[The original version of this post, up to the point where the update starts, appeared as a guest column on the Op Ed page of the Toronto Sun on January 5, 2008.]
[Updated January 4, 2008 – see end of post for the changes.]
Here we are in 2008. We’ve survived threatened cutbacks to service and even have hopes of improvements starting in mid-February with more to come through the year. Mayor Miller’s 100 new buses and Mt. Dennis bus garage will operate, eventually. Plans are afoot for a new streetcar fleet and a huge expansion of rail services via Transit City.
Often, people ask why I’m not satisfied with our plans, and the answer is simple: as an advocate, it’s my job to never be satisfied, to always say “you can do better and we want more”. In that spirit, this thread is intended to ask: what should happen after RGS? What should we aim for next?
In a separate thread’s comments, there’s an important issue about Transit City: we need to establish minimum service levels for major surface routes that are much more like subway standards. Today, we run trains every five minutes everywhere even though there are times that half that service would be adequate for the demand. Why? Because part of the allure of a subway is that you don’t have to wait a long time for it to show up. Moreover, a good chunk of the operating cost relates to the stations and infrastructure, and the trains are a comparatively cheap addition once the line exists.
People on Transit City routes, and even on major surface routes that are not part of Transit City need the same sort of guaranteed service quality.
The TTC hopes to implement two RGS changes later this year. First, service will run on all routes whenever the subway is open. If a route exists, it runs 7 days/week, 19 hours/day. Second, no headway will be worse than 20 minutes anywhere. Both of these will fill out the network and get us back to the idea that transit isn’t just something we run when hordes of people want to use it.
However, a next step might be to designate “A-list” routes, major routes where the maximum headway is no worse than 10 minutes.
With new buses finally coming into play in 2008, we will see reduced crowding during the peak period because the TTC will actually meet their own loading standards. Great stuff, but what happens if we set the loading standard so that there is more room for growth on major routes? What happens if we actually try to encourage people to use the system by making it frequent and if not uncrowded, at least less than jam-packed?
By late 2008, it’s possible the TTC and their political masters will be feeling rather pleased with themselves. Press releases will be issued. Similing faces will appear in front of buses and streetcars everywhere. The job will be done.
No, that’s only for starters. We need the next round of plans on the table before the year is out.
RGS was first proposed when David Miller was still a Councillor, and it’s taken ages to implement with no end of bureaucratic and political interference, not to mention a fiscal crisis or two. While Miller is still Mayor, it would be nice to see a second round of RGS hit the streets so that Toronto can take on the challenge of making transit a better alternative to driving.
We won’t do it overnight, but we will never do it if we stop after one long-overdue effort.
Update: Today I learned that the TTC is working on a scheme for better bus service. According to Chair Adam Giambrone:
The TTC is developing a Transit City Bus plan that will likely include max 10 minute service to match subway hours at a grid of streets and new separated bus ROW’s.
Some streetcar lines have service worse than every 10 minutes at times. This should not just be a plan for the bus system.
Examples include Harbourfront (off season), Queen (west of Humber Loop), and evening service on King, Dundas and Carlton on some days. Some of these will probably qualify as part of the “grid of streets”.
Good news if and when we see this plan on the street, but the service has to actually show up.
Steve Munro 
Whoa,
What next? Where to start?
I’ll keep this post on ‘operations’ as opposed to capital.
I think obviously more AND more frequent service are a given but what to ask for?
I think I’d start with something easy the TTC always thwarts which is earlier service on Sundays (Subway and system). I surveyed the websites of the Montreal, NY and Chicago transit authorities and I couldn’t find one where service began on any line after 7:30am Sunday morning. I think the absence of service at this time is a great inconvenience for shift-workers and a real burden to getting people into the car-less lifestyle.
Later subway service on Friday and Sat Night would also be good, tiny little Washington D.C. manages weekend Metro service till 3am.
For the surface operations, I think a network of A-List routes….. Likely the streetcars, Transit City, and 3-6 major bus routes should all run every 10 minutes or better at all times during subway hours.
A simpler but important thing to do is address very inadequate Sunday service in general. Sunday is every bit as busy as Saturdays from 11am on through 7pm….service should be adjusted system wide to reflect that.
Lastly….
Line Management. You’ve done a great job pointing out what the TTC doesn’t do well in this regard. Time for them to switch all surface routes to headway management, and guarantee the headway +/- 2 minutes on every route!
I don’t ask for much…..
Steve: I will grant them schedule based management where headways are wide enough that people need to know when to expect a bus to show up. Early Sunday service is not just a question of running the subway, but all of the routes people need to get to around the city.
LikeLike
I am glad to hear that the TTC will pursue the plan to run full 20-minute service on all routes, in concert with subway service. Are we sure they can afford it, though? I’d appreciate any details you can offer.
I’ve also mentioned the need for this, and I have a slogan that might prove useful. Say “5-10-20”. Let’s get people demanding that they won’t have to wait more than 5 minutes for a subway, 10 minutes for a streetcar and 20 minutes for a bus.
I’m willing to lend my voice to this effort. Tell me when to shout.
LikeLike
On Transit City: most people seem to perceive subways as the TTC’s highest-quality service. It would be interesting to know what specifically makes that impression — of reliability, headways, speed, stop frequency, vehicle layout, etc., what has the biggest impact? If the TTC understands that, they’ll have a better chance of understanding making Transit City seen as “almost as good as a subway” rather than “a better streetcar”.
On Ridership Growth Phase II: it should start by setting a specific goal for ridership. There seems to be enough potential demand, and more rides taken by TTC means less congestion and less pollution, so increasing ridership makes sense as a goal and is easy to measure. How about 25% ridership growth on bus/streetcar routes over a five-year period?
LikeLike
I already had my answer after reading your second paragraph, but by the time you got to the third paragraph you had already read my mind.
TriMet in Portland has a subset of routes marketed as being “Frequent Service”, where riders can expect service every 15 minutes or better at all times of the day (I think the criteria are relaxed a bit for late evenings and early weekend mornings).
http://trimet.org/bus/frequentservice.htm
I don’t think it would take a lot for the TTC to at least start a “Frequent Service” network, even at a lower maximum headway of 10 minutes (i.e. the standard TTC “F.S.”); there are several routes that are already at this level for much of the day and would only need a bump-up in service at either end of the day.
Of course, for this to be effective, the headways would need to be reliable so that the FS network actually operates as advertised/marketed.
Steve: The TTC would need to be careful to avoid the wonderful new scheme getting the nickname of the “Infrequent Service Network”. I can hear the debates at Council now with nobody wanting their routes to be on the “B List”.
LikeLike
Transit City, for all its pros and cons, is largely about playing catch-up in providing higher-order transit service to areas of the city that have none.
MoveOntario is also about playing catch up but on a regional level. Neither of these plans, when fully implemented, will be enough to meet demand as it exists today. The problem is by the time all of these lines get built, there may be another couple million people in the GTA, many in the core.
So ya, I’m with you. Let’s keep the momentum going, not only in providing better service where it already exists, but also keeping an eye to expansion in the (very near) future.
LikeLike
Regarding the minimum service standards for bus routes (headways and service hours), I am wondering how this would apply to branches. In particular, I am thinking of the 24A through the Consumers Road business park, which only runs every half hour during the mid-day and shuts down around 7 in the evening. Expanding the hours of service would be great for evenings when I need to work beyond this, so I don’t have to walk out to Sheppard or Vic Park, but I can’t see TTC running buses every 20 minutes in each direction through Consumers Road at 11 or 12 in the evening.
Would the minimum standards apply even to branches like this, or just to the “parent” route?
Steve: At this point, I haven’t started to draw a map. I think that there would be basic criteria for a route to get on the “frequent service” list in the first place, and a branch like Consumers Road might not, in its own right, get this treatment.
At this point, the important job is to get the momentum building for this sort of concept since it will take several years of being it cannot possibly work here for it to actually happen.
LikeLike
For the surface, I think a 15-minute minimum would be better. I never understood the logic of running the subway at 5-minute intervals all the time — a passenger has a short wait for a train but a long wait for the connecting surface route.
But if you really think about it, the TTC has always tailored service to demand/ridership levels, even on the subway … ie., the University line’s early closing from ’69 to ’78, the Yonge North and Spadina short turns, etc. There really was no minimum standard early on. Even the devil’s triangle met its fate because it forced the TTC to run over *double* the “required” service on Bloor. The day after it closed, headways on Bloor were widened considerably and the trains were shortened from six to four cars, which led to overcrowding.
The TTC runs its trains and buses like a business. If you look back at some transcripts from the 60s, you’ll notice the commissioners at that time constantly argued over whether the system should have been run with a “balance sheet” mentality, or with the mindset of service quality first. The balance sheet mentality prevails. On all routes, they run the bare minimum they can get away with.
LikeLike
10 minute or better late evening service on major bus routes is certainly desirable, but it needs to be accompanied by proper route management – since even at off-peak, “FS” can mean two buses every 20 minutes rather than 1 every 10 minutes. There is no congestion, so no excuse whatsoever. Some bus and streetcar routes already have service every 10 minutes late at night, or very close (e.g. 15 minutes), so what is mostly needed is better route management and better advertising of “premium” routes.
Other things I would like to see in RGS II:
– More peak service (duh)
– Better route management
– More local routes on “intermediate” roads which currently have no service – initially with 20 minute service all day.
– Less confusing route structure. Unnecessary route branches should be eliminated.
– Unscheduled short-turns should be banned in normal service.
– Better signage, more/better shelters. Confusing or non-existent signage turns off customers, as does standing in the rain or snow.
– More janitors. Making the system cleaner will go a long way towards attracting middle-class customers.
– More combined Mississauga Transit-TTC routes.
And, in the long term:
– Transit City II: After the first Transit City is done, build more LRT lines along other busy routes: Finch East, Lawrence East, Dufferin, etc. Perhaps we should build switches (leading to nowhere) at intersections with possible phase 2 routes so that we don’t have to disrupt service during construction.
LikeLike
James: Can you shout now? 🙂
Streetcars – service is adjusted with CIS and route supervisors to have maximum 10 minute headways, not to run schedules every 10 minutes and wind up with short-turns here, there and everywhere else.
A-list buses are at least the ones that run on the major concessions and lines in Toronto. And if surface routes can be coordinated as best as possible it would really help. Nothing like being the middle of suburbia wanting to make a timing connection, and then find out that one of the buses has futzed with the schedule.
And if I can dream a little outside of the TTC – maximum waits all day for GO heavy rail service 30 minutes on the Lakeshore and Milton Lines, and 1 hr on all other routes (deals to be made with the respective railways I know). We have to get it to run at frequencies that match other commuter railways (e.g. MTA, RER, Metra, Septa, London Overground, S-Bahn) and provide it as an enticing alternative to driving.
Steve: I have often felt that “the railways won’t do it” is Go Transit’s equivalent of “traffic congestion” in explaining the lack of better service. Yes, they can be a pain in the butt, but they are also a convenient scapegoat, a way to avoid actually building the capacity to run more frequent service. A little project for Metrolinx, I think.
LikeLike
And looking at my post – I meant the Georgetown line for .5 hr service not Milton (with a spur to the Airport – but not Blue22 since it’d stop at Weston & Dundas West to appease the neighbourhood somewhat). And I’ll add the building of a Midtown corridor at 1/2 hr frequencies to my 12 days of Christmas wish list.
I agree that “the railways won’t do it” is a cop-out of GO. It is their own “traffic congestion” issue.
And for a non-Metrolinx dream, I’d love to have VIA Rail re-created as a bill in Parliament not as an order-in-council (not likely to happen with Steve at the reins). That way they could seek funds on external markets like other Crown Corporations and not be at the risk of budget whims. Then they could run regional service from London to Kingston/Peterborough to supplement GO.
Dreams I know…
LikeLike
Well now, HERE’s an interesting twist on service levels.
From CBC.CA: Rural Ottawa resident wants bus service cut
Steve: Follow the link above to the rest of the article that includes some rather sad ridership counts in a sidebar.
LikeLike
A suggested name for the core network of 10 minute-or-better surface routes could be “the Arteries”.
Steve: As long as they’re not clogged!
LikeLike
James, you made a good point regarding the 9:00am start time for Sunday subway service. The reason that I’ve heard as to why the TTC cannot provide an earlier start-up time is because of the necessity for time to be set aside for weekly maintenance. The question then arises…how do other transit systems carry out these functions while providing an earlier start time? It would be great if we can have some dialogue on this since social/economic conditions have changed significantly since the 1950s resulting in increasing need for subway service to start earlier…and yes, this means feeder bus and streetcar service would have to start earlier as well.
Steve: The TTC’s current position is that they can’t run earlier service (or all night service) until they get a new signal system allowing for wrong-rail operation over single track around work zones. Come back in about 2016 for the Yonge line, and sometime in the 2020s for Bloor Danforth. Amazing how we cannot address a basic problem of service quality without first spending a few hundred million dollars.
A big issue for off-hours operation is the cost of keeping stations open — there would be more people in collectors’ booths than driving the trains. If we are going to talk about this, we need to look at a subset of the full system. However, politics being what they are, there would be a huge fight to decide what parts of the system stay open and what parts close.
LikeLike
Recent threads on the disastrous Queen streetcar line show that TransitCity will never achieve subway-like standards if it has to compete with motor-vehicle traffic. Further to that, many projected TransitCity lines are basically branching onto subway rather than acting as subway-like routes in their own right. This will swamp the Yonge and Bloor subways.
TC should operate on grade-seperated existing rail ROWs as much as possible. Check out the opening credits of Corrie Street to see how it’s done in the UK. It looks like CGI but it gives you a good idea of it.
Steve: As we have discussed here before, the problem with existing rail corridors is that they do not go where people want to travel or where they live. New lines in the UK use those corridors for local, core-oriented systems, and that’s not what Transit City is all about. For example, one of the most important line is along Eglinton, and there isn’t a rail corridor anywhere nearby.
LikeLike
More cleaning and maintenance.
People today apparently can’t face the day without their Tim Horton’s and free newspaper. I’ve been on streetcars at 9 AM which already have multiple sticky spills on the floor and commuter papers scattered over the seats. And maybe a water bottle rolling up and down the aisle. If this car will stay out in base service, how filthy will it be by 5 PM?
The heat should work, and the lights should all be on.
Clean the stations regularly. Fix leaks in station ceilings. Clean the lighting fixtures regularly — it’s 100% brighter in the stations when this is done.
Better interior lighting so people can read while still being able to see outside after dark. PCCs with their focussed lenses were good. The new crop of low-floor buses, with lights way up there and seats way down here, and horrible.
More, and usable, washrooms. Maybe Transit City stops can share washrooms with the new street furniture and walkable city programs. In many cases what would be a short trip by car to the nearest store or restaurant with washrooms is an infeasibly long distance on foot, or when waiting for the bus/streetcar/LRT to come.
LikeLike
“Steve: As we have discussed here before, the problem with existing rail corridors is that they do not go where people want to travel or where they live.”
With all due respect Steve, there are plenty such underused corridors in Toronto which european planners would give their eye teeth for. And they run through some of the most densely populated areas of the entire country. One of them also runs near Pearson and these lines intersect with existing rail transit at many key points. Unfortunately, it looks like GO will maintain their monopoly on this resource mainly for the benefit of far-flung, 9 to 5, heavy-rail commuters.
LikeLike
I don’t see the aversion to leveraging more existing rail ROW for new transit lines.
You write that these corridors “do not go where people want to travel or where they live”. This is true of the route of the proposed Eglinton between the Airport and say Eglinton Subway – just as an example. Not many people are going to make that exact journey. It might be be part of an overall journey where the passenger takes a bus or subway and then the new line. The point I’m obtusely attempting to make is that most trips in our grid-based city involve at least one transfer.
A rapid transit line doesn’t need to run along an existing street – it just needs to have stations that connect up to it.
If you go to London, which doesn’t have a grid, the Underground lines have stations that serve the areas around the different stops – but they don’t run along any particular street. Yet masses of people ride the system. I should imagine the same is true in Paris, New York etc.
Before the GO rail system was set up, you could have said the same thing about the rail lines and stations. Yet this has turned out to be a very successful transit system.
Steve: Sorry, but you are missing the point here, and I’m not going to debate it further. The rail corridors do not generally serve major areas of residential or office development in the suburbs. Your analogy to London is flawed because the subway lines were built to connect existing and growing areas, not to follow rights-of-way that happened to be available. Moreover, our rail corridors are already largely reserved for existing or planned commuter rail services that make little pretence of serving intermediate stops within Toronto.
LikeLike
Why don’t we improve the service we already run before we add more? It’s so wasteful to have to schedule 5 minute service on Dufferin when we really want 10 because the trip up the street is so scary each bus has to have a “friend” right behind it. Even the very short 512 replacement bus in the mid day a couple of days ago was running in “herds” with a wide gap in between.
I must say I like the new streetcar ROW on St Clair. From the stop just east of St Clair West station to St Clair station only took 5 minutes.
I suspect subways are the highest class service because they are by far the fastest service. Transit City will always be 2nd class because of this, with the exception of the subway section of Eglinton, which will by far have more riders than any other Transit City line, perhaps not coincidentally.
LikeLike
It would make sense, if the TTC wants to open the subway before 9am on Sunday mornings, to close the subway slightly earlier on weekdays. If it were to close the subway 30 minutes earlier Sunday-Wednesday nights, when fewer people are out late at night, it would have the same amount of total maintenance time and it would be possible to open at 7am on Sunday. (I doubt that it makes sense to open the subway earlier that that on Sunday.) I also agree that the TTC needs more afternoon service on Sundays.
Finally, the TTC needs to run more service on Friday (and perhaps Thursday) evenings. Currently, it uses the same schedule from Monday to Friday, which makes no sense as evening demand is significantly higher on Friday, and rush hour is earlier. It is very annoying to stand in a packed Spadina streetcar, running every 5 minutes (instead of every 2) on Friday evening.
“Toronto the Good” is long gone, and Sunday shopping has existed for over 15 years; we need to provide service that reflects that.
LikeLike
Steve: A big issue for off-hours operation is the cost of keeping stations open — there would be more people in collectors’ booths than driving the trains.
Rather than closing certain stations at night while keeping others open, what if during the night-ops on wrong-track operation (say between 12:30am and 5:30am or something similar), the system be POP instead? That way you have more train drivers (or door-closers since ATC makes the driver obsolete) than collectors, or rather special constables in this case. The question then becomes though, given the differences in wages between the two responsibilities, does the cost actually go down this way? Then there is also the question “is an unmanned open station safe?”
LikeLike
Steve: I understand you selected your own anti-spam words and mine happens to be “cynic” for this posting. It’s appropriate because, though I support Transit City and even Son of Transit City, I have real reservations that the TTC can actually operate it properly once it is built. Their record is not too good.
As you have so clearly demonstrated, the line management of streetcars and buses is appalling, Ed, above, notes how filthy the system is, we know that it took years to build staircases and elevators at Broadview Station, we continue to see St Clair under construction and we have all experienced doors and escalators which remain out of service for months.
For a politician the best things in transit are big projects like a new subway line, then possibly new surface lines like Transit City or the Waterfront; operating efficiency is not high on their priorities. The TTC, rightly, puts great stock on “the State of Good Repair” but it is time to change this to “A State of Good Operations” – only when the existing network is operated properly (and safely) should we try to expand it.
LikeLike
Let’s get GPS on all the surface transit in southern Ontario … that way we can manage headways more effectively.
Let’s build some accountability into the system, a website with reports on service history for all transit in southern Ontario (a little competition for good service between MT, VIVA and TTC would be good)
One number to call via cellphone for service information for all transit in southern ontario with expected arrival times based on the GPS information, with stop-id markers you can enter into the system at every pickup point in southern Ontario (like the Waterloo system)
At major stops, signage to indicate expected arrival times
Have a southern ontario service rating for every line (A, A++) and focus on improving the poor performers (via right-of-ways, modified track layout, more service, etc).
Steve: All TTC vehicles will have GPS units by the end of February when the automated stop announcement system is fully rolled out. Of course, marrying GPS data to the antique CIS controllers may be a bit of a challenge.
Comparing performance measures between systems, even between routes within a large system, is not going to be meaningful because this must be cross-referenced to the conditions in which the routes operate. Moreover, construction of any metric must carefully avoid a situation where systems manipulate their operations to get the best possible grade rather than providing the best possible service. Just look what a schedule-based performance target did to the TTC.
I walked on Queen just a few days ago during rush-hour (felt like some exercise). I made it from Bay all the way to 500 Queen St East without seeing one streetcar going east. If I had been able to call and find out that the next expected car was going to be 20 – 30 minutes away, I would have gone up to Bloor or down to King and taken another route. Such a system would allow us to make decisions based on much more information than we have now (improving the quality of that information then becomes the concern…ie allowing for the GPS system to take into account short-turns etc.).
Lets also look for more ways for corporations to improve transit. Along the lines of free service during new-years, after sporting events, the ex, major concerts and street parties (jazz festival). we could also look at improved transit “furniture”, theme vehicles (more than advertising, total reno’s of the cars).
Steve: Here I must disagree. It is the city’s job to provide transit service. The $80K that Capital One contributed for free New Year’s Eve service is a miniscule part of the TTC’s total budget. They should have found the money to pay for this in their spare change. The problem is political — huge fights over spending pennies when they spend millions in the blink of an eye.
Perhaps move to a more incentive based fee system (to build brand loyalty) based on usage, distance traveled, number of connections to encourage people to not drive to GO Parking lots (ie. if you take a bus, your go-ticket becomes cheaper, if you take two buses, it’s even cheaper). More competitions to encourage people to take transit. Competitions for free “yearly passes” which you can only win if you are using a monthly pass. Stand outside parking lots downtown during rush-hour and give out free ride tickets for TTC/GO to encourage people to “try the transit once”.
Steve: The best way to build brand loyalty is to run good, reliable service. Otherwise people try it once and say “never again”. You can’t give away crap.
Move the subway/streetcars to using all renewable energy. Put tolls on the highways to do this.
Start looking into the “new major centers” and how to create express links between them (ie. square one->union)…I feel that this will be most important in the future, as currently getting between major centers requires multiple transfers on non-express service and results in people taking cars between them.
Steve: Given the number of major centres and the lack of available links between all of them, I don’t think a one-seat ride between all of them is a practical option.
LikeLike
In response to Andrew’s comment above: Let’s not even entertain for a nanosecond the thought of closing the subway earlier. As you say, Toronto the Good is long gone — this may mean more Sunday shopping for some, but it also means more 24-hour activities, including work and entertainment, for others. A last train leaving downtown at 1:30 a.m. is bad enough, let’s not make it worse.
I too would like to see earlier Sunday service, but I don’t think it should come at the expense of very necessary late-night service during the week.
LikeLike
In addition to a bit earlier service on Sundays it would be nice to see service extended a bit longer on Friday and Saturday nights to accommodate both those taking in Toronto’s nightlife as well as the number of service workers employed at various late-night establishments.
In the longer term given capacity pressures in the core as well as the very significant number of approved and proposed condo units coming on stream downtown and extended out along the waterfront, King and Queen Streets it may be time to start reviving discussions on the need for a Downtown Relief Subway line. Even if the public, politicians and the TTC were to start seriously discussing it, a new line wouldn’t likely be up and running for another 15 – 20 years, by which time both the downtown population and employment growth (as well as new riders funneling into the system via transit city) would certainly warrant a downtown relief subway line.
Steve, is a DRL even on the long-term radar screen for the TTC?
Steve: Not at present, although there are thoughts of a southern extension of the Don Mills Transit City line. The problem here is that the section from Thorncliffe Park to Danforth is going to be expensive and contentious, and I suspect we may not see it for a long time, probably not until it morphs into a DRL.
LikeLike
I note Andrew’s suggestion vis a vis closing times with interest.
After your response Steve, I though to look up the way New York City handles subway closure for maintenance. Keep in mind, they run 24-hour service on many lines and do not have ATC on most/all to the best of my knowledge.
I found from their website most partial/full line closures for maintenance were midnight-5am nightly. The same as 1-6am which is not far off our existing system shut-down hours. Some lines were 11pm-5am closures, (same as midnight to six) only one had a more prolonged nightly closing during line maintenance work.
So most of the time, it should be possible to open the line at least by 8am, if not 7am on Sunday morning; with little or no change to existing closed hours.
But if I had to choose, I’d rather the system followed Andrew’s idea of closing at say 1:15am Sun-Thurs, as I think would more accurately get people to and from work. Most late shifts start at 11pm or 12am and end at 7 or 8am. Very few people start work later.
I think that’s the most important objective in operating hours. Though if we could actually have a Net Increase in hours, that would be better still.
LikeLike
Your are within your rights not to continue any given debate – and I have no wish to argue.
However I will point out that (according to the Wikipedia articles I’ve just looked at) many of the London Underground sections were converted from rail lines – contrary to your assumption on how that system evolved. I checked the articles on the Metropolitain, the Central and Picadilly Lines – all of which were extended based on existing rail lines. I’ve only ridden on the first of these – but I remember that for a long stretch, the commuter rail and Underground line share a ROW (different lines still but in same cutting.
Steve: There is a huge difference between the lines you cite from London and the rail and hydro corridors in Toronto. London is a much older city, and its railways played an important role in establishing what were once suburban developments. In these cases, it makes sense for the “city” subway lines to extend onto existing rail corridors. In Toronto, the railways had little to do with suburban development, certainly nothing since the rise of the auto-dominated suburbs that are oriented to the road, not to the rail network.
You mention shared rights-of-way between lines. This works fine if (a) the line goes somewhere useful and (b) there is actually room. As things stand today, the only rail corridor with some free space is the Weston line, and that space is already earmarked for GO and “Blue 22”. I agree that it would make a great LRT corridor, but the political situation isn’t headed down that particular line. GO service is already planned for the CPR crosstown line, and expansion is underway or planned on some existing GO corridors.
Hydro corridors have their own problems. Aside from the fact that Hydro is trying to make money by charging the TTC to use them (this is an issue for the York U BRT), the corridors do not necessarily go where people want to travel. Even the Finch corridor, although it parallels Finch, is not where the actual destinations and people are. The situation is not unlike what we have with the SRT where the stations are in odd locations determined by where the corridor crosses streets. Meanwhile, people on nearby Kennedy ride buses. The Finch corridor also has problems with the terrain because it is comparatively easy for a Hydro line to cross a river valley, but not as simple for a transit line.
For surface transit routes to succeed, they must serve as many origins and destinations directly as possible.
LikeLike
I get the impression that Adam Giambrone is an overgrown kiddie playing with his toy TTC … first a light rail plan, and now a bus plan with ROWs? … make up your mind. One or the other, instead of a mish-mash.
If they’re going to go BRT, then do it on all the proposed new lines (except Eglinton), and then convert them to LRT as needed. They’d probably get more BRT lines that way.
LikeLike
I believe that the same thing would happen for rail as it does for roads – if you build it (or expand it), they will come. If heavy rail lines were taken proper advantage of by running frequent high-speed electrified service with short trains of MU cars it would dramatically alter the way people travel between urban centres and their employment destinations.
Most of the rail lines in the GTA are used nowhere near capacity even for freight service. Furthermore, if you look carefully at the land within most of these rail corridors it quickly becomes apparent that there is often room for more than one additional track. Much of the CPR crosstown line has space for four tracks even though there are only two plus some sidings throughout at present. The Summerhill station at Yonge Street has existing platforms to serve four tracks at once. And the contentious Blue22 corridor has enough room for an entire yard worth of tracks from Union Station almost all the way to Highway 401!
Yes it would cost money to make these changes, but it is possible and it very well could provide substantial benefits beyond what GO’s rush-hour focus can offer. I make my travel choices based not on the most direct routes, but on the routes with a service level that I can count on to get me to my destination efficiently and at a time that I need to. For many trips even within the Toronto border that rules out transit and commuter rail and instead forces me to take the car. Often I end up dropping the idea entirely. If I were provided with viable rail options then I would most definately make use of them. GO bus service is a joke.
Effective regional rail service does not have to come at the expense of improved local transit. Greater London (England) has a regional railway system that is simply mind-blowing in service level and networking (reliability is improving). I see commuting and employment trends forming in the GTA that will eventually require this scale of service, although a lot of this has already occurred and is choking roads and highways with traffic. There is nothing we can do to avoid servicing this need.
I realise this wasn’t intended to be part of the discussion, but the Transit City network cannot and should not be trying to fulfill this need. I’m concerned however that the powers that be are trying to accomplish this task with local transit throughout the region. There will never be an effective alternative to highways and the car unless a middle-ground is formed between long-haul commuter rail and local transit services. However, to get back on topic, this ‘middle-ground’ service will accomplish little without effective local transit networks for it to connect with. Once we get local transit working and working in the way it was intended, only then should we think about inter-connecting these networks with another class of system beyond what we have now.
Steve: I agree that if the rail corridors are to be more useful, then they must have far more service than they do today as regional facilities, not as corridors for local services. Prying the CN and CP’s fingers off the land, however, won’t be easy. Meanwhile, there is a need for improved service throughout the city and it needs to be on streets where people live, work and shop, not in a back lane of an industrial area or the middle of a field.
LikeLike
I don’t think a frequent bus route plan is really needed that much, as most TTC routes even the suburbs along major roads, already operate every 10min or less at most times. At worse they operate every 15min during very late night hours. So we already have frequent service.
All the cities that are doing all this marketing around frequent bus service, with service every 15min or less, are systems where the majority of buses even on major routes come every 30-60min or worse. So they need to promote good service. But we don’t need that here.
I would like the TTC to focus not only on service levels, but speed of service, on any second round of improvments. That is more important in many ways. After it taking one hour and 10min to go from Yonge-Bloor to Sheppard/Markham Road today, you see the TTC needs a stratagy to speed up our services, or no amount of frequent service will help the situation.
The TTC should set certain guidlines, like all residents no matter what area of Toronto they live in, must be within a 40min transit ride of Union Station. Or that every resident must be within a 20min ride of a subway station, or they get an express bus. Something must be done.
I love transit, yet even I was frusterated on the 85 Sheppard bus today. How they attract over 30,000 riders a day is beyond me, with it taking so long to get anywhere.
LikeLike
In an issue of the TTC Coupler from about 1950-51, then-General Manager H.C. Patten once stated in a speech that “there is no substitute for good service.” The gist of his speech was exactly in line with what’s been discussed here. Good reliable service will attract customers.
Look at what it did for GO Transit. Until this past year or so, on-time performance was exceptionally good, equipment has never been shabby, and obviously a lot of commuters who might otherwise drive have made the decision to take GO.
How many stories have we read here where someone was able to walk a significant distance before a streetcar caught up to them? Too many. The focus should be on running reliable, reasonably frequent service that people can depend on.
LikeLike
To those that are looking for overnight and early morning subway service, remember that the only way NYC can get away with it is since they have express and local trains, they can route trains around track works. London & Paris close overnight, as do most other world centres that do not have that same 4 track option.
For busy night routes like the Yonge & Bloor vomit comets, would bendy buses be an answer?
And until there is rail service (light or otherwise) to the airport, could the TTC and the GTAA cooperate and increase capacity on the buses used? Bendy buses again perhaps with a bit of the seating taken out for some luggage racks? It’s a real squeeze on some of those buses at rushhour after all the international widebodies have landed at Pearson.
LikeLike
I was in Montréal and justed missed a train on the Métro Blue Line at the Côte-Des-Neiges station. Being used the the Toronto service, I started to wonder why there was no train entering the station after 5 minutes. No announcements. Only after 10 minutes had passed did a train enter the station.
Later, I found out that the line had 10 minute service during the day and evening, and 4 minute service during the rush hour. And with shorter and narrower trains.
If the Eglinton line of the Transit City plans could have their LRT trains the same size as the Montréal Métro trains, could the underground stations be the same design as the Montréal stations?
Steve: I am not sure what you mean by “the same design”. There are really two parts to this.
First, if you mean the grandiose monument to transit architecture, that has little to do with the trains and a lot to do with the political ethos and funding arrangements. Also, in Montréal it is comparatively easy to build large open spaces underground because they are building in rock.
As for size of trains and platforms, our LRT cars will not be as wide as subway trains and the LRT trains will certainly not be as long. There is a lot of chatter already, including on this blog, about the need to plan for the future and size the Eglinton line for future full-scale subway operation. This will be expensive and has many aspects including:
Tunnel size to accomodate both subway-width trains and overhead power collection for LRT.
Platforms that can accommodate a future change to high platform from low platform loading and to wider subway cars.
Stations that are long enough for at least a four-car subway train.
Provision for sufficient exits to meet fire code for the larger stations and future passenger volumes.
I don’t want to get into a big debate here about detailed design of the Eglinton LRT subway because this belongs in its own thread, and should await some of the early work from the EA process so that we see the parameters the TTC is using for their overall design.
LikeLike
Steve,
This question does not have to do with what to do after the RGS, but more I don’t know if it falls under the RGS.
I have talked with Adam G. twice, and both times he has mentioned that the TTC in early 2008 will be starting an extensive express bus network for Toronto. He was also on the news saying this. Yet there seems to be no information anywhere on this. Do you know anything about this?
The only info I found is that the FINCH EAST express was suppose to run all day long under the RGS. But that was put on hold till funding issues are fixed.
Was wondering if you have any other info.
Steve: I expect to learn more about new services for 2008 in the next week or so. There has been some talk of express buses, but there is always a balancing act between local and express demand on routes. For example, on the 190 Rocket from Don Mills Station to STC, some local traffic between stops has developed, and a stop was added at a Seniors’ residence for their convenience in getting to STC. This is a good example of how trip generators are not always conveniently located at major intersections.
The hold on new services vanished with the change in the city’s budget situation. Some planned improvements will come in the next few months, others will come in the fall to minimize their impact on the 2008 budget. Also, due to delivery problems, some of the new buses have been not yet been delivered, and peak period improvements are constrained by fleet size. Off peak services face no such challenge.
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
Regarding Finch LRT and Finch hydro corridor, would it make sense to use the latter for an express branch of LRT? Say, the shorter local branch operates on Finch itself from Yonge to Keele, whereas the long-haul branch runs express in hydro corridor from Yonge to Keele and then tilts to run local on street from Keele to Humber?
During late evenings and Sat / Sun early mornings, all operations could shift to the street branch to maintain frequency with fewer vehicles. A similar arrangement could work for the Finch E LRT when (and if) it gets built.
Steve: Two separate pieces of infrastructure for one line is not, I think, a very good idea. Also, there are very difficult problems getting across the west branch of the Don River at the Hydro corridor.
LikeLike
Perhaps the most important thing that should be part of “RGS-II” is public consultation. It would be nice for once to see the TTC take input from the people affected by their policy changes BEFORE formulating proposals and plans. Too often the planners get figures or artists’ conceptions stuck in their minds before we even hear a whisper about future projects. We need access to ‘the fundamentals’ before-hand rather than trying to work around them later once the TTC and the politicians finally let us get involved.
For some reason the Union Station subway platform project is featured in an article in The Star today again. Representatives interviewed suggest that detailed design has not yet been completed and will be subject to extensive discussions. Everything that I’ve seen documented so far suggests that the design is complete and set in stone. I have already stated my disapproval with the fundamentals of the design and don’t expect any of that to change no matter how much ‘discussion’ occurs.
Steve: Several factors contributed to the design still being a work in progress. First, there was considerable debate about pedestrian flows between the railway station to the south and the PATH system to the north. The subway mezzanine went through multiple layouts before that was settled. Next, the connection across the moat between the subway and the railway station is intimately linked to the planned renovations of the railway station. In particular, the new lower retail concourse will be at the same level as the existing subway mezzanine, and there will be a straight walk into the railway station from the subway without going up any stairs. This connection won’t be finalized until we know whether the excavation for the new lower level is feasible.
Other projects in the area that could have some impact on construction staging and details include the northwest PATH connection at York and Front, the plans for expansion of the Harbourfront streetcar loop at Union, and elimination of the down-and-up grade changes in the tunnel to the Royal York Hotel.
All of this needs to be co-ordinated and the plans change because some of these projects are not even beyond the preliminary design stage.
As for the specific issue of whether trains bound for Yonge Street will open doors on both sides or only to the new south platform, I think that decision is nailed down, like it or not.
LikeLike
[This comment has been reformatted, but the argument is unchanged.]
The express bus plan makes a lot of sense to me. I’m not sure I understand our host’s comment about the “balancing act between local and express” demand/service. To me, this is just understanding one’s customer base – something an service providing organization should be doing as its bread and butter.
The fact that an express route can add a stop to accomodate a senior’s residence is a plus. Could this flexibility be provided by the Transit City streetcar plan?
I think we’d get a lot of bang for the buck by running an express bus network. Just doing a rough calculation:
If we had 25% more operating budget for express bus services that would be about $250 million in operating budget.
We would need about 400 buses. 400 times $600,000 = $240 million. If the buses needed replacing every 10 years, we would need $24 million a year.
Annual cost would be [about $275-million].
Now the Transit City plan Capital $6.4 billlion which @ 5.5% interest is $357.5 million a year. So an express bus plan – assuming 25% of the overall TTC budget – would save $87.5 million a year compared to the Transit City proposal. This money could be used for local transit – or other municipal needs.
Steve:
The issue of mixed express and local service has come up on several occasions in public discussions at the TTC. There must be enough demand going between stops on the express service (both as origins and as destinations) to justiy a completely separate service. For customers, if the express service does not come very often, then the time saved with the faster trip is lost to the longer wait time. In this context, “justify” means having enough riders to support a frequent express service and leaving a local service that remains attractive to those who must use it because it serves their stops.
Adding stops to an express bus is obviously easy because the local buses are already stopping there. However, the big problem is the congestion of buses and passengers wherever the express and locals stop.
Adding a stop on an LRT line is easy compared to the subway line originally proposed for Sheppard East which would have left the seniors with a very infrequent surface bus service.
The current price for a 40-foot low floor diesel hybrid is about $692K based on a recent order for 130 buses. You have also omitted the cost of two new bus garages to house these vehicles. It is also unclear how you determine that the express buses would cost one-quarter of the TTC’s operating budget to run. Another part of this discussion involves the questions of revenue and future growth. How many new riders would we acquire on the bus or LRT systems, and to what degree could this scale up to handle future demand? There is an upper limit to the number of buses we can run on major routes and accommodate at terminals.
A good chunk of the Transit City costs are due to the underground sections for some routes, notably Eglinton. You are comparing a totally surface network with all of the limitations on bus traffic with an LRT network that will go underground where required. Apples and oranges, and not a fair comparison between the schemes at all.
LikeLike
Steve: Two separate pieces of infrastructure for one line is not, I think, a very good idea. Also, there are very difficult problems getting across the west branch of the Don River at the Hydro corridor.
That Reservoir is beautifully located, isn’t it? I agree that nothing should be built right off the bat with the original local line, but if ridership grows to higher levels than expected, then this second piece of infrastructure becomes, perhaps, a good idea. I’d argue this should run to Emery though (where, by that time, a new GO Station may be located on the Bolton Corridor), if it ever becomes needed, stopping at York U’s south edge (closest subway link?) on the way, and at Bathurst. It would certainly pacify subway promoters for a while (may even produce better results since two LRT lines may outperform one subway depending on how they do it).
As for the reservoir, crossing it is still cheaper than an underground line, and is not that hideously wide on the north side of the hydro corridor.
LikeLike
Hi Steve:-
Well done! As a Sun reader I’m pleased that they have determined once again that you are worth listening to. It was from one of these editorial page pieces that got me into your site and I hope others will get as much out of it as I have. Keep plugging away. Success is nearby. It only takes money and insights. You’re supplying many of the insights that will hopefully be considered if not outright adopted.
LikeLike
Just a few thoughts on ‘TransitCity II’.
Regarding the issue of existing corridors, I agree that using hydro lands is mostly a bad idea, as they’re not really near anywhere anyone goes. That being said, what about running rail along highways? They’re a fair bit closer to where people actually want to go, aren’t they?
While I can’t see much utility in following the 401 East of Yonge now that the Sheppard subway is built and LRT planned, what about West of the Spadina line? Or service in the Don Valley for that matter? If the Gardiner winds up staying up it’ll need an overhaul, and rail lines could be added then (as in the short lived Toronto Viaduct proposal).
I’m just curious as to how much thought has gone into ideas like this, as I put maybe up to 5 minutes into it myself.
Scott
Steve: This is going to sound odd, but in many ways, expressways don’t go where people want to travel either. I say this in the context that most expressways occupy a wide swath of land that is hostile to pedestrians and which has no immediately adjacent (in the pedestrian sense) traffic generators. Assuming we put an LRT (or a BRT) in the middle of the 401, stations would be a real challenge. How would people get to and from the service? Where would connecting routes stop? The DVP has the additional challenge that much of it is in the valley, quite distant from connecting roads. The Gardiner is not going to be widened even if it is rebuilt.
There is a fundamental difference between the way people use expressways and the way they use transit. Someone who drives “boards” their vehicle at their home, drives over local roads to an on-ramp, then flies (depending on traffic) down the expressway to an off-ramp and uses the local road system to get to their destination. A transit rider walks to a local stop, waits for a bus or streetcar, rides to a rapid transit line and transfers. Both the walk and the transfer are major impediments to the attractiveness of transit. Moreover, given highway locations, there is a good chance that a trip will include a transfer both at the start and end of the express portion of the trip.
Unless a highway is built with rapid transit stations, transfer facilities included, that allow a simple interchange and do not require “express” services to leave the main highway to reach an offline transfer point, access and transfers will be a big problem.
LikeLike
Steve,
In your comments to Scott you express your reservations about transit in highway corridors. Which in respect of lrt/subway, or anything in most corridors, I would tend to agree.
However, I must admit I’ve always thought it made eminent sense to put a GO Line down the middle of the 401 from Pickering Stn (which is currently beside the 401) to either the Airport or some sensible location west thereof. Don’t get me wrong, I have no realistic expectation on the MTO giving up about 3 lanes of highway (which i think is about the right amount for tracks + a centre platform)
But, looking at where the line could serve: It would go Pickering – Scarborough Centre – Victoria Park (or Don Mills)- Yonge Subway, Yorkdale (Spadina Subway), Airport. Other options include connections with the Stouffville, Richmond Hill or Bradford GO lines (all of which this route cross over/under) and perhaps one other west end stop. It would furnish connections to ‘downtown’ Scarborough, ‘downtown’ North York’, 2 subway lines, potentially 3 other GO lines and the Airport. That looks pretty convenient to me.
Not really a Transit City idea, but still a good idea for Transit in the City, I think.
Steve: Well, for starters, I can look out the window where I work at STC and see the Brimley/401 interchange. It’s a bit of a hike from that location down to the Town Centre. At Yonge Street, the 401 crosses the subway line between York Mills and Sheppard Stations where the line is going up a steep grade out of Hogg’s Hollow. No place for a convenient new station. At the Airport, the 401 is well south of the Airport proper and would definitely need some sort of shuttle connector.
As I have said before, expressways are a big problem for transit corridors because there is no easy way to get to and from them at most locations. Yes, you can run a shuttle bus, but the easy connection your scheme implies just isn’t there. Wilson and Yorkdale Stations are a good example of this problem. Wilson is totally dependent on bus feeders. Yorkdale is both a bus terminal and an appendage to the mall, and otherwise, it’s inside a highway interchange. At least that one was built with the station and subway in mind.
LikeLike