March 26, 2008
U-Passion of the Bikes
Last week, undergraduate students at UTSC (University of Toronto Scarborough) rejected the U-Pass by a stunning margin, with full-time students voting against it 1674 to 622, and part-time students spurning it 53 to 16. Minus the abstentions and spoiled ballots, that worked out to 73% No for for full-timers and 77% No for part-timers. When last we wrote about the proposed offer—a compulsory $60-a-month transit pass for all students, with no potential to opt out—we proffered a qualified endorsement, believing that the goal of discouraging future car ownership was sufficiently noble for us to be able to overlook the scheme's inherent unfairness. But we later recanted "after reading all of the comments here and on the Spacing Wire....and after seeing that even Adam CF doesn't yet endorse it for St. George, AND after finding out that the passes won't be swipeable."
What's so frustrating is that everyone involved in creating the proposal did the best job they could have, given the unfortunately limited resources of the TTC, and yet the plan they've come up with simply isn't good enough to warrant serious consideration (that is, a referendum), at least not at St. George. For years, student unions had been asking the TTC to offer a pass for postsecondary students, as many other transit systems do, and the TTC eventually responded. The problem is that their response was the most logically efficient one: to average out among all students the total amount they spend on the TTC on a monthly basis; the burden of paying for transit would be shouldered by all students regardless of their level of use, and such a perfect redistribution would result in the TTC collecting no more or less from the farebox than it does now. (The TTC later agreed to kick in a couple million a year to keep the price of the proposed pass at $60 so that the rate wouldn't have to be hiked in proportion to the recent increase in the cost of a Metropass from $99 to $109.)
The student unions have been negotiating a better offer and have managed to squeeze out some concessions, most notably an agreement that the details of the program could be customized for each campus, in order to respond to the needs of particular students bodies [PDF]. UTSC, for instance, got the TTC to agree to extend the proposal to part-time students; because that campus doesn't offer any continuing education courses, the TTC didn't have to worry about adults enrolled in "one personal-interest course" taking advantage of the deal. The other tweaks included:
• monthly price is held at $60 until May 2010• U-Pass is semester based and is offered for 3 semesters per year
• access is provided to commuter parking lots on the same basis as regular Metropass users
All fairly minor, in the scheme of things. Indeed, the other student unions were concerned that if UTSC approved the proposal, it would hamper their ability to further negotiate a more favourable offer. The problem, of course, is that the thing everyone wants—an opt-out clause—would undermine the foundation on which the U-Pass plan is based. Barring a considerable budget reallocation from the City of Toronto, or a sudden infusion of cash from either of the other levels of government, there will be no opt-out clause, and the U-Pass is destined to die as ignominiously as it did at Scarborough. School administrations could also potentially chip in to subsidize the pass, observed UTSU VP External Dave Scrivener in The Varsity, as is done at UBC, Simon Fraser University, and the University of Alberta. But, despite its $1.8 billion endowment, U of T tends to be extremely reluctant to fund anything that might improve the student experience.
A phase-in strategy suggested by Paul Brown of George Brown (no relation) that would see the pass only be available to incoming students, such that current students wouldn't have to bear a sharp fee hike, improves the project significantly, as it would position the U-Pass as a factor for secondary students to consider in making decisions about where to go to college or university, and where to live while going there. It could make certain campuses and living options more or less attractive, and, most importantly, it would be an upfront consideration. TTC Vice-Chair Joe Mihevc seemed fond of this idea.
Nevertheless, although this modification would greatly mitigate the drawbacks, it wouldn't address them directly. Students whose primary means of transportation is walking or biking, commuting methods more sustainable than public transit, shouldn't be encouraged to shuffle onto a system that is already bursting at the seams during peak periods. Rather, they should be commended for selecting an active lifestyle with an even smaller carbon footprint. The idea behind the U-Pass—cultivating a "transit lifestyle"—is a respectable and necessary one, the point being to show students that transit is a viable primary transportation option. That is, once you get used to being able to hop from one part of the city to another at your convenience (travelling within the core is still remarkably rapid), you don't really want to go through the hassles and costs associated with car ownership, from paying for gas to finding places to park. It dramatically changes the way you move around and think about the city. The fundamental flaw in this approach, however, is the assumption that transit is the only alternative to car ownership, as expressly conveyed in the TTC's survey of last summer. Cycling and walking simply don't fall on the City's radar; the City is at best only minimally interested in investing in the (comparatively dirt cheap) infrastructure necessary to foster those as viable transportation options. Instead of looking at transportation as a car vs. transit dichotomy, the City of Toronto must respect the fact that there are other ways to get around that for many people are vastly preferable. The U-Pass could indeed be one part of a larger strategy to ween people off car use and into other modes of commuting, but nothing else of significance is happening. The City, for all intents and purposes, doesn't build bike lanes, and doesn't consider including them even when they're redesigning a street, anyway (see Jarvis, Lansdowne, Bloor). And good luck walking on a sidewalk if there's been more than a little snowfall the night before. Or try traversing the portion of Yonge Street that crosses the 401 [PDF].
There seems to be a misunderstanding of the ways lots of people live, and a certain patronization in the assumption that if you're not a transit rider, you're a motorist, or that you will be one someday. At the TTC's special meeting on Valentine's Day, Chair Adam Giambrone remarked, "It's easier to keep someone on transit than it is to attract someone to transit." This is true, and this is important. But imposing transit doesn't have to be part of this equation.
The downtown campuses (St. George, Ryerson, George Brown, and probably OCAD) are currently trying to have a contract finalized by August 1st in preparations for referenda in October or so. Regardless of the plan on offer, it will be a challenge to mobilize notoriously disengaged commuter students at St. George in numbers sufficient to approve the plan, and the other schools will likely face similar hurdles, if not to the same extent. Student unions are pretty happy with the current VIP (Volume Incentive Pass) program, anyway, as they keep students coming through their offices on a monthly basis, allowing them to inform students of ongoing campaigns and services. Just as the objective of a petition is to collect your contact information, part of the attractiveness of offering monthly passes—as opposed to the year- or semester-long U-Pass—is to give student unions a crack at their members every thirty days.
We suggest that UTSU uses the next opportunity to survey current Metropass purchasers on their feelings regarding the U-Pass. If you don't even have them onside, then it's time to walk one block east to Queen's Park.
Screen grab of Adam Giambrone's Facebook page by David Topping. Jonathan Goldsbie is a U of T St. George student and loves his Metropass dearly, using it two to four times a day. He would love to try biking, though, but wouldn't feel safe without bike lanes.
|
The reaction of the TTC to UPASS, as well as its reactions to increased ridership, highlights the futility of government controlled monopolies.
It's a business that doesn't control its costs and where negotiations are conducted that take no consideration of any business judgment (everything is political). It's a business that doesn't want more customers, as they are actually a drain on resources, rather than a source of revenues. It's a business that does the absolutely most stupid thing because of outside control of different sections of its budget (never ending delays in implementing Oyster style cards due to accounting and an inability to realise savings).
TTC needs to be run as a for profit company with no controls or involvement by municipal government. A well run transit firm wouldn't have granted 99-year leases to McDonald's and would be making huge profits from developments along its ROWs. Instea council did that and then had to sell for minimal $. Privatize it now so taht we can get a real transit system that builds routes and doesn't pay drivers 100k+.
Whereas I agree that the City does way too little to encourage pedestrians and cyclists, and seems oddly focused on a strict automobile/transit modal split, the U-Pass hardly forces students who bike or walk to school onto transit. Just because one walks/cycles to UofT's Scarborough campus, does not mean one does not use transit or an automobile for a lot of other, non-school related trips.
For the same reason that the City needs to start paying more attention to pedestrians and bike riders, walking and cycling advocates need to stop looking for sinister plots behind transit-supportive proposals.
"But, despite its $1.8 billion endowment, U of T tends to be extremely reluctant to fund anything that might improve the student experience."
I question how having a mandatory transit pass would improve the "student experience".
"you don't really want to go through the hassles and costs associated with car ownership, from paying for gas to finding places to park"
Fearmongering.
There is no guarantee that taking transit will be hassle free: bad weather, dealing with unshovelled sidewalks, crowded buses, equipment failures, forgotten umbrellas, occasional labour disruption, etc.
How is paying for gas any different from paying for transit? All gas stations take credit cards. If you want to use a credit card to buy a Metropass, you are limited to four stations. You can't even use a credit card to purchase the Metropass Discount Plan. Meanwhile I can use a credit card to pay for on-street parking space in Toronto.
Several post-secondary institutions sell monthly or semester parking permits for specific parking lots, minimizing the need to drive around to find a parking space.
By no means am I saying or implying that driving is better. But you seem to imply that public transit is hassle free when it's not.
TTC doesn't necessarily have to be privatised, but it sure needs to be run better. A well run transit system attracts new riders, therefore increasing revenue which can then be spent on improving service (which attracts new riders).
And one advantage of a publicly run "public" transit, is that no revenues are taken for profit. That being said, Japan's transit system is a mix of public and private rail (although JR has been made into a kind of crown corporation to increase accountability and reduce costs).
Maybe Toronto could offer private companies some of the old streetcar right of ways to bring back that service. Although Toronto's low density might not be that attractive to those seeking a profit.
Post-secondary students need a variety of options, including a strong transit option. TTC had better get its act together and simply offer a discounted pass to those who choose to buy it.
Tuds
I'm pretty skeptical as to how privatizing the TTC will solve all its problems.
I will only vote for the U-Pass (I'm a U of T St. George student) if an opt-out is offered for people living on or near campus. These people can walk or bike, which is more environmentally friendly than the TTC and more pleasant, since you aren't standing in an overcrowded subway or streetcar. The U-Pass only makes sense for people living some distance from campus, since they have no choice but to take the TTC or drive, although very few U of T students drive to class.
Speaking of unshoveled sidewalks... As usual this a.m., got off the Leslie bus to walk east on Lesmill to get to work. Sidewalks were sheer ice so I walked on the road till I found an ice-free driveway which happened to be the entrance to the Emergency Task Force headquarters. Unfortunately, I found that 'To Serve & Protect' does not extend to clearing ice as my feet flew out from under me on the treacherous skating rink that serves as the sidewalk in front of ETF headquarters.
Alas, there was no wail of sirens nor any armed and armoured officers who responded or even noticed my predicament. Perhaps they were sharing a laugh by replaying my pratfall as caught on cctv or maybe they were paying a courtesy call to Rob Ford. On the other hand, as the ETF never seems to arrive at the scene of a crime by foot, bike or transit then I suppose that salting their sidewalk isn't a priority.
It is very hard to come up with a system for exempting walking-distance people that would not be both costly and eminently gameable, though.
I'm a Ryerson student, and as a transit geek, I've thought a lot about the u-pass. I'm not going to be supporting it (for the downtown campuses anyway) for a couple of reasons:
1)Carbon Emissions & Congestion. for Ryerson and UT St. George, I don't think having a u-pass will reduce emissions or congestion. Driving to these campuses on a student's budget is already more or less out of the question. That makes the transportation choice between walking, cycling, and transit. With a u-pass in place, we'll obviously see a shift towards the TTC, and probably a lot of those trips will be made by people who had other, greener choices. It'll cause undue congestion on the TTC in the core, which is already quite congested. Where the TTC has the ability to increase capacity (which is in very few places), it'll mean more buses/streetcars/subways running, and ultimately more emissions.
The opposite of this is true for York and UTSC and I find it a shame that their referendum failed. We need to get those students out of cars. And capacity out there can definitely be increased. It would be balance positive for the environment and the students.
2)Cost. $60 is too much. Way too much. $480 per year? Placing that kind of a burden on low-income students is unacceptable.
One thing about only implementing the u-pass at York and UTSC is that the ridership in those places would probably be lower than downtown, which would prompt the TTC to offer them a cheaper pass. How much cheaper, I'm not sure.
3)Not swipeable? Can you imagine the chaos at Dundas and St. George stations?
Until they make the u-pass swipeable and cheaper, I'm not even going to think about supporting it. I used to go to the University of Guelph, and our u-pass there was $15 a month, and it was fantastic. But you might say that that's comparing apples and oranges. I agree. I don't think the u-pass model that we've seen in other Canadian cities is as relevant here. For argument's sake, the closest comparison we can make is with Vancouver (scale-wise). Regular transit passes are $69 there ($90 here), and were subsidised to $22 (would be $60 here). That's a 68% discount, versus
33% here. In Vancouver, UBC pitched in to help lower the price as did a credit union. In Vancouver, to break even, you have to take 10 trips a month. In Toronto, that number would be 27. Provincial funding for transit flows much less freely here than it does in BC. These are apples and oranges here.
Now, some people argue that this difference is because ridership is already high in Toronto, and the TTC is betting that the average student would take transit more than the average UBC student. I agree. But that doesn't especially matter. The low income students that don't take the TTC will feel this especially hard. $480 is 1440 Mr. Noodles!
So why not come up with a Toronto model?
How about we have students pay a much smaller flat fee and then be offered discount tokens? This would give the TTC the guaranteed income they were looking for, cause no additional turnstile hassles, reduce the burden on lower income students, and most importantly, offer cheaper TTC! At the same time, there would be a marginal cost for riding, discouraging some of the people that would take it when they have other options.
For example, just off the top of my head:
Students have $20 per month tacked on to their tuition
They can buy up to, say, 15 tokens a month for, say, $1.25 each. If the student would rather have a Metropass, they can pay an extra $40 a month and get one.
Yes, you can buy and sell tokens, which is why there would have to be a cap, but trading the tokens isn't necessarily the worst thing in the world. It would be a lot easier to enforce if we could just do away with tokens and implement Presto, but for the time being, I think the trading element isn't big enough a deal to overlook this idea.
Anyway this whole post was sort of stream-of-consciousness and ranty, but I said what I wanted to.
Cheaper transit would be great, but the cost should be passed on to the right people: those who drive their cars to work every day.
When Toronto decides to subsidize its transit service, who does it find to finance that subsidy? Students. Of course this plan should fail.
Why all the wringing of hands? If the students don't like the proposal when stacked up against the current options, they will reject it. Keep working on a better option.
I will admit as well that I don't know all the details, but isn't trying to apply the same transit/transportation solutions to students at a downtown campus as you are to ones in Scarborough doomed to fail anyways?
Oh, just make them transferable already.
We need cheaper transit for everyone, no need to make exceptions for young or old. Ideally even free, that would eliminate a lot of problems by eliminating ticket sellers and takers, give us more room in the stations and make the bus and streetcar stops much shorter.
If motorists feel it's more convenient and faster to drive a car, then let's make that option far more expensive and with more restrictions.
I don't like the fact that Toronto is so car-oriented, but constantly holding up drivers as demons and pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users as angels seems short-sighted.
While tons of drivers do drive when it's not entirely necesssary and yes, they deserve our contempt, there *are* commuters who would be doing a three or four hour commute if they didn't drive -- those who don't *have* the luxury of being in the Toronto core. Are you going to penalize them for being unable to afford a home or to find a job in the right place?
I sure as hell would not cut four hours out of my day when I can pare it down to one.
Fix the system to make it an attractive option for all, and stop blaming people for making the best choice available.
There is no free lunch, so I am reluctant to use the term "free public transit". Someone pays, and it is always the consumer or the citizen: never the company or the government.
That being said, there is a strong argument in favour of "no transit fares" for riders:
http://www.freepublictransit.org/
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/transit_should.php
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/07/05/NoFares/
And some against:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/07/30/FareFree6/
Those against seem to focus a lot on vandalism and homeless riders, but I think those are separate issues to public transit that need to be addressed on their own terms. Those reasons should not spoil the plan for eliminating the fare-box.
Cheers,
Tuds