[After I posted this article, I received an email pointing out that the change in off-peak loading standards I had described as only applying to low-floor bus routes had, in fact, been applied to all surface modes.  After checking the schedules for January 2005 against those for March 2006, I found that some service improvements were, in fact, made in off-peak frequencies on some streetcar routes.  The article below has been revised accordingly.] 

The July 19th TTC agenda contains an update on the Ridership Growth Strategy, and it contains many items worth talking about here.

Broadly speaking, there are four classes of changes covered by the RGS update:

• Service Quality
• Transit Priority
• Commuter Parking
• Fare Incentives

Service Quality improvements have two broad subgroups:  better loading standards and better minimum service standards.

Off Peak Loading Standards 

Loading standards for off-peak services were improved  in 2005 so that the target for the average load on a bus or streetcar is a seated load for all routes.  The old standard was based on the premise that for services every 10 minutes or better (i.e. almost all major routes), 20% of the riders could be standees.  This changed the off-peak standards for frequent services as follows:

• High floor from 49 to 39
• High floor lift equipped bus from 45 to 36
• Orion VI low floor bus from 35 to 28
• New Flyer low floor bus from 44 to 35
• Orion VII low floor bus from 48 to 38
• CLRV from 58 to 46
• ALRV from 76 to 61

The report states that about 118 service increases were made on 39 routes between June 2004 and September 2005.  Riding has gone up on some of these routes more than on the system as a whole, but the TTC does not have a comprehensive set of riding counts to measure the success of this change overall or to project it onto addditional routes.

The observation that improving service comfort and frequency leads to better ridership should be no news to anyone, except possibly those who believe that “there’s always room for one more” is the best approach to planning and financing transit service.

My personal experience suggests that riding growth may be overtaking some of the service improvements and that further increases are needed.

Peak Loading Standards

The peak loading standard is now an average of 57 riders per bus, but the revised RGS standard is only 50.  This change cannot be implemented until the fall of 2007 when 100 new buses, over and above those needed to retire old equipment, will be available for service along with the new Weston Garage.  There’s only one caveat here:  if somehow, the buses don’t get here on time, or the garage isn’t quite ready, the added service will show up later in 2007 or maybe even in 2008. 

This is the sort of thing the bean counters love to do — push off service improvements into a future year’s budget — and we have to make sure this doesn’t happen.  Watch for a fight when the TTC puts the money to actually operate this new service in their 2007 budget proposals.  50 bus routes and their riders are waiting for those buses.

The report is silent on the question of peak period service standards for streetcar routes.

Minimum Service Standards

Two proposals are planned for 2008 implementation, subject to funding:

• All day service on all routes
• Maximum 20-minute wait time on all routes

During the 1990s cutbacks, service was cut during various time periods on many routes and, outside the main grid, the network has many routes with no off-peak service, no service after 9 pm, no Sunday service, no weekend service … the permutations go on and on.  When routes are missing from the network, casual riders cannot rely on them and come to be permanent riders.  Even regulars have to time their usage to match when the route operates.

Also during the 1990s, the maximum allowable headway was increased to 60 minutes.  This idea was pitched to Commissioners as a way to avoid a decision to cancel an unprofitable 20 or 30 minute service, but the effect was that the Commission abdicated its responsibility for de facto service cancellations.  As the TTC’s update says,

“Most people who wish to travel by transit will not wait 30-to-60 minutes for their bus and will usually find an alternate means of travel.”

Changing the maximum headway back to 20 minutes puts the responsibility for service cancellations where it belongs — with the Commissioners who will not be able to hide behind a standard delegated to staff.

Transit Priority

I won’t go into all of the studies and projects now underway as most of them have been discussed elsewhere.  The notable points in this report are:

• The St. Clair right-of-way project may be delayed thanks to problems with co-ordination of the hydro undergrounding project.  I am dismayed by our inability to get basic road and utility construction sorted out among our municipal agencies.  If not 2007, when?  Will the track west of Vaughan Road have to collapse and send some streetcar hurtling into a restaurant before someone wakes up, or will the construction go ahead without Hydro?
• The York University BRT scheme is expected to be in operation by 2009.
• For those who may not already know, the reconstruction of Fleet Street planned for this fall will convert the streetcar line into a right-of-way.  Now if only they can fix the priority scheme on the traffic signals …
• In addition to the EAs reported elsewhere, funding is now available for a Kingston Road right-of-way between Victoria Park (Bingham Loop) and Eglinton Avenue (Markham Road).  It is unclear why the project is of such limited scope and omits Eglinton east of Kennedy Station as well as the outer part of Kingston Road.

We are still waiting for someone to explain why streetcars do not have signal priority on Spadina, our heaviest LRT line.

Commuter Parking

There is a branch of the TTC that forgets it is in the transit business and would like to spend its time designing and building parking lots.  While this can bring some additional riding to the TTC, there are major limitations notably the finite availability of land.  Indeed, plans are afoot to redevelop some station sites such as Islingon, Victoria Park and Warden.  Current usage at Warden is such that the amount of parking can be substantially reduced.

Large capacity parking structures, as opposed to surface lots, are not cost effective from the TTC’s point of view.  As it is, the TTC gives away most of its parking to Metropass users as a “loss leader”.  I am waiting for the day when the TTC decides that actually developing the land with offices or condos perched above subway stations might generate more new revenue than providing free parking.

Fare Initiatives

The original RGS proposed reducing the Metropass by $5.00, and over the past three years, the near-freeze in Metropass pricing has accomplished a relative reduction of about $9.00 compared with the token fares.  The effect is to lower the break-even trip multiple and make the pass more attractive to riders whose travel habits are barely two trips per workday.  Moreover, the Metropass is now transferrable and its cost is tax deductable (not an RGS initiative). 

Other changes include:

• 9:30 am Day Pass restriction removed.
• Senior/Student pass fare multiple reduced from 66.6 to 59.8.  This is in line with the original RGS goal of a reduction of this multiple by 6, even though the multiple is still too high especially in light of changes to the regular Metropass.
• Passes are sold in bulk at a discount of 10 to 12 percent by employers, schools and other groups.
• Weekly passes introduced.

We are moving into an era when the majority of riders should use some form of pass rather than tokens and tickets.  This immensely simplifies requirements for any sort of automated fare collection system because you don’t need to track details of trip segments when the user pays a flat monthly fare.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The next steps in RGS involve operating additional service that will not see an immediate payback in new riding, or where the impact may be difficult to measure.  For example, if improved off-peak service on someone’s “home” route makes using the TTC more attractive overall, this may generate riding elsewhere on the system which, previously, wasn’t an option.  Someone whose bus doesn’t run, or run often enough, to be a viable way to reach the subway will drive all the way.

The TTC lays out some hard political truths:

“Implementation of these components will have to be supported by funding and the understanding that these components are investments in developing a strong transit culture in Toronto over the longer term.”

“Every proposal that involves a reduction of automobile capacity is controversial and requires strong political commitment, and a genuine view that better, more-reliable, faster and higher-quality transit is te only long-term sustainable, equitable and fully-accessible travel option for Toronto’s future.”

Postscript:

In a separate report, the Commission is asked to approve

• an extension of the current bus contract with Orion for 220 40-foot low floor diesel-electic hybrid Orion VII buses for delivery in 2007 (these are over and above the 100 RGS buses) at a unit cost of about $770,000, and
• negotiation of a price for an option to purchase up to 100 additional buses for delivery in early 2008.

Due to changes in Provincial programs, and the availability of a special subsidy for the premium cost of hybrid versus clean diesel buses is uncertain and, indeed, even the base funding to purchase the buses is not finalized.  All of this is subject to City Council approval.