride30

2.83

2.96

3.01

3.08

3.12

3.13

Annual Cost Per Ride Increase (%)

N/A

4.68%

1.47%

2.27%

1.55%

0.09%

THESE TABLES ARE A SHORTENED VERSION OF THE ACTUAL FULL TABLES IN APPENDICES 1-8 AND ONLY A SELECT NUMBER OF METRICS ARE SHOWN IN THESE TABLES. THE FULL VERSIONS, EXPLANATORY NOTES, AND ALL OF THE VARIOUS SCENARIO TABLES ARE IN APPENDICES 1-8.

TABLE 6: BUDGET PROJECTION 5 CENT YEARLY FARE INCREASE - WITH SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS1,21,22,23

Actual

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)

1,120

1,166

1,217

1,269

1,334

1,401

Fare "Passenger" Revenue ($M)4

1,053

1,101

1,150

1,200

1,263

1,329

Forecast (12)

(12)

Actual

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016(12)

2017(12)

2018(34)

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)

1,120

1,166

1,219

1,278

1,346

1,419

Fare Passenger Revenue (with Enhancements & Improvements) ($M)4,23,33,36

1,053

1,101

1,153

1,209

1,276

1,346

N/A

3.1

2.6

5.8

10.4

(34) 2

Forecast

Year Over Year Revenue Growth ($M)

N/A

48.4

50.2

63.3

65.5

Fare Revenue Growth Rate(%)6

N/A

4.59%

4.40%

4.36%

5.27%

5.19%

375.0

428.0

442.6

448.6

463.6

454.2

Additional Fare Passenger Revenue from Enhancements ($M)36

N/A

City Revenue (Subsidy) ($M)9 Annual Subsidy Growth Rate (%)

N/A

14.13%

3.41%

1.35%

3.34%

-2.01%

Year Over Year Revenue Growth ($M)

N/A

46.2

53.3

58.3

68.7

72.3

N/A

4.58%

4.68%

4.90%

5.52%

5.51%

N/A

53.0

14.6

6.0

15.0

-9.3

Fare Revenue Growth Rate (%)6

Subsidy/Rider ($)10

$0.71

$0.79

$0.80

$0.79

$0.75

City Revenue (Subsidy) ($M)9

375.0

428.0

459.7

510.0

534.9

533.1

Total Expenditures ($M)13

1,495

1,601

1,659

1,717

1,797

1,855

Annual Subsidy Growth Rate (%)

N/A

14.13%

7.40%

10.96%

4.88%

-0.33%

New Service to Meet New Riders ($M)14

6.4

16.6

11.7

12.4

13.1

13.4

Subsidy/Rider ($)10

$0.71

$0.79

$0.82

$0.88

$0.89

$0.85

Incremental Costs from Leslie Car House and Spadina Extension ($M)4,16

N/A

3.0

22.9

18.8

Total Expenditures ($M)13

1,495

1,601

1,679

1,788

1,881

1,952

New Service to Meet New Riders ($M)

6.4

16.6

11.7

12.4

13.1

13.4

Yearly Expenditure Increase ($M)

N/A

105.6

58.6

58.0

80.2

58.1

N/A

19.9

70.6

84.0

96.4

Annual Expenditure Growth Rate (%)11

N/A

7.06%

3.66%

3.50%

4.67%

3.23%

TTC Proposed Service Enhancement Costs ($M)15 Incremental Costs from Leslie Car House and Spadina Extension ($M)4,16

N/A

2.95

3.0

22.9

18.8

Yearly Expenditure Increase ($M)

N/A

105.6

78.6

108.7

93.6

70.5

N/A

7.06%

4.91%

6.47%

5.23%

3.75%

528.0

540.0

558.3

581.2

602.3

624.3

Yearly Required Subsidy Increase ($M)

Ridership (Million Rides/Year)18

528.0

540.0

553.5

567.3

586.8

606.6

Yearly Ridership Growth (M)

N/A

12.0

13.5

13.8

19.4

19.8

Ridership Growth (%)19

N/A

2.27%

2.50%

3.43%

3.37%

Budget Ratios

Annual Expenditure Growth Rate (%)

Revenue/Cost (RC) Ratio20

70.43%

68.81%

69.30%

69.88%

70.28%

71.61%

Ridership (with Enhancements) (Million Rides/Year)18

Total Percentage of Budget from NonSubsidy Dollars

74.92%

72.87%

73.33%

73.88%

74.21%

75.52%

Additional Riders from Enhancements (M)

N/A

4.8

10.7

12.2

14.4

Percentage of Budget from Subsidy

25.08%

26.74%

26.67%

26.12%

25.79%

24.48%

Additional Riders from Twenty Minute or Better Service Improvement (M)23

N/A

3.2

3.3

3.4

2.83

2.96

3.00

3.03

3.06

Yearly Ridership Growth (M)

N/A

12.0

18.3

22.9

21.1

22.0

Ridership Growth (%)19

N/A

2.27%

3.39%

4.10%

3.63%

3.65%

Revenue/Cost (RC) Ratio20

70.43%

68.80%

68.65%

67.63%

67.82%

68.97%

Percentage of Budget from Subsidy

Average Cost ($) Per Ride30

Budget Ratios 25.08%

26.74%

27.37%

28.53%

28.43%

27.31%

Average Cost ($) Per Ride30

2.83

2.96

3.01

3.08

3.12

3.13

Annual Cost Per Ride Increase (%)

N/A

4.68%

1.47%

2.27%

1.55%

0.09%

2. Budget Realities

TABLE 5: BUDGET PROJECTION 5 CENT YEARLY FARE INCREASE - NO SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS1,24

Toronto’s Transit Future

TABLE 8: BUDGET PROJECTION 5,10,10,5 FARE INCREASE PLAN WITH SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS1,21,22,23 Actual

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)

1,120

1,166

1,220

1,294

1,386

1,466

Fare Passenger Revenue (with Enhancements & Improvements) ($M)4,23,33, 29,36,38

1,053

1,101

1,153

1,225

1,315

1,394

Additional Fare Passenger Revenue from Enhancements ($M)36

N/A

3.1

3.0

6.7

11.4

Year Over Year Revenue Growth ($M)

Year Over Year Fare Revenue Growth ($M)

N/A

48.4

51.5

72.3

89.9

78.6

Fare Revenue Growth Rate6

N/A

4.59%

4.68%

6.27%

7.34%

Forecast (12)

(12)

Actual

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016(12)

2017(12)

2018(34)

1,120

1,166

1,217

1,284

1,372

1,447

1,053

1,101

1,150

1,215

1,301

1,375

N/A

48.4

65.5

85.7

73.5

Fare Revenue Growth Rate (%)6

N/A

4.59%

4.40%

5.70%

7.05%

5.65%

5.97%

City Revenue (Subsidy) ($M)9

375.0

428.0

442.6

430.5

420.2

402.6

(34)

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)2 Fare "Passenger" Revenue ($M)4,28,29

Forecast

City Revenue (Subsidy) ($M)

375.0

428.0

459.5

491.2

490.1

479.9

Annual Subsidy Growth Rate (%)

N/A

14.13%

3.41%

-2.73%

-2.41%

-4.17%

Annual Subsidy Growth Rate (%)

N/A

14.13%

7.35%

6.91%

-0.24%

-2.07%

N/A

53.0

14.6

-12.1

-10.4

-17.5

Subsidy/Rider ($)

$0.71

$0.79

$0.82

$0.85

$0.82

$0.77

Yearly Required Subsidy Increase ($M)

Total Expenditures ($M)13

1,495

1,601

1,679

1,785

1,876

1,946

Subsidy/Rider ($)10

$0.71

$0.79

$0.80

$0.76

$0.72

$0.66

New Incremental Costs to Add Service to Meet New Riders ($M)14

6.4

16.6

11.7

9.6

10.3

13.4

Total Expenditures ($M)13

1,495

1,601

1,659

1,714

1,792

1,850

16.6

11.7

9.6

10.3

13.4

N/A

19.9

70.6

84.0

96.4

New Service to Meet New Riders ($M)14

6.4

TTC Proposed Service Enhancement Incremental Costs ($M)15

Yearly Expenditure Increase ($M)

N/A

105.6

58.6

55.2

77.3

58.0

Incremental Costs from Leslie Car House and Spadina Extension ($M)4,16

N/A

3.0

22.9

18.8

Annual Expenditure Growth Rate (%)11

N/A

7.06%

3.66%

3.33%

4.51%

3.23%

Yearly Expenditure Increase ($M)

N/A

105.6

78.6

105.9

90.7

70.3

Annual Expenditure Growth Rate (%)11

N/A

7.06%

4.91%

6.31%

5.08%

3.75%

Ridership (Million Rides/ Year)18,29

Ridership (with Enhancements) (Million Rides/Year)18,29

TABLE 7: BUDGET PROJECTION 5,10,10,5 FARE INCREASE PLAN - NO SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS1

528.0

540.0

553.5

564.5

583.8

606.6

Reduction in Riders due to 10 cent increase (0.5% reduction)

N/A

2.8

2.9

N/A

Yearly Ridership Growth (M)

N/A

12.0

13.5

11.0

19.3

22.7

Ridership Growth (%)19

N/A

2.27%

2.50%

1.99%

3.43%

3.89%

528.0

540.0

558.3

578.4

599.4

624.3

Additional Riders from Enhancements (M)

N/A

4.8

10.7

12.2

14.4

Additional Riders from Twenty Minute Or Better Service Improvement (M)23

N/A

3.2

3.3

3.4

Reduction in Riders due to 10 cent increase (0.5% reduction) (M)

N/A

2.8

2.9

N/A

Revenue/Cost (RC) Ratio20

70.43%

68.81%

69.30%

70.89%

72.61%

74.32%

Yearly Ridership Growth (M)

N/A

12.0

18.3

20.1

21.0

24.9

Total Percentage of Budget from Non-Subsidy Dollars

74.92%

72.87%

73.32%

74.89%

76.55%

78.23%

Total Ridership Growth (%)19

N/A

2.27%

3.39%

3.60%

3.63%

4.16%

Percentage of Budget from Subsidy

25.08%

26.74%

26.68%

25.11%

23.45%

21.77%

Revenue/Cost (RC) Ratio20

70.43%

68.81%

68.66%

68.64%

70.11%

71.62%

2.83

2.96

3.00

3.04

3.07

3.05

Percentage of Budget from Subsidy

25.08%

26.74%

27.36%

27.52%

26.13%

24.66%

2.83

2.96

3.01

3.09

3.13

3.12

Budget Ratios

Average Cost ($) Per Ride30

Budget Ratios

Average Cost ($) Per Ride30

TABLE 9: BASE PROJECTIONS - WHEEL-TRANS1

TABLE 11: WHEEL-TRANS - 5,10,10,5 CENT FARE INCREASE

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)2

5.3

5.6

6.0

6.6

7.2

7.9

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)2

Year Over Year Revenue Growth ($M)

N/A

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.7

Fare Revenue Growth Rate (%)6

N/A

4.32%

7.50%

10.00%

City (Revenue) Subsidy ($M)

97.0

106.6

118.2

134.1

152.1

172.6

Annual Growth Rate (%)

N/A

9.85%

10.83%

13.47%

13.46%

Yearly Required Subsidy Increase ($M) Subsidy/Rider ($) Subsidy/Rider Percent Increase (%)9

Forecast

N/A

9.6

11.5

15.9

18.1

20.5

$33.70

$34.78

$35.86

$36.99

$38.16

$39.36 3.15%

N/A

3.22%

3.10%

3.16%

3.15%

Total Expenditures ($M)

102.4

112.2

124.1

140.6

159.4

180.6

Annual Growth Rate of Expenditures (%)10,11

-1.85%

9.60%

7.71%

10.28%

N/A

9.8

12.0

16.5

18.7

21.2

Yearly Expenditure Increase ($M)

Actual

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

5.3

5.8

6.3

7.2

8.3

9.2

Total Expenditures ($M)

102.4

112.2

124.1

140.6

159.4

180.6

City Subsidy ($M)

97.0

106.4

117.8

133.4

151.1

171.3

Fare Growth Rate (%)

N/A

2.27%

1.85%

3.64%

1.70%

Year over Year Fare Revenue Growth (%)

N/A

9.00%

9.49%

14.00%

11.87%

Yearly Fare Revenue Increase ($M) Subsidy/Rider ($)

2.88

3.07

3.29

3.62

3.99

4.39

0.19

0.23

0.33

0.36

0.40

Fare Revenue ($)

N/A

6.42%

7.50%

10.00%

Revenue/Cost (RC) Ratio

5.20%

4.95%

4.81%

4.67%

4.53%

4.40%

Average Cost ($) Per Ride

$35.54

$36.59

$37.67

$38.81

$39.97

$41.17

N/A

2.95%

3.01%

Yearly Ridership Growth (M) Ridership Growth (%)

Annual Cost Per Ride Increase14

TABLE 10: WHEEL-TRANS - 5 CENT FARE INCREASE Actual

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

5.3

5.8

6.3

7.1

8.0

8.9

Total Expenditures ($M)

102.4

112.2

124.1

140.6

159.4

180.6

City Subsidy ($M)

97.0

106.4

117.8

133.5

151.4

171.7

Fare Growth Rate ($M)

N/A

2.27%

1.85%

1.79%

1.76%

Year Over Year Fare Revenue Growth (%)

N/A

9.00%

9.49%

12.04%

11.97%

11.94%

Yearly Fare Revenue Increase ($M)

N/A

0.48

0.55

0.76

0.85

0.95

$33.70

$34.70

$35.75

$36.84

$37.97

$39.14

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)2

Subsidy/Rider ($)

Forecast

0.5

0.6

0.9

1.0

$34.70

$35.75

$36.81

$37.90

$39.07

Actual

-0.09

Ridership (Million Rides/Year)

N/A $33.70

TABLE 12: COST PROJECTIONS: ON-DEMAND (WITHIN 90 MINUTES) WHEELTRANS SERVICE15

Total Expenditures ($M)

Forecast

2. Budget Realities

Actual

Budget

Forecast

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

102.4

112.2

124.1

143.9

167.1

191.7

5.3

5.6

6.3

7.3

8.3

9.4

Projected Added Cost of Better “On-Demand” Service ($)16

N/A

3.28

7.79

11.18

City Subsidy ($M)

97.0

106.6

117.8

136.7

158.8

182.3

Annual Expenditure Growth Rate (%)17

N/A

9.56%

10.67%

15.95%

16.13%

14.72%

Ridership (Million Rides/Year)

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.7

4.2

4.6

New Ridership from “On-Demand Service”

N/A

0.08

0.18

0.25

Yearly Ridership Growth (M)18

N/A

6.42%

7.50%

12.50%

11.25%

Average Cost ($) Per Ride19

35.5

36.6

37.7

38.9

40.1

41.4

Annual Cost Per Ride Increase14

N/A

2.95%

3.10%

3.07%

3.23%

3.12%

THESE TABLES ARE A SHORTENED VERSION OF THE ACTUAL FULL TABLES. THE FULL VERSIONS ARE IN APPENDIX 9-12.

Toronto’s Transit Future

Today, close to 69% of the TTC’s budget is provided by the riders through fares, with approximately 4% of the budget accounted for by non-fare or non-subsidy sources (like advertising and parking), leaving about 27% of the budget to come from government support. In the chart below, one can see the difference in funding levels in cities where governments deem transit a worthy investment. Systems in Chicago, New York and Montreal receive only around 40%-60% of their operating budgets from riders, while many other large urban transit systems glean less than 50% of their budgets from this source.10 REVENUE/COST RATIO AND SUBSIDY CITY COMPARISON Revenue/ Cost Ratio

Subsidy/ Rider

TTC

69%

$0.79

Montreal

54%

$1.16

Vancouver

54%

$1.62

Chicago

44%

$1.68

New York

60%

$1.03

Transit System

The province should return to the old formula of transit funding, wherein it supported half of the operating deficit, non-government revenue covered roughly 68% and the City and Province split the remaining 32% evenly. This would mean a more than doubling (to over $200 million) of the roughly $95 million of current operating funds now provided by the province through gas taxes transferred to the City and would allow the funds necessary to improve service.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

WHERE FARE INCREASES FIT It’s clear that the city can’t bear all the burden of making the TTC a truly better way of travelling, and that other levels of government need to increase their support of transit in Canada’s major metropolis. But the ATU recognizes, as well, that riders need to be part of the funding equation and that fare increases that are reasonable, predictable and pose no threat to continued ridership growth can play an important role over the next four years. We know growing fare revenue is an important consideration because each year of a fare freeze costs the TTC around $25 (5 cent increase on adult single fares) to $38 million (10 cent increase on adult single fares). To that end, we have created various scenarios taking into account the costs associated with TTC service proposals, the impact of fare increases and the effects on required subsidies. It’s easy to see from these how various aspects of the budget interrelate. This report provides models on two different fare increases and their revenue potential. One scenario (Table 1, Appendix 1) poses a fivecent increase (on an adult single fare, prorated for all concession fares and passes), and the other, a five,10,10, five plan (Tables 8 and 9) showing the effect of a raise of five cents in 2014, 10 in 2015, and 2016, and five in 2018. While the five cent yearly increase would average out to 1.8% of the fare price per year, or less than the current rate of inflation, the 5,10,10,5 plan would average 2.67% or slightly above.

The advantage of the 5,10,10,5 scenario, which raises fares by 30 cents over four years, is that it allows the TTC to maintain the current revenue-cost ratio (cost to riders) of around 69%, which would generate enough revenue (if the City would fund basic TTC inflationary budget increases) to add the service enhancements discussed in Section 3. In all scenarios, however, service enhancements beyond basic new service to meet ridership would also need additional government support.

A FURTHER LOOK AT OUR SCENARIOS When we examined the option of no fare increases and no service enhancements, just the addition of service to meet ridership growth, the subsidy needed from 2014-2018 will be a total of $170 million. This represents an annual increase of nearly 8% or $34 million per year (Table 1 ) – roughly a 1.25% property tax hike – just to fund basic operations. In this scenario, government support grows to between 32% and almost 35% of the budget. The immensity of the budget challenges that come with no fare increases grows dramatically. If all the enhancements were added, but no fare increase was levied, the subsidy would need to grow by around 11% a year or nearly an average of $50 million a year. In this case the revenue-cost ratio (the cost paid by riders) falls to 64%, which is a decrease of 4.62% since 2014, leaving government to pick up 32% of the cost, up from today’s 27%, noting that 3-4% of revenues come from non-fare sources.

HELPING MARGINALIZED TORONTONIANS WITH TRANSIT COSTS: LOW INCOME METROPASS One objection to fare increases is that they unfairly punish those who are financially pressed. The answer to this serious equity issue arising from more expensive fares, could well be the creation of a low income Metropass.

Thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a serious shortage of skilled transit vehicle mechanics that should be addressed with a TTC-run apprenticeship program.

Over the years, there have been various substantial discussions in communities about the creation of such a pass. We estimate roughly that the number of low-income riders who would use this pass may hover around 50,000, and that the cost of providing this kind of pass is roughly $16 to $18 million. The ATU is committed to making transit as affordable as possible for financially-stressed Torontonians. Inevitably, such an enterprise needs to involve provincial funding because the ATU recognizes that this represents more of an income support program than a strictly transportation initiative. A full description of our reasoning and calculations, and some proposed methods of providing the pass are provided in the accompanying sidebar on the next page.

WHEEL-TRANS BUDGET No discussion about the TTC budget would be complete without a discussion about the budget impacts of Wheel-Trans. In past years, Wheel-Trans received provincial subsidies equal to around 75% of the cost of providing service, recognizing that it was not only a part of Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transportation mix, but that it also played a social support role for those with mobility challenges. It was viewed as somewhat part of the healthcare network since a large percentage of Wheel-Trans trips are for medical reasons.

2. Budget Realities

What is clear from the various scenarios is that while riders need to pay a fair share of the cost, governments at all levels will need to do their part in helping to expand service and keeping the TTC affordable for riders. Indeed the conversation around transit funding must be more than just about the funding of large capital expansion programs, but also about providing stable operating funds to keep fares reasonable and allow the TTC to improve service on the existing network.

Unlike the conventional system, fares paid by Wheel-Trans customers represent less than 5% of the cost of providing the service, versus the 69% of costs covered by riders on the conventional system. The TTC projects that by 2018 there will be an average increase of 300,000 riders for Wheel-Trans due to population growth, demographic shifts and changes in provincial legislation, and this will result in an increase of 1.32 million riders per year from 2014 to 2018. While this is small compared to passenger numbers on the wider network, the average subsidy per ride is close to $36 versus the 79 cents on the conventional system.

The growth of 1.32 million rides from the current 3.07 million will force annual expenditures to reach $180 million per year by 2018, representing an annual increase of just under 10 percent a year since 2014. This is an increase of over $68 million since 2014. While fare revenue will rise during this time by 7.5% to 10% per year, it will still only represent 4.4% of the budget. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

THE EQUITY CHALLENGE: A LOW INCOME METROPASS It’s difficult to talk about needed fare increases when there’s such a large constituency of low-income people in our city. That’s why we are initiating a discussion on the development of a reduced-price Metropass. Our proposal is to start a Low Income Pass at the same rate as the student and senior pass, currently $108 – or a 19.25% reduction from the full price adult Metropass. While discussions have previously set the rate lower, this proposed rate limits the administrative burden of establishing a new pass class, and makes its implementation more likely in the short-run. Further reductions, we think, would be easier to consider once the pass is in place. The Metropass is calculated at a 49.5-trip multiple, which means that most of the users have jobs working four to five days a week; the average of 21 work days a month equals 42 trips. Once the Federal Transit Tax Credit is factored in (equal to 15% of the cost of the pass), traveling to and from work alone essentially pays for the pass. A relatively small number of people not working full time purchase a monthly Metropasses.

We recommend use of the same criteria and process as the city’s Welcome Program which offers reduced price or free recreation programs to low income Torontonians. Welcome Program recipients must provide proof of their income through verified Revenue Canada returns each year. Welcome Program eligibility is based on using Statistics Canada’s Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) – $23,861 for one person, escalating up to $63,147 for households of seven or more.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Issues of eligibility, enforcement and stigma should be addressed in consultation with stakeholder communities, but two possible models are presented here. Both models take into account concerns about the potential stigma faced by low-income pass holders if their status is openly and publicly identified by having to present a specifically branded pass. Calgary Transit, for instance, offers a low income pass that is branded as such, but we believe there are ways to better protect the confidentiality of these passengers. In Model One, it is proposed that this program be in the form of a grant of $25.75 per month paid upon presentation of previous months’ Metropasses, up to 12 months at a time (for a total benefit of $308). This process, while less customerfriendly, will allow the program to better ensure that subsidy dollars reach those for whom they are intended, and prevent any social stigmatization. Since each Metropass has a unique number, this program may reduce Metropass fraud; the numbers are verifiable and would reduce the value of counterfeit passes. At the same time, this unique number means that each pass could only be used for one grant as long as the numbers were logged and verified. The coming PRESTO card makes this a lot simpler. This also prevents the need to surrender the pass and forgo the Federal Tax Credit available to users. In model two, the current Senior/Student Metropass would simply be rebranded as a Senior/Student/Low Income Metropass. Which of these categories the rider fits into would be known only to TTC and enforcement personnel

when necessary for enforcement. The eligibility criteria remain the same as in model one, but the participant would be required to register in advance and would receive a special photo ID card that must be presented upon request by the TTC, i.e. during fare enforcement.” Model One is administratively more complex and requires the participant to pay up front and receive a rebate retroactively. Model Two is administratively less complicated, but still requires the participant to register, as well as showing their status ID at times, when necessary for enforcement. Whichever model best serves the community is the one on which the final program should be based. The cost of the program is estimated to be between $16 and 18 million dollars. The two major groups that we believe should be included are those who meet the City’s Welcome Program criteria for Parks and Recreation Programs: the working poor and social assistance recipients (Ontario Works and ODSP). We derived the numbers for the working poor by using numbers from a 2006 Metcalf Study, The Working Poor in the Toronto Region11. This calculated the number of working poor in Toronto at 71,000 people. Factoring in population growth, the number can be estimated at around 85,000 in the Toronto of 2014. The second group, those on social assistance, total 242,600 in September of 2014 according to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. In Toronto there are 80,300 Ontario Works (OW) cases which represented 146,000 beneficiaries and

The Ministry of Community and Social Service estimates that 11% of those on assistance, work,12 although most of this is part-time. Those who do not hold a job requiring around five dayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a week travel would, in most cases, find the $108 not cost-effective. For estimation purposes, we assume that just under half of the 11% work full-time (although it is likely less than this), and thus make enough trips to make the pass cost-effective. This would produce a figure of roughly 13,500. That, plus the 85,000 defined as working poor generate a total of just under 100,000 who might reasonably have a financial stake in a low-income pass. But itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s also necessary to consider the percentage of those eligible who would actually take advantage of the pass, as many people walk, cycle, work from home or share rides. TTC reports on the Post Secondary Pass suggest that less than 50% of those eligible are taking advantage of it, despite the fact that it does not require income verification. The same 50% rate might apply to the low-income pass. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s possible, as well, that not everyone who claims the grant will claim the full $309 (based on 12 months of passes), and that not everyone eligible will want to make the two necessary trips to apply for and collect the grant.

will apply for the $309 maximum grant, which produces a total cost of the grant of $ 15.5 plus administration costs. These costs could be limited if piggybacked on to the Welcome Policy structure and/or administered through existing social service offices. An alternative or additional proposal could be to work with Toronto Community Housing to give their over 160,000 residents access to the Volume Incentive Program, which provides passes for $117.75 to groups purchasing over 500 per month.

We in the ATU interact with many financiallyburdened passengers every day, many of them children and seniors. It is not an easy part of our jobs to collect full fares from people who obviously have very little disposable income. We want to see reasonably-priced transit for those needing work-day rides and hope we can stimulate some action to make it a reality.

2. Budget Realities

70,300 Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) cases representing 96,600 people. Together they represent around 8.5% of the population.

The provincial government should be pressed to help fund a Low Income Metropass as part of an income support program.

The total cost of the pass is calculated by assuming that like the post-secondary pass only the equivalent of 50% of those eligible

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’sTransit TransitFuture Future Toronto’s

A serious conversation needs to occur around provincial subsidy increases for Wheel-Trans to allow this service to continue to improve. A more detailed discussion about accessibility issues and their related budget impacts is offered in Section 9.

ATU RECOMMENDS: 1. That the TTC and the City advocate for more operating subsidies from the Province. The City and TTC need to continue to pressure the Province to fund transit operating costs at the traditional “Davis/Peterson/ Rae” formula level, i.e. with 68% coming from non-government revenue and 32% from government, split equally between the provincial and municipal governments.

2. Advocacy for a National Transit Strategy. Canada stands alone as the only major developed nation where the national government doesn’t have a predictable annual and ongoing transit funding strategy. This needs to change and the Commission’s board should be strong advocates for a project of this nature. In addition to the Commission’s Board, ATU believes that the Mayor and Council should prioritize the promotion of a National Transit Strategy and work with other municipalities to advocate this position, especially in the lead-up to the 2015 election. ATU intends to work with stakeholders to prioritize this campaign over the next 12 months.

In the mid-1990s the Government of Ontario cut all provincial funding to the TTC, downloading the traditional provincial subsidy to Toronto taxpayers.

3. That the TTC and City accept the need for annual funding increases. And recognize that with growing ridership, above-inflation budget increases will be necessary. 4. The establishment of a long-term budget framework. The TTC and City should work with the province to set binding five-year budgets that include specific performance measures, and ensure the rate of government subsidy is set and known well in advance. 5. Realism in the search for more revenue generation opportunities It’s important to seek ways to increase the TTC’s non-fare revenues, recognizing that it will supplement but never replace strong increased government financial support.

Canada stands alone as the only developed nation where the federal government doesn’t have a predictable, ongoing transit funding strategy.

2. Budget Realities

6. That the City work with the Province to establish a low-income pass. For low-income families, the cost of transport essential to access services or work is a burden. A low-income pass set at the same rate as the current senior/postsecondary pass would specifically target funding to those most in need, and be the most efficient way of providing low-income families with affordable public transit. 7. That the TTC ensure that the PRESTO fare collection system is not a drain on operating resources and that it can evolve to handle direct credit card, debit and app-based payments. Guarantees must be sought from Metrolinx and the Province that the implementation of the PRESTO fare card will be financially neutral to the TTC, so that “integrated fares” doesn’t result in a reduction in service for TTC riders or an increase in fares. The system should also allow the move towards the next generation fare payment, which includes payment directly by credit card, debit card and mobile app. Without this, we risk implementing a system that will be outdated as soon as it is implemented 8. The TTC work with employees to find new savings to improve efficiency. The February 2013 agreement to set up a joint TTC-ATU Efficiency Identification and Implementation Committee should be

By 2018, the annual cost of Wheel-Trans will reach $180 million. Making the conventional system more accessible makes economic sense.

implemented within the next 60 days to complement other cost savings initiatives at the TTC in preparation for the 2015 budget. The ATU proposes that any efficiencies found be allocated to improving TTC service. 9. Creating a standardized budget document for easier year-over-year comparisons. In order to make the TTC Budget process more transparent, the ATU recommends the Commission adopt a standardized yearly budget presentation model and provide more detailed background documents online to allow interested stakeholders to more thoroughly participate in the budget process.

10. The TTC should begin to study a new fare structure and its implementation. In preparation for new electronic fare media, the TTC should begin to consult riders and study the implication of a new fare structure from a ridership and cost perspective. Options could include, weekend passes, quarterly passes, 24 hour passes and other possibilities, including peak and off-peak fares.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transit Future

1945. The first three women bus drivers to qualify with the TTC: Miss McCutcheon, Mrs. Wilkinson and Mrs. Martin. At the time, the TTC owned Gray Coach Lines.

MORE SERVICE It is clear that good service means having enough vehicles for the number of people wanting to board, and a network of service across the city with tiered levels of service based on ridership and usage levels.

ATU members know first-hand that our transit isn’t making the grade. Toronto has been witnessing a persistent lowering of the bar when it comes to predictability, timeliness and comfort for riders on our routes. Good public transit is essential and it’s important for Torontonians to choose public transit over the private car, because that’s the only way to keep Toronto moving and to allow the city we all want to become a reality. In 2003, the Commission adopted the Ridership Growth Strategy (RGS), which, among many recommendations, suggested changing the standards dictating how much service the TTC puts out on any one route at any one time. RGS standards were adopted in 2008 when there was a smaller total ridership: the average number of people per bus was decreased by 10% from 52-55 to 47-50 in rush hour, and to 35-381 in the non rush-hour “off-peak” periods. Streetcar service in the peak could not be increased at the time due to a lack of vehicles, but the 2008 service standards for off-peak streetcar service were set at 46 for the CLRVs (15 metre streetcars) and 61 for the ALRVs (23 metre streetcars).

Unfortunately, as ridership went up and City Hall looked at ways to reduce costs, these standards were changed. Consequently the average number of people per bus went back to 51-53 during rush hour, and 36-48 in non-rush hour periods. While the numbers seem small, cumulatively, they represented worse service, and reports began to surface of people being left at the curb. Returning to RGS standards, first proposed over a decade ago, will not only make for a more satisfying ride, but will reduce delays.

NEW SERVICE PROPOSALS In August 2014, the TTC Commission was presented (on its request) with a list of service enhancements. The full TTC report, Opportunities to Improve Transit in Toronto, is listed in Appendix 13, but the proposals are summarized here. As well, Appendices 1-9 present a series of five-year budget pro formas showing the escalated inflation-adjusted costs of these proposals over the next term of Council.

Toronto’s Transit Future

Many of these recommendations go back over a decade and are presented in the Ridership Growth Strategy of 2003, the Transit City Bus Plan, and finally the August 2014 report. While expansion of the system is critical, building on and strengthening the existing bus and streetcar network will have a wider impact on more riders than any one new line opening. After all, over 70% of riders use the surface network as part of their trip; this means over 375 million passenger trips use the surface system annually for at least part of their voyage. Taken together, these proposals would create a web of high quality surface service, which would continue to build ridership and assist the development of higher order transit – LRT or subways – in the future. The section below summarizes some of the recommendations and the ATU’s perspectives on them, and offers other proposals.

ATU RECOMMENDS: 11. Implementation of key proposals in the TTC’s report of August, 2014. a. Reduced Wait Times and Crowding on Bus and Streetcar Routes. For the last decade the ATU and transit riders have been asking for more service on busy bus and streetcar routes. The proposal in the August 2014 report is to return to the standards in effect after the addition of approximately 90 new buses in the fall of 2008 as part of the Ridership Growth Plan. (Some ten of these were spares to allow regular maintenance). The Plan proposed a “10% cut in loading standard” to give passengers more room. This service level was in effect up until the cuts of the Mayor Ford era were made in 2011, which took about half of the added service off

Toronto’s continuing construction boom makes it imperative that money be found quickly for service improvements. The alternative is not congestion, which is already a huge problem, but strangulation of our city’s ability to accommodate our great growth potential.

the road. To return to the plan and implement what is essentially a 5% increase in peak and off-peak service (except in streetcars) would cost an estimated $18.9 million in 2014 dollars, and would require the addition of about 40 buses (including four or five for spares) and ten streetcars for rush hour service. According to the TTC this would bring in 3.7 million new rides requiring an average cost of $3.11 per ride (averaged peak and non-peak). The cost of new peak service, alone, would be $7 million in 2014 dollars, and the service would attract 1.9 million new rides on 45 routes for a subsidy cost per new ride of $3.68. While the TTC report notes that the recommendations will have to wait until extra garage space and more buses or streetcars are available, Section 5 of this report offers a credible plan for quicker implementation. The ATU’s proposals to address bus and streetcar shortages should allow all these reforms to be made in 2016 rather than the 2018 cited. (Offpeak additions are already slated for 2016). TTC VEHICLE CROWDING STANDARDS 2008-2011 Passengers per vehicle

Peak

Off Peak

Low-Floor Buses

47-50

35-38

Articulated buses*

70*

49-53*

Streetcars (15 metre CLRV)

Streetcars (23 metre ALRV)

108

Streetcars (low-floor)*

123*

* No articulated buses or low-floor streetcars existed in the fleet in 2011, but the above is an estimate of what the standards would have been based on the 40 foot bus numbers and the fact that off-peak loads are roughly 33% of the peak loading standards.

Riders should be able to count on transit at any time of the day or night – it’s certainty that promotes a transit-oriented life style.

There were cuts in 2011 and limited service additions in 2012 and 2013, and as a result the TTC is operating under new standards that result in more crowding all times of the day on the vast majority of the Commission’s routes. NEW TTC LOADING STANDARDS POST 2011 = MORE CROWDING Off Peak Off Peak (< 10

Passengers per vehicle

Peak

Low-Floor Buses

51-53

36-38

44-48**

Articulated buses

58**

Streetcars (15 metre CLRV)

53**

Streetcars (23 metre ALRV)

108

76**

Streetcars (low-floor)

130

mins)

(>10 mins)

** A new level of distinction was introduced, between off-peak services that run more than every 10 minutes and those that run 10 minutes or less. This last group, has more planned crowding, presumably due to the cost of addressing it.

In order for this concept to work, a headway management approach would be required (maintaining a certain distance between vehicles), as would better monitoring. In addition, earlier TTC proposals included budgets for unique bus stop markers highlighting the regular frequent service. Combined with Next Vehicle screens, and SMS Next Bus Information, as well as redesigned maps at stops showing the higher frequency and express bus networks – now international best practice – these measures would help draw riders into the system. Based on earlier TTC estimates, these changes could be affordably accomplished.2 According to TTC’s Service Planning department, this plan would benefit approximately 48 million customer-trips each year. It would increase ridership by approximately 1.8 million customer-trips in 2014 and cost $5.56 in subsidy per new ride, a total net cost of $10 million.3

c. Expanded Express Bus Route Networks. Many TTC riders face long trips on buses, and the introduction of express bus service would speed up many journeys and make the TTC more competitive with other modes of transportation. Our members who drive express buses report that people like the service for its speed and reliability. In the last five years, the TTC has twice proposed increased express buses on routes like 39 Finch East, 45 Kipling, 53 Steeles East and 60 Steeles West, 54 Lawrence East, 95 York Mills among others.

3. More Service

b. The Ten Minute or Better Route Network. Since 2009, the TTC has been talking about a network of frequent service bus and streetcar routes. While many of the routes already have better than ten minute service, this proposal would upgrade certain lines by adding service (mostly in the offpeak) to ensure this standard was met throughout the day, 6 a.m. to 1:30 a.m.

The ATU feels strongly that new express buses should be introduced and supports the call for 20 new express bus routes. But waiting over three years, as is the current plan, is just too long for an expansion that would improve the transit experience for over 54 million passenger trips per year, and, at the same time, increase total ridership by two million.4 Such a service upgrade would require upwards of 50 buses. It’s clear that this will not be possible for a few years, although, as proposed elsewhere in this report, the TTC needs to accelerate its bus purchases, start an aggressive rebuild and conversion program, and begin construction of new garages as soon as possible.

One delay that is supportable, however, is the plan to eliminate premium fares for the Premium Downtown Express Bus Services. These are inefficient services to operate, especially at a time when there is a limited AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

number of buses available. While adding regular express buses would require a subsidy per rider on that system of $4.65 per ride, and adding service to reduce crowding and increase frequency would need a subsidy of $1.68 per new ride, downtown premium express bus improvements would need $15 subsidy per new ride. The net costs would be $2.1 million for only 140,000 new rides, something difficult to support at a time of budget constraint.5 d. All-Route, All Day, Every Day Service. In 2008 all bus routes were extended from 6:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., and all riders could confidently wait at a stop knowing a bus would be coming, assured that their choice of transit would allow them easy access to the entire city.

In 2011, service on many of the routes was cut back or entirely eliminated during certain time periods. But it’s essential that this service be reinstated, so that riders can count on transit at any time of the day, a certainty that promotes a transit-oriented life style. The ATU, as this reports makes clear, wants locals to choose transit, and in so doing forgo the congestion- and pollutiongenerating private car as much as possible. The cost of fully reinstating this service in 2015 is $4.6 million net in 2014 dollars and this service would attract 1.0 million new rides, which results in the need for a $4.60 new subsidy per ride.6

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

e. Expanded Overnight Bus and Streetcar Service. The Blue Night Network, which currently runs every 30 minutes on a limited network of routes (and more frequently on a few lines at some periods), is the TTC’s overnight bus and streetcar service, operating between approximately 1:45 a.m. and 5:45 a.m. when regular subway services are shut down. It is predicated on the concept that most people should be within a 15-minute walk to service, as opposed to the five minute standard for service from 6 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. Up to 4 million customer trips each year are now made on the Blue Night Network7, and it is proposed that new overnight service could be introduced on 12 bus and streetcar routes. At the same time, recommendation 11 of Section 4 proposes that TTC move to a “pulse system” to make connections easier and more reliable on the Blue Night Network. The ATU is very enthusiastic about the planned expansion in 2015 of this vital community service which would (if implemented) allow shift workers and late-night partiers to spend less time walking in the dead of night to seek transportation. The TTC estimates the change will attract 300,000 new rides,8 meaning hundreds more people will be able to get more quickly to work and home again. The cost of starting this service in 2015 is $2.3 million net, and the new subsidy required per ride is $7.67.

f. Twenty-Minute-or-Better Service on All Routes. In its report of August 2014, the TTC left out one of the long-standing improvement ideas: lowering the cap on the minimum headway (spacing between vehicles). This hails back to a recommendation in the 2003 TTC Ridership Growth Strategy aiming to set a minimum standard of 20 minutes, a proposal reiterated in the TTC’s 2009 Transit City Bus Plan. Today, the cap remains at 30. This, despite the fact that international best practice tells us it ought to be ultimately at no more than 15 minutes, a point where schedules cease to be very important because the wait is relatively short.8 At this level, people can strongly commit to transit. The 2009 Transit City Bus Plan discussed moving to a 20-minute maximum headway, and noted at the time that it would affect 75 of the TTC routes, almost all during the off-peak times, and that bus availability would therefore not be a large issue. The Plan also noted that 18 million rides were made on this network of buses – likely more now with ridership growth – and that this improvement from 30 minutes to a maximum headway of 20 would attract 3.0 million10 rides, and require approximately 12 new buses for improvements needed during peak periods. The ATU believes the proposed change to 20 minutes is worthy of consideration in the years ahead. The estimated net cost

No. of new rides per year

Total net cost per year

Subsidy per ride

Capital cost**

Implementation year

a. Reduced wait times and crowding on Bus & Streetcar Routes

3.7 M

$11.5 M

$3.11

$5 M to 84 M for peak and $0 for off-peak

2015-2019

c. Expanded Express Bus Networks

2.0 M

$9.3 M

$4.65

$5.6 M to 33.9 M

2015-2019

0.140

$2.1 M

$15.00

$0.6 M to $10.2 M

2018-2019

b. 10-minute or better service on “high frequency” routes

1.8 M

$10 M

$5.56

$0.6 M to $13.8 M

2015-2016

f. 20-minute or better service on all routes

3.05 M

$16.5 M

$5.40

$1.2 M to 8.6 M12

2016

e. Expanded Overnight Bus & Streetcar service

0.3 M

$2.3 M

$7.67

N/A

2015

d. All route, all day, every day service

1.0 M

$4.6 M

$4.60

N/A

2015

2.16 M

$20 M

$9.25

N/A

2015

Proposal*

Enhanced downtown express buses

g. 2-hour Time-based transfer

3. More Service

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS SERVICE PROPOSALS

* Note: these values are in 2014 dollars for ease of comparison, whereas we have escalated them in our budget calculations in Appendices 1-9. It should also be noted that there is a $100 million shortfall in funding for the McNicoll garage which will be required to house additional buses purchased or rebuilt. ** First number is a limited rebuilding costed as per the discussion in Section 5. Second is the price for new purchases of buses and streetcars.

in 2009 was $14.9 million ($17.5 million in 2015 dollars) after fares are factored in, meaning the operating cost of each new ride attracted would be $6.25, better than some of the other proposals outlined in TTC reports and summarized here. It would attract around 2.8 million rides in 2015. g. Two-Hour Travel Privileges for One Fare (Time-based Transfer). The following is a little different from the first six proposals in this section as it addresses not service but fare structures. It would, however, change fundamentally how service is viewed, and is included here. The ATU is committed to encouraging a transit lifestyle and wants to make the TTC

as helpful as possible to urbanites going about the business of life. Still, if transit is to top the private car as the transportation of choice, it has to offer some of the car’s advantages. Today, over 225 million of the 540 million TTC trips annually are made by riders who do not have a pass offering unlimited travel.11 Allowing riders two hours of TTC travel on a single fare, regardless of the number of stops and boardings, would provide more mobility freedom and enhance the value of fares. And just as important, it would serve as a key argument against the concept that there’s no option to the private car when it comes to doing daily errands. The Time-based Transfer is also easier to understand. ATU members would be

greatly appreciative of this because the current transfer policy generates fare disputes, which often puts them in difficult and sometimes dangerous situations. The new transfer policy would also likely mitigate some degree of fare evasion. While it comes at an operational cost of $20 million, TTC estimates show that it would increase ridership by 0.4% annually, or 2 to 2.5 million new rides a year.12

This expanded travel privilege could be enacted relatively quickly, although implementation as part of the delayed PRESTO roll out makes this considerably easier in the years ahead.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transit Future

The Designated Waiting Area on each subway platform provides heightened security for riders, with extra lighting, a camera and an intercom connected to the Collector booth. As well, the Subway Guard is stationed in the car that stops right at the DWA, providing passengers there with an additional measure of personalized safety.

IMPROVING SERVICE QUALITY Given the tumult of the last few years over transit reform, it’s easy to think that change isn’t possible without years of political intrigue, loads of money and long, long waits for shovels to be put to ground.

So much oxygen has been taken up by the big showdowns over expansion that many of the smaller, tangible, non-capital intensive kinds of proposals haven’t had the consideration they deserve. Yet, there’s lots of relatively quick, cheap fixes along the way that would dramatically alter the nature of the trip for transit users weary of the wait and the squeeze. Yet many have been the subject of debate for years, and while they are relatively easy in principle to implement, it will take a concerted campaign to convince Torontonians, especially those that drive, that they are worth the perceived inconvenience. As the men and women who maintain the operation, ATU members are up close and personal with the frustrations of passengers confronting delays, gaps in service, and bunching up of vehicles, and know a thing or two about what can move things along. The small-change suggestions below, if implemented, could boost the reliability of

streetcars and buses, rider well-being, and the efficiency of the whole network, all at the same time. Many business owners oppose parking limitations as they believe that a large percentage of their business is derived from customers arriving by private car, however in most cases this is not accurate. A recent 2014 study on the Danforth by Ryerson University’s Planning and Consulting Group (Danforth Study - Bike Lanes, On-Street Parking and Business) supports conclusions similar to earlier studies on other streets. The report presents evidence suggesting there is a big disconnect between the perceptions of merchants about who their customers are, and the reality. The Ryerson report notes that only 19% of vistors arrived at the Danforth by private car, while 32% arrived by public transit and 49% either walked or cycled. It also noted that even in peak shopping periods, 20% of spots remained empty and that 86% of non-drivers spent more than $100 compared to 69% of drivers, indicating non-drivers, the larger percentage of customers,

Toronto’s Transit Future

Over 700,000 rides are taken on the TTC’s surface routes every day – more than 360 million per year. All-door entry, with appropriate enforcement to mitigate fare evasion, will speed up loading on the very busy bus routes, such as Finch, Dufferin and Eglinton.

were bigger spenders on average. This suggests that changes to parking regulations that improve transit will not severely hurt local business (and may in fact improve sales) because most of their customers are not car dependent.

IMPROVING SERVICE TRANSIT OPERATIONS

Passengers have a right to vehicles that arrive at predictable, regular, intervals with adequate personal space. After all, over 700,000 rides are taken on the TTC’s surface routes each and every day – more than 360 million per year. Many of the following proposals are gleaned from TTC reports and other international transit agencies, and are offered and endorsed here based on the experience of ATU members.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

ATU RECOMMENDS: 12. A switch from schedule-based to “headway-based” management of highfrequency routes. This inexpensive change in how service is run is essential if we hope to make real improvements in the experience riders have with the surface service, particularly in terms of reliability. No one cares if a specific scheduled bus, known as a “run”, (for example run 234), or a different bus slightly out of sequence arrives. What passengers care about is that buses come at regular intervals, i.e. every five or eight minutes, or perhaps every 15 for those less-used lines, or outside of rush hour.

Today, most lines are managed to ensure, for example, that run number five comes after run number four, and before run number six. Operators are directed to focus on keeping their arrival at different points consistent with the schedule, even though, in many cases, the timing for a particular bus or streetcar route is based on traffic conditions from years ago and unrealistic today. With GPS systems now onboard, it’s possible to keep buses more evenly spaced by better operations monitoring. This will allow TTC operators to focus on providing good customer service as opposed to rushing to meet unrealistic, arbitrary or impossible schedules.

14. Evaluating a “pulse transit” kind of schedule for the Blue Night Network. Today the Blue Night system operates every 30 minutes, except for more frequent service on the Bloor and Yonge subway replacement routes. In the past, the TTC used a “pulse” system for its Blue Night system, but abandoned it when the network was expanded into the suburbs. Today many other systems still use a “pulse transit” where bus schedules are designed to minimize transfer times between routes. This is particularly important when vehicles come only every half an hour. By redesigning the system (perhaps changing routings) to help guarantee connections between major night routes, many of the four million plus annual Blue

Extended rush-hour parking restrictions on major transit routes would greatly improve travel times for both TTC riders and private car users and, at the same time, significantly reduce lung and heart-damaging smog.

Night rides could be shortened considerably. 15. Expanding the partnership between the TTC and Toronto Ambulance Service.1 One of the biggest sources of delay is passenger illness. No one plans to be sick, but each time a passenger needs to be taken off a subway train, there is a delay of around 8-10 minutes. In the rush hour a train comes every two to three minutes, meaning that the equivalent of three to four trains can be prevented from passing through a station resulting in a large disruption, especially to a system already running near capacity. In 2008 the TTC started a pilot project placing a paramedic and TTC supervisor at Bloor and Yonge station during rush hour, when capacity issues are the highest. Their job was

4. Improving Service Quality

13. “All-door loading” on all busy TTC surface routes. This is another proposal that addresses the reliability issue. As the new streetcars are delivered, the TTC Report recommends there be a shift to all-door loading and a proof-ofpayment policy on major bus and streetcar routes (that don’t currently have it), in order to speed up boarding and keep passengers spaced throughout the vehicle. With articulated buses being phased in on many of the busiest routes, there is another opportunity to improve service for all-door entry which will speed up operations by reducing loading delays at stops and make the management of vehicle spacing easier. Increased enforcement capacity will be necessary to avoid increased fare evasion.

to deal with some (at that time) of the 1,200 situations yearly in which a rider becomes ill, often requiring their removal by paramedics and cumulative delays of 3,000 minutes. Overcrowding on trains makes it doubly hard to give medical assistance to TTC riders who need it, and still minimize delays. In 2009, a paramedic was added to the Spadina station and it was noted that the paramedic/TTC inspector team could reach ill passengers from Spadina or Yonge using the system, in most cases, more quickly than an ambulance (average ambulance response times are around 10 minutes). This program should be extended perhaps to interchange stations, Sheppard-Yonge and Union Station, to ensure service on the over-burdened Yonge line is kept moving as much as possible. Placement

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

of paramedics at stations on the Bloor Danforth line should also be considered. 16. The City and TTC should, after careful analysis, implement turn restrictions on major streetcar and bus routes where they are warranted to reduce delays in transit service. Lots of ideas for changes in traffic rules have been around for years, but it’s now time to get serious about moving traffic. This proposal, like the others, is inexpensive to implement, but could create controversy because it limits private vehicle movements. Still, the situation is pressing. Streetcars, frequently with over 100 passengers on board, are often stuck waiting to make a left hand turn behind a car, sometimes with only one person in it. This happens

One illegally stopped vehicle can cut the traffic flow by 50% in a block; that’s why the TTC should press for a special parking enforcement unit.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

hundreds of times a day across the system, and each time can cause a delay of up to several minutes. Imagine how many hours of delay this adds up to daily. Implementing more left-hand turn restrictions in the busy parts of the streetcar network adds up to faster service and fewer delays. This leads to savings of millions of dollars a year relative to adding the equivalent amount of service. Although restricting left-hand turns would force cars and trucks to detour to get to their destinations, in most cases, the extra time would be offset by the faster movement of all vehicles through these intersections. The TTC should work with the City to document and quantify the delays due to left-hand turns. Based on this information,

the TTC should advocate for new or extended left-hand turn prohibitions on an intersection-by-intersection basis, where supported by the evidence. 17. Extending rush-hour parking restrictions after extensive study. Recently rush-hour parking restrictions were expanded along Queen and King from Jarvis to Roncesvalles. The new hours are between 7 and 10 a.m., and then from 3 to 7 p.m. It’s a good start, but there are also high traffic volumes in other sections of the Queen and King lines, and at other times of the day. To improve schedules and prevent vehicle bunching, these parking restrictions should be rolled out to more sections of these lines, and for greater durations, and should also be

Fewer than 16% of Toronto intersections are equipped with TTC vehicle signal priority technology. Increasing this ratio to 50% would be equivalent to adding about 50 additional transit vehicles in both the morning and afternoon peak periods.

Signal Controller

Active Transponder Signal Request Loop

Stop Bar

Cancel Loop

Traffic Signal

(facing streetcar)

STREETCAR APPROACHES LOOP

PRIORITY ACTIVATED CONTROLLER EXTENDS GREEN LIGHT

4. Improving Service Quality

SIGNAL PRIORITY - GREEN LIGHT EXTENSION

DEPARTING STREETCAR CANCELS GREEN LIGHT

considered for other major streetcar and bus lines, after detailed studies are proposed. On some streets with particularly high volumes, such as on King, Queen, Dundas, College, and Dufferin Streets, it might be wise to examine all-day parking restrictions. This would not only get TTC vehicles moving, but would also help handle increasing volumes of private cars. It should be noted that past experience has shown that issues with parking are the worst at intersections where parking makes it impossible to have both a through and turning lane.

18. Improving enforcement of traffic bylaws on transit routes, and dedicating resources to accomplishing the task. While police do their best enforcing parking, especially in the downtown where deliveries and taxis block lanes, more needs to be done. Considering that one illegally stopped vehicle can cut the road capacity by 50% in a block, the TTC should advocate for the creation of a special parking unit with TTC involvement, and with increased towing capacity, along with the use of already-increased fines. This would go a long way in preventing the clogging of major arteries. Other cities, such as New

York, have been successful in improving traffic flow by continued ongoing enforcement. In addition, the use of coloured lanes using thermoplastic markings (similar to the green colouring recently applied to bike lanes in Toronto) should be considered as research indicates these colour markings are effective at reducing the illegal use of bus only lanes by private cars. Likewise other cities have successfully used cameras to police bus lanes. A recent case study, Lane Check â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Edinburgh Bus Lanes, showed that with cameras similar to red light cameras, over a seven week period, infractions (i.e. illegal use of bus lanes) dropped by 80%.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transit Future

Collaboration is needed to evaluate and consider these recommendations and to prioritize them in the locations where they will have the most impact. Intersection priority signals were not an issue in 1890, when this trolley went up and down Spadina Avenue. The last horse-drawn trolley in Toronto was retired in 1894.

19. The consideration of more off-street parking for busy arteries. While the ideal situation is to get most people to use transit, some expanded parking facilities should be contemplated, especially if they politically allow the passage of more transit friendly parking by-laws.

While analyses have shown that up to 80% of customers in local BIAs come from pedestrian, cycling or transit traffic, some parking is essential and the best situation is that it be off-street.2 The TTC should work with the Toronto Parking Authority (TPA) and local BIAs to encourage the creation of parking (acquired by the TPA or BIAs for the purpose) that doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t hinder the flow of transit vehicles,

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

and that ensures neighbourhoods remain vibrant centres of local commerce. 20. Increase the number of Signal Priority Intersections. To reduce the waste of precious time navigating through busy intersections, the number of opportunities for TTC drivers to use Transit Signal Priority technology should be increased dramatically. The big pay-off for this relatively small alteration that speeds up travelling time through an intersection, is that a bus or a streetcar can make more trips and carry more passengers in the same time frame, thus increasing the efficiency of transit operations and speeding up transit service. The system involves equipping vehicles with transponders that communicate with the

traffic signal and adjust the signal timing, either holding a green (within limits) or speeding up the change of a red to green. There are about 2200 signalized intersections in Toronto, with a majority that have transit service passing through them. Of these, 360 are currently equipped with transit signal priority technology, mostly on streetcar routes, and some busy bus routes (like Wilson, Jane and Bathurst). Our experience is that many of them are not fully operational. The August 2014 report proposes that up to 80 intersections be installed per year (up from the current 40), creating 400 over five years. But in 2009, TTC and City staff recommended a total of 1130 additional intersections over 5 years.

The TTC was obviously on our wavelength back in 2009. It estimated then that the full installation of signal priority on 1130 intersections would: “Create the equivalent capacity of 46 additional morning peak buses, 39 mid-day buses, and 53 afternoon peak buses. It is estimated that 50 per cent of this new peak capacity can be realized as capital savings (fewer buses) and operating savings (fewer operators). The transit signal priority installations will improve service for approximately 155 million customer-trips each year.”3 Even if signal priority measures were installed on only a third of the most important intersections, we’d likely get the equivalent additions of over 15 peak morning buses, 13 mid-day buses, and up to 18 afternoon peak buses. These numbers could actually be higher because the priority intersections are on the heaviest bus routes. At a time when the Commission is operating 90 fewer buses than the standard prior to 2011 in the morning peak, and equivalently insufficient numbers for the afternoon peak, this would be an extremely easy way of improving service.

There should also be examination of the expanded use of signal priority at intersections where streetcars make turns (both scheduled and those used for short turns or diversions), which would require the use of the “white bar” transit signal, and an interface with the track switches to allow for the detection of a turning phase. Converting one third of the proposed intersections (based on a third of the 2009 costs plus escalated costs) would run to approximately $16 million in 2015. But, on the other hand, the capital savings by getting the equivalent of 15 new buses for the morning peak, alone, would be around $11 million, not to mention the $6 million in yearly costs from an assumed 18 hours of operation daily. Pretty impressive, we’d say.

ATU RECOMMENDS: 21. A Joint Management-Union Service Improvement Committee. In order to promote this cooperation, the ATU proposes a joint committee to look at how to implement these ideas and others. TTC workers want to be part of making the system better, which is why there needs to be an opportunity to work with management. Operators and other ATU members have first-hand experience that many currently setting the policies and making the decisions lack. This joint group could also cooperate to analyze existing GPS vehicle monitoring data and to determine where there are chronic operational problems. This should be followed up with on-street observations to document problems and implement possible solutions.

4. Improving Service Quality

It should be noted that neither option is funded, but ATU operators are positive that there is a big opportunity to improve transit operations on our congested roads. True, 1130 may seem like a bit of wishful thinking, but we should be bolder in the pursuit of this undeniable efficiency.

A FINAL NOTE ON THESE PROPOSALS Collaboration is needed to evaluate and consider these recommendations, and to prioritize them in the locations where they will have the most impact. In cases where the proposals involve changes to traffic regulations, the TTC will need to join with the City to do detailed studies of intersection volumes, traffic patterns, parking impacts, and other data to help support the case for making these changes. In others, ATU and TTC management will need to work together cooperatively. ATU is ready for these challenges and looks forward to talking to City Councilors and others to promote these suggestions.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transit Future

Streetcars have been a core feature of Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transit system since the late 19th century. A 1960s plan to phase them out was rescinded in 1972 because so many Torontonians served by streetcars protested. Replacing them with buses would, in retrospect, have been disastrous for traffic in the downtown core, with intolerable congestion and carbon emissions.

MORE BUSES & STREETCARS BUS AND STREETCAR SHORTAGES The reality is that the TTC’s current fleet just doesn’t include enough buses and streetcars.

The number of people waiting at transit stops far exceeds the capacity of the vehicles that the commission has available to put into service. And the demand continues to grow by millions of riders a year, making a difficult situation worse. ATU members maintain and operate the buses and streetcars, and have spent a lot of time considering how to get more of them on the road in a timely way. TTC employees have a proven track record of cost-efficient solutions, and that’s what’s on offer in this section. The good news is there is a way to manage better in the short run, and to fix the problem in the long run. This bus and streetcar deficit has major consequences for the entire system, including dreaded vehicle breakdowns. Bus garages are under pressure to “make service” – that is, to send out the number of buses budgeted for a route, despite the fact that often there has not been enough time allocated to do proper maintenance. As a result, sometimes buses are sent out for

service despite needing further repairs. Many of these break down every day and need to be towed, leading to passenger off-loading, anger, poor customer service, and costing millions of dollars a year. Since buses are considered to “make service’’ even if they malfunction shortly after leaving the garage, we don’t even have the full picture when it comes to the amount of actual service on the road. But there’s no overnight solution to the vehicle shortage. For starters, new buses take 15 to 18 months to arrive after an order is placed, and even the 2009 order for new streetcars won’t be fully fulfilled until 2019. The TTC started the new century off to a good start, procuring around 1500 new buses between 2002 and 2011. This lowered the average age of the bus fleet from around 15 years old to between five and seven, added over 150 buses to the peak period over the decade, and improved the quality of the ride. During bus shortages in recent decades, the TTC has relied partially on extending the life of existing buses by overhauling and rebuilding them in-house, rather than retiring them. This

Toronto’s Transit Future

Buses needing repairs are often sent out onto the roads anyway – that’s why there are so many breakdowns and towing incidents. A large majority of TTC rides involve one or more buses. Although not the answer to many of our long term transit problems, acquiring new buses is the single fastest and most economic way to improve service.

practice has its limits, and should only be used as a stop-gap measure when necessary, because even rebuilt older buses are less reliable and break down more often than newer buses, affecting service. But with shortages looming, it is time to return to bus-building to help get us through.

Over the last four years, however, purchases have been substantially lower and the fleet has been flagging. In 2013 for example, the TTC received only 11 articulated buses and no new regular buses. While 2014 will see an estimated total of 142 new articulated buses and no regular buses delivered (see Appendix 17), the fleet plan then reverts to 100 new buses a year (400 over the 2015-2018 period), most of which will be conventional 40 foot buses since articulated buses are not appropriate for many routes. And even

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

these planned purchases depend on stable capital funding. On top of this, the TTC intends to retire around 530 buses from 2014 to 2018 meaning not only a shortfall in current service but also the impossibility of new and improved service. But that’s not all the bad news. Besides the small number of new purchases is the fact that some of the buses bought previously are not living up to their expected service life. Like the CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) buses bought in the 1990’s, the new hybrid vehicles do not have the same durability and reliability as regular diesel buses and will have to be retired years earlier than expected. The hybrids (bought as a requirement for federal funding) are now expected to have a service life of closer to 10-12 years compared to the planned 15-18, further

adding pressure to the fleet shortage. Other cities are now converting hybrids to regular diesel, and this should also happen at the TTC. The impact of the bus deficit over the last four years has been compounded by a 2011 decision to reduce the number of mechanics (as a result of the younger fleet at the time). But the fleet is aging now, and this lack of expertise has meant preventive maintenance is suffering. On many days, there are easily 40-50 fewer buses on the road than have been budgeted, and customers are facing the worst of publiclyfunded transportation: stalled vehicles, delays, over-crowding and unpredictable schedules. There will be no rectifying this situation without more staff and repair facilities, and the aging workforce and big backlog of work will only be exacerbated if there’s no action.

22. The purchase of new buses. The TTC should move quickly on the purchase of the equivalent of 250 new standard buses in addition to the current planned purchases over the next three years.1 At an average of approximately $700,000 to $725,000 a bus, this roughly amounts to a $175 million expenditure over the next four years. Priority should be given to adjusting current bus contracts because amendments need to be made before the end of 2014 to secure new buses for early 2016. Adding these vehicles would allow the Commission to adjust the spare ratio upwards by a few percentage points2 (amounting to the removal of roughly 30-40 buses from the available pool for service at any one time). This would permit more ongoing maintenance work – a simple refinement that would boost the reliability and capacity of the fleet and provide a major plus for customer satisfaction. These 250 new buses would also allow for the 120 to 130 vehicles needed to implement the Commission’s new proposals for service enhancement outlined in Section 3 of this report. At the same time, there would be enough for the approximately 20 buses required annually for ridership growth – 80 buses over the 2015-2018 period – as well as providing enough buses for an appropriate spare ratio for the added service that allows proper maintenance.

It might also make sense to consider the purchase of two tow trucks (one for the east part of the city and one for the west) to reduce costs from contracted towing, a result of the high level of bus break downs. The costs of purchasing two tow trucks and their staffing would offer a budget savings to the Commission. 23. Starting construction on the McNicoll Garage as soon as possible. The TTC should move up the start of construction of the McNicoll garage and begin preparation for tendering the project in early 2015 for completion in 2018. The Commission desperately needs more space to store and maintain buses. Waiting several more years to even start construction of the next bus garage will have a big impact on the Commission around goals of improving service and therefore work should begin immediately. 24. Leasing temporary garage space in York Region. At the same time, as plans are being made to open a new garage, the Commission should take advantage of the recently vacated York Region Transit property at Bowes Road, Keele and Highway 7, to be used, in part, for bus storage to manage over-crowding, but predominantly as a temporary bus repair facility. (The property should be leasable from YRT). This strategy will allow some added storage, but mostly an expanded capacity for the

number of repairs that can be done outside rush hours, thus maximizing the number of buses on the street during peak times. In order to optimize the maintenance process, the Commission should allocate increased resources to fix broken hoists at TTC garages that currently limit repair capacity. Likewise, portable Scisor lifts, used elsewhere at Commission facilities, should be procured to allow for increased bus repair capacity and efficiency, an issue raised in Section 8’s state-of-good-repair discussion. 25. The expansion of existing garages and development of plans for an additional permanent garage after McNicoll. Existing garages are full and even with the opening of McNicoll, the TTC will need to expand garage capacity. We propose that the Commission study the expansion of existing garages (maintenance and/or bus storage), using space currently occupied by employee parking, and that replacement parking options be considered on adjacent property either through purchase or leasing. While this won’t be possible at every garage, there may be some viable options.

5. More Buses and Streetcars

THE ATU RECOMMENDS:

In addition, the Commission should immediately start the search for property for a new bus garage somewhere in the city, perhaps with employee parking on upper levels. At the same time, obtaining a multilevel, more central garage (using New York as model) should be at least be considered with “dead-head”3 costs factored in as a possible off-set for higher construction and land costs. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

26. The hiring of more mechanics. The TTC should immediately seek to hire new mechanics and, recognizing that there is a shortage of bus mechanics, expand its apprenticeship program. Both measures will ensure adequate staffing levels and prepare for an increased rate of retirements in the years to come. 27. The expanded rebuilding of older buses. Using new staff resources proposed in point three above, the Commission should establish a mid-life extension for some of the roughly 287 diesel buses slated for retirement (185 Orion V buses in 2014, 52 NOVA buses in 2015, 50 Flyer buses in 2016) in the next two years. This overhaul would keep as many of the older buses on the road as possible for the next three to four years in order to smooth out the procurement of new buses, ensure adequate vehicles for service and provide the increased spares required to allow for better maintenance. The model for this program might be the GM Bus mid-life extension program of 2008 in which 52 (or roughly 30% of the total of GM vehicles slated for retirement) were rebuilt for an additional three to four years of life, at a total cost of $3.5 million or $67,308 each ($73,188 in 2014 dollars).4 This program provided financial and quality assessment for each bus in the retirement category in order to ensure that resources would be well deployed and the refurbished vehicles reliable. Buses that needed muchhigher-than-the-average investment were not

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

rebuilt. An effort like this one to reconstruct roughly 30% of the retiring buses (a similar target from the GM program) would see around 90 vehicles rebuilt, or the equivalent of almost one year of proposed bus purchases. If $100,000 were budgeted per bus ($9 million for the program), slightly higher than the 2008 program, this would still offer a less capitalintensive cost yearly than the purchase of an equivalent number of new buses (which by 2016 will cost about $750,000 each with a life span of 15-18 years at most). Since 90 new buses would cost around $68 million, there would be a capital savings in the five-year budget window of close to $60 million. More importantly, this retrofit plan would give the Commission around 90 buses, allowing a higher spare ratio for improved maintenance. At the same time, it would provide enough buses to meet service and modest ridership growth needs, especially in the extremely tight years for bus availability in 2015-2016. 28. The overhaul of older streetcars. A similar mid-life extension program should be enacted for the older streetcars currently slated for decommissioning when the new streetcars go on line. In 2006, TTC proposed such a plan for streetcars at a cost of $1.3 million each or close to $1.5 million in 2015 dollars. The original program was intended to keep streetcars going until the mid 2020’s, at the time a period of up to 20 years, whereas this program is designed to keep the streetcars going for 5-6 years. We believe that a mid-life extension program with a

goal of keeping 25% of retired cars going and a suitable spare ratio, could be done for less than half of the budgeted cost of $1.5 million of the 2006 program. We propose a similar program for the 52 ALRV streetcars (all of them) and 33 smaller CLRVs slated for retirement in the coming year. If 25% of these cars in the best shape were retained and overhauled (10-13 ALRVs and 8-10 CLRVs), at a total cost of $13$18 million dollars, the TTC could address the shortage of around 14 to 18 cars that has led to extreme overcrowding.5 The mid-life extension program would likely be limited as these rebuilds are only designed to boost service on routes prior to full conversion to the low-floor streetcars. The rebuilds would focus on reconditioning elements like accelerator pedal control, the traction trucks (modular subassembly of wheels and axles), and perhaps limited ECU card rebuilds where absolutely necessary. Additional minor work on air lines, air bags, truck brakes and bearings would also be performed only as needed. 29. Getting proactive about maintenance. When buses are not well maintained by good preventive maintenance, the result is the need for more expensive, unplanned repairs as a result of service breakdowns. That’s why the Commission should move to a more proactive vehicle care schedule with stepped up inspections. Besides the specific inspection guidelines, six month overall inspections should be increased to every

Last year, after a two-year hiatus, there was a reinstatement of the major bus overhaul program but there was a shortage of 13 mechanics. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hard to find qualified people in the employment market and mostly they need to be internally trained. The Commission should expand the current pilot project at one of the divisions which has seen two teams of two doing extensive preventive maintenance. Expanding this same process across the system would involve 28 new mechanics (four mechanics in seven divisions) at a cost of approximately $2.25-$2.5 million per year, largely offset by savings in emergency repairs.

A mid-life extension for streetcars slated for decommissioning but still in good shape could cost-effectively address the shortage of streetcars that causes extreme overcrowding.

These new mechanics should be complemented by two new apprentices per division making less than half the current mechanic wage and who, under supervision, could do a lot of the work required. The TTC would also likely benefit from federal subsidies of up to $10,000 per new apprentice. 30. Converting hybrid buses. The TTC owns around 700 Orion VII hybrid buses ordered between 2005 and 2009. But over the years, the buses have not lived up to expectations and cannot stay on the road for the usual bus life span of 15-18 years. ATU mechanics and experts in others cities consulted suggest that it is likely a majority of these, specifically the roughly 250 slated for retirement between 2014-2018 (after only 10 years of service), could be kept on the road

by retrofitting them to clean diesel buses at an estimated cost of around $100,000 per bus. OC Transit in Ottawa and the MTA in New York both have retrofit programs underway at costs ranging from $75,000 to $125,000. If the best 200 of the 250 hybrid buses were converted at an average cost of $150,000, the cost of keeping the hybrids for another five to eight years (based on their current average life of 10 years) would be $30 million, and would allow the deferral of up to $144 million in new bus purchases outside the five-year budget window. The TTC has done conversions before and the process would be similar to the one that converted some of Orion VI nonlow-floor buses to clean diesel in the early 2000s. They continue to operate to this day.

5. More Buses and Streetcars

three, and from every 12,000km to 6,000km to allow problems to be detected and fixed before they sideline buses. More staff will be needed as outlined in recommendation 26.

Similar to the mid-life extension proposed for the diesel buses, this would have the benefit of lowering the capital budget requirements for the stretched five-year period and ensure that the commission has enough buses on the road to add service to match ridership, and make additional service improvements.

WORKING TOGETHER

ATU is ready to work with Commission staff to refine this plan and get moving as quickly as possible, as members have done this sort of work before. The Commission has an opportunity to get serious about providing additional buses without resorting to the easier, but more expensive, plan to purchase all new vehicles in order to appropriately enlarge the fleet.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transit Future

Much of the daily effort to maintain and improve customer service is performed behind the scenes by skilled and experienced operational support staff.

CUSTOMER SERVICE: RIDERS COME FIRST While there has been much focus over the years on the importance of friendly, congenial interactions between system users and the many workers who make it run, the reality is that everything TTC employees do is about serving the rider.

The vehicle operators, customer service reps, engineers, cleaners, maintenance workers, fare collectors, service planners, and many more, all spend their workday ensuring riders get to where they’re going as safely, quickly and comfortably as possible. But beyond striving to uphold professional performance standards, ATU members don’t hold all the cards when it comes to delivering the convenient and reliable service Toronto riders deserve and expect. They are witnesses to the desperately-needed expansion of the system, but don’t have the mechanisms, on their own, to address it. Nor do they control staffing levels and training. In short, for all their efforts, ATU members can’t ensure that TTC users aren’t regularly disappointed by what Toronto’s public transit now offers. Without diminishing the value and importance of courtesy and responsiveness, good customer service has to be a broader concept that speaks to the entire transit experience. Some of the issues arising from this have been examined in earlier sections, and more of them will be

6 discussed later. In this section we present our view of customer service in the larger context, and provide some tangible proposals for responsiveness in the more immediate term.

SERVICE EXPANSION IS BETTER CUSTOMER SERVICE Transit planners, quite reasonably, like to strategize ways to attract new riders to the TTC, but the fact is that the number of people using transit is already growing dramatically each year, with 8 to 12 million new rides expected this year alone according to the TTC 2014 budget. Many parts of the system are operating at or beyond capacity, resulting in unacceptable crowding and a great deal of stress for riders and employees alike. When there is not enough transit for all, riders are kept waiting for their vehicle, only to find that when it does arrive, it’s packed to the rafters; sometimes they can’t board at all. That’s not good customer service. While fixing the inadequate capacity of the system may be outside the scope of ATU members’ work, their frontline experience can make a big contribution to addressing the challenges faced by the system.

Toronto’s Transit Future

COMMUNICATING WITH RIDERS Good communication is also an integral part of good customer service. The TTC has undertaken a number of initiatives over the past seven or eight years to improve the customer experience in other ways, with a heavy emphasis on communications, such as “next vehicle” information screens, “next stop” automated announcements, delay notifications, and an online trip planner. But there’s lots more to do.

Adding real-time information to the Trip Planner would help riders better plan trips in real time.

There have been many unrealized expansion schemes going back decades and finally we’re at a critical point. It’s time for a stable, longterm growth plan, the core principle of which is increasing service to the greatest number of people, as affordably and sustainably as possible. The priority should be areas where demand is greater than the particular mode of travel (bus, streetcar, LRT, subway) can technically handle.

That’s why the infrastructure needs upgrading. Where more buses can’t be squeezed on a route, there has to be a network of high capacity LRT. Where streetcars are impeded by car traffic, there needs to be dedicated rights-of-way, and where subways are full to capacity, new relief lines are essential. In many cases, however, better service is possible in the short-term, too, by making sure that current bus, streetcar, subway, and SRT

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

routes have more vehicles and operators to handle the crush of riders waiting for service, and by freeing up space by encouraging transit users to travel in off-peak hours.

NEW SERVICE MEANS BETTER CUSTOMER SERVICE Given the system’s current challenges, the TTC’s recent report on improving service1 is a welcome step. This has been discussed in Section 3, with our recommendations for improving both the amount and quality of TTC service on the road. One of the biggest components of good customer service is ensuring enough well-managed and reliable service to match growing ridership. If the objectives offered in the TTC report are to be realized, City Council will need to be willing partners. The initiatives provided must be a priority, not an afterthought.

Some improvements to these initiatives are possible. For instance, as discussed in Section 7, the trip planner can be modified to provide real-time trip planning, rather than being merely schedule-based. The TTC has to keep up with on-going and constantly evolving methods of electronic communication. Not all plans to improve customer service need to be large and expensive. For example, the experience of the ride and the efficiency of the system can be improved by ensuring enough customer service representatives are available to help passengers navigate the system at strategic locations such as busy hubs and areas of service disruption, or to answer questions on the phone. Tapping into the pool of retired TTC workers may help provide better delay response when large disruptions challenge the TTC’s ability to offer good customer service.

CONSULTATION AND TRANSPARENCY One of the best ways to identify customer service issues and rectify them is to simply ask. TTC riders who use the service and

employees who provide it interact every day. Both groups should be more regularly consulted, with the results made public in reports. In addition, as discussed in Section 7, other data, such as schedules and vehicle locations, should be made publicly available in an open-source format, to allow for crowd-sourced solutions. It’s a tragic waste when a system can’t utilize the intelligence of its frontline experts and its customers.

INVESTING IN TECHNOLOGY AND PEOPLE Riders deserve the best customer service possible, and the way to ensure this, especially in the short term, is by investing not only in useful technology, but in the staffing and training of ATU professionals. Maintaining appropriate staffing levels and ensuring TTC employees have the skills to serve the public simply makes for happier riders – and better operations. Similarly, as the system moves to electronic fare payment, there must be a commitment to more than just changing how a fare transaction occurs. Any new system should be used as an opportunity to improve customer service. Riders would be better supported if Collectors freed up from selling fare media were allowed retraining and redeployed into front line customer service roles.

More and better real-time information, as well as new system apps based on Open Data will greatly assist trip planning and result in less wasted waiting time and more personal productivity.

THE ATU RECOMMENDS: 31. Continuing the rollout of the Next Vehicle Arrival system’s visual and text options to all surface stops by 2015. Downtown riders have access to mobile Next Vehicle apps and SMS Text Next Vehicle for streetcar stops, as well as a small number of stops with LED screens. The TTC should follow through on plans to provide SMS Text Next Vehicle information to all bus stops. The central system already exists and extending the program is a low-cost effort, merely involving adding stickers with unique numbers to each stop. In addition, the TTC should expand the installation of Next Vehicle Arrival screens at the busiest surface stops so that five percent (about 500) of all stops have the screens by 2018. The 2014 plans

to install 28 LCD screens and 23 LED Next Vehicle information screens will need to be doubled if we are to reach the goal originally set out by the TTC over five years ago. 32. Centrally-controlled verbal delay announcements on buses. The TTC, which is now considering a replacement for the current Communication and Information System (CIS), should consult widely with operators and experts on the new CIS development contract, and make certain that it allows for customer service enhancements, such as centrally controlled verbal delay announcements on buses.

6. Customer Service: Riders Come First

It’s a tragic waste when a system can’t utilize the intelligence of its frontline workers or its customers.

CIS provides data and voice communications between buses, streetcars and TTC’s bus/streetcar divisions, as well as Transit

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transit Future

Control, and is also used for emergency communications and as a route-management tool. Ensuring that this system has the capacity to manage headway-based service and offer improved communications with riders and operators is essential. The TTC depends on the surface routes to feed the subway, and most riders make at least one transfer between the two modes. Knowing in advance of major delays on connecting vehicles would improve the customer experience. In cities such as New York, the transit authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s central control has an Automatic Wireless Announcement System (AWAS), a software system that can deliver emergency and public service announcements from bus depots to selected buses, or a group of buses on a line without involving the operator, keeping passengers informed about service related issues.2 33. Completing the Video Information Screen rollout on subway station platforms and entrances. Screens at entrances to stations, in bus bays and on platforms are provided free as part of the advertising contract, but the TTC has not taken full advantage to complete the roll out to all stations, meaning some passengers do not have access to subway and next vehicle updates. This is especially disconcerting as the screens are available at no cost under the terms of the contract. Today only half of the stations have screens at the station entrances, and while there are 292 platform

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

video screens, a few stations, like Davisville, still lack this customer convenience. And other high volume stations do not have enough screens on the platforms. As well, information delivery to these screens needs to be improved, as they often do not include alerts about major system disruptions. 34. A commitment to customer service with the PRESTO rollout. GTA transit customers are increasingly served by the reloadable Presto fare card, an automated, electronic, and integrated fare payment system. This technology can be a benefit to those who have had to wait in line to pay for rides, and for multiple fares on multiple systems. However, most transit properties internationally that have adopted such a system have found a need to provide

human customer service, particularly in stations, despite the presence of the card system. Fare collectors should become customer service representatives who explain the system and provide support. 35. The creation of a TTC Emergency Response Corps. During emergencies, like the unscheduled shut down of the subway, tens of thousands of frustrated and inconvenienced passengers find themselves looking for alternatives. We propose to create a corps of retired TTC employees who have maintained their basic training and a commitment to the TTC, and who are willing to help out on short notice. They could be notified of their need by text or automatic phone messages.

As card-based fare payment systems take over, customers can be better served by reassigning fare collectors as customer service representatives who explain the system and provide support, as has happened in other transit properties in major cities around the world.

36. Speeding up plans to install real-time escalator and elevator monitoring systems in all stations by the end of 2015. Many people with mobility restrictions use the conventional system, but rely on escalators and elevators to make their trip possible. Other cities have installed monitors that create

real-time information on the status of these enabling devices. This information, if made part of the existing e-alert systems, would make it easier for riders to know when and where there is an outage so they could (if an alternative exists) re-route their trip. This system would replace manual updates and out-of-date information and allow for better tracking and presentation of information around outages.

37. Creating a better Airport Rocket. The TTC’s airport bus provides thousands of passengers and airport employees with an inexpensive way to get to the airport, and recent additions of luggage racks have made the service safer and better. Even with the new air-rail link to and from the airport coming online in 2015, the Airport 192 Rocket should be further improved.

These alerts would also allow the TTC to send out repair crews and get them working on the problem more quickly than is currently the case, thus reducing the downtime of escalators and elevators, and the associated inconvenience. Ultimately, better reliability of elevators and escalators is a critical component of making the system more accessible, a topic we discuss in detail in Section 9.

First, a change or fare vending machine should be placed near the stop at the airport as many travelers arrive without these. Sending them back into the airport to hunt down change is not good service. Second, using Montreal’s 747 service as an example, WiFi should be introduced onboard, and there should be a branding upgrade, and new signage at the airport to make sure more people are aware of their options.

6. Customer Service: Riders Come First

These “reserves” would aid the TTC in responding professionally to unexpected closures by enlarging the staff complement in order to manage passenger flow and information requests. Using this temporary talent pool would save the TTC from the cost of increased permanent staff, but more importantly it would give the TTC more capacity to respond to emergency situations and thereby provide better customer service.

Information screens to inform passengers of next vehicle updates are an inexpensive and very useful element of customer service. Many more such screens should be provided.

The move to electronic fares should provide an opportunity to improve customer service, not make it worse by pulling out the human supports.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transit Future

As this report shows, there are many ways, large and small, to improve transit service in our city. It will take time, money and political courage to restore the TTC to world leadership but we have every reason to do so.

ATTRACTING NEW RIDERS Some people will always take transit because they have no choice. But public transit should not rely on captive markets or be seen as a last resort type of service. Rather, it should be the favored mobility option because it’s in all our interests to foster a transit-oriented lifestyle.

The start to making the TTC the top-choice is, of course, ensuring enough reliable service. But beyond that, the system has to be attractive to all comers – it has to be comfortable and userfriendly, it has to signal respect for those who use it, and it has to contain a network of high quality public spaces that are well maintained and that people really want to be in. Then, to deepen transit’s reach into the habits of everyday life, it has to offer other transportation options so riders can switch seamlessly from one to the other, without the purchase of a car. To do this old facilities need to be upgraded and innovative amenities offered. All this doesn’t have to be invented from scratch; well-tested programs and ideas can be borrowed from other cities. The transit lifestyle has to be made easier, more efficient, satisfying, cost effective and, even more enjoyable. And the ATU wants to participate with others in bringing this about.

ATU RECOMMENDS: 38. Speeding up Wifi installation on the subway network. Today’s younger riders, especially Millennials, partially choose transit because it allows them to access their smartphones and tablets. Attracting young riders and keeping them in transit’s orbit should be a priority. While installation of new service is dependent on the cell phone carriers’ participation, nothing prevents the Commission from moving quickly to get WiFi installed in all stations. 39. Enhancing the Station Finish Program and restarting station modernization. Riders notice when things are falling apart, and the effects are demoralizing. When the aesthetic is eroded in our stations, passengers can come to feel that their transit choice is not the classy choice. Station tiles, ceiling panels and terrazzo flooring among other things, are in need of repair and refurbishment, and while a small program is in place to do this, it is too slow and needs to be expanded.

Toronto’s Transit Future

Transit riders expect that stations be clean, but also in a state of good repair and that they be modernized from time to time. In addition to enhancing station finishes, the Commission must ensure that older stations are renovated on a regular basis to bring them up to modern transit standards. The Commission should work to restart the Station Modernization Program cancelled in 2011 and, moreover, expand refurbishment efforts. The Commission could also hold a charette to find interesting ways of cost-effectively livening up stations and improving their appearance. 40. Creating partnerships with car and bike sharing networks. Increasingly people are thinking of mobility in the way Montreal does – as a “transportation cocktail”, made up of multiple ingredients. For many transit riders, getting around also means cycling, walking or taking a car. Committing to a transit lifestyle should mean that for the times when transit isn’t the best option, there are alternatives.

The TTC should look for ways to team up with car-sharing companies and the Toronto Parking Authority’s Bike Sharing program. In Montreal the transit system offers car-sharing members a $3 monthly discount on a yearly transit pass, thus solidifying the relationship between transit and alternatives to the private car. Likewise riders who purchase year passes from Bixi (Montreal’s bike sharing program) as well as an annual transit pass, receive a $59 rebate. Further rebates are offered for combining all three. (See Appendix 16).

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

41. Developing a better Online Trip Planner. The TTC trip planner allows people to chart their route, but the TTC should move to the 2.0 version like other cities (e.g. Berlin) and include real-time trip information, based on the Next Vehicle information systems currently in place. 42. Offering better Open Data. Over five years ago, the TTC began participating in the City’s Open Data project, providing information through the City site that could be used by the public and interest groups to design apps or provide analysis of TTC operations. Open and transparent info, and the public engagement that comes with it, can provide a rich source of innovation, which shouldn’t be wasted.

The TTC should strike an Open Data Committee that includes members of the appbuilding and transit advocate communities. The mission would be to examine what additional data can be cost effectively provided through the City’s Open Data protocols to allow for further development of online tools. 43. Peak-Hour demand management. Cities like Melbourne have used price strategies to shift small numbers of passengers to the shoulder periods of rush hour, thus taking the pressure off peak-hour loads. Other cities have worked with employers to shift the hours of operations slightly, by 30 minutes, to move riders to periods either before the peak or after, a great boon to the

Tighter integration between the TTC and GO Transit will make the entire Greater TorontoHamilton Area more productive.

The TTC and the City should strike a working group to investigate what would be required to shift some of the rushhour ridership outside the peak period. 44. Begin discussions with GO on better service integration. GO and TTC should work to better use GO lines as trunk service lines to move people faster and cost effectively around Toronto. More thought needs to be given to the respective roles of the TTC, GO Transit and other regional providers, and ways to better integrate these entities within the City of Toronto. The TTC should continue to focus on local service while GO focuses on longer range trips, but connections between the different systems need to be greatly increased and transfers made easier. 45. Restart the Metropass Affinity Program. For a long time, transit riders were not really considered customers, but in 2009, in recognition of the popularity of loyalty programs that reward consumers for purchasing from a particular company, the Metropass Affinity Program was started. The concept was to offer discounts and other benefits through a network of partners. Unfortunately, in recent years there has been little focus on the program.

The TTC sells on average about 275,000 Metropasses a month, and the Affinity Program would strengthen customer commitment to public transit. Currently the Metropass is valued at 49.5 trips a month and riders can get a tax credit for the equivalent of roughly another seven rides, meaning that if a rider takes transit to and from work for the 21 average work days a month, every other trip is “free”. If the Metropass Affinity Program could deliver value equal to two dollars or more, it would offer the equivalent value of one to two rides, and for some this might make the pass worth the purchase. This would help grow the transit-oriented constituency, and because it is structured to facilitate discounts, as opposed to providing them, the program has little direct cost to the TTC. One of the best examples in the industry is the STM of Montreal which has a similar program called “Merci’’. This is an app that links riders with retailers and events. By leveraging digital marketing, Merci offers passengers discounts as they commute, while providing them with information about their destination. Unlike the Affinity Program, Merci was able to utilize mobile technology because more commuters use their cell phones today, especially in Montreal where there is cell service in the metro.

The ATU believes that such a project would be a good way to reward riders and drive increased purchases of the Metropass, a useful strategy to promote the car-less way of life. 46. Installing a shelter where possible to any stop serving more than 100 people per day. On days when freezing wind chills the city, or in driving rain, waiting for transit can feel punishing. That’s why the TTC should work with the City’s street furniture program and recommit to the TTC’s 2009 decision to provide a shelter to any stop serving more than 100 customers per day. The number of stops meeting this criteria was 75, creating an estimated price tag of $2.9 million (2.5 million in 2009 dollars). It’s well worth the money to lessen the weather burden on our riders.

Open and transparent info, and the public engagement that comes with it, is a rich source of innovation, which shouldn’t be wasted.

7. Attracting New Riders

traveling experience. Because rush hour service is the most expensive to provide due to the expansion of the fleet and the near-zero leftover capacity during these hours, millions of dollars could be saved by shifting even 1% of the peak hour ridership.

In its first 48 hours, Merci was the number one lifestyle app in Canada’s App store, demonstrating that programs like this are popular. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transit Future

Skilled Technicians are the main reasons that buses in Toronto last many years longer than in virtually every comparable North American city. The resulting savings to taxpayers and riders should be invested in service improvements to keep up with our growing population and demand for transit.

STATE OF GOOD REPAIR No one knows more about the backlog of repairs plaguing the transit network than the people with the track welding equipment, or those rebuilding old bus and streetcar components to keep them on the road.

ATU members have watched the slow creep of disrepair with dismay. Employees are frustrated that they have to stare every day at worn infrastructure and vehicles there is no money to fix to the standard they know Torontonians expect. Ever since the Russell Hill accident of 1995, the TTC has been clear to prioritize the maintenance of the system and safety as the first priority. But that doesn’t mean senior levels of government have twigged to their responsibilities in ensuring transit in Canada’s largest city has the resources to keep deterioration at bay. The federal and provincial governments prefer to do their funding on a one-off basis for large projects that make for attractive photo ops. But they’re not as prepared to make sure ongoing financing is available to cover inevitable wear and tear. Still, the list of repairs, replacements and upgrades to keep the system running and providing for new standards of safety and service, just keeps growing. The City alone clearly can’t provide the capital funding (with its debt servicing limits) to keep pace. Since the 1990s, the TTC has reported publically about the need for more capital dollars, and

the ATU notes with alarm that the list of core state-of-good-repair and safety projects (track replacement, building upkeep, tunnel fix-ups, fire ventilation modifications, etc) will cost billions over the next 10 years, and that this amount is, at the moment, unfunded due to limits in City debt targets. The current total projected 10 year base capital budget is $9 billion, 2.7 billion of which is unfunded. This means that an average of over $270 million additional funding is needed every year. Without this, the system will not have sufficient money to keep on top of basic upkeep. Moreover, if past experience is any indication, this total will only grow in size. This growth in the unfunded total has continued to occur despite removal of $700 million from the capital budget in 2012 to meet the debt target, although “pushing out” is a better description; many projects have been “pushed-out” of the ten-year budget, but still must be completed. This has occurred despite the fact that they are necessary and critical. Just because deferred projects don’t show up in the budget doesn’t mean they don’t have to be completed at some point.

Toronto’s Transit Future

In many years the TTC capital budget consumes 50% of the City’s capital budget dollars for all city departments, but in 2014, the figure was over 60%. Today, the base capital plan of around $900 million is roughly one-quarter financed by provincial and federal governments. Provincial funding equals $153 million with the remaining contribution going to operations. The Federal government provides around $150 million, leaving three quarters of the remaining (roughly $884 million) for the City to finance. The ATU is concerned that the current gas tax funding mechanism (wherein the provincial and federal governments contribute to the capital program) is structured in such a way that the proceeds remain static or actually decrease over time in real terms. This is especially true of the federal portion, which is based partially on Toronto’s population as a percentage of the provincial total, a population which has declined in recent years despite growth.

Just dealing with the backlog of state-of-goodrepair and safety projects will have a price-tag of $2.7 billion over the next ten years.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Looking forward, unless there are changes in the formula, the Federal Gas Tax will continue to represent a smaller and smaller portion of the TTC’s capital budget at the time when there are mounting basic state-of-good-repair pressures. This is occurring exactly as capital costs are increasing with inflation, and as the ridership grows and infrastructure ages. The ATU notes that, according to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, senior governments collect around 92-94 cents of every tax dollar and municipalities only 6-8 cents. It’s simply not realistic for cities to maintain and expand their transit systems without additional assistance. In addition, whereas provincial and federal revenues grow automatically at an average of 4 to 6% per year, municipal revenues do not do so at more than 1% annually without specific tax increases.

A backlog of state-of-good-repair projects totaling $2.7 billion must be addressed before City debt funding is used for major expansion.

ATU members want to work on vehicles and amidst infrastructure that is in first-class shape. That’s why they want to join the Commission and the City in pressing for better capital funding. During the decade prior to the Rob Ford administration, the City engaged in an ongoing push for new and sustainable capital funding from the provincial and federal governments, with some notable success. But the last four years has seen little high-profile championing of this cause at a time when increased capital funding is clearly needed. Our new Mayor, Commissioners and City Council should make this a top priority, otherwise the budget situation will go from bad to critical. Canada is the only major developed nation where there is no specific national transit strategy. This needs to change. The ATU is ready to do its part.

W. D. Robbins (seated) was an officer of ATU Local 113 when he was elected Mayor of Toronto in 1936. He was aggressive in demanding that the provincial Liberal government of Mitch Hepburn provide financial relief to the city as it continued to struggle with the Depression.

The following recommendations represent several areas of concern in relationship to the TTCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capital budget.

50% of the base capital budget that the province covered in the 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, and an interim target of 33% should be the goal.

ATU RECOMMENDS

ON THE TABLE BUT OFF THE LIST

47. An activist Chair to work with other transit agencies in promoting transit investment. The Chair of the TTC needs to work with other transit agencies on behalf of this critical national agenda.

In addition to the official state-of-good repair backlog, there is an unofficial one. It works like this: there is an understanding that certain capital projects are necessary, but the need has not become absolutely acute. So, because of the backlog, and the need to contain capital budget forecasts for debt rating agencies and other constituencies, these items are not added to the capital budget. Three high-profile out-of-budget examples are: a new subway carhouse, a new Wheel-Trans garage and an additional bus garage.

48. Continuing the concerted push for increased provincial capital funding. The Mayor and Council need to continue to lobby the Province for an increase in its contribution to the base capital and operating budgets of the TTC. The current capital contributions cover less than 15% of the capital budget, far less than the

For several years there has been discussion about the need for a new subway carhouse.

This is particularly an issue with the opening of the Spadina Extension which expands the fleet, but also puts the maintenance window under pressure, largely because of travel times for the first few morning trains to the north part of the Yonge line from Wilson station. There have already been discussions about the need to close the Yonge-University-Spadina (YUS) line earlier each night for maintenance, as well as the need for new storage capacity in the north Yonge section of the YUS line. (Use of the Davisville and Keele Yards helps, but does not solve this problem). This future reality should be recognized in the ten-year capital budget process. Likewise, the Wheel-Trans garage is near capacity, and with the continued rapid growth in service driven by demographics, there is likely to be a need to expand the number of buses that may be used for this service (this despite a push towards accessible taxis). Attempting to forestall capital budget outlays for a new garage through the possible over-use of contracted accessible taxis, could result in lower quality and less efficient Wheel-Trans service.

8. State of Good Repair

When the Yonge-North subway project was picking up support, it was thought that the $500 to $700 million carhouse project could be tacked on to the expansion project. With the downgrading of this extension due to capacity issues, this new carhouse may have to become part of a Downtown Relief Line or Scarborough Subway extension. Existing subway carhouses (Wilson and Greenwood) are near capacity.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

GOOD STATIONS, GOOD RIDER MORALE

Wheel-Trans Operators use their peerless knowledge of Toronto’s streets to map out their routes efficiently before they hit the road.

As to the new McNicoll garage slated to be used for the next TTC bus division, it will be full on the first day it opens, somewhere between 2018 and 2020. As the property requirements are fairly large and difficult to site, preparations and a budget line item should appear in the later years of the ten-year plan. In addition the McNicoll garage has to be funded, and the Commission needs to move quickly to expedite its opening. It could likely be opened one to two years earlier than planned if preparations are made now. At the same time, the TTC should consider acquiring new property adjacent to existing garages in order to accomodate relocated employee parking.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

MAKING THE TTC ACCESSIBLE The TTC is legally obligated to make the entire system accessible by 2025 under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). As part of the capital budget project the money earmarked for the Easier Access lll program, over $240 million, was removed, meaning there is not enough funding currently allocated to meet targets necessary to be compliant with the legislation. The installation of elevators is not just a financial issue, but also a logistical challenge. Past experience suggests that making more than three stations accessible a year (requiring multiple elevators per station) would be a challenge, and that to complete the remaining 37 stations would require a serious push starting around 2015 and continuing unabated until 2025. Anything less means non-compliance with the legislation.

The $46 million for station finishes removed from the budget is symptomatic of how a transit system goes downhill. No one can argue that replacing tired or old elements in stations is as important as maintaining structures in a safe state, or buying new vehicles to improve service, but today people expect more than the bare minimum. There needs to be a public discussion about what kind of public services and facilities the city wants: the cheapest that can be safely provided or transit that, while not lavish, makes people feel cared for and respected. TTC employees in the ATU are frustrated when old, tired stations cannot be made to look good, regardless of how much cleaning is done. Everything, including stations, has a life span, and at some point they need to be replaced. Some of the TTC’s stations have received little attention despite being over 40 years old. Cities like New York, London and Chicago, to name just a few, all have rejuvenation programs that slowly refurbish the oldest stations, usually on 35 to 40 year cycles. They manage this despite similarly stressed capital programs.

ATU FURTHER RECOMMENDS 49. Clarification in budgeting. The Commission needs to more clearly differentiate between state-of-good-repair, upgrades made for legislative or safety reasons, new capacity enhancement requirements, and expansion programs to make it clear how much and why specific funding is required.

50. Collaboration to campaign for more capital funds. The ATU, civil society groups, and the business community should organize to push for more capital funds in a way similar to what was done for transit expansion. The last few years have shown that new funding can be secured with perseverance. 51. Prioritizing state of good repair. Major expansion plans utilizing City debt funding should not proceed until the majority of the basic SOGR backlog is dealt with. 52. A clear statement of needs. There has to be an adequate representation of the needs of the Commission for sound planning to take place. As such, within the ten-year capital window, the following additions should be made to ensure that, even if funding is currently unavailable, a

discussion can begin around the true capital funding needs of the Commission including: ›› Funds for the acquisition (if not construction) of the next Wheel-Trans Facility; the current facility is approaching capacity and cannot be easily expanded. ›› An allocation for the first phase of a new bus garage (in addition to McNicoll), noting that before 2023, or shortly thereafter, a new bus garage will be needed as McNicoll will be full on opening day. ›› Resources to allow the search and the possible acquisition of new property for the next subway carhouse close to the northern section of the Yonge line. Opportunities should be seized upon as they become available; current carhouses are approaching capacities. 53. Factoring in bus conversions. A new budget line should be added for the conversion of Orion VII Hybrids, between 2014-2018, to clean diesel instead of retiring these buses. Additional budget lines should be added for other mid-life extension programs. (See Section 5) 54. Returning postponed budget items to the Capital Plan. Items removed from the capital budget at the request of the City (to bring the TTC budget closer to an appearance of being funded for City debt management purposes) should be re-instated. The following two projects, for example, are

critical to ongoing basic operations, and to meeting legislative requirements. McNicoll garage construction should be moved up for completion to 2018 from 2020 to allow for the easing of crowding, and the expansion of the bus fleet to meet growing needs. This requires additional funds of $100 million above what is available. Funding for the Easier Access III elevator and station accessibility program must be re-instated to ensure the TTC continues to become more accessible, and so that it can meet legislative requirements under the AODA.

8. State of Good Repair

ATU members are frustrated that they have to stare everyday at worn infrastructure and vehicles there is no money to fix to the standard Torontonians expect.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transit Future

Thirty-seven TTC subway stations remain inaccessible to wheelchairs and baby carriages (which are often taken unsafely on escalators). Fixing this infrastructural injustice must become a priority.

TTC ACCESSIBILITY: IT’S IN EVERYONE’S BEST INTEREST ATU members want to run a transportation system that doesn’t leave anyone out. But some people are definitely excluded. While improvements have recently been made to services for those with mobility challenges, progress is disappointingly slow.

Public transit providers, including the TTC, have a responsibility to ensure that their network is available to everyone, regardless of ability. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) sets out accessibility requirements that must be met by 2025, but those are minimum legal requirements, and 2025 is a long time away for someone who isn’t served by the system now. In the last few years, requirements associated with the AODA have mandated that Wheel-Trans (the service set up in 1975 to provide service to those who cannot use the conventional system) expand to a 24-hour service, and accept bookings less than 24 hours in advance, including up to three hours before the end of regular service the day before. In addition, further requirements stemming from the AODA now insist that the “unaccommodated’’ rate (trips that can’t be accommodated) not exceed 0.9%. For years it had been targeted at 1-2% as a budget containment measure.

Each ride on Wheel-Trans costs approximately $36 to provide (around $1.81 in fares, the rest in subsidy)1 compared to a cost of around $2.96 on the conventional system (roughly $2.04 on average in fares and around a $0.79 subsidy) – and demand for the service is increasing with changing demographics, including the aging population. As a consequence, the TTC has been upgrading the main network to improve accessibility, so that more WheelTrans customers can make more use of it. Such improvements include subway station renovations to install barrier-free entrances and elevators, automated station stop announcements, and the introduction of low-floor accessible streetcars. In reality, however, those changes are not happening fast enough and, as a result, investment in both in the conventional system and, at the same time, the Wheel-Trans system, will be necessary for the foreseeable future.

Toronto’s Transit Future

WHEEL-TRANS BUDGET REALITIES Growing Ridership Toronto has an expanding, aging population. By 2018 over 15% of residents will be over the age of 65.2 While the TTC believes that Wheel-Trans ridership will grow from 2.88 million in 2013 to 3.83 million in 2018, it’s likely that due to demographic changes and past trends, annual growth will be closer to 10% between 2015 and 2018 (as opposed to the TTC’s estimated 6% projected increase). This will lead to 4.39 million rides in 2018, or over half a million more riders per year than the TTC projects (see Figure 1). This scenario has significant implications for budget projections, as well as facility and operation planning. Recent changes in 2011 and 2012 restricted eligibility criteria (for those eligible for WheelTrans service) and that, combined with the recent decision not to automatically cover dialysis treatment patients, blunted Wheel-Trans ridership increases.

Increasing Costs and Higher Subsidy Requirements

The 2014 budget shows the older trends are reestablishing themselves. Without further aggressive restrictions – which would severely impact those with physical disabilities – demographic trends will create circumstances that lead to budget growth of around 10% or higher per year. This scenario will also require a subsidy growth of between 11-13% annually – from $11.5 million in 2015 to $20.5 million in 2018, a cumulative increase of $66 million (Table 9.)

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

While revenue will grow by up to 10% over this same period with modest fare increases, this represents just under 5% of the cost of service compared to 70%-75% on the conventional system, meaning high expenditure growth will force subsidies to grow quickly.

A Competitive Cost Structure The Wheel-Trans $36 trip cost (approximately) is derived by averaging the costs of the system’s three transport methods – taxi, minivan and full Wheel-Trans bus. This seems relatively low compared to other services of this kind. A 2011 Paratransit Peer Report by New York City’s MTA compared 15 of the largest paratransit organizations in the United States, and noted that the cost range was between $28-$68 per trip in 2009 (or $31 to $75 in 2014 dollars). This puts TTC service costs at the low-cost end of spectrum.3

The Need to Return to Provincial Subsidies for Wheel-Trans It’s important to note that Wheel-Trans today does not receive any provincial subsidies. In the past, however, the province recognized the unique nature of this critical service and funded the operating costs at a higher rate than it did the conventional system – a 75% subsidy for the program. Likewise, in the United States, state and federal governments provide upwards of 80% of the cost of paratransit services, recognizing its impact on city finances.

accessible out of a total of 69. The system should be useable by almost everyone – and progress must be continued on achieving this goal, with all new infrastructure, technology, and services being built to the highest standard of accessibility. It is far more cost-effective to do this in the first place than to have to do modifications after the fact. While the bus fleet is fully accessible today, there remains much work to be done to ensure that all stops have accessible curb cuts by 2018-2019. The new streetcars, along with on-street alterations, will make the entire surface system available to almost all riders. As of 2013, the TTC had: ›› 32 accessible subway stations (46%) ›› 7462 accessible bus and streetcar stops, out of a total of 9438 (79%) ›› 1850-plus buses, 250-plus WheelTrans buses, and 700-plus subway cars, all of which are accessible.4

The TTC Must Meet the 2025 Deadline for Accessibility

ACCESSIBILITY ON THE CONVENTIONAL SYSTEM

Unfortunately, funding is not currently in place to allow the TTC to install elevators in all of the remaining stations by 2025 when the law requires it. Even today, if full funding is provided, it is uncertain that the system could be made fully accessible before 2025 because of the complexity of retrofitting stations in coordination with the large number of other TTC projects.

Since the 1990s, the TTC has been working to increase accessibility and there are currently 32 subway and Scarborough RT stations that are

Even when the network has been modified, external factors like weather and the specifics of particular disabilities will limit the number of people

The TTC needs to aggressively continue and accelerate its station upgrade program, installing elevators at each of them. Thirty six5 stations remain to be upgraded. Making each station accessible costs around $8 to $12 million,6 large sums that need to be budgeted for and put into work schedules. While the City has debt target limits that impact the TTC’s capital budget, ATU strongly urges Council to increase the TTC’s base capital budget, thus allowing the necessary investments to make the TTC fully accessible. Many of these planned improvements are meant to benefit those with mobility devices, but other changes must also be made for non-sighted, partially-sighted and deaf riders, as well as those with other disabilities. The best way to identify and make these improvements is to consult the affected communities as well as the TTC employees, who serve them every day.

THE FUTURE AND BETTER “ON-DEMAND” WHEELTRANS SERVICE Wheel-Trans will face pressures to expand, driven by the aging population and expectations that the transportation options offered be as equivalent as

possible to other levels of transit service. Legislation already in place is changing how service is offered and is requiring the TTC to make Wheel-Trans more comparable to the conventional system. Today, TTC riders have the option of traveling on relatively little notice, whereas Wheel-Trans riders must book the day before or risk not being accommodated. Increasingly, people who depend on Wheel-Trans will expect to have similar mobility options. ATU hopes that the requirements under the AODA will be changed to require more on-demand service, thus ensuring that all residents of Toronto can have full access to affordable, quality public transit. The AODA has required many changes to WheelTrans service. Just this year, as we have pointed out, the TTC introduced same-day booking with

Full system accessibility is not only the right thing to do, it’s a legal requirement that must be achieved within a decade under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability Act.

four hours advance notice for Wheel-Trans service, but it is not a service that is guaranteed in the same way trips booked the day before are (for those there is 99.1% accommodation, i.e. 0.9% of passengers may not get a ride). Furthermore, ATU believes that service within four hours still does not offer the full mobility that should be the right of patrons making the last-minute trip decisions everyone else is allowed to make. Trying to bring Wheel-Trans service to similar levels as the conventional system remains a major challenge for the TTC. It may be difficult; it may be expensive; it will certainly take time – but it can and must be done. Canada’s largest city should embody in its public services the values that make Canada one of the world’s most admired nations. For this reason, the TTC should shorten the booking window for Wheel-Trans service. There

9. TTC Accessibility: It’s in Everyone’s Best Interest

with mobility challenges who can be served by the conventional system. While this last point may be debatable, it is clear that within the timelines of this report, extending up to 2018, there will not be a substantial change in ridership patterns for those who currently rely on Wheel-Trans.

Toronto’s Transit Future

should be a conversation around exactly what constitutes an “on-demand” service and, for example, how long someone should reasonably wait for a ride. Thirty minutes? An hour? Or even 1.5 hours? ATU believes that it seems reasonable to base this standard on how long it would take a user of the conventional system to make the trip, including getting from their front door to the boarding of their transit vehicle, and completion of the trip. This remains an open point of discussion and engagement with the Advisory Committee on Accessible Transit (ACAT) should be the first step in establishing service goals. Cost projections for such a system can be made on scenario-based models. One is presented in Figure 12 in Appendix 12 (In this model, it is assumed that Wheel-Trans accommodates trips booked within 1.5 hours of the desired travel time as a further step to improving service.) The data from this model shows that creating a higher quality on-demand service would roughly cost an additional $11.2 million by 2018 (if started in 2016). This higher cost is a result of a greater demand for Wheel-Trans services resulting from this higher service level. This upgraded service would further allow people dependent on WheelTrans to experience the same freedom most people have when using the conventional system. As part of this plan, instead of “trying to accommodate” these same-day bookings, the TTC would move to a firmer guarantee and higher service standards. Cities like Chicago and Houston already provide on-demand service (as do many smaller U.S.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

cities like Westchester County, NY, and Garden City, NY). Their costs do not dramatically exceed the average paratransit costs across the U.S. and involve extensive non-contracted services. Clearly there is a way of doing this cost effectively.7

MAKING ON-DEMAND WHEEL-TRANS SERVICE HAPPEN Currently, the TTC uses a mix of its own vehicles and operators, contracted accessible taxis and sedan taxi services. This provides some flexibility, but the quality of service is not as high as the level offered by Wheel-Trans buses. The ATU believes having more in-house vehicles and drivers to manage the added volume of ondemand wheel-trans service would certainly help to sustain quicker service at a lower cost, if they were managed well. ATU is open to a discussion with the TTC on how to go about cost-effectively increasing the number of Wheel-Trans buses. As noted above, Figure 12 looks at the potential costs of an on-demand service for Toronto. This model sees service starting in 2016 – giving the TTC time to amend contracts for accessible taxis, increase the number available, and procure more Wheel-Trans buses to accommodate ridership growth. On-Demand Wheel Trans will increase ridership by an extra 12.5% for 2016 and 2017 and 11.25% in 2018, whereas not having the On-Demand Wheel Trans service will only increase the ridership by 10% per year. This prediction is based on the assumption that pent-up demand exists for higher service standards and that there are a number of riders who would normally qualify

for Wheel-Trans service, but for whom the current advance booking system limits participation. Despite recent improvements for customers, including online booking and 24-hour service, riders with challenges still face significant difficulties with wait times. They have to plan and book well ahead and find little flexibility in the system. It is hoped that an on-demand Wheel-Trans would allow more people to become integrated into the community and find and maintain full employment. This is a goal worth championing. To this end, the ATU has been reviewing best practices within other transit and paratransit systems, and as a result have come up with several suggested improvements.

ATU RECOMMENDS: 55. The TTC commit to a higher standard of elevator and escalator maintenance to increase their reliability. It is important that increased resources are dedicated to preventive maintenance to keep elevators and escalators in better working order, thus ensuring that the system remains accessible to people with mobility challenges. 56. A guarantee of 1.5-hour Wheel-Trans service by 2016. Users of the conventional system are served by a system that allows them to take spontaneous trips and carry out their dayto-day activities with flexibility. The same should apply to Wheel-Trans users. At a minimum, in the short term, Wheel-Trans riders should be able to make a trip on an accessible vehicle within 1.5 hours of booking through the Wheel-Trans system by 2016.

WHEEL-TRANS TOTAL EXPENDITURES, 2014-2018

WHEEL-TRANS RIDERSHIP, 2014-2018

200

150

3.99

159.40

3.62

3.07

$ (MILLIONS)

(MILLIONS/YEAR)

180.60

4.39

4 3.29

100

124.10 112.20

1 0

140.60

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2014

(FORECAST)

57. That external pre-boarding announcements be in place by 2017. TTC vehicles currently feature automated announcements advising customers of the Next Stop information. Plans are currently in place to include a similar system outside the vehicle that will advise customers of information about the vehicle before they board, as required under new Provincial regulations. Such a system should be included as part of the contract for the TTC’s new Customer Information System, which is currently under design. All passengers, but especially blind and partially-sighted customers, will be served by knowing which vehicle they’re entering

2015

2016

2017

2018

(FORECAST)

and where it’s going, reducing the risk of misleading or confusing information. 58. A return to provincial funding for WheelTrans and continued Commission and City advocacy to ensure adequate provincial funding for full compliance with Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation (IASR). In addition to the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability Act for 2025, the province has established earlier service standards that must be met by transit providers, without providing resources to make it possible.8 The TTC has committed to complying with the IASR and is largely in compliance, with some

exceptions. The difficulty is funding. ATU calls on the Province to provide the means to meet the requirements it has established and urges that the Chair of the TTC take an active role in pushing for increased funding. At the same time the ATU’s members strongly believe that the City should increase its contribution to the TTC’s capital budget to include the missing $240 million required to make the system fully accessible, despite the capital funding shortfall.

9. TTC Accessibility: It’s in Everyone’s Best Interest

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 1

ATU feels strongly that the City should make whatever efforts are needed to increase its debt ceiling to ensure that the City meets the provincially-mandated target of full accessibility by 2025. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

NORTH YORK

SCARBOROUGH

est nch W

Yonge

Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transit Future

VAUGHAN

ton

ETOBICOKE

MISSISSAUGA

In the ATUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vision, our future public transit arteries, seen here from above a cleaner atmosphere than we now have, will efficiently carry millions of riders a day around an area of nearly 700 square kilometres, linking the hundreds of neighbourhoods containing over a million homes, and the thousands of public service facilities, cultural and recreational attractions and vibrant economic activity hubs.

rd Ea

pa Shep

Eglin

Bloo

BUILDING THE FUTURE OF THE TTC Debates over transit expansion have certainly riveted the city for years, and particularly during the long 2014 municipal election campaign. No issue, it seems, has been as polarizing – or as serviceable to those building political careers.

As the union that represents the large majority of transit workers in this city, we feel it’s time for us to apply our unique knowledge of the frontline realities of the TTC and inject our experience into the debate that will shape transit, and, as a consequence, our city (and region) for generations to come. Decisions made now or a failure to act will help us or haunt us well into the 21st century. ATU members come to this discussion from a place quite different than that of other participants. Our value-added is our deep familiarity with the nitty-gritty, the day-to-day implications of how policies adopted by politicians, bureaucrats and desk-bound experts play out in the real world. Our collective experience is a resource that needs to be integrated into the process of making vitally important decisions involving public transit. We don’t just make the TTC run, drive its vehicles, take its fares, keep its tracks in order, maintain its vehicles and fix its technology. We have a vision for Toronto’s transit future: we want it to be a way of making life easier, not just for some people in some areas of the city but

for everyone, in all areas. And we want it to be the key organizing principle of city planning. We came to this honestly and through often difficult experience. As front-line workers, we have had to absorb the unhappiness and frustration of customers who feel ill-served by a system that has been steadily deteriorating because of political decisions over which we have no influence. Naturally we want our fellow Torontonians to appreciate the hard work we do and not blame all of us for the incidental shortcomings of a few. But we know they won’t feel that way unless the service we provide is comfortable, reliable, efficiently-delivered – and available for all. That’s why we are deeply enthusiastic about TTC expansion. Our vision is seen through the lens of practicality. From the ATU’s perspective, transit decisions should be about getting lines up and running as quickly and as costeffectively as possible. That means upgrading bus routes to light rail transit (LRT) or bus rapid transit (BRT) where warranted, or building subways where LRT or BRT can’t handle the capacity. For us, pragmatism must rule.

Toronto’s Transit Future

Here are our reflections on the current state of expansion.

BRINGING THE SUBURBS UP TO SPEED WITH RAPID TRANSIT “The Commission does not propose to stand idly by and allow this deterioration of its services and of the city itself to take place. There must be a gradual separation of public and private vehicles, both of which are now trying to operate on the narrow streets originally designed for horse-drawn traffic.” w Policy Statement, Rapid Transit for Toronto, Toronto Transportation Commission (TTC), 1945 As it was in post-war 1945, when the TTC issued the above statement, this, too, is a critical moment. Back then, when the suburbs began at Eglinton and Yonge, a transit crisis was in full force. Today, Toronto is suffering another

Toronto taxpayers could end up paying a higher subsidy to the Eglinton LRT if fares are divided between the TTC and the consortium.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

transit emergency, and ATU members confront every day the fact that suburban Etobicoke and Scarborough are paying the biggest price for short-sighted transit decisions of the past. In Section 3 we expressed our support for expanding the Commission’s bus network and adding capacity; now we explore the challenge of ensuring all parts of the City have access to good quality rapid transit, something Toronto has fallen shockingly behind on.

A) Eglinton Crosstown – A Vital Core Infrastructure Investment The ATU is very supportive of the current Eglinton Crosstown construction, which at $5.3 billion represents the largest single transit investment in Toronto’s history. The line which runs from Mount Dennis to Kennedy Station for 19km, 10km underground, and includes 25 stops and 54 links to 1888: Teams of 12 horses pulled the plows that cleared the snow from transit tracks.

other TTC services, will help tie the city together the way Yonge and Bloor Danforth subway lines did in the 1950s and 1960s. With a capacity of well over 15,000 riders per hour, per direction, it represents a realistic way to deal with transit expansion. ATU members, however, are concerned that there’s little discussion about completing the project or how it is being delivered. It was originally scheduled to run to Pearson International Airport and serve the large population in the centre and west parts of the city and of nearby industries which generate high-volume ridership, along with passengers and employees of the airport. These riders need a reasonably-priced transit option that links to the entire transit system, something not being offered by the Union-Pearson Airport link. It seems unlikely that there would be dramatic overlap in potential ridership for these two very different projects.

While ATU believes in being creative about getting projects built and delivered, it’s easy to be concerned about the fact that tasks of operating and maintaining this LRT will be split up and carried out by different organizations. This raises concerns about accountability and the splitting of revenue. The Eglinton LRT will be operated by the TTC, while being maintained (track and vehicles) by the private consortium building and financing it. This isn’t a question of who represents the employees, as most workers in this field are unionized already, either in the TTC or a private company. The issue is rather of overall safety and accountability. Industry best practices tie the two areas together; it’s generally felt in the transportation industry that accountability should rest with one entity to prevent lapses that could cause accidents. While we understand that Metrolinx has opted for this arrangement so it can finance the project in a manner less directly dependant on the provincial treasury in the short-run, we believe in the longrun that this will not only end up costing taxpayers more (as have similar arrangements elsewhere), but will create problems in the running of the line. We think that a better way forward would be for Metrolinx to work with the consortium to subcontract maintenance to the TTC. As we have discussed in Section 1, the TTC is a leader internationally in low cost operations. Since wages

The end of the controversial Public Private Partnership on the Tube network has been signalled with a deal to bring all maintenance work back in-house.

Transport for London said it had agreed to buy the shares of Bechtel and Amey (Ferrovial) from Tube Lines for £310m. Transport for London (TfL) said that, freed from the complex PPP structure, it was confident of generating substantial savings. The takeover follows the collapse of Metronet, the maintenance giant responsible for two-thirds of the Tube, whose staff now work for TfL. The London Underground’s experiment with a public-private partnership for maintenance was a financial fiasco. Despite this and many other examples of P3s from around the world, the Ontario government remains committed to this problematic method of transit financing.

for the skilled labour required to maintain the line will be set by the private market, which pays wages similar to the TTC for most positions, skills, and work, this seems like a reasonable way forward. It would allow Metrolinx to continue with its alternate financing and delivery methods, while ensuring the safe operations of the LRT. Accountability should be clearly placed with one operator. Likewise, this proposal makes the division of fares from the Eglinton LRT easier. Over 70%, likely closer to 80% of TTC riders make at least one transfer. The whole system, in fact, is designed with this in mind. Dividing fare revenue between lines, even with electronic fare collection, is a very difficult process and highly political, and we don’t want fares to be

10. Building the Future of the TTC

ATU feels that for the continued success of Pearson Airport and the cause of first-class transit to the middle of the west side of the city, the completion of the Eglinton LRT is essential.

Tube maintenance back ‘in house’ as new deal is signed

siphoned off from supporting TTC operations in order to finance long-term private debt, a basic premise in alternate financing arrangements. We fear Toronto taxpayers will end up paying a higher subsidy to the Eglinton LRT if fares are divided between the TTC and the consortium, because of riders transferring onto the line from other points. Ultimately, a full accounting would only be possible with a zone system (although an origin-destination study could well estimate the fare breakdowns), which we do not support and is not envisioned. With the PRESTO system, riders will only “tap on” and not “tap off”, and even slight errors in a third-party origin-destination study could wrongly estimate passenger fares, making accurate division of fare revenue a

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transit Future

B) Creating a Rapid Transit Network In 2009 construction began on the Sheppard East LRT, and had it not been cancelled as a result of pressure from then-Mayor Rob Ford, at a cost to taxpayers exceeding $65 million1, it would have opened a year ago, in the fall of 2013. At 13km, including a 1.1km tunnel connecting to subway platform level at Don Mills subway station, it is now slated to restart construction in 20172 (for completion in 2021), and will operate out of a new maintenance and storage facility on Conlins Rd. Why turn over the maintenance of the Eglinton LRT to a privately-owned, profit-driven company when we already have, according to international studies, one of the most productive and efficient transit maintenance workforces in the world?

process of educated guesswork and unlikely to easily adapt to changing ridership patterns. This could, with only minor miscalculations (a very real possibility in this case), result in the TTC losing millions of dollars, something that would be felt by riders forced to pay higher fares.

ATU RECOMMENDS:

59. Subcontracting to the TTC. Metrolinx should work with the consortium taking responsibility for delivering the Eglinton LRT to subcontract maintenance to the TTC. As well, a study should be initiated in the interim to determine the costs of this arrangement so the debate about the structure of such arrangements will be well informed.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

60. A careful accounting of the fare split. We urge that the TTC and Metrolinx jointly contract a third party to do an analysis in the next 18 months of how fare revenue will be split between the consortium and TTC. This would allow time for a thorough discussion, noting that over several decades, if the formula is not right, this could result in a multi-hundred million dollar cost to TTC riders and Toronto taxpayers. 61. A push for the completion of the Eglinton LRT. The City needs to actively engage in discussions with the Province to secure funds to complete the Eglinton LRT, recognizing its importance to the connectivity of transit, and to the expansion of affordable transit to the airport.

This is eight years late, and is a good example of why we need to stick to existing plans. This line, stretching from Don Mills Station to just past Meadowvale, will create a quick transit option that moves 50% faster than the current bus, in fact close to subway speeds with similar high degrees of reliability. It will carry around 3,000 riders per hour, per direction, or upwards of 40,000 per day within its first decade of operation.3 This is just slightly higher than one quarter of the accepted minimum capacity that economically justifies a subway, according to Metrolinx. And, it will cost around a quarter of the price of building a subway. To us, as residents and taxpayers, this just makes sense. This is also the case for the Finch LRT in the opposite end of the City. This 11 km line, with 18 stops, runs across Finch Avenue from a planned Finch West subway station at Keele to Humber College. ATU is very interested in this project slated to start in 2016, halfway through the next Council term, because it is expected to carry around 2,800 people per hour, per direction, or

ATU operators know how busy the Finch 36 bus is, and the LRT will replace it. As well, all growth projections from City Planning suggest the new line will be able to handle the planned residential and commercial development, and associated ridership, well into the 2040’s or beyond. This makes the route an ideal corridor for an LRT.

ATU RECOMMENDS: 62. The establishment of an LRT implementation committee. The Chair of the Commission needs to convene an LRT implementation committee, including two or three Commissioners, a representative of the Mayor’s office, Metrolinx, the City Manager’s Office, and the CEO of the TTC, to meet at least monthly to monitor preparations for the start of construction both of the Finch and Sheppard LRT. Further, we urge that the CEO of the Commission report to the Commission with an update at every Commission meeting.

63. The consideration of Sheppard and Finch LRT extensions. In preparation for the restarting of the Sheppard and Finch LRTs construction, the Commission should consider the benefits of proposed extensions of these lines, including the extension of the Sheppard LRT down Morningside to UTSC and the Finch LRT extension to the airport.

circumstances. Each mode has its place. The solution is to create a match between demand projections and the type of rapid transit built.

C) Replacing the Scarborough Rapid Transit Line

Today, the more than 40,000 daily passengers who use the SRT, are subjected to poor service reliability and out-of-date machinery, all of which lowers the quality of the ride. It is especially unreliable in very cold or hot weather, both of which are typical at many times of the year. ATU members are all too familiar with customer disaffection in this regard.

The SRT, which originally opened in 1985 and is 6.4km long, has reached the end of its serviceable life. The debate has raged for the last several years around whether to replace it with a subway or an LRT. Our position is that we want to work with City Council for a transit expansion that makes sense. Subways, LRTs and maybe even BRTs are all the correct choice under the right

The technology the SRT employs is known as Intermediate Capacity Transit System (ICTS), which uses a third rail power supply, like a subway. But it involves a different kind of propulsion system than a subway, and has much smaller cars. In its current configuration, it carries far fewer riders than a subway. In fact, today’s SRT is operating over capacity.

10. Building the Future of the TTC

likely over 50,000 per day, assuming ridership growth, and will cost $1 billion in 2010 dollars.4

How to replace the Scarborough Rapid Transit line? ATU proposes that the ultimate decision be factdriven after the Environmental Assessment findings are conducted and a demonstrably independent, non-political economic analysis is done.

89 Subways, LRTs and BRTs are all the correct choice – under the right circumstances.

Toronto’s Transit Future

The current projections for future subway ridership in the corridor are around 14,000 per hour, a 50% increase over the original projections of 9,500 made by the TTC in July of 2013. If 14,000 people per hour, per direction, is correct, this route is at the bottom end of where subway construction makes financial sense.5 The problem is, some concern has been raised that the projections are based on feeder lines that are unfunded, and a service level not budgeted for in the cost projections (i.e. the purchase and operation of trains). This worries us as we have seen previous projects driven forward with inaccurate information, most notably the Sheppard Subway where ridership is a third of the original projection. That’s why we urge the Commission and Council to keep a truly open mind until an analysis of the Environmental Assessment

findings are made public, and the data available in their full form for evaluation. If the numbers are borne out, the debate becomes clearer. If not, the city must seriously consider using LRT, or other alternatives in the Environmental Assessment (EA). The TTC says it needs 22 months from March 2014 to complete the EA, meaning a final decision will not be clear until around January 2016. During this time, the cost will also become clearer. The funding ($1.48 billion in 2010 dollars) is currently in place, more or less, for an LRT to replace the SRT. On top of that, the federal government has pledged $660 million (to be escalated) for a subway. Likewise, City Council, for its part, has decided to contribute $910 million in escalated dollars ($165 from

Keeping the SRT going safely and reliably until it can be replaced is a $170 million expense that must be factored into operational costs for serving Scarborough, which is a major reason why the ATU advocates fast-tracking the engineering and environmental assessment studies for SmartTrack.

development charges and $745 million from a special property tax levy), for a subway as well, though Council can obviously change its mind on the mode of travel it funds without penalty.6 ATU’s cconcern, once again, is how to deal with the growing price tag that often occurs when engineers’ reports firm up estimates and elaborate on technological issues. If the $3.56 billion subway project ($2.47 in 2010 dollars) grows dramatically due to engineering challenges, will the added money required suck up other cash available for state-of-good-repair, transit expansion in general, or Scarborough in particular? We’re also mindful, that while we wait, another $170 million on the expense side must be added to keep the SRT going while the subway or LRT is studied and built.7 One advantage in using LRT technology to replace the SRT is that it comes in at 40% of the cost, or close to $1 billion dollars less than the subway, a difference that grows if unknown technical issues push up the cost of subway construction. This money could be dedicated to other Scarborough projects like the proposed Scarborough-Malvern LRT, currently in the Metrolinx plan but unfunded. This line, which would connect most of southeast Scarborough to rapid transit, is estimated to cost around $1.26 billion (2010 dollars), and carry 31 million passengers per year, close to what the subway extension would carry.8 It’s for that reason the debate around transit in Scarborough should include a sound evaluation of how to best spend precious dollars.

64. Awaiting the completion of the studies before a decision is made on the replacement of the SRT Council and the Commission should refrain from further discussion on the replacement options for the Scarborough SRT until the studies on the subway proposal are complete and the LRT options can be accurately compared. 65. Putting Scarborough Malvern back in the picture. Scarborough Malvern LRT construction should be considered at the same time as replacement options for the Scarborough SRT, to ensure that a plan is adopted that provides the highest quality of transit for the most number of people in Scarborough.

SECTION 2: DE-CONGESTING THE DOWNTOWN A) Creating Capacity - Getting people into the downtown One of the most critical projects in the TTC’s long-term plans and Metrolinx’s 25 year Big Move plan is a new relief line from the east end to the downtown core, a proposal building on a TTC decision in the late 1980’s to build a “relief line’’ to deal with ridership growth. It’s easy to see how relevant discussion of such an addition really is at this point. New LRTs and potentially subways in the east and north parts of the city will push more riders on to the Bloor Danforth and Yonge subway. New Scarborough

SmartTrack, Mayor-Elect Tory’s propopsal for transit expansion in Toronto needs to be quickly evaluated by the TTC and Metrolinx.

rapid transit riders, alone, will send a flood of new passengers to the downtown core on the Bloor-Danforth and Yonge lines, especially in the critical morning peak. As well, future subway extensions north of Finch are not feasible until capacity is created on the Yonge line as trains are mostly filled well to capacity before they reach the Bloor-Yonge interchange. On top of this, the new waterfront communities and areas directly to the east of the downtown core, will be in need of improved rapid transit connections. Both the Yonge and Bloor Danforth lines are busy, but the Yonge line, despite new highercapacity trains and the coming automatic train control, will struggle to handle new passenger volume. Alternate routes must be developed.

The SmartTrack The SmartTrack, proposed during the municipal election, uses mostly existing GO tracks to provide an augmented rapid transit route into the downtown from the northwest and northeast parts of the City. Some sections of the proposed route, will require extensive engineering consideration, new sections of tracks and perhaps limited tunnelled sections. The ATU supports moving quickly to begin detailed studies of the SmartTrack project. It should be quickly reviewed and exhaustive engineering studies completed.

10. Building the Future of the TTC

ATU RECOMMENDS

The City should immediately advance the funds necessary to initiate these studies, as well as the planning work essential for Environmental Assessments that will be required as part of the approval process for the new line. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

DOWTOWN RELIEF LINE (CONCEPT ONLY)

ATU members are experiencing, daily, the fact that Etobicoke and Scarborough are paying the biggest price of all for the funding impasse. During the 2014 municipal election, 60 per cent of Toronto respondents to a Forum Research poll said the Downtown Relief Line should be the first major project to break ground. In Scarborough, however, 70 per cent put the Scarborough subway first.

It’s typical that detailed engineering studies wait until project funding approval, but the proposed timelines for this project require work to start immediately. Based on initial funding requirements for previous transit projects, funding of between $8-$15 million will be required in the 2015 budget. It is likely that if the project is ultimately approved, this money would be refunded to the City by the Province, although at this stage that cannot be guaranteed. As SmartTrack is proposed to be operated by GO Transit, Toronto City Council should work with the TTC to seek guarantees from the Province that there will not be a net loss in subsidies for TTC operations as a result of any decisions around how the line is to be financed and operated.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Because SmartTrack is to be delivered and operated by Metrolinx, and to serve residents regionally with integrated fares (i.e. no additional fares for transfers to or from TTC services), an agreement must be reached quickly with the Province on the revenue share between Metrolinx and the TTC. This agreement should presumably be based on regular origin-destination studies, or more accurate data if it’s available. “Free” transfers to the TTC may represent a significant revenue loss for the TTC, which would ultimately have to be made up for in higher local property taxes, higher fares, or reduced services. While the City and the TTC may be in a position to unilaterally honour Metrolinx transfers at no cost to the rider, the City must seek a long-term binding agreement with the Province and Metrolinx that TTC transfers will similarly be accommodated on the SmartTrack

before the project receives final approval and that associated unfinanced service costs will be adequately covered by a new funding arrangement.

ATU RECOMMENDS: 66. That the SmartTrack revenue-sharing policy between Metrolinx and the TTC be determined well in advance. The City and TTC should seek a long-term binding agreement with the Province and Metrolinx based on objective analysis of origin-destination studies, or more accurate data if it’s available, that TTC transfers will be accommodated on the SmartTrack system at no cost to the rider before the project receives final approval and that any associated unfinanced service costs be adequately covered by a new funding arrangement.

The challenge is that such a Downtown Relief Line will necessitate the purchase and building of a new subway carhouse because the two main ones (Wilson and Greenwood) are today at capacity, and the smaller yards at Keele and Davisville don’t have room to store the number of new cars associated with a new subway line. ATU feels that some sort of relief line must be built, to allow transit expansion to continue across Toronto, and to accommodate continued growth.

The ATU believes that getting transit right is important especially in developing a part of Toronto that will eventually see large numbers of new residents.

ATU RECOMMENDS: 67. Seeking new land for a subway/heavy rail carhouse, continuing the work on detailed studies of the Downtown Relief Line, and engaging in property protection to ensure that the line can be built in the future. At the same time, the TTC and City should advance the funds necessary to begin engineering studies on the SmartTrack plan to avoid unnecessary delays, while discussions are underway with the Province of Ontario. The SmartTrack proposal deserves quick and detailed study, and the funds should be advanced by the City without waiting for Provincial approval so that there are a minimal number of delays.

In the long term, however, a new subway relief line connecting the east part of the city to the downtown will be necessary. We urge the TTC to immediately begin preparations to acquire land necessary for a new subway carhouse, noting that this process will be difficult and take time.

B) Waterfront Development Generally left out of the public discussion on expansion has been the challenge of servicing the large and exciting Waterfront Toronto’s projects. The ATU believes that getting transit right is important especially in developing a part of Toronto that will eventually see large numbers of new residents. The plans project 40,000 units of housing and 40,000 jobs resulting from millions of square feet of new office

10. Building the Future of the TTC

Long Term Planning for Downtown Relief Must Continue In the long run, capacity issues at Union Station and those of commuter-style heavy rail, combined with growing ridership on the subways from basic ridership growth, will necessitate a new subway line from the east end into downtown, even with the construction of SmartTrack. ATU therefore strongly recommends continuation of the ongoing studies on a new east-end downtown relief line, and preparations for its ultimate construction, including property protection and efforts to acquire land for a new carhouse.

The treasure that is Toronto’s waterfront can only be fully realized through significant investments in more transit to the east of downtown.

Toronto’s Transit Future

made up of members of the community. This group has issued recommendations around the current lack of funding for the completion of the complete LRT from Union Station to the East Bayfront.

The addition of dramatic new development in the East Bayfront neighbourhood will enhance Toronto’s skyline and help create a new era in the city’s social and economic history. Transit will play a key role.

development.9 These neighborhoods are envisioned as predominantly relying on transit, as the road network is not robust enough.

The East Bayfront project, for example, located along the waterfront between lower Jarvis and Parliament Streets, includes over 6,000 units of housing and over 180,000 square meters of non-residential development including a George Brown College campus with an estimated 4,200 students.10 When it is finished, the new development is expected to generate an additional four million transit riders per year. City Council has adopted a policy to ensure that transit projects are included in the early stages of redevelopment in order to encourage non-auto-based travel patterns. The TTC has completed studies for a

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

new Waterfront East LRT line to serve the East Bayfront Area and West Donlands, running from Union Station along Queens Quay to Parliament Street,11 and it’s likely this line would ultimately be extended to connect to the Cherry street spur line currently under construction. This would provide a link to King Street as well as ultimately extending to serve the new communities planned for the Lower Donlands and Portands as they develop over the next 20 years. The problem is that this project is mostly unfunded, as there remains less than $100 million in Waterfront Toronto’s budget, and estimates for the total cost of this project now exceed $350 million based on 2013 Waterfront Toronto presentation.12 In relation to the project, Waterfront Toronto has initiated a Community Liaison Committee (CLC)

The group proposes that Waterfront Toronto use the available money (around $90 million) to build a right-of-way on Queens Quay East, matching the design and form of the rightof-way being redone for the Harbourfront streetcar line to the west, so that the Bay bus can use it until such time as funds are secured to construct the full Waterfront East LRT.

ATU RECOMMENDS: 68. That the Waterfront Toronto stakeholder committee recommendations be the basis for good transit in the new communities along, and adjacent to, Queens Quay East. The ATU supports the recommendations of Waterfront Toronto’s stakeholder committee as it regards initial laying of the right-of-way on Queen’s Quay East. This is the best way to ensure that new rapid transit is ultimately constructed on Queens Quay East. These recommendations seek to use the design and form of the right-of-way being rebuilt for the Harbourfront streetcar line to the west. They also aim to divert the limited funds available to building the base of the LRT, despite the fact the money doesn’t currently exist for the line’s full completion. We feel that getting the LRT base built will create a strong motivation to find the remaining funds to complete the project.

10. Building the Future of the TTC

95 Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work together to shape a transit system that future generations of Torontonians will be proud to call their own.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

Building a 21st Century transit system that will serve Canada’s largest – and still growing - city is the great challenge of our time. It cannot be achieved without a full and equitable partnership among all three levels of government. Failure to do so will be an historic economic, social and environmental betrayal of those AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113 who come after us.

MOVING FORWARD For most of its history, the TTC was viewed as one of the globe’s premier transit systems. Recently, however, due to budget cuts and a lack of consistent predictable funding, the system is no longer one of the best in the world.

A failure of the federal and provincial governments to maintain adequate systematic financing has led to a deterioration in the conditions and service on the TTC.

word, but rather the opening note in a conversation to which the ATU is deeply committed. The goal is to make Toronto transit a remarkable and satisfying experience for all who use it.

It’s been difficult times for the riders of Toronto’s subways, buses, streetcars and SRT, and for the ATU members who make them run. Bus breakdowns, vehicle crowding, unreliability, and gaps in service are everyday affairs made worse by an ever-increasing ridership. As those on the front lines, ATU members bear witness to the frustrations of riders as their expectations of speedy and reliable travel are thwarted.

On the following pages is an abbreviated summary of the report’s recommendations for retooling Toronto’s public transit.

But our transit future is wide open. The ATU looks forward to working with the new Commissioners, Mayor and City Council, as well as the provincial and federal governments, riders, and activists, to find ways of doing things better so the TTC can return to its former eminence. This report lays out a series of reflections, recommendations and aspirations. The package of sixty-eight proposals on offer is not the final

THE PROJECT AHEAD Public transit needs strong advocates. The ATU intends to step up discussions with City Council and other orders of government. The goal is to push for ongoing sustainable operating and capital budgets capable of expanding the system through large capital projects, as well as accommodating new riders on the existing network and keeping the system in a proper state of repair. Politicians, civil society groups and the union movement need to join together like never before. Transit isn’t just about moving people; it’s about connecting communities, a better and healthier environment, economic development and a stronger city. This is a message that resonates.

Toronto’s Transit Future

The ATU will extend the conversation around better transit to its members, their families and pensioners, as they represent a pool of over 60,000 people closely connected to the TTC, who can become effective voices for better transit in communities across the City and GTA. In short, it’s time to for all players to join together in shaping the future of transit in the City. Let’s all get on board.

SECTION 1 - RIDERSHIP GROWTH: THE TTC’S SUCCESS STORY This section provides context for the next section dealing with Budget Realities.

SECTION 2 - BUDGET REALITIES ATU Recommends: 1. That the TTC and the City advocate for more operating subsidies from the Province.

The City and TTC need to continue to pressure the Province to fund transit operating costs at the traditional “Davis/Peterson/ Rae” formula level, i.e. with 68% coming from non-government revenue and 32% from government, split equally between the provincial and municipal governments. 2. Advocacy for a National Transit Strategy. Canada stands alone as the only major developed nation where the national government doesn’t have a predictable annual and ongoing transit funding strategy. This needs to change and the

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Commission’s Board should be strong advocates for a project of this nature. In addition to the Commission’s Board, ATU believes that the Mayor and Council should prioritize the promotion of a National Transit Strategy and work with other municipalities to advocate this position, especially in the lead-up to the 2015 election. ATU intends to work with stakeholders to promote this campaign over the next 12 months. 3. That the TTC and the City accept the need for annual funding increases. And recognize that with growing ridership, above-inflation budget increases will be necessary. 4. The establishment of a long-term budget framework. The TTC and City should work with the province to set binding five-year budgets that include specific performance measures, and ensure the rate of government subsidy is set and known well in advance. 5. Realism in the search for more revenue generation opportunities. It’s important to seek ways to increase the TTC’s non-fare revenues, recognizing that it will supplement but never replace strong increased government financial support. 6. That the City work with the Province to establish a low-income pass. For low-income families, the cost of transport essential to access services or

work is a burden. A low-income pass set at the same rate as the current senior/postsecondary pass would specifically target funding to those most in need, and be the most efficient way of providing low-income families with affordable public transit. 7. That the TTC ensure that the PRESTO fare collection system is not a drain on operating resources and that it can evolve to handle direct credit card, debit and app-based payments. Guarantees must be sought from Metrolinx and the Province that the implementation of the PRESTO fare card will be financially neutral to the TTC, so that “integrated fares” doesn’t result in a reduction in service for TTC riders or an increase in fares. The system should also allow the move towards the next generation fare payment, which includes payment directly by credit card, debit card and mobile app. Without this, we risk implementing a system that will be outdated as soon as it is implemented. 8. The TTC work with employees to find new savings to improve efficiency. The February 2013 agreement to set up a joint TTC-ATU Efficiency Identification and Implementation Committee should be implemented within the next 60 days to complement other cost savings initiatives at the TTC in preparation for the 2015 budget. The ATU proposes that any efficiencies found be allocated to improving TTC service.

In order to make the TTC Budget process more transparent, the ATU recommends the Commission adopt a standardized yearly budget presentation model and provide more detailed background documents online to allow interested stakeholders to more thoroughly participate in the budget process. 10. The TTC should begin to study a new fare structure and its implementation. In preparation for new electronic fare media, the TTC should begin to consult riders and study the implication of a new fare structure from a ridership and cost perspective. Options could include, weekend passes, quarterly passes, 24 hour passes and other possibilities, including peak and off-peak fares.

SECTION 3 - MORE SERVICE The TTC’s recent report, Opportunities to Improve Transit Service in Toronto, makes a number of important recommendations for improved service on surface routes.

ATU Recommends: 11. Implementation of key proposals in the TTC’s report of August, 2014: ›› Reduced Wait Times and Crowding on Bus and Streetcar Routes ›› The Ten Minute or Better Route Network ›› Expanded Express Bus Route Networks ›› All-Route, All Day, Every Day Service ›› Expanded Overnight Bus and Streetcar Service

›› Two-Hour Travel Privileges for One Fare (Time-based Transfer) And the ATU also recommends moving to a maximum 20 minute headway (from 30 today), a recommendation that the Commission has backed as recently as 2009.

SECTION 4 - IMPROVING SERVICE QUALITY ATU Recommends: 12. A switch from schedule-based to “headway-based” management of highfrequency routes. Passengers want buses to come at regular intervals. But operators are nonetheless directed to keep their arrival at different points consistent with the schedule. With GPS systems now onboard, it’s possible to keep buses more evenly spaced by better operations monitoring. This would also allow route management by headway on high-frequency routes. 13. “All-door loading” on all busy TTC surface routes. As the new streetcars are delivered, the TTC has recommended that there be a shift to all-door loading and a proof-of-payment policy on more streetcar routes in order to speed up boarding. With articulated buses being phased in on many of the busiest routes, there is another opportunity for all-door entry and the speeding-up of high-frequency bus routes, which would greatly benefit riders.

14. Evaluating a “pulse transit” system of scheduling for the Blue Night Network. The TTC used to use a pulse system on its Night Bus System and today other systems similar to the TTC use a “pulse transit” scheduling system where bus schedules are designed to minimize transfer times between routes. By redesigning the system (perhaps changing routings) to help guarantee connections between major night routes, many of the four million plus annual Blue Night rides could be shortened considerably.

Moving Forward

9. Create a Standardized Budget Document for easier year-over-year comparisons.

15. Expanding the partnership between the TTC and Toronto Ambulance Service. The TTC’s program of placing a paramedic (and TTC supervisor) at busy stations (including Yonge/Bloor) station during peak periods to respond quickly to situations in which a rider becomes ill should be extended to more busy stations, such as Sheppard-Yonge and Union and elsewhere on the Bloor-Danforth line. 16. The City and TTC should, after careful analysis, implement turn restrictions on major streetcar and bus routes where they are warranted to reduce delays in transit service.

Streetcars, frequently with over 100 passengers on board, are often stuck waiting behind a car waiting to turn, often with only one person in it. Implementing more left turn restrictions in busy parts of the streetcar and bus network would result in faster service, fewer delays and significant operating savings. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

17. Extending rush-hour parking restrictions after comprehensive study. Recently rush-hour parking restrictions were expanded along Queen and King from Jarvis to Bathurst. The new hours are between 7 and 10 a.m., and then from 3 to 7 p.m. The effectiveness of these new regulations needs to be studied. Based on those studies new restrictions should be implemented on major arterial roads, especially those with major transit operations running on them, to improve schedules and reduce vehicle bunching. 18. Improving enforcement of traffic bylaws on transit routes, and dedicating resources to accomplishing the task. An illegally stopped vehicle can cut road capacity by 50% in a block. The City should create a special parking unit with increased towing capacity and should evaluate the potential use of video enforcement and the effect of already-increased fines.

100

19. The consideration of more off-street parking for busy arteries. Expanded parking facilities should be considered to facilitate implementation of more transit friendly parking bylaws. The TTC should work with the Toronto Parking Authority and local BIAs on such an initiative. 20. Increase the number of Signal Priority Intersections. To reduce the waste of precious time navigating through busy intersections, the number of intersections equipped with Transit Signal Priority technology (a simple

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

technology that uses transponders to communicate with the traffic signal, and adjusts the signal timing) should be increased. If these measures were installed on only a third of the most important intersections, it would be equivalent of adding over 15 peak morning buses, 13 mid-day buses and up to 18 afternoon peak buses to the system. 21. A Joint Management-Union Service Improvement Committee. TTC workers want to be part of making the system better which is why we need an opportunity to work with management in a joint committee that regularly meets. Operators and other ATU members have first-hand experience that is lacked by many who are currently setting policies and making operational decisions.

SECTION 5 - MORE BUSES AND STREETCARS ATU Recommends: 22. The purchase of new buses. The TTC should move quickly to purchase in the range of the equivalent of 250 40foot buses, in addition to the current planned bus purchases, over the next three years. These new vehicles would provide the 120-130 vehicles needed to implement the Commission’s (and ATU’s) new proposals for service improvement outlined in this report and the approximately 20 buses required annually for ridership growth, as well as an adjusted spares ratio that allows for proper maintenance.

23. Starting Construction on the McNicoll Garage as soon as possible. The TTC should move up the start of construction of the McNicoll garage and begin preparation for tendering the project in early 2015 for completion in 2018. 24. Leasing temporary garage space in York Region. At the same time as plans are being made to open a new garage, the Commission should take advantage of the recently vacated York Region Transit property at Bowes Road, Keele and Highway 7, to be used, in part, for bus storage to manage over-crowding, but predominantly as a temporary bus repair facility. (The property should be leasable from YRT). This garage would allow an increase in the number of repairs that can be done outside of the morning, and to a lesser extent, evening rush hours, thus maximizing the number of buses on the street during peak times. 25. The expansion of existing garages and development of plans for an additional permanent garage after McNicoll. Even with the opening of McNicoll, the TTC will need to expand garage capacity. The ATU proposes that the Commission study the expansion of existing garages (maintenance and/or bus storage) using space currently occupied by employee parking, and the purchase of adjacent property to replace the spots lost. In addition, the Commission should immediately start the search for property for a new bus garage somewhere in the city.

The TTC should immediately seek to hire new mechanics and, recognizing that there is a shortage of bus mechanics, expand its apprenticeship program. Both measures will ensure adequate staffing levels and prepare for an increased rate of retirements in the years to come. 27. The expanded rebuilding of older buses. Using new staff resources, the Commission should establish a mid-life extension for the best of the 287 diesel buses slated for retirement in the next two years (185 Orion V buses in 2014, 52 NOVA buses in 2015, 50 Flyer buses in 2016). This overhaul would keep as many of the older buses on the road as possible for the next three to four years, in order to smooth out the procurement of new buses, ensure adequate vehicles for service and provide the increased spares required for better maintenance. 28. The overhaul of older streetcars. A similar mid-life extension program should be established for the older streetcars currently slated for decommissioning when the new streetcars go on line. If 25% of these streetcars in the best shape were retained and overhauled (10-13 ALRVs and 8-10 CLRVs) in a limited and targeted fashion, at an estimated total cost of $13-$18 million dollars, the TTC could, in a cost effective manner, address the shortage of around 14 to 18 cars that has led to extreme overcrowding.

29. Getting proactive about maintenance. Many of the buses that end up having breakdowns are more expensive to repair than the cost of good preventive maintenance. That’s why the Commission should move to a more proactive vehicle care schedule with stepped up inspections. 30. Converting hybrid buses. The TTC owns almost 700 Orion VII hybrid buses ordered between 2005 and 2009. But over the years, the buses have not lived up to expectations and cannot stay on the road for the usual bus life span of 15-18 years. ATU mechanics and experts in others cities consulted suggest that it is likely a majority of these, specifically the roughly 250 slated for retirement between 2014-2018 (after only 10 years of service), could be kept on the road by retrofitting them to clean diesel buses at an estimated cost of around $100,000 per bus.

SECTION 6 - CUSTOMER SERVICE: RIDERS COME FIRST ATU Recommends: 31. Continuing the roll-out of the Next Vehicle Arrival system’s visual and text options to all surface stops by 2015. Downtown riders have access to mobile Next Vehicle apps and SMS Text Next Vehicle for streetcar stops, as well as a small number of stops with LED screens. The TTC should follow through on plans to provide SMS Text Next Vehicle information to all bus stops. The

central system already exists, and extending the program is a low-cost effort, merely involving adding stickers with unique numbers to each stop. In addition, the TTC should expand the installation of Next Vehicle Arrival screens at the busiest TTC surface stops so that 5% of all stops have the screens by 2018. 32. Centrally-controlled verbal delay announcements on buses.

Moving Forward

26. The hiring of more mechanics.

The TTC is currently considering a replacement for the CIS system which provides data and voice communications between buses, streetcars and TTC’s bus/streetcar divisions as well as Transit Control and is used for emergency communications and as a route management tool. It is essential that this system has the capacity to manage headway-based service and offer improved communications with riders and operators. ATU believes that among other elements to be included in the new CIS system, it should allow for centrally-controlled verbal public delay announcements on buses. 33. Completing the Video Information Screen rollout on subway station platforms and entrances.

101

Screens at entrances to stations, in bus bays and on platforms are provided free as part of the advertising contract, but the TTC has not taken full advantage of this, and has not added them to all stations, meaning some passengers lack access to subway and next vehicle updates. ATU believes that the completion of the installation of screens AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

102

should be completed quickly and that the information delivery to these screens needs to be improved, as they often do not include information on major system disruptions. 34. A commitment to customer service along with the PRESTO rollout. GTA transit customers are increasingly served by the reloadable Presto fare card, an automated and integrated fare payment system. This technology can be a benefit to those who have had to wait in line to pay for rides, and pay for multiple fares on multiple systems. Fare collectors should become customer service representatives who explain the system and provide support. TTC plans must ensure that customers are not abandoned simply because they do not have a card. 35. The creation of a TTC Emergency Response Corps. During emergencies, like the unscheduled shut down of the subway, tens of thousands of passengers find themselves looking for alternatives. ATU proposes to create a corps of retired TTC employees who have maintained their basic training and a commitment to the TTC, and who are willing to help out on short notice to help improve customer service. 36. Speeding up plans to install real-time escalator and elevator monitoring systems in all stations by the end of 2015. Many people with mobility restrictions use the conventional system, but rely on escalators

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

and elevators to make their trip possible. This info, if made part of the existing e-alert systems, would make it easier for riders to know when there was an outage. This system would replace manual updates and out-of-date information and allow for better tracking and presentation of information around outages. One of the main advantages of these alerts would be to allow TTC to more quickly send out repair crews and get them working more quickly than currently, therefore reducing the downtime of escalators and elevators and the associated inconvenience. 37. Creating a better Airport Rocket. Even with the new air-rail link to the airport coming online in 2015, the Airport 192 Rocket should be further improved. A change or fare vending machine should be placed near the stop at the airport as many travelers arrive without these. As well, WiFi should be introduced onboard. There should also be a branding upgrade and new signage at the airport to make sure more people are aware of their transit options into the city.

SECTION 7 - ATTRACTING NEW RIDERS ATU Recommends: 38. Speeding up Wifi installation on the subway network. Today’s younger riders, especially Millennials, partially choose transit because it allows them to access their smartphones and tablets. While installation of new service

is dependent on the cell phone carriers’ participation, the Commission should move quickly to get WiFi installed in all stations. 39. Enhancing the Station Finish Program and restarting station modernization. Station tiles, ceiling panels and terrazzo flooring, among other elements, are in need of repair and refurbishment. The existing small program that is in place to do this needs to be expanded. In addition, the Commission must ensure that older stations are renovated on a regular basis to bring them up to modern transit standards. The TTC should work to restart the Station Modernization Program cancelled in 2011 and expand refurbishment efforts. 40. Creating partnerships with car and bike sharing networks. Increasingly people are thinking of mobility in the way Montreal does – as a “transportation cocktail”, made up of multiple ingredients. To many riders, transit also means cycling, walking or taking a car. The TTC should look for ways to team up with car-sharing companies and the Toronto Parking Authority’s Bike Sharing program. 41. Developing a better Online Trip Planner. The TTC trip planner allows people to chart their route, but the TTC should move to the 2.0 version like other cities (e.g. Berlin) and include real-time trip information, based on the Next Vehicle information systems currently in place.

43. Peak-Hour Demand Management. Cities like Melbourne have used price strategies to shift small numbers of passengers to the shoulder periods of rush hour. Other cities have worked with employers to shift the hours of operations slightly, sometime only by 30 minutes. Because rush hour service is the most expensive, millions of dollars could be saved by shifting even 1% of the peak hour ridership. The TTC should expand efforts to shift small numbers of riders to “shoulder” service periods (just before and just after peak hours), where more capacity exists. 44. Begins discussions with GO on Better Service Integration. GO and TTC should work together to improve the use of GO lines as trunk service lines to move people faster and cost effectively around Toronto. The ATU believes that more work needs to be done on integrating service offered by the the TTC, GO Transit and other regional providers to improve mobility in Toronto. 45. Restart the Metropass Affinity Program. The Metropass Affinity Program initiated over 5 years ago has not seen the

expansion originally envisioned. This program’s objective – to reward loyal riders by offering discounts and other benefits through a network of partners – has not been achieved. Breathing new life into this program would help grow the transit-oriented constituency at little cost and a renewed effort to expand the program should begin. 46. Installing a shelter where possible to any stop serving more than 100 people per day. On days when freezing winds chill the city, or in driving rain, taking transit can feel punishing. The TTC should work with the City’s street furniture program and recommit to the TTC’s 2009 decision to provide a shelter to any stop serving more than 100 customers per day.

SECTION 8 - STATE OF GOOD REPAIR ATU Recommends: 47. An activist Chair to work with other transit agencies to promote transit investment The Chair of the TTC needs to work more intensely with other transit agencies to further this critical national agenda. 48. Continuing the concerted push for increased provincial capital funding. The Mayor and Council should continue to pressure the Province to increase its contribution to the base capital of the TTC as the current capital contributions cover less than 15% of the capital budget, far less than the 50% of the base capital

budget that the province covered in the 1990’s. ATU recommends an interim target of 33% provincial funding of the base capital program be established. 49. Clarification in budgeting. The Commission needs to more clearly differentiate between state-of-goodrepair (SOGR), upgrades made for legislative or safety reasons, new capacity enhancement requirements, and expansion programs to make it clear how much and why specific funding is required. The SOGR backlog should only include those programs that are specifically to repair or rehabilitate Commission vehicles and property. Other backlogs, including those for safety upgrades and legislative requirements should also be published. 50. Collaboration to campaign for more capital funds. The ATU, civil society groups, and the business community should organize to lobby for more capital funds in a way similar to what was done for transit expansion. The last few years has shown that new funding can be secured with perseverance.

Moving Forward

42. Offering better Open Data. The TTC should strike an Open Data Committee that includes app-builders and transit advocates. The purpose would be to examine what additional data can be cost-effectively provided through the City’s Open Data protocols to allow for further development of online tools.

103

51. Prioritizing state of good repair. Major expansion plans utilizing City debt funding should not proceed until the majority of the basic SOGR backlog is dealt with.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

52. A clear statement of needs. There has to be an adequate representation of the financial needs of the Commission for sound planning to take place. As such, within the 10 year capital window, the following additions should be made: funds for the acquisition (if not construction) of the next Wheel-Trans Facility, allocation for the first phase of a new bus garage (after McNicoll), and resources to allow for the acquisition of property for the next subway carhouse. Adding these would ensure that, even if funding is currently unavailable, a discussion can begin on how to finance them. 53. Factoring in bus conversions. A new budget line should be added for the conversion of the Orion VII Hybrids, between 2014-2018, to clean diesel instead of retiring these buses. Additional budget lines should be added for other mid-life extension programs to keep buses and streetcars slated for retirement on the road to allow for the adding of needed service in the next few years before new buses can be procured.

104

54. Returning postponed budget items to the Capital Plan. Items removed from the capital budget at the request of the City (to bring the TTC budget closer to an appearance of being funded for City debt management purposes) should be re-instated. The following two projects, for example, are critical to ongoing basic operations, and to meeting legislative requirements: the start

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

of McNicoll garage construction needs to be advanced, and funding for the Easier Access III elevator and station accessibility program has to be re-instated to ensure the TTC continues to become more accessible.

SECTION 9 - TTC ACCESSIBILITY: IT’S IN EVERYONE’S BEST INTEREST ATU Recommends: 55. The TTC commit to a higher standard of elevator and escalator maintenance to increase their reliability. It is important that increased resources are dedicated to preventive maintenance to keep elevators and escalators in better working order to insure that the system remains accessible to people with mobility challenges. 56. A guarantee of 1.5-hour Wheel-Trans service by 2016. Users of the conventional system are served by a system that allows them to carry out their day-today activities with flexibility. The same should apply to Wheel-Trans riders. At a minimum, Wheel-Trans riders should be guaranteed travel options within 90 minutes of booking a trip by 2016. 57. That external pre-boarding announcements be in place by 2017. TTC vehicles currently feature automated announcements advising customers of the next stop information. The ATU supports plans that are currently in place to include, by 2017, a similar system outside the vehicle

that will advise customers of information about the vehicle before they board. 58. A return to provincial funding for WheelTrans and continued Commission and City advocacy to ensure adequate provincial funding for full compliance with Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation (IASR). In addition to the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability Act for 2025, the province has established earlier service standards that must be met by transit systems. Unfortunately no new funding resources have been made available. The ATU recommends that the Province provide the means to meet its own requirements and that the TTC Chair take an active role in advocating this.

SECTION 10 - BUILDING THE FUTURE OF THE TTC ATU Recommends: 59. Subcontracting to the TTC. Metrolinx should work with the consortium taking responsibility for delivering the Eglinton LRT to subcontract maintenance to the TTC. As well, a study should be initiated in the interim to determine the costs of this arrangement so the debate about the future of such arrangements will be well informed. 60. A careful accounting of the fare split. We urge that the TTC and Metrolinx jointly contract a third party to do an analysis in the next 18 months of how fare revenue

61. A push for the completion of the Eglinton LRT. The City needs to actively engage in discussions with the Province to secure funds to complete the Eglinton LRT, recognizing its importance to the connectivity of transit, and to the expansion of affordable transit to the airport. 62. The establishment of an LRT implementation committee. The Chair of the Commission needs to convene an LRT implementation committee, including two or three Commissioners, a representative of the Mayor’s office, Metrolinx, the City Manager’s Office, and the CEO of the TTC, to meet at least monthly to monitor preparations for the start of construction both of the Finch and Sheppard LRT. Further, we urge that the CEO of the Commission report to the Commission with an update at every Commission meeting. 63. The Consideration of Sheppard and Finch LRT extensions. In preparation for the restarting of the Sheppard and Finch LRT construction the Commission should consider the benefits of proposed extensions of these lines

including the extension of the Sheppard LRT down Morningside to UTSC and the Finch LRT extension to the airport. 64. Awaiting the completion of the studies before a decision is made on the replacement of the SRT. Council and the Commission should refrain from further discussion on the replacement options for the Scarborough SRT until the studies are complete on the subway proposal, and the LRT options can be accurately compared. 65. Putting Scarborough Malvern back in the picture. Scarborough Malvern LRT construction should be considered at the same time as replacement options for the Scarborough SRT, to ensure that a plan is adopted that provides the highest quality of transit for the most number of people in Scarborough. 66. That the SmartTrack revenue-sharing policy between Metrolinx and the TTC be determined well in advance. The revenue split between the TTC and Metrolinx-controlled routes is likely to generate controversy as millions of dollars annually will be at stake. There is currently no way to track a passenger’s trip involving multiple systems and even if there were, the value of each leg of the ride could be subject to interminable dispute. A pre-determined policy that is acceptable to both TTC and Metrolinx is a critical part of system integration.

67. Seeking new land for a subway/heavy rail carhouse, continuing the work on detailed studies of the Downtown Relief Line, and engaging in property protection to ensure that the line can be built in the future. At the same time, the TTC and City should advance the funds necessary to begin engineering studies on the SmartTrack plan to avoid unnecessary delays, while discussions are underway with the Province of Ontario. While studies continue on a relief line connecting the east part of the city to the downtown, we urge the TTC to immediately begin preparations to acquire land necessary for a new subway carhouse, noting that this process will be difficult and take time. 68. That the Waterfront Toronto stakeholder committee recommendations be the basis for good transit in the new communities along, and adjacent to, Queens Quay East. The ATU supports the recommendations of Waterfront Toronto’s stakeholder committee and feel this is the best way to ensure that new rapid transit is constructed on Queens Quay East. These recommendations are to match the design and form of the rightof-way being rebuilt for the Harbourfront streetcar line to the west, and to use the limited funds to start building the base of the LRT, despite funds not currently available for the full completion of the line.

Moving Forward

will be split between the consortium and TTC. This would allow time for a thorough discussion, noting that over several decades, if the formula is not right, this could result in a multi-hundred million dollar cost to TTC riders and Toronto taxpayers.

105

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

106

1938. The Women’s International Auxiliary of ATU Local 113 (then called Division 113.) Among many other things, these energetic and thoughtful spouses of union members planned social events, held children’s Christmas parties and ensured that members who died, whether active or retired, always had some members of “the union family” at their funerals. During World War II, they sent food, clothing and small gift packages to Local 113 members of the Canadian Forces overseas and banded together to give support to the widows and children of those who died “Fighting for King and Country.”

REFERENCES Section 1 - Ridership Growth: The TTC’s Success Story 1. Ridership went from 485 million in 1989 to 390 million a decade later in 1999. 2. TCRP Web Only Document 61: Millennials & Mobility: Understanding the Millennial Mindset and New Opportunities for Transit Providers 3. 2013 APTA Report: Millenials and Mobility: Understanding the Millenial Mindset 4. US PIRG’s report, A New Direction: Our Changing Relationship With Driving and the Implications for America’s Future 5. 2013 An APTA Report: Millennials and Mobility: Understanding the Millennial Mindset had similar findings. According to their poll, 46% of this group chose to take public transit because it allowed them to save money – a higher percentage than in older demographics. 6. Calgary Herald - Aug 5, 2014: “Why Kids Don’t Drive” 7. 2013 APTA Report: Millenials and Mobility: Understanding the Millenial Mindset

Section 2 - Budget Realities 1. In 2014, $16.59 million of new service was added. 2. Inflation on transportation-related goods and wage costs exceeds the general inflation rate of 2% and is a combination of increases associated with the arbitrated wage/benefits which

affect salaries and rise at just over 2% (salaries represent 85%-90% of operating costs) and other costs like materials and diesel which generally rise at 3-6% per year on average.

Section 3 - More Service 1. The range exists because there are three types of low-floor buses operated by the commission.

3. City Presentation: City of Toronto TTC 2011 Recommended Operating and Capital Budgets

2. TTC August 19, 2014 Report: “Opportunities to Improve Transit Service in Toronto”

4. Provincial no-fault legislation for public transit systems was made in 2011, and changes continue to be made in the administration of the insurance side of the transit business resulting in savings.

3. op. cit

5. It is assumed in this model that it will open in mid 2017 based on current construction timelines and the projections show costs for a July 1, 2017 start date.

5. op. cit

6. There are some costs beginning to be incurred in 2015 and 2016 as shown in charts presented in this Section.

7. op. cit

7. The 2014 budget estimated 540, but subsequent in-year estimates put the number at four million less than budgeted. 8. 2014 TTC Capital Budget. Not all numbers are exactly comparable due to currency fluctuations and exact year of the data.

4. op. cit 6. op. cit. Ridership based on average fare of $2 and $2 million in fare revenue projected by TTC. 8. op. cit 9. Bus Rapid Transit Service Design (American Public Transit Report): http://www.apta.com/resources/standards/ Documents/APTA-BTS-BRT-RP-004-10.pdf

9. TTC 2014 Operating Budget

10. The ridership projections have been updated to represent ridership growth across the system.

10. Chambre de commerce du Montreal Metropolitan, 2010: Public Transit: At the Heart of Montreal’s Economic Development

11. January 2014 TTC report on Two Hour Time-Based Transfer.

11. TTC’s Metropass Discount Program offers passes for $122.50 a month with a commitment to purchase 12 consecutive monthly passes.

13. Cost of 12 buses at current rates of $720,000.

12. op. cit 14. Based on 0.4% ridership increase as per January 2014 report on 2-hour time-based transfer and 2014 budgeted ridership.

Toronto’s Transit Future

Section 4 - Improving Service Quality

3. MTA “Paratransit Peer Report”

1. In 2008 the TTC and the Toronto Paramedic Service launched a pilot project that was later expanded in 2009. www.ttc.ca: August 26, 2008 -TTC and Toronto EMS Launch Paramedic Pilot Project

4. April 30, 2014 TTC Report: 2014-2018 TTC Multi-Year Accessibility Plan

2. Ryerson Study Appendix 3. Transit City Bus Report

Section 5 - More Buses and Streetcars 1. The standard TTC bus is 40 feet. The new articulated buses are longer and as a result each new one is calculated as being worth 1.35 standard 40 foot buses. 2. The “Spare Ratio” is the number of buses keep to allow for maintenance to be done on buses. TTC currently has a spare ratio of 12%-15%. 3. Dead-head time refers to the time it takes to get a bus to and from the route when it is not collecting fares or carry passengers. 4. November 26, 2008 TTC Report: “Hybrid/ Diesel Bus Negotiation Settlement”

6. op. cit. 7. MTA Paratransit Peer Report 8. April 30, 2014 TTC Report: 2014-2018 TTC Multi-Year Accessibility Plan, Page 32

Section 10 - Building the Future of the TTC 1. The number remains under negotiation, but the December 13 Globe and Mail article “Cost of cancelling Transit City could hit $65-million” quotes then-TTC CEO Gary Webster on the cost. 2. Metrolinx Report from their webpage: “Metrolinx Toronto Light Rail Transit Projects” 3.

op. cit.

5. TTC Report: CLVR Contract Cost-Guarantee Date For Propulsion System - CLRV Life Extension Program

5. October 3, 2013 - City of Toronto Report ,Scarborough Rapid Transit Options: Reporting on Council Terms and Conditions

Section 6 - Customer Service: Riders Come First

6. Oct 8 2013 TTC CEO and City Manager Report: Scarborough Rapid Transit Options: Reporting on Council Terms and Conditions

1. TTC August 19, 2014 Report: Opportunities to Improve Transit Service in Toronto, Appendix 13 2. Automated Service-Related Bus Announcements

Section 7 - Attracting New Riders

108

5. op. cit.

1. TTC’s Transit City Bus Plan outlines costs and details.

Section 8 - State of Good Repair No references

Section 9 - TTC Accessibility: It’s in Everyone’s Best Interest 1. See Table 9 in Appendix 9 2. The Case for an Age-Friendly Toronto: http://www. carp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The-Casefor-an-Age-Friendly-Toronto-Oct-1.pdf

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

op. cit.

8. Metrolinx Report from their webpage: “Metrolinx Toronto Light Rail Transit Projects” 9. Waterfront Toronto: http://www.waterfrontoronto. ca/our_waterfront_vision/economic_growth 10. op. cit. 11. Waterfront Toronto – Queen’s Quay LRT: http://www. waterfrontoronto.ca/explore_projects2/east_bayfront/queens_ quay_blvd/east_bayfront_transit_environmental_assessment 12. February 6, 2013 - Waterfront Toronto Board Meeting Presentation: “East Bayfront Transit Options”

WEB ADDRESS FOR ON-LINE REPORTS CITED IN TORONTO’S TRANSIT FUTURE Section 1 ›› US PIRG’s report, A New Direction: Our Changing Relationship With Driving and the Implications for America’s Future http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files reports/A%2 New%20 Direction%20vUS.pdf ›› Calgary Herald: Low Income monthly transit passes (Aug. 5, 2014) http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/low_monthly_income_pass.html ›› Canadian Automobile Association’s 2013 report “Driving Costs – 2013 Edition http://www.caa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/CAA_Driving_Cost_ English_2013_web.pdf ›› Chambre de commerce du Montreal Metropolitan: Public Transit - At the Heart of Montreal’s Economic Development http://www.btmm.qc.ca/~/media/Files/News/2010/10_11_26_ccmm_ etude-transport_en.pdf ›› TCRP Web Report: Millennials & Mobility – Understanding the Millennial Mindset and New Opportunities for Transit Providers http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_w61.pdf ›› APTA Report: “Economic Impact of Public Transit Investment – 2014” http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/ Economic-Impact-Public-Transportation-Investment-APTA.pdf ›› APTA Report: Millennials and Mobility - Understanding the Millennial Mindset http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/ APTA-Millennials-and-Mobility.pdf Section 2 ›› Canadian Automobile Association’s 2013 report “Driving Costs – 2013 Edition http://www.caa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/CAA_Driving_Cost_ English_2013_web.pdf ›› Chambre de commerce du Montreal Metropolitan: Public Transit - At the Heart of Montreal’s Economic Development http://www.btmm.qc.ca/~/media/Files/News/2010/10_11_26_ccmm_ etude-transport_en.pdf ›› APTA Report: Economic Impact of Public Transit Investment – 2014 http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/ Economic-Impact-Public-Transportation-Investment-APTA.pdf ›› TTC Report: Transit City Bus Plan http://www.ttc.ca/PDF/About_the_TTC/Transit_City_Bus_Plan.pdf

Section 8 ›› Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_ statutes_05a11_e.htm

›› TTC Report: TTC and Wheel-Trans 2014 Capital Budget https://ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/ Commission_meetings/2013/November_20/Reports/2014_2023_ TTC_CAPITA.pdf

›› TTC Report: Opportunities to Improve Transit Service in Toronto (August 2014) http://ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/ Commission_meetings/2014/August_19/Supplementary_Reports/ Opportunities_to_Improve_Transit_Service_in_Toronto.pdf

›› TTC Report: TTC and Wheel-Trans 2014 Operating Budget http://ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/ Commission_meetings/2013/November_18/Reports/2014_TTC_AND_ WHEEL_T.pdf

›› TTC Report: TTC and Toronto Launch Paramedic Pilot Project https://www.ttc.ca/News/2008/August/TTC%20_and_Toronto_EMS_ Launch_Paramedic_Pilot_Project.jsp

Section 9 ›› 2013 TTC and Wheel Trans Operating Budgets http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_ information/Commission_meetings/2011/January_12_2011/ Reports/2011_TTC_Operating_B.pdf

›› TTC Report: TTC and Wheel-Trans 2013 Operating Budget http://ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/ Commission_meetings/2012/November_21/Supplementary_ Reports/2013_Budget_Update_a.pdf ›› TTC Report: Implementation of the Metropass Affinity Program http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_ information/Commission_meetings/2009/May_28_2009/Reports/ Implementation_of_th.pdf ›› APTA Report: “Economic Impact of Public Transit Investment – 2014” http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/ Economic-Impact-Public-Transportation-Investment-APTA.pdf Section 3 ›› TTC Report: Opportunities to Improve Transit Service in Toronto (August 2014) http://ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/ Commission_meetings/2014/August_19/Supplementary_Reports/ Opportunities_to_Improve_Transit_Service_in_Toronto.pdf ›› TTC Report: Transit City Bus Plan http://www.ttc.ca/PDF/About_the_TTC/Transit_City_Bus_Plan.pdf ›› TTC Report: 2003 TTC Ridership Growth Strategy https://www.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/ridership_growth_ strategy_2003.pdf ›› APTA Report: Bus Rapid Transit Service Design http://www.apta.com/resources/standards/Documents/APTA-BTS-BRTRP-004-10.pdf ›› TTC Report: TTC report on Two Hour Time-Based Transfer (January 2014) https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_ information/Commission_meetings/2014/January_28/Reports/ Time_Based_Transfers.pdf

›› TTC Report: Transit City Bus Plan http://www.ttc.ca/PDF/About_the_TTC/Transit_City_Bus_Plan.pdf Section 5 ›› Engineering.com: NYC Decides Diesel Buses are Cleaner than Hybrids http://www.engineering.com/Blogs/tabid/3207/ArticleID/6028/NYCDecides-Diesel-Buses-Are-Cleaner-than-Hybrids.aspx ›› TTC Report: Hybrid/Diesel Bus Negotiation Settlement https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_ and_information/Commission_meetings/2008/Nov_26_2008/ Supplementary_Reports/Hybrid_-_Diesel_Bus_.pdf ›› TTC Report: CLVR Life Extension Program https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_ information/Commission_meetings/2006/Feb_22_2006/Other/ Contract_Cost_Guaran.jsp Section 6 ›› TTC Report: 2014 TTC and Wheel-Trans Budget http://ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/ Commission_meetings/2013/November_18/Reports/2014_TTC_AND_ WHEEL_T.pdf ›› TTC Report: Opportunities to Improve Transit Service in Toronto (August 2014) http://ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/ Commission_meetings/2014/August_19/Supplementary_Reports/ Opportunities_to_Improve_Transit_Service_in_Toronto.pdf ›› Automated Service-Related Bus Announcements (MTA) http://u2labs.com/cloud/index.php/our-clients/mta/automatic-wirelessannouncement-system-awas-for-mta-bus-fleet Section 7 ›› TTC Report: Metropass Affinity Program http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_ information/Commission_meetings/2009/May_28_2009/Reports/ Implementation_of_th.pdf

References

Section 4 ›› Ryerson University: Study - Bike Lanes, On-Street Parking, and Business on Danforth Avenue http://tcat.ca/sites/all/files/Danforth_Final_Edit-compressed.pdf

›› City Presentation: City of Toronto TTC 2011 Recommended Operating and Capital Budgets http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_ information/Commission_meetings/2011/January_12_2011/ Reports/2011_TTC_Operating_B.pdf

›› TTC Report: 2014-2018 Multi-Year Accessibility Plan https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_ and_information/Commission_meetings/2014/April_30/ Reports/2014_2018_TTC_MultiYear_Accessibility_Plan.pdf ›› MTA Report: Paratransit Peer Report 2011 http://accessla.org/uploads/files/Paratransit%20Peer%20Report%20 Final%20CY%2009%20FY%2008%20011011.pdf Section 10 ›› Scarborough Rapid Transit Options: Reporting on Council Terms and Conditions http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/cc/bgrd/ backgroundfile-62259.pdf ›› Globe and Mail (December 13, 2011) “Cost of cancelling Transit City could hit $65-million” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/cost-of-cancellingtransit-city-could-hit-65-million/article554786/ ›› Metrolinx Report from their webpage: “Metrolinx Toronto Light Rail Transit Projects” http://www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsandprograms/ transitexpansionprojects/toronto_lrt.aspx ›› City of Toronto Report: TTC CEO and City Manager Report – “Scarborough Rapid Transit Options: Reporting on Council Terms and Conditions” http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/cc/bgrd/ backgroundfile-62259.pdf

109

›› Waterfront Toronto Webpage: Economic Indicators for the Waterfront http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/our_waterfront_vision/economic_ growth ›› Waterfront Toronto – Queen’s Quay East LRT http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/explore_projects2/east_bayfront/ queens_quay_blvd/east_bayfront_transit_environmental_assessment ›› Waterfront Toronto: Waterfront Toronto Board Meeting Presentation (February 6, 2013): “East Bayfront Transit Options http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uploads/documents/east_bayfront_ transit_options___february_6_2013_1.pdf

›› TTC Report: Transit City Bus Plan http://www.ttc.ca/PDF/About_the_TTC/Transit_City_Bus_Plan.pdf

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

110

In 1849, the first public transit in Toronto was a sixpassenger, horse-drawn “omnibus” that went between St. Lawrence Market and the Village of Yorkville. Owned by undertaker Burt Williams, the fare for a one-way ride was sixpence.

APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: Table 1 - Base Projections - Without Service Enhancements and No Fare Increases ......................pg. 112 APPENDIX 2: Table 2 - Proposed TTC Enhancements.......................................................................................pg. 114 APPENDIX 3: Table 3 - Projected Revenues and Costs from Service Enhancement - Year 2018..........................pg. 115 APPENDIX 4: Table 4 - Budget Projection - With Service Enhancements & No Fare Increase...............................pg. 116 APPENDIX 5: Table 5 - Budget Projection - 5 Cent Yearly Fare Increase - No Service Enhancements...................pg. 118 APPENDIX 6: Table 6 - Budget Projection - 5 Cent Yearly Fare Increase - With Service Enhancements.................pg. 120 APPENDIX 7: Table 7 - Budget Projection - 5,10,10,5 Fare Increase Plan - No Service Enhancements................pg. 122 APPENDIX 8: Table 8 - Budget Projection - 5,10,10,5 Fare Increase Plan - With Service Enhancements.............pg. 124 APPENDIX 9: Table 9 Base Projections – Wheel-Trans......................................................................................pg. 126 APPENDIX 10: Table 10 - Wheel-Trans – 5 Cent Fare Increase.........................................................................pg. 127 APPENDIX 11: Table 11 - Wheel-Trans - 5,10,10,5 Cent Fare Increase.............................................................pg. 127 APPENDIX 12: Table 12 - Cost Projections: On-Demand (within 90 minutes) Wheel-Trans Service.......................pg. 128 Notes: Appendices 1-12...................................................................................................................... pg. 129 APPENDIX 13: TTC Report: August 2014 – Opportunities to Improve Transit Service in Toronto...........................pg. 132 APPENDIX 14: TTC Report: November 2008 – Hybrid/Diesel Bus Negotiation.....................................................pg. 140 APPENDIX 15: STM’s Merci Transit Loyalty Program.........................................................................................pg. 144 APPENDIX 16: STM’s Transportation Cocktail...................................................................................................pg. 145 APPENDIX 17: TTC Fleet Plan (December 2013)..............................................................................................pg. 146 APPENDIX 18: A Look at TTC Budgeting 2010-2014........................................................................................pg. 151 APPENDIX 19: TTC Loading Standards............................................................................................................pg. 153

Toronto’s Transit Future

APPENDIX 1 TABLE 1: BASE PROJECTIONS - WITHOUT SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS AND NO FARE INCREASES1 Actual

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

1,120

1,166

1,226

1,268

1,310

143.8

67.0

65.0

66.8

68.6

70.5

72.5

7.5

Total Increase of Non-Fare Revenue: 2014-2018

Fare “Passenger” Revenue ($M)

1,053

1,101

1,129

1,157

1,197

1,237

34.1

Average Year over Year Fare Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

Average Fare5,6

$1.99

$2.04

0.00

Increase in Average Fares: 2014-2018

Baseline (2013) Fare Passenger Revenue Growth ($M)35

N/A

48.0

76.1

104.4

144.0

184.4

136.4

Increase in Fare Passenger Revenue: 2014-2018

Year over Year Revenue Growth ($M)

N/A

48.0

28.1

28.2

39.6

40.4

36.9

Average Year Over Year Revenue Increase:2014-2018

Fare Revenue Growth Rate (%)

N/A

4.56%

2.56%

2.50%

3.43%

3.37%

3.28%

Average Fare Revenue Increase (%): 2014-2018

Fare Increase (%)7

N/A

2.27%

0.00%

0.45%

Average Annual Fare Increase (%): 2014-2018 *Note there was no increase in fare revenue after 2014

Annual Revenue Growth (%)8

N/A

4.11%

2.57%

2.51%

3.39%

3.34%

3.18%

Average Annual Revenue Growth (%): 2014-2018

City Subsidy ($M)9

375

428

463

491

530

546

117.6

Total Increase of Subsidy 2014- 2018

Annual Subsidy Growth Rate (%)

N/A

14.13%

8.24%

6.03%

7.86%

2.98%

7.85%

Average Annual Subsidy Growth Required (%): 2014-2018

Yearly Required Subsidy Increase ($M)

N/A

53.0

35.3

27.9

38.6

15.8

34.1

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)

Non-Fare Revenue ($M)3 4

Forecast (12)

Analysis (12)

Analysis Details

(34)

Total Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

City Revenue (Subsidy)

Subsidy/Rider ($)

$0.79

$0.89

$0.87

$0.90

$0.11

Increase in Subsidy/Rider: 2014-2018

N/A

11.60%

12.42%

-2.83%

4.29%

-0.38%

5.02%

Average Annual Subsidy Growth (%) 2014-2018

1,495

1,601

1,659

1,717

1,797

1,855

254.9

Total Expenditure Increase: 2014-2018

Base Expenditure Growth ($M)

N/A

1,584

1,645

1,702

1,761

1,823

239.2

Increase in Expenditures from 2014-2018

New Service to Meet New Ridership ($M)14

6.44

16.6

11.7

12.4

13.1

13.4

Average Yearly Cost of New Service to Meet New Ridership: 2014-2018

TTC Proposed Service Enhancement Costs ($M)15

N/A

Incremental Costs from Leslie Car House and Spadina Extension ($M)4,16

N/A

2.95

3.03

22.93

18.80

47.7

Total Added Cost of Leslie Car House and Spadina Extension by 2018

Increase in Subsidy/Rider (%)

112

Average Annual Subsidy Growth Required: 2014-2018

$0.71

Total Expenditures ($M)

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

N/A

105.6

58.6

58.0

80.2

58.1

72.1

Average Annual Increase in Expenditure: 2014-2018

Annual Expenditure Growth Rate (%)

N/A

7.06%

3.66%

3.50%

4.67%

3.23%

4.42%

Average Annual Expenditure Growth (%): 2014-2018

Expenditure Increase from the Base Budget (%) (No New Service)17,32

N/A

2.79%

2.94%

2.93%

4.10%

3.82%

3.32%

Average Expenditure Increase from the Base Budget (%): 2014-2018

Yearly Expenditure Increase ($M) 11

Ridership (Million Rides/Year)18, 4

Forecast (12)

Analysis (12)

Analysis Details

(34)

528.0

540.0

553.5

567.3

586.8

606.6

66.6

Total Ridership Increase: 2014-2018

Yearly Ridership Growth (M)

N/A

12.0

13.5

13.8

19.4

19.8

15.7

Average Annual Ridership Increase: 2014-2018

Ridership Growth (%)

N/A

2.27%

2.50%

3.43%

3.37%

2.81%

Moving Forward Appendices

Actual

Average Ridership Growth (%): 2014-2018

Budget Ratios Revenue/Cost (RC) Ratio20

70.43%

68.79%

-2.10%

Decrease in RC Ratio (%): 2014-2018

Percentage of Budget From Non-Fare Revenue

4.48%

4.06%

4.03%

4.00%

3.92%

3.90%

-0.16%

Decrease in Non-Fare Revenue as a Percent of the Budget (%): 2014-2018

Total Percentage of Budget from Non-Subsidy Dollars

74.92%

72.85%

72.08%

71.40%

70.52%

70.59%

-2.26%

Decrease Non-Subsidy Dollars as a Percent of the Budget: 2014-2018

Percentage of Budget from Subsidy

25.08%

26.74%

27.92%

28.60%

29.48%

29.41%

2.67%

Increase in Subsidy as a Percent of the Budget: 2014-2018

2.83

2.96

3.00

3.03

3.06

3.20%

Increase in Cost Per Ride (%): 2014-2018

N/A

4.68%

1.13%

0.97%

1.20%

-0.13%

1.57%

Average Increase in Cost Per Ride (%): 2014-2018

Average Cost ($) Per Ride30 Annual Cost Per Ride Increase (%)

68.05% 67.40% 66.60% 66.69%

113

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

114

APPENDIX 2 TABLE 2: PROPOSED TTC ENHANCEMENTS1,21,22 Actual

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016(12)

Forecast 2017(12)

2018(34)

Analysis

TTC Proposed Service Enhancement Costs ($2014) ($M)

N/A

19.4

45.4

57.8

69.2

TTC Proposed Service Improvement Costs in Real Dollars ($M)

N/A

19.9

46.6

59.4

71.1

Cumulative Cost of Service Enhancements ($M)

N/A

19.9

66.6

126.0

197.1

Incremental Service Improvement Costs in Real Dollars ($M)

N/A

19.9

26.7

12.7

11.7

Fare Revenue from Service Enhancements ($M)36,37

N/A

2.9

1.8

4.4

8.2

Fare Revenue from Service Enhancements in Real Dollars ($M)36

N/A

3.0

1.8

4.6

8.4

Incremental New Fare Revenue in Real Dollars ($M)

N/A

2.8

-1.2

2.7

3.9

Net Cost of Service Enhancements in Real Dollars ($M)

N/A

17.0

44.8

54.8

62.7

Total New Ridership from Enhancements (M)

N/A

4.8

10.7

12.2

14.37

Additional Ridership from 2 Hour Transfer (M) (.4% growth)21

N/A

2.27

2.35

2.43

Annual Incremental Ridership Growth (M)

N/A

4.8

5.9

1.6

2.1

Proposed TTC Enhancements

Other Service Improvement Options (Included in Tables Under TTC Proposed Service Enhancement Costs)23 Twenty-Minute-or-Better Service – TCBP ($M) Costs in Real Dollars

N/A

23.94

24.60

25.28

Additional Fare "Passenger" Revenue ($M) Real Dollars

N/A

6.5

6.7

6.9

Net Cost - Real Dollars ($M)

N/A

17.39

17.9

18.4

Ridership Increases (M Rides)

N/A

3.21

3.29

3.37

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Analysis Details

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016(12)

Forecast 2017(12)

2018(34)

Analysis

Combined Costs of All Enhancements31

N/A

19.9

70.6

84.0

96.4

TTC Proposed Service Enhancement Costs in Real Dollars ($M)

N/A

19.9

46.6

59.4

71.1

Twenty-Minute-or-Better Service â&#x20AC;&#x201C; TCBP in Real Dollars ($M)

N/A

23.9

24.6

25.3

Net Costs of All Enhancements (Costs - Revenue)39

N/A

17.0

62.3

72.8

81.3

Combined Enhancement Costs

N/A

19.9

70.6

84.0

96.4

Combined Enhancement Revenue

N/A

3.0

8.3

11.1

15.1

Moving Forward Appendices

Actual

Analysis Details

APPENDIX 3 TABLE 3: PROJECTED REVENUES AND COSTS FROM SERVICE ENHANCEMENT - YEAR 2018 List of Service Enhancements included in Figure 2

Operating Costs Before Operating Costs After Escalation Factor Escalation Factor

Fare Revenue Before Escalation Factor

Fare Revenue After Escalation Factor

Subsidy Required After escalation

All Door Boarding on Streetcars ($M)

6.00

6.69

6.00

6.69

0.00

Reduced waits and crowding at peak periods ($M)

7.00

7.80

3.80

4.24

3.57

Reduced waits and crowding at off-peak times ($M)

11.90

13.26

3.60

4.01

9.25

Ten minute or better route network ($M)

13.60

15.16

3.60

4.01

11.15

Express route network - new express services ($M)

13.30

14.82

4.00

4.46

10.37

Express route network - enhanced downtown express ($M)

2.40

2.68

0.30

0.33

2.34

Improve service reliability ($M)

5.50

6.13

0.00

6.13

Operate all routes all day, every day ($M)

6.60

7.36

2.00

2.23

5.13

Two-hour travel privilege (time-based transfer ($M)

0.00

(20.00)

(22.29)

22.29

Expanded overnight bus and streetcar service ($M)

Totals

2.90

3.23

0.60

0.67

2.56

$69.20

$77.13

$3.90

$4.35

72.78

115

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

APPENDIX 4 TABLE 4: BUDGET PROJECTION - WITH SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS & NO FARE INCREASE1,21,22,23

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)2

Actual

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016(12)

Forecast 2017(12)

2018(34)

Analysis

Analysis Details

1,120

1,166

1,199

1,234

1,279

1,325

159

Total Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

Non-Fare Revenue ($M)3

67.0

65.0

66.8

68.6

70.5

72.5

7.5

Total Increase of Non-Fare Revenue: 2014-2018

Fare Passenger Revenue (with Enhancements & Improvements) ($M)4,23,33,36,38

1,053

1,101

1,132

1,166

1,209

1,252

37.9

Average Year Over Year Fare Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

Additional Fare Passenger Revenue from Enhancements ($M)36

N/A

2.9

1.8

4.4

8.2

4.3

Average Additional Fare Passenger Revenue from Enhancements: 2015-2018

Average Fare ($M)5,6

1.99

2.04

0.0

Increase In Average Fares: 2014-2018

Baseline (2013) Fare Passenger Revenue Growth ($M)35

N/A

48.0

79.0

112.7

155.7

199.5

151.5

Increase in Fare Passenger Revenue: 2014-2018

Year Over Year Revenue Growth ($M)

N/A

48.0

31.0

33.6

43.0

43.8

39.9

Average Year Over Year Revenue Increase:2014-2018

Fare Revenue Growth Rate (%)

N/A

4.56%

2.82%

2.97%

3.69%

3.62%

3.53%

Average Fare Revenue Increase (%): 2014-2018

Fare Increase (%)7

N/A

2.27%

0.00%

Average Annual Fare Increase (%): 2014-2018

N/A

4.11%

2.81%

2.96%

3.64%

3.57%

3.42%

Average Annual Revenue Growth: (%) : 2014-2018

Annual Revenue Growth (%)

City Revenue (Subsidy) City Subsidy ($M)9 Annual Subsidy Growth Rate (%) Yearly Required Subsidy Increase ($M)

Subsidy/Rider ($)10

116

Subsidy/Rider Increase (%)

375.0

428.0

480.3

553.5

602.2

627.0

199.0

Total Increase of Subsidy 2014-2018

N/A

14.13%

12.23%

15.23%

8.79%

4.12%

10.90%

Average Annual Subsidy Growth Required (%): 2014-2018

N/A

53.0

52.3

73.2

48.7

24.8

50.4

$0.71

$0.79

$0.86

$0.95

$1.00

$0.21

Average Annual Subsidy Growth Required: 2014-2018

Increase in Subsidy/Rider: 2014-2018

N/A

11.60%

8.55%

10.69%

4.98%

0.45%

7.25%

Average Annual Subsidy Growth (%): 2014-2018

1,495

1,601

1,679

1,788

1,881

1,952

351.3

Total Expenditure Increase: 2014-2018

Base Expenditure Growth ($M)

N/A

1,584

1,645

1,702

1,761

1,823

239

Increase in Expenditures 2014-2018

New Service to Meet New Ridership ($M)14

6.4

16.6

11.7

12.4

13.1

13.4

Average Yearly Service Add in Constant Dollars

TTC Proposed Service Enhancement Costs ($M)15

N/A

19.9

70.6

84.0

96.4

76.4

Increase in TTC Proposed Service Enhancement Costs: 2015-2018

Cumulative Cost of Service Enhancements ($M)

N/A

19.9

90.5

174.5

270.9

Total Cumulative Cost of Service Enhancements

Incremental Costs from Leslie Car House and Spadina Extension ($M)4,16

N/A

3.0

3.03

22.9

18.8

47.7

Total Added Cost of Leslie Car House and Spadina Extension by 2018

Yearly Expenditure Increase ($M)

N/A

105.6

78.6

108.7

93.6

70.5

91.4

Average Annual Expenditure Increase: 2014-2018

Total Expenditures ($M)13

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016(12)

Forecast 2017(12)

2018(34)

Analysis

Analysis Details

Annual Expenditure Growth Rate (%)11

N/A

7.06%

4.91%

6.47%

5.23%

3.75%

5.48%

Average Annual Expenditure Growth (%): 2014-2018

Expenditure Increase from Base Budget (No New Service) (%)17,32

N/A

2.79%

2.94%

2.93%

4.10%

3.82%

3.32%

Average Expenditure Increase from the Base Budget (%): 2014-2018

Ridership (with Enhancements) (million rides/year)18

528.0

540.0

558.3

581.2

602.3

624.3

84.3

Total Increase of Ridership: 2014-2018

Ridership Before Enhancements (M)

528.0

540.0

553.5

567.3

586.8

606.6

66.6

Total Increase of Ridership before Enhancements: 20142018

Additional Riders from Enhancements (M)

N/A

4.8

10.7

12.2

14.4

10.5

Average Annual Increase in Ridership from Enhancements: 2015-2018

Additional Riders from Twenty Minute Or Better Service Improvement (M)23

N/A

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.3

Average Annual Increase In Ridership from Twenty Minute or Better Service Improvement

Increase of Ridership Due to Enhancements Each Year (%)

N/A

0.87%

1.88%

2.09%

2.37%

1.80%

Yearly Ridership Growth (M)

N/A

12.0

18.3

22.9

21.1

22.0

19.3

Average Annual Ridership Increase: 2014-2018

Ridership Growth (%)

N/A

2.27%

3.39%

4.10%

3.63%

3.65%

3.41%

Total New Ridership from Service Enhancements

Revenue/Cost (RC) Ratio20

70.43%

68.79%

67.42%

65.20%

64.24%

64.17%

-4.62%

Decrease in RC Ratio: 2014-2018

Percentage of Budget From Non-Fare Revenue

4.48%

4.06%

3.98%

3.84%

3.75%

3.71%

-0.35%

Decrease in Non-Fare Revenue as a Percent of the Budget (%): 2014-2018

Total Percentage of Budget from Non-Subsidy Dollars

74.92%

72.85%

71.39%

69.04%

67.99%

67.88%

-4.97%

Decrease Non-Subsidy Dollars as a Percent of the Budget: 2014-2018

Percentage of Budget from Subsidy

25.08%

26.74%

28.61%

30.96%

32.01%

32.12%

5.38%

Increase in Subsidy as a Percent of the Budget: 2014-2018

2.83

2.96

3.01

3.08

3.12

3.13

5.48%

Increase in Cost Per Ride (%): 2014-2018

N/A

4.68%

1.47%

2.27%

1.55%

0.09%

2.01%

Average Annual Increase in Cost Per Ride (%): 2014-2018

Moving Forward Appendices

Actual

Ridership

Average Annual Increase in Ridership from Enhancements(%): 2015-2018

Budget Ratios

Average Cost ($) Per Ride30 Annual Cost Per Ride Increase (%)

Sample Fares25 Adult "Token" Fare Adult Metropass26 Cash Fare27

2.65

2.70

Total increase in Adult Fare Over 2014-2018 Period

128.55

133.75

Total Increase in Metropass Cost Over from 2014-2018

3.00

Total Increase in Cash Fare from 2014-2018

117

Toronto’s Transit Future

APPENDIX 5 TABLE 5: BUDGET PROJECTION - 5 CENT YEARLY FARE INCREASE - NO SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS1,24

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)

Actual

Budget

Forecast

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

(12)

Analysis (12)

Analysis Details

(34)

1,120

1,166

1,217

1,269

1,334

1,401

234.8

Non-Fare Revenue ($M)3

67.0

65.0

66.8

68.6

70.5

72.5

7.5

Total Increase of Non-Fare Revenue: 2014-2018

Fare "Passenger" Revenue ($M)4

1,053

1,101

1,150

1,200

1,263

1,329

56.8

Average Year Over Year Fare Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

Average Fare

Total Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

$1.99

$2.04

$2.08

$2.12

$2.15

$2.19

$0.15

Increase In Average Fares: 2014-2018

Baseline (2013) Fare Passenger Revenue Growth ($M)35

N/A

48.4

96.8

147.0

210.3

275.8

227.4

Increase in Fare Passenger Revenue: 2014-2018

Year Over Year Revenue Growth ($M)

N/A

48.4

50.2

63.3

65.5

55.2

Average Year Over Year Revenue Increase:2014-2018

Fare Revenue Growth Rate(%)6

N/A

4.59%

4.40%

4.36%

5.27%

5.19%

4.76%

Average Fare Revenue Increase (%): 2014-2018

Fare Increase (%)

N/A

2.27%

1.85%

1.82%

1.79%

1.75%

1.90%

Average Annual Percentage Fare Increase (%): 2014-2018

Annual Revenue Growth (%)8

N/A

4.14%

4.31%

4.28%

5.14%

5.06%

4.58%

Average Annual Revenue Growth (%): 2014-2018

375.0

428.0

442.6

448.6

463.6

454.2

26.2

Total Increase of Subsidy from 2014-2018

Annual Subsidy Growth Rate (%)

N/A

14.13%

3.41%

1.35%

3.34%

-2.01%

4.04%

Average Yearly Increase of Subsidy (%): 2014-2018

Yearly Required Subsidy Increase ($M)

N/A

53.0

14.6

6.0

15.0

-9.3

15.8

$0.71

$0.79

$0.80

$0.79

$0.75

-$0.04

Increase in Subsidy/Rider: 2014-2018

N/A

11.60%

0.88%

-1.12%

-0.08%

-5.21%

1.21%

Average Annual Subsidy Growth (%): 2014-2018

1,495

1,601

1,659

1,717

1,797

1,855

254.9

Total Expenditure Increase: 2014-2018

N/A

1,584

1,645

1,702

1,761

1,823

239.2

Increase in Expenditures: 2014-2018

New Service to Meet New Ridership ($M)

6.4

16.6

11.7

12.4

13.1

13.4

Average Yearly Cost of New Service to Meet New Ridership: 2014-2018

TTC Proposed Service Enhancement Costs ($M)15

N/A

Incremental Costs from Leslie Car House and Spadina Extension ($M)4,16

N/A

3.0

22.9

18.8

47.7

Total Added Cost of Leslie Car House and Spadina Extension by 2018

Yearly Expenditure Increase ($M)

N/A

105.6

58.6

58.0

80.2

58.1

72.1

Average Annual Expenditure Increase: 2014-2018

Annual Expenditure Growth Rate (%)11

N/A

7.06%

3.66%

3.50%

4.67%

3.23%

4.42%

5,6

City Revenue (Subsidy) City Subsidy ($M)9

Subsidy/Rider ($)

Subsidy/Rider Increase (%)

Total Expenditures ($M)

118

Base Expenditure Growth ($M)

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Average Annual Subsidy Growth Required: 2014-2018

Average Annual Expenditure Growth (%): 2014-2018

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016(12)

Forecast 2017(12)

2018(34)

Analysis

N/A

2.79%

2.94%

2.93%

4.10%

3.82%

3.32%

Analysis Details Average Expenditure Increase from the Base Budget (%): 2014-2018

Ridership Ridership (million rides/year)18

528.0

540.0

553.5

567.3

586.8

606.6

66.6

Total Increase of Ridership: 2014-2018

Yearly Ridership Growth (M)

N/A

12.0

13.5

13.8

19.4

19.8

15.7

Average Annual Ridership Increase: 2014-2018

Ridership Growth (%)

N/A

2.27%

2.50%

3.43%

3.37%

2.81%

Average Ridership Growth (%): 2014-2018

Revenue/Cost (RC) Ratio20

70.43%

68.81%

69.30%

69.88%

70.28%

71.61%

2.80%

Increase in RC Ratio: 2014-2018

Percentage of Budget From Non-Fare Revenue

4.48%

4.06%

4.03%

4.00%

3.92%

3.90%

-0.16%

Decrease in Non-Fare Revenue as a Percent of the Budget (%): 2014-2018

Total Percentage of Budget from NonSubsidy Dollars

74.92%

72.87%

73.33%

73.88%

74.21%

75.52%

2.65%

Increase Non-Subsidy Dollars as a Percent of the Budget: 2014-2018

Percentage of Budget from Subsidy

25.08%

26.74%

26.67%

26.12%

25.79%

24.48%

-2.26%

Decrease in Subsidy as a Percent of the Budget: 2014-2018

2.83

2.96

3.00

3.03

3.06

3.20%

Increase in Cost Per Ride (%): 2014-2018

N/A

4.68%

1.13%

0.97%

1.20%

-0.13%

1.57%

Average Annual Increase in Cost Per Ride (%): 2014-2018

Moving Forward Appendices

Expenditure Increase from Base Budget (No New Service) (%)17,32

Actual

Budget Ratios

Average Cost ($) Per Ride30 Annual Cost Per Ride Increase (%)

Sample Fares25 Adult "Token" Fare

2.65

2.70

2.75

2.80

2.85

2.90

0.20

Total increase in Adult Fare Over 2014-2018 Period

Adult Metropass26

128.55

133.75

136.00

138.75

141.00

143.50

9.75

Total increase in Metropass Cost Over from 2014-2018

3.00

3.25

0.25

Total increase in Cash Fare From 2014-2018

Cash Fare

119

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

APPENDIX 6 TABLE 6: BUDGET PROJECTION - 5 CENT YEARLY FARE INCREASE - WITH SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS1,21,22,23

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)2

Actual

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016(12)

Forecast 2017(12)

2018(34)

Analysis

Analysis Details

1,120

1,166

1,219

1,278

1,346

1,419

252.5

Non-Fare Revenue ($M)3

67.0

65.0

66.8

68.6

70.5

72.5

7.5

Total increase of Non-Fare Revenue: 2014-2018

Fare Passenger Revenue (with Enhancements & Improvements) ($M)4,23,33,36

1,053

1,101

1,153

1,209

1,276

1,346

61.3

Average Year Over Year Fare Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

N/A

3.1

2.6

5.8

10.4

5.4

Average Additional Fare Passenger Revenue from Enhancements: 2015-2018

Additional Fare Passenger Revenue from Enhancements ($M)36 Average Fare5,6

Total Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

$1.99

$2.04

$2.08

$2.11

$2.15

$2.19

$0.15

Increase in Average Fares: 2014-2018

Baseline (2013) Fare Passenger Revenue Growth ($M)35

N/A

48.2

99.7

156.2

223.0

293.3

245.1

Increase in Fare Passenger Revenue: 2014-2018

Year Over Year Revenue Growth ($M)

N/A

46.2

53.3

58.3

68.7

72.3

59.7

Average Year Over Year Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

Fare Revenue Growth Rate (%)

N/A

4.58%

4.68%

4.90%

5.52%

5.51%

5.04%

Average Fare Revenue Increase (%): 2014-2018

2.27%

1.85%

1.82%

1.79%

1.75%

1.90%

Average Annual Percentage Fare Increase (%): 2014-2018

4.13%

4.57%

4.78%

5.38%

5.37%

4.84%

Average Annual Revenue Growth (%): 2014-2018

Fare Increase (%)7 Annual Revenue Growth (%)8

N/A

City Revenue (Subsidy) City Subsidy ($M)9

375.0

428.0

459.7

510.0

534.9

533.1

105.1

Total Increase of Subsidy 2014-2018

Annual Subsidy Growth Rate (%)

N/A

14.13%

7.40%

10.96%

4.88%

-0.33%

7.41%

Average Annual Subsidy Growth Required (%): 2014-2018

Yearly Required Subsidy Increase ($M)

N/A

53.0

31.7

50.4

24.9

-1.8

31.6

Average Annual Subsidy Growth Required: 2014-2018

$0.71

$0.79

$0.82

$0.88

$0.89

$0.85

$0.06

Increase in Subsidy/Rider: 2014-2018

Subsidy/Rider ($)

120

Subsidy/Rider Increase (%)

N/A

12%

-4%

3.88%

Average Annual Subsidy Growth (%): 2014-2018

1,495

1,601

1,679

1,788

1,881

1,952

351

Total Expenditure Increase: 2014-2018

Base Expenditure Growth ($M)

N/A

1,584

1,645

1,702

1,761

1,823

239

Increase in Expenditures 2014-2018

New Service to meet New Ridership ($M)14

6.4

16.6

11.7

12.4

13.1

13.4

Average Yearly Cost of New Service to Meet New Ridership: 2014-2018

TTC Proposed Service Enhancement Costs ($M)15

N/A

19.9

70.6

84.0

96.4

76.4

Increase in TTC Proposed Service Enhancement Costs: 20152018

Cumulative Cost of Service Enhancements ($M)

N/A

19.9

90.5

174.5

270.9

Total Cumulative Cost of Service Enhancements

Incremental Costs from Leslie Car House and Spadina Extension ($M)4,16

N/A

2.95

3.0

22.9

18.8

47.7

Total Added Cost of Leslie Car House and Spadina Extension by 2018

Total Expenditures ($M)13

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Budget

2013

2014

Forecast 2015

2016(12)

2017(12)

Analysis

Analysis Details

2018(34)

Yearly Expenditure Increase ($M)

N/A

105.6

78.6

108.7

93.6

70.5

91.4

Annual Expenditure Growth Rate (%)11

N/A

7.06%

4.91%

6.47%

5.23%

3.75%

5.48%

Average Annual Expenditure Increase: 2014-2018 Average Annual Expenditure Growth (%): 2014-2018

Expenditure Increase from Base Budget (%) (No New Service)17,32

N/A

2.79%

2.94%

2.93%

4.10%

3.82%

3.32%

Average Expenditure Increase from the Base Budget (%): 2014-2018

Ridership (with Enhancements) (million rides/year)18

528.0

540.0

558.3

581.2

602.3

624.3

84.3

Total Increase of Ridership: 2014-2018

Ridership Before Enhancements (M)

Moving Forward Appendices

Actual

Ridership

528.0

540.0

553.5

567.3

586.8

606.6

66.6

Total Increase of Ridership before Enhancements: 2014-2018

Additional Riders from Enhancements (M)

N/A

4.8

10.7

12.2

14.4

10.5

Average Annual Increase in Ridership from Enhancements: 2015-2018

Additional Riders from Twenty Minute Or Better Service Improvement (M)23

N/A

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.3

Average Annual Increase In Ridership from Twenty Minute or Better Service Improvement

Increase of Ridership Due to Enhancements Each Year (%)

N/A

0.87%

1.88%

2.09%

2.37%

1.80%

Yearly Ridership Growth (M)

N/A

12.0

18.3

22.9

21.1

22.0

19.3

Ridership Growth (%)

N/A

2.27%

3.39%

4.10%

3.63%

3.65%

3.41%

Average Ridership Growth: 2014-2018

Revenue/Cost (RC) Ratio20

70.43%

68.80%

68.65%

67.63%

67.82%

68.97%

0.18%

Decrease in RC Ratio: 2014-2018

Percentage of Budget From Non-Fare Revenue

4.48%

4.06%

3.98%

3.84%

3.75%

3.71%

-0.35%

Decrease in Non-Fare Revenue as a Percent of the Budget (%): 2014-2018

Total Percentage of Budget from Non-Subsidy Dollars

74.92%

72.86%

72.63%

71.47%

71.57%

72.69%

-0.17%

Decrease Non-Subsidy Dollars as a Percent of the Budget: 2014-2018

Percentage of Budget from Subsidy

25.08%

26.74%

27.37%

28.53%

28.43%

27.31%

0.57%

Increase in Subsidy as a Percent of the Budget: 2014-2018

2.83

2.96

3.01

3.08

3.12

3.13

5.48%

Increase in Cost Per Ride (%): 2014-2018

N/A

4.68%

1.47%

2.27%

1.55%

0.09%

2.01%

Average Annual Increase in Cost Per Ride (%): 2014-2018

Average Annual Increase in Ridership from Enhancements(%): 2015-2018 Average Annual Ridership Increase: 2014-2018

Budget Ratios

Average Cost ($) Per Ride30 Annual Cost Per Ride Increase (%)

121

Sample Fares25 Adult "Token" Fare

$2.65

$2.70

$2.75

$2.80

$2.85

$2.90

$0.20

Total increase in Adult Fare Over 2014-2018 Period

Adult Metropass26

$128.5

$133.75

$136.00

$138.75

$141.00

$143.50

$9.75

Total increase in Metropass Cost Over 2014-2018 Period

Cash Fare27

$3.00

$3.25

$0.25

Total increase in Cash Fare Over 2014-2018 Period AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

APPENDIX 7 TABLE 7: BUDGET PROJECTION - 5,10,10,5 FARE INCREASE PLAN - NO SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS1 Actual

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016(12)

2017(12)

2018(34)

1,120

1,166

1,217

1,284

1,372

1,447

280.7

67.0

65.0

66.8

68.6

70.5

72.5

7.5

Total Increase of Non-Fare Revenue: 2014-2018

Fare "Passenger" Revenue ($M)

1,053

1,101

1,150

1,215

1,301

1,375

68.3

Average Year Over Year Fare Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

Average Fare5,6

$1.99

$2.04

$2.08

$2.15

$2.23

$2.27

$0.23

Increase in Average Fares: 2014-2018

Baseline (2013) Fare Passenger Revenue Growth ($M)35

N/A

48.4

96.8

162.3

248.0

321.6

273.2

Increase in Fare Passenger Revenue: 2014-2018

Year Over Year Revenue Growth ($M)

N/A

48.4

65.5

85.7

73.5

64.3

Average Year Over Year Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

Fare Revenue Growth Rate (%)

N/A

4.59%

4.40%

5.70%

7.05%

5.65%

5.48%

Average Fare Revenue Increase (%): 2014-2018

2.27%

1.85%

3.64%

3.51%

1.69%

2.59%

Average Annual Percentage Fare Increase (%): 2014-2018

4.14%

4.31%

5.53%

6.82%

5.50%

5.26%

Average Annual Revenue Growth (%): 2014-2018

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)2 Non-Fare Revenue ($M)3 4,28,29

Fare Increase (%)7 Annual Revenue Growth (%)8

N/A

Forecast

Analysis

Analysis Details Total Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

City Revenue (Subsidy) City Subsidy ($M)9 Annual Subsidy Growth Rate (%) Yearly Required Subsidy Increase ($M)

Subsidy/Rider ($)10 Subsidy/Rider Increase (%)

428.0

442.6

430.5

420.2

402.6

-25.4

Total Increase of Subsidy: 2014-2018

N/A

14.13%

3.41%

-2.73%

-2.41%

-4.17%

1.65%

Average Annual Subsidy Growth Required (%): 2014-2018

N/A

53.0

14.6

-12.1

-10.4

-17.5

5.5

$0.71

$0.79

$0.80

$0.76

$0.72

$0.66

-$0.13

Average Annual Subsidy Growth Required: 2014-2018 Decrease in Subsidy/Rider: 2014-2018

N/A

11.60%

0.89%

-4.63%

-5.64%

-7.76%

-1.11%

Average Annual Subsidy Growth (%): 2014-2018

1,495

1,601

1,659

1,714

1,792

1,850

249.1

Total Expenditure Increase: 2014-2018

Base Expenditure Growth (M)

N/A

1,584

1,645

1,702

1,758

1,817

233.4

Increase in Expenditures 2014-2018

New Service to Meet New Ridership ($M)14

6.4

16.6

11.7

9.6

10.3

13.4

12.3

Average Yearly Cost of New Service to Meet New Ridership: 2014-2018

TTC Proposed Service Enhancement Costs ($M)15

N/A

Incremental Costs from Leslie Car House and Spadina Extension ($M)4,16

N/A

3.0

22.9

18.8

47.7

Total Added Cost of Leslie Car House and Spadina Extension by 2018

Yearly Expenditure Increase ($M)

N/A

105.6

58.6

55.2

77.3

58.0

70.9

Average Annual Expenditure Increase: 2014-2018

Annual Expenditure Growth Rate (%)

N/A

7.06%

3.66%

3.33%

4.51%

3.23%

4.36%

Average Annual Expenditure Growth (%): 2014-2018

Expenditure Increase on Base Budget (%) (no new service)17

N/A

2.79%

2.94%

2.93%

4.10%

3.82%

3.32%

Average Expenditure Increase on Base Budget (%): 20142018

Total Expenditures ($M)13

122

375.0

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016(12)

Forecast 2017(12)

2018(34)

Analysis

Analysis Details

528.0

540.0

553.5

564.5

583.8

606.6

66.6

Total Increase of Ridership: 2014-2018

Reduction in Riders due to 10 cent increase (0.5% reduction)

N/A

2.8

2.9

N/A

Yearly Ridership Growth (M)

N/A

12.0

13.5

11.0

19.3

22.7

15.7

Average Annual Ridership Increase: 2014-2018

Ridership Growth (%)

N/A

2.27%

2.50%

1.99%

3.43%

3.89%

2.82%

Average Ridership Growth: 2014-2018

Revenue/Cost (RC) Ratio20

70.43%

68.81%

69.30%

70.89%

72.61%

74.32%

5.51%

Increase in RC Ratio: 2014-2018

Percentage of Budget From Non-Fare Revenue

4.48%

4.06%

4.03%

4.00%

3.94%

3.92%

-0.14%

Decrease in Non-Fare Revenue as a Percent of the Budget (%): 2014-2018

Total Percentage of Budget from NonSubsidy Dollars

74.92%

72.87%

73.32%

74.89%

76.55%

78.23%

5.36%

Increase in Non-Subsidy Dollars as a Percent of the Budget: 2014-2018

Percentage of Budget from Subsidy

25.08%

26.74%

26.68%

25.11%

23.45%

21.77%

-4.97%

Decrease in Subsidy as a Percent of the Budget: 2014-2018

2.83

2.96

3.00

3.04

3.07

3.05

2.88%

Increase in Cost Per Ride (%): 2014-2018

N/A

4.68%

1.13%

1.32%

1.04%

-0.63%

1.51%

Average Annual Increase in Cost Per Ride (%): 2014-2018

Ridership Ridership (million rides/year)18,29

Moving Forward Appendices

Actual

Budget Ratios

Average Cost ($) Per Ride

Annual Cost Per Ride Increase (%)

Sample Fares25 Adult "Token" Fare

$2.65

$2.70

$2.75

$2.85

$2.95

$3.00

$0.30

Total increase in Adult Fare Over 2014-2018 Period

Adult Metropass26

$128.50

$133.75

$135.75

$141.00

$146.00

$148.50

$14.75

Total increase in Metropass Cost Over 2014-2018 Period

$3.00

$3.25

$0.25

Total increase in Cash Fare Over 2014-2018 Period

Cash Fare27

123

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

APPENDIX 8 TABLE 8: BUDGET PROJECTION - 5,10,10,5 FARE INCREASE PLAN WITH SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS1,21,22,23

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)2

Actual

Budget

Forecast

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

1,120

1,166

1,220

1,294

1,386

1,466

(12)

Analysis (12)

Analysis Details

(34)

299.7

Total Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

Non-Fare Revenue ($M)

67.0

65.0

66.8

68.6

70.5

72.5

7.5

Total Increase of Non-Fare Revenue: 2014-2018

Fare Passenger Revenue (with Enhancements & Improvements) ($M)4,23,33, 29,36,38

1,053

1,101

1,153

1,225

1,315

1,394

73.1

Average Year Over Year Fare Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

Additional Fare Passenger Revenue from Enhancements ($M)36

N/A

3.1

3.0

6.7

11.4

8.4

Increase in Additional Fare Passenger Revenue from Enhancements: 2015-2018

Baseline (2013) Fare Passenger Revenue Growth ($M)35

N/A

48.4

99.9

172.2

262.1

340.7

292.3

Increase in Fare Passenger Revenue: 2014-2018

Year Over Year Fare Revenue Growth ($M)

N/A

48.4

51.5

72.3

89.9

78.6

68.1

Average Year Over Year Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

Average Fare ($M)

$1.99

$2.04

$2.08

$2.15

$2.23

$2.27

$0.23

Increase in Average Fares: 2014-2018

Fare Revenue Growth Rate6

N/A

4.59%

4.68%

6.27%

7.34%

5.97%

5.77%

Average Fare Revenue Increase (%): 2014-2018

Fare Increase (%)7

N/A

2.27%

1.85%

3.64%

3.51%

1.69%

2.59%

Average Annual Percentage Fare Increase (%): 2014-2018

N/A

4.14%

4.57%

6.08%

7.10%

5.81%

5.54%

Average Annual Revenue Growth (%): 2014-2018

375.0

428.0

459.5

491.2

490.1

479.9

51.9

Annual Subsidy Growth Rate (%)

N/A

14.13%

7.35%

6.91%

-0.24%

-2.07%

5.22%

Average Annual Subsidy Growth (%): 2014-2018

Yearly Required Subsidy Increase ($M)

N/A

53.0

31.5

31.8

-1.2

-10.1

21.0

Average Annual Expenditure Increase: 2014-2018

5,6

Annual Revenue Growth (%)

City Revenue (Subsidy) City Subsidy ($M)9

Subsidy/Rider ($)

124

Subsidy/Rider Increase (%)

Total Expenditures ($M)

Total Increase of Subsidy 2014-2018

$0.71

$0.79

$0.82

$0.85

$0.82

$0.77

-$0.02

Increase in Subsidy/Rider: 2014-2018

N/A

11.60%

3.84%

3.20%

-3.73%

-5.98%

1.78%

Average Annual Subsidy Growth (%): 2014-2018

1,495

1,601

1,679

1,785

1,876

1,946

345.4

Total Expenditure Increase: 2014-2018

Base Expenditure Growth (M)

N/A

1,584

1,645

1,702

1,758

1,817

233.4

Increase in Expenditures: 2014-2018

New Incremental Costs to Add Service to Meet New Ridership ($M)14

6.4

16.6

11.7

9.6

10.3

13.4

12.3

Average Yearly Cost of New Service to Meet New Ridership: 2014-2018

TTC Proposed Service Enhancement Incremental Costs ($M)15

N/A

19.9

70.6

84.0

96.4

76.4

Increase in TTC Proposed Service Enhancement Costs: 20152018

Cumulative Cost of Service Enhancements ($M)

N/A

19.9

90.5

174.5

270.9

Total Cumulative Cost of Service Enhancements

Incremental Costs from Leslie Car House and Spadina Extension ($M)4,16

N/A

3.0

22.9

18.8

47.7

Total Added Cost of Leslie Car House and Spadina Extension by 2018

Yearly Expenditure Increase ($M)

N/A

105.6

78.6

105.9

90.7

70.3

90.2

Average Annual Expenditure Increase: 2014-2018

Budget

Forecast

Analysis

Analysis Details

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Annual Expenditure Growth Rate (%)11

N/A

7.06%

4.91%

6.31%

5.08%

3.75%

5.42%

Average Annual Revenue Growth: 2014-2018

Expenditure Increase from Base Budget (%) (no new service)17

N/A

2.79%

2.94%

2.93%

4.10%

3.82%

3.32%

Average Expenditure Increase From Base Budget (%): 20142018

Ridership (with Enhancements) (million rides/year)18,29

528.0

540.0

558.3

578.4

599.4

624.3

84.3

Total Increase of Ridership: 2014-2018

Ridership Before Enhancements (M)

(12)

(34)

Moving Forward Appendices

Actual

Ridership

528.0

540.0

553.5

567.3

586.8

606.6

66.6

Total Increase of Ridership before Enhancements: 2014-2018

Additional Riders from Enhancements (M)

N/A

4.8

10.7

12.2

14.4

10.5

Average Annual Increase in Ridership from Enhancements: 2015-2018

Additional Riders from Twenty Minute Or Better Service Improvement (M)23

N/A

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.3

Average Annual Increase In Ridership from Twenty Minute or Better Service Improvement

Reduction in Riders due to 10 cent increase (0.5% reduction) (M)

N/A

2.8

2.9

N/A

Increase of Ridership Due to Enhancements Each Year (%)

N/A

0.87%

1.88%

2.09%

2.37%

1.80%

Yearly Ridership Growth (M)

N/A

12.0

18.3

20.1

21.0

24.9

19.3

Total Ridership Growth (%)19

N/A

2.27%

3.39%

3.60%

3.63%

4.16%

3.41%

Average Ridership Growth (%): 2014-2018

Revenue/Cost (RC) Ratio20

70.43%

68.81%

68.66%

68.64%

70.11%

71.62%

2.81%

Increase in RC Ratio (%): 2014-2018

Percentage of Budget From Non-Fare Revenue

4.48%

4.06%

3.98%

3.84%

3.76%

3.72%

-0.34%

Decrease in Non-Fare Revenue as a Percent of the Budget (%): 2014-2018

Total Percentage of Budget from Non-Subsidy Dollars

74.92%

72.87%

72.64%

72.48%

73.87%

75.34%

2.47%

Increase in Non-Subsidy Dollars as a Percent of the Budget (%): 2014-2018

Percentage of Budget from Subsidy

25.08%

26.74%

27.36%

27.52%

26.13%

24.66%

-2.08%

Decrease in Subsidy as a Percent of the Budget: 2014-2018

Average Annual Increase in Ridership from Enhancements(%): 2015-2018 Average Annual Ridership Increase: 2014-2018

Budget Ratios

Average Cost ($) Per Ride

Annual Cost Per Ride Increase (%)

2.83

2.96

3.01

3.09

3.13

3.12

5.17%

Increase in Cost Per Ride (%): 2014-2018

N/A

4.68%

1.47%

2.62%

1.40%

-0.39%

1.96%

Average Annual Increase in Cost Per Ride (%): 2014-2018

$2.65

$2.70

$2.75

$2.85

$2.95

$3.00

$0.30

Total Increase in Adult Fare Over 2014-2018 Period

$128.50

$133.75

$135.75

$141.00

$146.00

$148.50

$14.75

Total Increase in Metropass Cost Over 2014-2018 Period

$3.00

$3.25

$0.25

Total Increase in Cash Fare Over 2014-2018 Period

Sample Fares

Adult "Token" Fare Adult Metropass

Cash Fare27

125

Toronto’s Transit Future

APPENDIX 9 TABLE 9: BASE PROJECTIONS - WHEEL-TRANS1

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)2

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016

Forecast 2017

2018

Analysis

5.3

5.6

6.0

6.6

7.2

7.9

Analysis Details

2.4

Total Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

Fare “Passenger” Revenue ($M)

5.3

5.6

6.0

6.6

7.2

7.9

6.6

Average Year Over Year Fare Revenue Increases

Non-Fare Revenue ($M)4

N/A

Average Fare

$1.85

$1.81

$0.00

Increase of Average Fares: 2014-2018

Baseline Fare Revenue Growth (2013) ($M)

N/A

0.2

0.6

1.2

1.9

2.6

2.4

Increase of Fare Revenue: 2014-2018

Year Over Year Revenue Growth ($M)

N/A

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.7

0.5

Average Year Over Year Fare Revenue Increase

Fare Revenue Growth Rate (%)

N/A

4.32%

7.50%

10.00%

8.36%

Average Annual Fare Revenue Increase (%): 2014-2018

Annual Revenue Growth (%)7

N/A

4.32%

7.50%

10.00%

8.36%

Average Annual Revenue Growth (%) 2014-2018

97.0

106.6

118.2

134.1

152.1

172.6

66.0

Total Increase of Subsidy 2014-2018

N/A

9.85%

10.83%

13.47%

13.46%

12.22%

5,6

City Subsidy ($M)

Annual Growth Rate (%) Yearly Required Subsidy Increase ($M)

Subsidy/Rider ($) Subsidy/Rider Percent Increase (%)

Average Annual Subsidy Growth Required (%): 2014-2018

N/A

9.6

11.5

15.9

18.1

20.5

15.1

$33.70

$34.78

$35.86

$36.99

$38.16

$39.36

$4.58

Average Annual Subsidy Growth Required: 2014-2018

Increase in Subsidy/Rider: 2014-2018

N/A

3.22%

3.10%

3.16%

3.15%

3.16%

Average Annual Subsidy Growth Increase (%): 2014-2018

102.4

112.2

124.1

140.6

159.4

180.6

68.4

Total Expenditure Increase: 2014-2018

-1.85%

9.60%

7.71%

10.28%

9.63%

Average Annual Revenue Growth (%): 2014-2018

N/A

9.8

12.0

16.5

18.7

21.2

15.6

Average Annual Expenditure Increase: 2014-2018

Ridership (million rides/year)

2.88

3.07

3.29

3.62

3.99

4.39

1.32

Total Ridership Increase: 2014-2018

Yearly Ridership Growth (M)

-0.09

0.19

0.23

0.33

0.36

0.40

0.30

Average Ridership Increase: 2014-2018

N/A

6.42%

7.50%

10.00%

8.78%

Total Expenditures ($M) Annual Growth Rate of Expenditures (%)

10,11

Yearly Expenditure Increase ($M)12 13

126

Actual

Ridership Growth (%)

Average Ridership Growth (%): 2014-2018

Total Percentage Decrease of RC Ratio: 20142014

Revenue/Cost (RC) Ratio

5.20%

4.95%

4.81%

4.67%

4.53%

4.40%

-0.55%

Average Cost ($) Per Ride

$35.54

$36.59

$37.67

$38.81

$39.97

$41.17

$4.58

Increase in Cost ($) Per Ride: 2014-2018

N/A

2.95%

3.01%

2.98%

Average Annual Increase in Cost Per Ride (%): 2014-2018

Annual Cost Per Ride Increase

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

TABLE 10: WHEEL-TRANS - 5 CENT FARE INCREASE Actual

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

5.3

5.8

6.3

7.1

8.0

Total Expenditures ($M)

102.4

112.2

124.1

140.6

City Subsidy ($M)

97.0

106.4

117.8

133.5

Fare Growth Rate ($M)

N/A

2.27%

1.85%

1.79%

Year Over Year Fare Revenue Growth (%)

N/A

9.00%

9.49%

12.04%

11.97%

$1.85

$1.89

$1.93

$1.96

$2.00

$2.03

0.14

Increase of Average Fares: 2014-2018

N/A

0.48

0.55

0.76

0.85

0.95

0.72

Average Year over Year Fare Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

$33.70

$34.70

$35.75

$36.84

$37.97

$39.14

$4.44

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)

Average Fare Yearly Fare Revenue Increase ($M)

Subsidy/Rider ($)

Forecast

Analysis

Analysis Details

8.9

7.2

Average Year over Year Fare Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

159.4

180.6

68.4

Total Expenditure Increase: 2014-2018

151.4

171.7

65.3

Total Increase of Subsidy 2014-2018

1.76%

1.90%

Average Fare Increase (%): 2014-2018

11.94%

10.89%

Average Annual Fare Revenue Growth (%): 2014-2018

Moving Forward Appendices

APPENDIX 10

Increase in Subsidy/Rider: 2014-2018

APPENDIX 11 TABLE 11: WHEEL-TRANS - 5,10,10,5 CENT FARE INCREAS E Actual

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

5.3

5.8

6.3

7.2

8.3

Total Expenditures ($M)

102.4

112.2

124.1

140.6

City Subsidy ($M)

97.0

106.4

117.8

133.4

Fare Growth Rate (%)

N/A

2.27%

1.85%

3.64%

Year over Year Fare Revenue Growth (%)

N/A

9.00%

9.49%

14.00%

$1.85

$1.89

$1.93

$2.00

$2.07

$2.11

$0.21

N/A

0.5

0.6

0.9

1.0

0.8

$33.70

$34.70

$35.75

$36.81

$37.90

$39.07

$4.37

Total “Own Source” Revenue ($M)

Average Fare Yearly Fare Revenue Increase ($M)

Subsidy/Rider ($)

Forecast

Analysis

Analysis Details

9.2

7.4

Average Year over Year Fare Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

159.4

180.6

68.4

Total Expenditure Increase: 2014-2018

151.1

171.3

61.0

Total Increase of Subsidy 2014-2018

1.70%

2.62%

Average Fare Increase (%): 2014-2018

11.87%

11.67%

Average Annual Fare Revenue Growth (%): 2014-2018

127

Increase of Average Fares: 2014-2018 Average Year Over Year Fare Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

Increase in Subsidy/Rider: 2014-2018

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

APPENDIX 12 TABLE 12: COST PROJECTIONS: ON-DEMAND (WITHIN 90 MINUTES) WHEELTRANS SERVICE15 Actual

Budget

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

102.4

112.2

124.1

143.9

167.1

191.7

79.6

Total Expenditure Increase: 2014-2018

5.3

5.6

6.3

7.3

8.3

9.4

7.4

Average Year Over Year Fare Revenue Increase: 2014-2018

Projected Added Cost of Better “OnDemand” Service ($)16

N/A

3.28

7.79

11.18

N/A

City Subsidy ($M)

97.0

106.6

117.8

136.7

158.8

182.3

75.7

Total Increase of Subsidy 2014-2018

N/A

9.56%

10.67%

15.95%

16.13%

14.72%

13.41%

Total Expenditures ($M) Fare Revenue ($)

Annual Expenditure Growth Rate (%)17

Forecast

Analysis

Analysis Details

Average Annual Expenditure Increase(%): 2014-2018

Ridership (million rides/year)

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.7

4.2

4.6

1.6

Increase in Ridership 2014-2018

New Ridership from “On-Demand Service”

N/A

0.08

0.18

0.25

0.17

Average Year Over Year Added Ridership (2016-2018) from On-Demand Service

Yearly Ridership Growth (M)18

N/A

6.42%

7.50%

12.50%

11.25%

10.03%

Average Cost ($) Per Ride

Annual Cost Per Ride Increase14

128

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

35.5

36.6

37.7

38.9

40.1

41.4

4.8

N/A

2.95%

3.10%

3.07%

3.23%

3.12%

3.09%

Average Ridership Growth(%): 2014-2018

Increase of Cost per Ride: 2014-2018 Average Annual Increase in Cost Per Ride (%): 2014-2018

TTC Budget Notes 1. Numbers may not add up to a whole as they are rounded. Escalation (inflation) is calculated at 2.75% per year. The 2013 and 2014 numbers are from TTC public budget documents. 2015-2018 are projections based on historical precedence and taking into account known factors. 2. Total “Own Source” revenue is made up of fare revenue and non-fare revenue. 3. Escalated at 2.75% per year. This is a more optimistic projection then what the past historical patterns indicate, despite recent negative growth trends. 4. The factors that effect the base projections abnormally: 1: Fare revenue (due to harsh winter weather which reduced ridership) was also lower by $9.5 million in 2013. 2: TTC projects a loss of $14.2 million in 2013 dollars for the Spadina Extension with gross operating costs increasing by $33.7 million in 2013 dollars. Escalated to 2017, dollars at $33.7 million become $38 million for gross operating costs. When $22 million in new fare revenue from around 10.5 million to be attracted by the new subway extension are factored in, the result is $16 million for the total net cost in 2017. 3: Annualized numbers are adjusted and escalated to half year values (5.25M riders) for the start of service of the Spadina Subway on July 1 of 2017 and 2018 (10.5M riders) numbers are annualized. 5. Average fare is calculated by dividing Total Fare Revenue by Total Ridership 6. No increase in rate of fares in Table 1. Increase in fare revenue is calculated based on ridership multiplied by average fare. The average fare will change not only based on ridership, but also the type of fare paid as it is an average of all types of fares paid. If a higher percentage of people use Metropasses, then those extra rides will cause the average fare to decrease as no additional fare revenue is collected. Or if a higher percentage of passengers pay the higher cash fare, the average fare will increase relative to the base. Likewise if a higher percentage of the riders were using concession fares (seniors or students) that would cause the average fare to go down relative to the status quo.

7. Fare revenue grows with no fare increase due to ridership growth which generates more fare revenue. 8. Fare revenue increase in 2014 includes a fare increase to all fares and an adjustment to the price of the Metropass from 48.5 to 49.5 resulting in higher revenues 9. The subsidy is generally a product of expenses minus revenue. If the subsidy required is higher than the amount available, the typical course of action is to reduce expenditures by finding efficiencies or more often by cutting service. The 2014 subsidy total is $7 million below required as the budget notes the need to find $7 million in savings. Details on these cost efficiencies are not available as of November 2014. The 2013 subsidy (actual) is lower than noted as the TTC recorded a $46 million “surplus”. The TTC was also down $9.5 million in fare revenue due to harsh winter weather. The net reduction in subsidy thus totals $36.5 million. 10. The subsidy per rider is calculated by taking the total subsidy from the City and dividing it by the total ridership. It is presented as a metric to help understand the budget requirements over time. 11. TTC’s 2013 budget showed expenses of $1,541 million, but TTC actuals recorded a $46 million “surplus” resulting in a change to the “Total Expenditures” column for 2013 from $1,541 million to 1,495 million. 12. Projections for 2015 to 2018 are based on a 2.75% cost escalation factor (inflation), which is based on historical base TTC cost increases. To maintain expenditures at this rate will require ongoing aggressive cost containment 13. 2014 exceeds standard expenditure increases in recent years and projections. It is likely that based on recent years, that there will be some surplus in 2014 although there are “unallocated” cuts of $7 million required, along with slower ridership growth due to a lack of service, which will limit surpluses. 14. This is an attempt to show the cost of adding service to meet ridership growth. To calculate this rough projection, “New Service to Meet New Ridership”, take the average subsidy cost for each year and multiply this by the incremental riders for the year. The value for 2014 is different because it includes an annualization factor of about $8M (for annualized service costs). These values

are an approximation. The amount of service added depends on the time of the day, nature of the riders and the routes taken. Base Projection Subsidy/Rider values are used for all scenarios when calculating “New Service to Meet New Ridership” values. These values do not include the incremental rider costs associated with the increase in riders from service enhancements and the Spadina subway expansion. The costs associated with these enhancements are reflected elsewhere under Total Expenditures.

Moving Forward Appendices

NOTES: APPENDICES 1-12

15. A list of TTC Commission proposed new services are available in Table 2 with cost projections from the TTC, but they are escalated for inflation as they are shown in reports in nominal dollars. These values are the Combined Costs of All Enhancements (includes Twenty Minute or Better Service & Proposed TTC Enhancements from the report presented by TTC on August 2014, “Opportunities to Improve Transit Service in Toronto”) 16. Budget 2017 and 2018 have higher expenses than a base scenario involving inflation and ridership growth as it is assumed that the Spadina Subway Extension opens July 1 2017 resulting in cost increases of 50% of the estimated $33.7 million annual cost in 2013 dollars, escalated to $36.6 million in 2017 dollars using a yearly 2.75% escalation (inflation). The full effect is further escalated to 2018 dollars and included in the 2018 expenses fully annualized. In addition, the Leslie Car House is projected to open Jan 1 2016 for budget purposes and has an estimated operating cost (for a half year) of $5.9 million in 2016 dollars (based on a rough estimate of $10 million in yearly costs (2014 $) pro-rated to half the year). After the June 2016 addition (50% of total), the full costs of the Leslie Car House appears with the Spadina Subway Extension (in 2017 dollars for both). Costs are thereafter included in base and escalated as part of the total. In total the TTC projects a loss of $14.2 million in 2013 dollars for the Spadina Extension with gross operating costs increasing by $33.7 million in 2013 dollars, escalated to 2018 dollars at $37 million for gross operating costs. Factoring in around 10.5 million new riders bringing in $21.4 in fare revenue, the resulting total net cost is $15.6 million.

129

17. TTC expenditures in this model are expected to grow by 2.75% per year plus the additional costs associated with the Leslie Car

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

NOTES: APPENDICES 1-12 House and Spadina Expansion which grows the total expenses by more than 2.75%. Around 90% of the 2.75% growth factor used can be attributed to the increases in the arbitrated Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which has costs of $12-13 million in 2015 and $24-26 million in 2016 due to the compounding effect. The current CBA continues until 2018. 18. 2013 represents actual ridership and 2014 represents current year estimates that may fall 2-4 million short due to weather issues in the winter of 2014 and lack of vehicles to provided budget service, leading to lower ridership numbers. 19. Ridership growth has been around 3% or higher for the last several years, but lack of capacity, no new lines and moderate economic growth, overcrowding on vehicles are likely to push this down to the 2.5% range. 20. Revenue/Cost Ratio is used as way of showing the level of government support for transit. This is used to show the percentage of the budget paid for by passenger fares. The formula used for years in Ontario was the 68/32 in which the non-government revenue paid for 68% of the cost and the City and province split the remaining 32% evenly, at 16%. It is calculated by dividing total expenditures by fare revenue.

130

21. In August of 2014 the TTC presented a report, Opportunities to Improve Transit Service in Toronto, which detailed a series of options to improve service for riders; these are presented here to understand their cost implications. Costs are escalated using the standard 2.75% used elsewhere in this report. Ridership has been calculated by taking the ridership values in the August 2014 TTC report and using data from the January 2014 TTC report, Time-based Transfers Update, which notes a 0.4% increase in ridership due to the use of time-based transfers (two hour travel time privilege). In addition, the new express bus route network is assumed in this model to be implemented in 2017 and not 2018. The report mentions that it could be implemented in 2018, but this model assumes the implementation of the full operational costs in 2017 a year ahead of the presented TTC plan. The operational cost for the express bus route goes from $3.3, as stated in the report to $13.3 for 2017. The change has been made to speed up improvements to TTC because

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

the ATU believes riders deserve better service faster. Also note that the revenue from service enhancements is calculated by multiplying the incremental riders from service enhancements by the fare price and then subtracting $20 million every year after 2015. This is due to the loss of revenue from the time based travel. There is an increase of 0.4% of riders from the time based travel and a subsequent decrease in revenue of $20M from 2016. Overall there is a net cost of about $14-15 M from this enhancement. This $20 million is escalated every year by 2.75%. The report, Opportunities to Improve Transit Service in Toronto, mentions a partial implementation in year 2015. For our model, we are doing a full implementation starting in 2016 and assuming there is no partial implementation in year 2015. 22. The August 2014 TTC Represent, Opportunities to Improve Transit Service in Toronto presents service proposals in 2014 dollars and as such there is a need to escalate the dollars for the 2015-2018 period. 23. In 2009 The TTC Presented the Transit City Bus Plan which called for changing the service standard to a maximum of 20 minutes from 30 minutes. The costs presented here are escalated from 2009 dollars. Ridership is also escalated at the 2.5% per year used throughout this report as an estimate. These additional costs are included under the “TTC Proposed Service Enhancement Costs” heading in the other tables. 24. Fare increases are calculated to the nearest nickel and as such a five cent or ten cent increase creates different percentage increases each year it is implemented. No ridership loss for five cent increases is factored in based on recent TTC experiences and current TTC practice in estimating ridership. Scenarios with years of 10 cent fare increases assume a 0.5% ridership loss in those years. 25. Rounded to the nearest five cent increment. 26. Rounded up to nearest quarter for ease of cash handling and revenue maximization 27. Ridership and revenue projections do not factor in the cash fare rates although in reality the proximity of the cash fare rate to the token effects revenue as people switch fare media based on the delta between token and cash fare rates.

28. New fare revenue from service enhancements is factored in. 29. Every year there is a 10 cent fare increase, a 0.5% loss in ridership growth (equal to roughly 3 million rides) is factored based on historical precedent. 30. Average Cost (to TTC) per ride is calculated by dividing “Total Expenditures” by ridership. 31. The combined costs shows the operational costs for implementing the Service Enhancements as presented in the TTC report, Opportunities to Improve Transit Service in Toronto, and the additional costs from the “Twenty Minute or Better Service”, as mentioned in Transit City Bus Plan which the TTC presented in 2009. 32. This model presents the yearly growth in expenditures. In this calculation, the model excludes the additional costs associated with new ridership. The expenditures are growing by 2.75% plus the yearly expenditures from the Leslie Car House and Spadina Subway Expansion. 33. Fare Revenue for scenarios with service enhancements includes the revenue from enhancements that is in the report, Opportunities to Improve Service in Toronto, and the twenty minute or better service improvement from the Transit City Bus Plan presented by the TTC in 2009 34. During the year 2018, there is an increase in revenue which is derived from the following factors: 1) Increase of ridership from the Completion of the Spadina Subway expansion 2) Increase in additional riders from service enhancements and subsequently a lower increase in the net cost (revenue-cost) from enhancements compared to 2017 values. 3) Expenditures grow at a slower rate than past years due to completion of Leslie project being completed by 2017, and the costs becoming part of the base budget after 2018. This is a result of these different factors coming into play, the Subsidy/Rider percent increase and expense percent increase is lower than previous years. Post 2018, previous growth trends (percent increase) would return 35. This value is the growth in revenue from the base year of 2013. e.g. the value for 2016 will be calculating the increase in revenue from 2013 to 2016.

36. Fare Passenger Revenue (with service enhancements) is calculated by multiplying the ridership by the average fare and then subtracting the total by $6.9M in 2015 and $20M every year after. We are subtracting the total by $20m (escalated for years after 2015) because this is the drop in revenue from the two hour transfer service enhancement. Also the $6.9M drop in fare revenue for 2015 and $20M every year after is reflected in the other columns that mention the fare passenger revenue from service enhancements. 37. These numbers are accepted at face value, however it is not clear that additional revenues from increased enforcement will compensate for increased fare evasion from unmonitored entrances. The report Opportunities to Improve Transit in Toronto, states that there is about $6M in additional revenue from the all-door boarding on streetcars which is designated for our purpose as revenue from increased ridership. 38. These values are calculated by multiplying fare revenue with ridership from enhancements and the subtracting $6.9 in year 2015 and $20 million escalated for every year after due to the 2 hour transfer enhancement. 39. Net Costs from Service Enhancements includes all the costs associated with all of the service enhancements as presented in the report, Opportunities to Improve Transit Service in Toronto and the additional costs from the “Twenty Minute or Better Service”, as mentioned in Transit City Bus Plan which the TTC presented in 2009. The revenue generated from these enhancements is subtracted from the total costs to arrive at our net cost.

WheelTrans Notes 1. Numbers may not add up to a whole as they are rounded. Escalation is calculated at 2.75% per year. The 2013 and 2014 numbers are from TTC public budget documents. 2015-2018 are projections based on historical precedence and taking into account known factors. 2013 and 2014 numbers are from TTC public budget documents and 20152018 are projections based on historical precedence. 2. Growth rate assumes 1.8% average fare increase (5 cent on adult single fare) and revenue from ridership growth and includes non-fare revenue. No Fare increase is assumed in Figure 8 as the case for Wheeltrans. 3. The escalator used is 2.75% as this is the same as the expenditure growth rate and based on precedence 4. There is no “Non-Fare Revenue”. 5. Average fare calculated by dividing total fare revenue by total ridership. Average fare has been kept steady here in this “Base Projections” scenario, but in reality the average fare is going down despite fare increases (not represented here), which is likely due to the average age of Wheeltrans customers going up as a result of tightening up of eligibility criteria. 6. High ridership growth is driven by an ageing population and produces high ridership growth in the later years of this decade. With no indications of further eligibility changes, recent reductions in ridership growth will halt and demographics will again drive high ridership growth. 7. With no non-fare revenue, “Annual Revenue Growth” equals “Fare Revenue Growth”. 8. High ridership growth drives ongoing needs for large increases in the City Subsidy rate. 9. While total subsidy increases are large, Wheeltrans is able to keep per ride subsidies (i.e. cost) rising at around the cost of inflation. 10. 2013 has negative growth numbers as there was a one-time change in the eligibility criteria leading to dialysis patients losing automatic Wheeltrans access. Likewise, admission criteria

in general was changed leading to a reduction in Wheeltrans users. This is unlikely to continue to drive down ridership. 11. The last decade has produced wide ranging yearly cost increases due to constant program evolution. This formula takes ridership growth projections and adds the standard escalation rate used throughout this report of 2.75%. 12. High Expenditure rates are due to a high subsidy per ride requirement and high ridership rate increase.

Moving Forward Appendices

NOTES: APPENDICES 1-12

13. High ridership increase will return as demographics of an ageing population lead to higher ridership growth and the effects of tightening up of eligibility requirements (in 2011-2013) diminish and historical trends re-establish themselves. Also with the stalling of the accessibility program “Easier Access III” which creates accessible stations, shifts to the conventional system will be delayed. 14. Note, while increases in the Wheeltrans budget are high, average ride costs are below inflation increases which is a trend that has occurred over the last 5-10 years. 15. No ridership loss is assumed for the year of 10 cent fare increase as ridership has few other cost effective options and must trips currently are not discretionary. It is proposed that the service starts in 2016 to allow time to prepare for larger ridership including the ordering of vehicles. 16. Assumes a five cent fare increase per yea. 17. Expenditures rise by inflation on the base and then the added ridership (above normal from Table 9) attracted by “On-Demand” service is factored in.

131

18. Ridership growth is adjusted by adding a 25% additional increase to the base (12.5% verses 10%) in 2016 & 2017, and then adding 12.5% to the ridership growth in 2018 as pent-up demand is accommodated. A new 1.25% yearly ridership growth above the 10% assumed in the base scenario is assumed going forward from 2018. This would be due to the added attractiveness of the “On-Demand” service which would draw more riders. 19. Cost per ride for “On-Demand” service is estimated to be 20% higher due to the need for unscheduled stand-by capacity.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

132

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

APPENDIX 13

Moving Forward Appendices

133

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

134

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Moving Forward Appendices

135

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

136

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Moving Forward Appendices

137

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

138

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Moving Forward Appendices

139

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

140

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

APPENDIX 14

Moving Forward Appendices

141

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

142

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Moving Forward Appendices

143

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

144

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

APPENDIX 15

Moving Forward Appendices

APPENDIX 16

145

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

146

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

APPENDIX 17

Moving Forward Appendices

147

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

148

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Moving Forward Appendices

149

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

150

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

A Look at TTC Budgeting 2012-2018 No one disagrees with the need for TTC and other large organizations, both public and private, to be as efficient as possible. But with 90% of the operating budget of the TTC going to salaries, and most of that front line staff, large-scale reductions without a direct impact on service is impossible. New budgetary pressures evolve every year, and savings found through cost reductions, such as contracting out, the cutting of management positions, and combining services with the city, are only able to offset cost increases for the year they are made. In future years, while the TTC will financially benefit from these reductions, new offsets must be found to counter added costs. The other important point to be seen below, is that relative to the budget, efficiencies from controversial efforts like contracting-out are relatively small, and dwarfed by savings in other areas of the TTC budget. They are also insignificant in relation to cost increases that come about as a result of growing ridership, and one-time unpredictable cost increases like that of diesel fuel where a ten cent price rise results in a $9-10 million budgetary increase (based on the purchase of 90 to 100 million litres of diesel). In addition, as noted elsewhere in this report, the TTC’s long-term cost containment and the structure of its collective bargaining agreements means that further large-scale realignments are not realistic. Major reforms can only happen once, and we should be realistic about the possibility of large savings being found every year. In 2012, a major review of the Commission’s staffing was done and over 300 positions were eliminated in the professional and management sections, resulting in at least $2.6 million in savings and no impact on service. It will likely be impossible to find this level of savings again in the short run, and as such, the hunt for efficiencies will be harder with this major change already done. Finally, it should be noted that over the last 20 years, the TTC’s ridership has grown by 31%, but service has only grown by 25%. At the same time, the Commission’s overall workforce has only grown by 15%, meaning the productivity per worker

has increased dramatically over this time. This speaks to the evolving nature of the TTC and its increased staffing efficiency. Below is a review, based on Commission reports, of the budget savings the TTC expected to make as a result of policy decisions and efficiency measures. We’ve also provided examples of cost increases and decreases that are a result of factors beyond the Commission’s control, to provide some perspective. We think these summaries demonstrate the relatively limited impact of efficiencies on blunting the increasing budgets of the TTC. While the search for efficiencies must continue, there must be a commitment from governments to sustained funding for the TTC. Note, the following are not a comprehensive list of budget amendments, but rather those highlighted in TTC’s yearly budget reports. All policy budget reductions presented in TTC reports are detailed here, but “examples of uncontrollable cost decreases and increases” are selected examples to show the relative size of policy budget reductions. Operating Budget 2010 Policy Budget Reductions ›› $1.5 million decrease. Discontinuing the use of biofuels in the bus fleet. ›› $1.7 million decrease. Converting contract IT work to staff positions. ›› $2.5 million decrease. Safety culture: reduction from actions recommended by an outside consultant hired to reverse occupation injury rates by implementing new safety measures. ›› $1.5 million decrease. The facility maintenance program, attendance management initiative, and Work Safe-Home Safe programs to reduce the absentee rate by about 0.6%, leading to budget savings. (Some of the these savings may be duplicates from the above mentioned Safety culture program reductions). Total NEW efficiencies from nonservice related policy budget reductions: $7.2 million.

Examples of Uncontrollable Cost Decreases and Increases ›› $4 million increase. Introduction of the 13% OHST, effective July 1, 2010, leads to a reduction in the amount of tax rebates the TTC receives. ›› $2.6 million decrease. An anticipated 26% drop in the budgeted average price of heating fuel. ›› $1.4 million decrease. Reduced new operator training, based on lower numbers of trainees. ›› $2.7 million increase. Increased overtime based on the experience of recent years: “increased workforce gapping, increased one-time or fixed terms requirements (e.g. training on new vehicles), and increased costs associated with late-ins due to service delays as a result of emergencies, accidents and special events.” ›› $2.3 million increase. Material price Increases of 2% due to inflation on the purchase of good and services other than those specifically noted. ›› $2.3 million increase. Contracted services: “to support increased requirements for telephone services, IT systems maintenance and software license fees.”

Moving Forward Appendices

APPENDIX 18

Operating Budget 2011 Policy Budget Reductions ›› $2 million decrease. Elimination of 10 hour rest period for operators. ›› $6 million decrease. Phasing or gapping in of the Station Managers.

151

Total NEW efficiencies from non-service related policy budget reductions: $8.0 million Examples of Uncontrollable Cost Decreases and Increases: ›› $3 million decrease. Lower diesel fuel costs. ›› $20 million decrease. Accounting provision policy change (PSAB). ›› $5 million increase. Increased advertising revenue as a result of contract provision that shares more revenue with sales above contract base. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

Toronto’s Transit Future

$3 million increase. Accident claims increase. $7 million increase. Vehicle & facility maintenance programs. $3 million increase. General inflationary Increases. $3.9 million increase. Maintaining existing service levels: 67 positions to support current level of services and additional resources for increasing vacation entitlements as Operators and Collectors become more senior. ›› $2.2 million increase. Depreciation cost increases. ›› $14 million decrease. Lower diesel fuel costs primarily resulting from purchasing at spot market prices. ›› ›› ›› ››

Operating Budget 2012 Policy Budget Reductions ›› $0.7 million decrease. Discontinued purchase of Green Power. ›› $0.312 million decrease. Reduced purchase of legal publications, upgraded software, improvements in production workflow, reduced colour copying, reduced advertising for recruitment, and in-house medical examinations, and putting the Coupler magazine online. Total NEW efficiencies from non-service related policy budget reductions: $1.0 million Examples of Uncontrollable Cost Decreases and Increases:

152

›› $31.2 million increase. Diesel cost increases. ›› $4.5 million increase. Bus maintenance programs: replacement parts on newer low-floor and hybrid buses are more expensive than for older standard buses. ›› $3.1 million increase. Inflation: 2% for increases on the purchase of goods and services, other than items provided for specifically. ›› $2.8 million increase. Calendar adjustment; 2012 is a leap year, so one more week day of transit service.

Operating Budget 2013 Policy Budget Reductions ›› $16 million decrease. Downsizing: 300 positions eliminated in response to a review of workforce requirements across all budgets. ›› $5.6 million decrease. Management structure: “Amalgamation of the former Engineering & Construction and Expansion areas for an expected annual savings in the order of $3.1 million together with cost avoidance leading to $1.6 million in savings.” Likewise, the elimination of three executive positions saves $0.9 million. ›› $2.5 million decrease. Contracting out garbage collection and the cleaning of subway washrooms, which avoided the hiring of 39 more positions, and the saving of an additional $1.5 million in expenses each year. Contracting out bus servicing and other cleaning activities, now in process, saves $1 million in 2013. ›› $0.7 million decrease. Shared services with the City. By jointly purchasing telephone and data telecommunication services, cellular and Blackberry services, IT Technical assistance contracts, purchasing card services, rock salt, administrative services regarding employee and pension benefits and electricity with the City of Toronto will lead to savings and more efficiency. ›› $1.0 million decrease. Contracting out of bus servicing and cleaning at two garages next year. Total NEW efficiencies from non-service related policy budget reductions: $25.8 million. Examples of Uncontrollable Cost Decreases and Increases: ›› $3.3 million increase. Increased facilities maintenance of escalators, signal system and track infrastructure (inspection and maintenance improvements on cross-overs). ›› $6.0 million decrease. Accident claims settlements. Changes in provincial no-fault legislation for public transit systems results in decreases in cash payouts compared to 2012. ›› $2.0 million decrease. Natural Gas; lower prices are anticipated for 2013. ›› $23.7 million increase. Collective bargaining agreements:

arbitration award to increase wages and benefits. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

›› $3.5 million increase. Depreciation. Represents the amortization of the net cost to the TTC of its capital assets over their useful lives. ›› $3.5 million increase. Inflation. Approximately 2.2% for inflationary increases on the cost of goods and services, other than items already specified Operating Budget 2014 Policy Budget Reductions: ›› $1.0 million decrease. Shared services with city. Jointly purchasing Telephone and data telecommunication services, cellular and Blackberry services, IT Technical assistance contracts, purchasing card, rock salt, administrative services regarding employee and pension benefits and electricity with the City of Toronto. ›› $1.2 million decrease. Contracting out of bus servicing and cleaning activities. ›› $5.4 million decrease. Procurement of 153 articulated buses will reduce annual operating costs in comparison to providing equivalent service with conventional 40 foot buses. ›› $2.8 million decrease. Reduction in administration fees and life insurance premiums due to a joint tender with the City of Toronto and Toronto Police Services. $14 million projected savings over five years, or $2.8 million on average. Total NEW efficiencies from non-service related policy budget reductions: $10.4 million Examples of Uncontrollable Cost Decreases and Increases: ›› $9.4 million increase. Vehicle maintenance: the warranty coverage for more hybrid buses is expiring, resulting in higher maintenance costs as well as costs associated with the maintenance of the LRVs. ›› $7.1 million increase. Hydro. Projected rate increases and increased power consumption by the expanding Toronto Rocket subway fleet (owing to its increased weight, passenger load and higher-capacity ventilation system). ›› $4.0 million increase. Accident claims: payments will increase in 2014 as previously submitted claims are settled.

TTC Vehicle Crowding Standards, 2014 PEAK PERIODS

OFF-PEAK PERIODS Service less frequent than once every 10 minutes

Service once every 10 minutes or more frequent

Buses Orion VII 12-metre low-floor bus (38 seats)

Orion VII 12-metre low-floor bus (36 seats)

New Flyer D40LF 12-metre low-floor bus

High-floor lift-equipped 12-metre bus

Nova LFS artic 18-metre low-floor bus1

74 108

42 61

53 76

130

1000

–

500

Streetcars Standard 15-metre streetcar (CLRV) Articulated 23-metre streetcar (ALRV) Articulated 30-metre low-floor streetcar1 Rapid transit Train (6 cars, H- or T- series) Train (6 cars, TR-series)

1080

–

540

Train (4 cars, T-series) Sheppard Subway

670

–

330

Train (4 cars, S-series) Scarborough RT

220

–

130

Moving Forward Appendices

APPENDIX 19

153

The average number of customers per vehicle or train during the busiest 60 minutes of each period of service is compared to these numbers. 1

Standards for these new vehicles/trains are subject to confirmation after in-service experience.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 113

“[O]ur transit systems should be responding with…urgency to dangerous levels of atmospheric carbon. Rather than allowing subways and bus fares to rise while service erodes, we need to be lowering prices and expanding service – regardless of the cost. NAOMI KLEIN This Changes Everything 2014