Kerfuffle Over Kilometrage

TTC Chair Adam Giambrone on a bus on a file Toronto Star photo (source)

Over the past week, the media has been on a feeding frenzy over the release of Councillors’ Office expense reports for 2009. The stories have ranged from the utterly ridiculous (mascots for a childrens’ party? The scandal!) to what seems to be a mainstream media vendetta against Adam Giambrone. The latest Giambrone mess was first sparked (accompanied by a hilarious Toronto Sun photo illustration) by what some consider an excessive taxi expense bill, followed by allegations of misuse of these expense privileges, and finally coming to more calls for his resignation. As much as I agree that some of Adam’s use of taxis is questionable, I find the story that sparked this chain of events, the $3,000 taxi bill, to be an unfair attack, especially on those who have chosen to live a car-free lifestyle.

I gotta ask: where is the media outrage toward other members of Council who appear to expense far greater amounts on transportation, and notably, “kilometrage” for use of their personal vehicles? A quick glimpse would show a handful of councillors  who spend greater amounts on transportation in 2009 than Giambrone. These include:

• Michael Thompson (Ward 37 - Scarborough Centre): $9,623.07
• Norman Kelly (Ward 40 - Scarborough-Agincourt): $7,576.20
• Raymond Cho (Ward 42 - Scarborough-Rouge River): $6,013.41
• Chin Lee (Ward 41 - Scarborough-Rouge River): $3,805.30
• Brian Ashton (Ward 36 - Scarborough Southwest): $3,527.45
• Howard Moscoe (Ward 15 - Eglinton-Lawrence): $3,443.75
• Suzan Hall (Ward 1 - Etobicoke North): $3,290.46

First of all, what is up with you Scarborough Councillors? There are ten of you on City Council, and half of you are on this list of heavy transportation spenders. I understand that TTC service to Scarborough is pretty insufficient, but the disparity is not that great, is it?

Second of all, it’s difficult to do a fair analysis of the mileage logs against taxi chits. Whereas on the taxi chits, the start and end points of the trip are clearly indicated, the auto mileage logs are all heavily redacted.

One of Michael Thompson’s ‘kilometrage’ logs, heavily redacted

Finally, why does the City’s expense system reward Councillors who drive with their personal vehicles with a fairly generous rate of 52¢ per kilometre, regardless of distance traveled. The Canada Revenue Agency, on the other hand, gives 52¢/km for the first 5,000 kilometres traveled, then only 46¢/km thereafter. On top of the mileage, the City reimburses for all parking expenses.

On the other hand, the Metropass provided for Councillors to use amounts to a relatively meagre $1,320 benefit annually (based on the MDP rate) for unlimited mileage. There is no allowance at all for Councillors who bike or walk to work. And finally, the reimbursement for taxi use is based on the taxi rate. 

In a City that is trying to put public transit, active transportation, and shared rides (which technically includes taxis, by the way), over single-occupant vehicles, Councillors have no incentive to choose more sustainable transportation modes to conduct their business. With a fuel-efficient vehicle, it is plausible that a Councillor could actually be profiting off the per kilometre reimbursement rate (though if someone would like to take a stab doing the calculations to prove or disprove this point, it would be great). 

So how can we fix this car-oriented mess? Well first off, the City needs to have a more consistent policy regarding transportation expenses. When looking at the expenses of all the Councillors, some expensed nothing, while it was clear others expensed everything. This makes it difficult for any level of transparency.

And what about encouraging behaviour change? Perhaps transportation budgets should have a set maximum, and Councillors should make their transportation choices based on that? How about not reimbursing parking fees, as most areas with parking charging are typically located in areas with high transit accessibility? And of course, reducing the mileage rate for car use.

And finally, to the media, how about some balance in coverage? Think about how much Giambrone would have spent if he did not make the transportation choices he did. It’s well known Adam takes the TTC every day, we see him on the system more often than any other chair in Toronto’s history. We know he does not own a car. He is demonstrating the transportation choices that are necessary for a more sustainable and livable City, and we get on his case about taxi expenses that are likely 99.9% legitimate. This is not fair, not productive, and does not contribute to the real discussions we should be having in advance of the municipal election. 

Quick Fix x 5 = TTC Fare Headaches

With news of the upcoming fare increase in January, it should not have come as a surprise to anyone that people would begin hoarding TTC tokens to insulate themselves from the increase. It’s not a new concept: token hoarding occurred with every previous fare hike (2007, 2006). The difference this time, however, is that the TTC does not have their usual back up of paper tickets, as they were discontinued last year due to counterfeiting. The result? A token shortage, with the initial restriction to 10 tokens on Nov. 6, followed by a restriction to 5 tokens just three days later on Nov. 9, and today, the unprecedented halt to bulk token sales altogether. And the “solution” (as described by Chair Adam Giambrone)? Reintroduce paper tickets, at least temporarily, until the new year.

In the context of the budgetary pressures facing the TTC this coming year, it is appropriate to limit any potential loss of revenue through token hoarding as much as possible. However, it would be nice if the Commission was up front and honest about it. The first news release on November 6 that limited token sales to 10 made no mention of revenue loss, only to “ensure enough tokens in the system” for customer use.  One week later, a news release finally mentioned the issue of hoarding, but it wasn’t until today’s release that the potential loss (estimated at $5-million in 2010 — see issue with this below) of revenue was discussed. Without a doubt, the Commission was ill prepared to deal with a fare hike in a post-ticket environment, and the actions over the past few weeks clearly demonstrate this.

INTERESTING FACT CHECK:
From today’s press release:
“Without taking these steps today, the TTC could lose more than $5 million in 2010 revenues due to token hoarding.”

The TTC ordered 20 million tokens in 2008 to replace adult tickets, on top of the original order of 20 million tokens in 2006. Hoarding would have lost the TTC 25 cents per token. To make the TTC’s estimate to lose “more than” $5-million plausible, this means that every other token the TTC has would have to be hoarded. Of course, it is extremely unlikely every single token would be even in circulation, considering the number that are lost (I lost 4 in Montreal!) and the TTC likely has a large supply in reserve.
(Thanks to @anthonyschein for correcting my earlier tweet mistake!)

So now with another quick fix, it looks like we’ll have these paper tickets again. And that brings me to the main point of this post that marks my return to the blogging world.

How many quick fixes can the TTC’s fare system handle?

In a tweet earlier today, I summarized the list of changes made to TTC fare media in the past three years that have impacted the customer experience. These include:

• The introduction of new bi-metal tokens in 2006 in response to the discovery of counterfeit of the old tokens;
• The termination of adult tickets in fall 2008 in response to the high rates of counterfeit tickets and the purchase of more tokens;
• The introduction of security holograms and a special “activation sticker” to the Metropass in response to reports of fraudulent passes this past summer;
• The announcement a couple weeks ago of plans to install Metropass readers and token validators on all buses and streetcars; and finally,
• Today’s announcement of temporary paper tickets.

All of these are essentially quick fixes to the fare system, all in the name of preventing fare fraud. And all these quick fixes have come with a cost:

• The initial supply of 20 million bimetal tokens cost $1.7-million to produce
• An additional supply of 20 million bimetal tokens to replace tickets cost $2.0-million (source)
• Security holograms on all weekly passes and Metropasses costing an additional $250,000 annually
• Metropass and token validators on all buses and streetcars in 2010 will cost approximately $1.5-million.

This is a total of a minimum of $7-million for quick fixes on a fare system that is now officially obsolete, as the TTC finally adopted the Presto smartcard system that is being rolled out across the GTA last week. Adam Giambrone tweeted earlier today about a five-year timeframe for TTC Presto implementation. Given that, the total cost of these changes could be over $10-million (given additional annual cost of the new fancy holographic Metropasses). Given an nine year period between 2006 and 2015 (five year Presto target), the TTC has spent over $1.1M per year on capital alone to fight fraud. I’m curious how this cost-benefit is working out.

The worst part is, these quick fixes basically gave the TTC an excuse over the past three years to resist the adoption of Presto, a fare system that has been under development for six years. I know it is not this simple, but if the TTC had signed onto, and budgeted this $10M to actively work to implement Presto back in 2006, we would be only a year from a smartcard system that contains all sorts of security features to prevent the fraud these quick fixes have strived (and clearly failed) to do.

And now, we’re back to paper tickets, at least for the next couple months.