According to the definition of efficiency that is written above we need to consider effectiveness alongside concerns about the excessive or unnecessary use of resources. This makes sense to me – and according to this way of thinking we are allowed to value things that are important to our city (like good TTC service or paying TTC workers respectable wages for the crucial jobs they do). The “efficiency” spoken about by the TTC seemed to be coming from somewhere else, though, and it did not take long to find out where…
Not two weeks after the TTC board meeting I was at City Hall waiting to make another deputation; this time to the City of Toronto Budget Committee. While waiting for my turn I listened to the other deputants, as well as the questions that the Budget Committee members asked. The patterns were rather clear, the most notable being the line of questioning of committee Vice-chair (and Councillor for Ward 2) Doug Ford. Besides sharing factual inaccuracies around hiring* and vehicle operation**, Mr. Ford’s every question was about “efficiency.” According to Doug Ford’s understanding of efficiency though, the goal was to make everything cheaper, regardless of its value to people who ride or work for the TTC.
The highly predictable questions made me wonder how Councillor Doug Ford thinks about value and efficiency for his own travel needs. If we talk about travel efficiency only in terms of minimizing waste and expense, then:
-We would expect a person to walk or use a bicycle for short trips in a dense urban environment, like getting around downtown Toronto, for example;
-We would expect that person to use public transit for regular or predictable trips over longer distances during busy times, to/from areas of moderate to high density, like the commute from Rexdale to downtown Toronto, for example; and
-We would expect that person to prioritize automobile fuel efficiency for the trips that are admittedly far more convenient by automobile, maybe by driving a Honda Civic, a Toyota Prius, or a Smart Car.
Besides being less expensive, the options above are also better for the environment, human health and take up less space in our city. Now I can understand that Doug Ford does not value the options above (he reportedly prefers to use a private automobile for all of those types of trips). Because of those values, though, Doug Ford is not too concerned about higher costs or higher carbon emissions for his own travel needs. Why is it then that he is so adamant about going cheap on things that are valuable to the travel needs of the people who ride the TTC 1.7 million times per day?
Here are two examples of Doug Ford-styled “efficiency” of which the TTC seems quite proud:
1) “Contracting out” cleaning services to a private company, and
2) Operating bigger vehicles so that more people can be moved for the expense of one driver.
Let us be clear: both of these changes have made things worse for people who are not Doug Ford. And because efficiency , by definition, incorporates effectiveness and value, we need to be able to separate changes that are efficient from those that are really only damaging and cheap.
In the case of contracting out cleaning services, this change does in fact save the TTC money ($2M/year according to p2 of the 2014 proposed operating budget). How so? It’s quite simple: instead of paying workers a decent wage with benefits, they pay a private company. That private company exists for the purpose of making a profit, so it thinks first about the amount of money that it can make with the contract. A big part of this thinking is trying to keep its expenses as low as possible. And what expenses does the company have? Workers! Or more specifically the cost of paying the people who actually pick up the dirty crumpled newspapers from the floors of the vehicles that we ride. The contracted company therefore sets its wages as a far lower amount than what the TTC previously paid its own employees to do the same work.
Is finding ways to cut the salaries of front line workers the type of “acting effectively” that we want to encourage in our city? To be quite frank, in my opinion this “efficiency” is not an example of cutting waste or unnecessary expense, but instead one of cutting opportunities for workers and the families that they support. This is not efficiency so much as being cheap.
As for the larger streetcars and buses that will begin operating in 2014, at first I thought that this was progress for busy routes. After all, I thought that each crowded small bus or streetcar would be replaced by a larger one so that the vehicles continue to come as often but now have more space to fit those of us who squeeze onto them. Unfortunately this is not the plan: because the vehicles are larger the TTC is planning to reduce the numbers. For riders this means waiting longer to get to where we need to go.
So why would the TTC propose such a change if it could lead to a worse experience for riders? Doug Ford would be proud of this one: it is because it is more “efficient.” In this case the TTC is able to move the same number of people, but can do so with fewer drivers, which in turn means less cost. This might not be a big deal during the rush hours when vehicles are coming often – but imagine this impact in the middle of the day or the evenings when the buses and streetcars only come every ten minutes as it stands. With a larger vehicle the TTC is likely to make that wait even longer in order to be “efficient”. Although some outspoken Councillors might see this as an “efficiency,” for transit riders it means that the system is less able to meet their needs of getting around the city easily and quickly. This “efficiency” makes the TTC, and therefore our city, less effective in the process.
In this day in age it is difficult to speak out against efficiency; after all, we do want things to run smoothly and without waste, therefore we value efficiency. Nonetheless, we must be extremely careful in our worshipping of efficiency: in the examples above you can see the word “efficiency” being used in ways that are contrary to the interests of front-line transit employees and riders of the TTC. Meanwhile it is silent on ways of traveling that require a lot of money, gasoline and road space.
Loving efficiency can a good thing; in fact efficiency in travel is good for the environment, health, and creating a vibrant social space. By contrast, we need to watch what “efficiencies” other people are trying to impose on our city. I am not willing to accept an “efficiency” that means cheaper and lower-quality things for TTC riders and front-line workers, where others are able to waste as they please. Are you?
* Doug Ford’s claim: the TTC is not hiring drivers, but rather adding 479 people to its bloated bureaucracy.
Fact: The proposed 2014 operating budget does call for 479 hew hires; of these 323 (67%) are operators, (i.e., bus, streetcar, WheelTrans, and subway drivers).
**Doug Ford’s claim: that the new subway trains (“the Toronto Rockets”) drive themselves.
Fact: The Yonge-University-Spadina (yellow line) subway is being renovated with “automatic train control (ATC),” scheduled to be complete in 2018. The implementation of ATC will change the way that that subway line operates, with the biggest difference being that computers help the trains run safely while being closer together. This increases the number of people who can travel on the subway at a given time. ATC is not scheduled for the Bloor-Danforth (green line) or Sheppard (purple line) subways until the already over-capacity YUS has been completed.
Moreover, even if the trains “could” drive themselves, that does not mean that they “should”. Subway crews are currently responsible for other jobs than simply driving and controlling doors; they are also the first responders if there is a problem on the train. This is one of the reasons that the Scarborough RT has always had a driver even though the trains have been able to “drive themselves” since 1985.
Finally, other cities that are moving to ATC (like the Paris Metro, e.g., line 1) are installing platform doors to ensure that the operation remains safe with fast moving trains and busy platforms. The TTC has had plans for platform doors on the YUS subway, but these have not been pursued due to insufficient budgets.