Updated October 23: The TTC deferred the Lake Shore Express bus proposal until its November meeting so that it could be considered together with an overall report on express bus policies.
Original October 18 post:
A report in the October TTC agenda on the subject of a Lake Shore West express bus caught my eye. The proposal doesn’t make it past the filters for new services, even with the premium fare, because the additional net revenue doesn’t meet the minimum criterion.
I have written before about the mysteries of the Service Standards, and this is as good a time as any to return to the mythology of financial analysis of new services.
The report proposes a service of five am inbound and four pm outbound trips from downtown. About 380 trips per day would take the service, and if we assume this is equally balanced between the peaks, this gives an average load of 38 in the morning and 48 in the afternoon. Given that trips are never equally balanced, some standees are expected.
The marginal revenue would be $153,000 per year made up mainly of express supplements for existing riders who shift from existing services (340 per day), plus full express fares from net new TTC riders (40 per day). The marginal cost is estimated at $96,000 per year. By extension, the total annual cost would be $249,000. A cost recovery of over 50% doesn’t look too bad, there’s more to the analysis.
The TTC’s standard (about which more below) says that a new service must generate at least .23 new riders per dollar expended. Riders diverted from other routes don’t count because it is assumed that the effect on any of these routes is too small to allow a change in service levels. Given the already tenuous quality of service on the 501 to Long Branch, the last thing I would want the TTC to do is to further trim streetcar service claiming that less was needed thanks to the new express bus.
Looked at this way, the 40 new daily rides (that’s only 20 people, since each counts for 2) would be subsidized at a marginal cost of $4,800 per year per person. Of course, we would also be subsidizing a premium service for the other existing riders, and the question really is whether the net expenditure of $96K on 190 people (half of the 380 trips), or $505 per person, is a justified expenditure in the grand scheme of TTC affairs.
This is not far out of line with the actual per user subsidy for Metropass holders, but of course, they are using the service of an entire network, not just a point-to-point service. (A year of passes on subscription yields the TTC about $1200. If we use an average recovery rate of 75%, this means that the cost of service to a passholder is $1600, and they get an annual subsidy of $400. This assumption is open to challenge on many fronts, and I use it only for illustration. Don’t bombard me with commentaries on alternatives, please.) I will remain silent on the question of the annual subsidy to Sheppard Subway riders, but at least there are more than 190 of them.
Coming back to the “standard”, we get 40 new rides per day, or 10K per year (250 weekdays times 40). the net expenditure is almost $10 per new trip, or to render it into Service Standards lingo, .10 new trip per dollar.
Where did that magic figure of .23 come from, you ask?
Once upon a time, the Service Standards were based on the “maximum permissable subsidy”, a value set at five times the average subsidy per trip. This value is affected both by the then-current fare, operating costs and subsidies, and it varies from year to year. Here are the values when this scheme was in use:
- 1993 (for the 1994 Service Plan): $1.60
- 1994: $1.80
- 1995: $1.80
- 1996: $1.25
- 1997: $1.20
Note the drop by the mid-90s corresponding to the cutback in subsidy funding and the rise in fare revenue relative to costs. If the recovery rate goes up, the subsidy per trip goes down and with it the screenline for the amount of loss a new service is allowed to incur.
In 1998, for the 1999 Service Plan, the calculation was turned on its head and expressed as the number of passengers per dollar expended. The value for that year was, wait for it, .23. The report clearly anticipates adjustment in this value in future years (“This figure is updated every year based on the most current information abot costs and customers’ travel characteristics.”) In fact this has never happened, and .23 has been enshrined as if it were engraved on stone tablets. It is self evident that the cost of a new service in 1998 was considerably lower than in 2008, and therefore the number of dollars needed to pay for a service is higher today. If, for the sake of argument, the inflation factor is 100%, then we need twice as many new riders today to “justify” a service than we did in 1998.
Note also that this analysis says nothing about the quality of the service. Adding a new bus may allow headways to come down to a much more attractive level, or it may do little more than “show the flag” and allow the installation of new transit stops and shelters that see very little use. There is no QOS component even though it is well known that this is the single most important factor in attracting riders to new services or losing them on existing routes.
Finally, .23 new riders per dollar spent implies an allowable subsidy of over $4 per new ride, or $2000 per rider (assuming a round trip) per year! This looks terrible, but by analogy to the Lake Shore Express, the real issue is that additional service makes life better for every affected rider, not just the net new ones.
In modern terms, $4 is slightly more than double the maximum permissable subsidy back in 1994/95. The problem remains, however, that this is a fixed value, and as costs rise, more and more new riders will be needed for proposed services to meet the standard. The entire process of financial evaluation of service needs to be revised to include meaningful, inflation-adjusted figures and quality-of-service considerations.
Postscript:
The Lake Shore Express proposal, like the existing Beach Express, is a reaction to the TTC’s long-term unwillingness to acknowledge service problems on the 501, an issue they are only now addressing. There is supposed to be a report on the subject in the October agenda (the Lake Shore report explicitly states this), but it is not yet (as of Saturday, October 18) on line. I suspect it will be a carry-in, and this will produce the usual difficulty of responding to a major issue for both Commissioners and the public.
Steve Munro 
If I am not mistaken YRT strives for a cost recovery ratio of 40%. I understand we have tons more service, but just imagine a premium fare service out west. I think the recovery will be a little more then 51% and there will be more passengers then the TTC thinks.
Steve: The problem is that more passengers means more buses, and for a peak-only service with heavy one-way flow, the economics don’t work very well. There may be more riders with more service, but it will cost proportionately more to run that service.
I have a philosophical problem with the idea of a two-tier transit system where, if we are willing to pay extra, we can get a premium service in the handful of areas where, geographically, it has a chance of working. Those extra riders don’t pay the capital cost of the vehicles that sit idle all day, and they jump the queue on service improvements because in some circles, this service is alleged to make money.
It’s odd that southern Etobicoke was never seen as much of a market for a premium fare service, but now it’s full of pricy condos, we can shell out public resources to coddle the poor darlings on their way to work. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the city, people cannot get on their local bus routes.
If the City and TTC are really so hard up for good service, let them raise everyone’s fares, or pay a higher subsidy, and stop griping about how we can’t afford better.
LikeLike
Now that the TTC is unwilling to provide this Express bus service it is time to allow the private sector to have a go at it. Jitney service run by owner/operators similar to the Ambassador Taxicab. No cost to the city, all the risk is someone else’s.
Steve: Well, consider that the “drop” just for getting into a taxi is more than the effective fare for a “premium” express bus, and the cost for a trip downtown from southern Etobicoke is likely to be around $20 (more if you’re stuck in traffic). Share that between four passengers, and you’re still paying more than you would to ride the TTC on a premium fare service.
Of course, you have to get to the jitney service first, and unless you live right on Lake Shore, that may mean a separate fare. I would be amused to see how much some enterprising private company would want to charge for this type of service, how much it depended on some sort of subsidy (direct or indirect via tax write offs) and how long they would actually stay in business.
LikeLike
Steve wrote:
“I have a philosophical problem with the idea of a two-tier transit system where, if we are willing to pay extra, we can get a premium service in the handful of areas where, geographically, it has a chance of working. Those extra riders don’t pay the capital cost of the vehicles that sit idle all day, and they jump the queue on service improvements because in some circles, this service is alleged to make money.”
It could be argued that we already have a two-tiered system of sorts – GO Transit.
I know that GO is meant for long-distance commutes, but how can that reconcile with the tens of thousands of people who take the train from places like northern Etobicoke, Long Branch and Rouge Hill, all places in the City proper who have decent TTC service?
Dan
Steve: Two points here. First, I have argued for some time that GO needs to be integrated with the TTC’s fare structure. The new Metrolinx plans for very frequent service on lines like Brampton mean it will be part of the base network grid and should charge accordingly.
Second, GO has a very high cost recovery rate in part because its client base is prepared to pay for that level of service. Over a long haul, it is advantageous to the city to have more GO service for the long trips, and more rapid transit (of whatever flavour) for the shorter ones. The TTC has fallen badly behind on provision of decent service, I agree, but this does not automatically justify premium fare alternatives as a “solution”.
LikeLike
Thanks for the detailed analysis and the heads-up about the report(s).
I share a concern about a premium two-tier service; why can’t some of this just be provided as part of regular service?
It is curious that there’s such great concern with the fiscal implications of this proposal, (and that the negative numbers may mean it won’t happen), while the “fix” for this east-west from Etobicoke to core transit, the WWLRT, seems to just keep rumbling along ahead with multi-millions of this and that though some reading of its 1993 EA has some damning criticism.
In particular the EA’s Exec Summary says that what’s proposed to be built now c. $540M (and to be honest add say $150M to rebuild the Union Station loop) isn’t considered to be “cost-effective” because it won’t be direct enough into the core for really making a big enough difference – that Quality of Service quick trip to real destinations via perhaps Front St.
And somehow that third study of a direct route in – maybe on Front St. – just never happened – and we’ve since spent umpteen million$ on the land for the road folly of the Front St. Extension, and have had a lot of time and staff resource go into some exploration of tweaking the WWLRT recently.
Somehow we are prepared to go through nearly $700M without following the recommendation of the 1993 EA and we’re nickling and diming the express bus option, which would be faster, especially if we had a Front St. transitway that both TTC buses and GO buses could go on.
And maybe an EA some decade could consider adding some Etobicoke to Union four-car trains on the GO/rail tracks as a compare and contrast?
If this is the state of “planning” for a festering problem that’s at least 15 years old, I don’t have so much faith and hope for effective transit from the Transit Suburbs plans and the Metrolinx proposals as that 6-month EA period is too truncated.
We have to squeeze those million$ a little better folks!
So yes, $700M and no sense – more Waterfront Transport Follies!
LikeLike
The whole point of this service is to be (somewhat) faster than the Queen streetcar, by avoiding the slowest parts of the line from downtown to Roncesvalles. I view it as a stopgap solution until the Lakeshore West LRT is completed (if it ever does get completed). You are dreaming in technicolor if you think that the speed of the Queen streetcar can be significantly improved in rush hour.
Obviously the service will never meet service standards if it (a) runs infrequently and (b) charges a premium fare. The service should run at least every 10 minutes during rush hour and charge regular TTC fare, otherwise few will use it. People don’t want to wait up to 30 minutes for a service that costs extra, when cheaper alternatives (the streetcar and YUS + BD + bus) run frequently.
LikeLike
The jitney would pass right by the condos etc. and you would just walk out to the street and flag it down. Jitneys (minibus) would carry about 20-25 passengers not just 4. No subsidy required, private enterprise at work. It has to be owner operated similar to Ambassador Taxicab. I’ll bet they would stay in business a long time.
LikeLike
Steve said: I have a philosophical problem with the idea of a two-tier transit system where, if we are willing to pay extra, we can get a premium service in the handful of areas where, geographically, it has a chance of working. Those extra riders don’t pay the capital cost of the vehicles that sit idle all day, and they jump the queue on service improvements because in some circles, this service is alleged to make money.
Premium services are a total crock having to drop $5 dollars cash into the farebox. I understand where you’re coming from, and I personally avoid the premium services if I am in the four areas where this service operates. I personally would like to see one flat fare, $3 anywhere on all systems that GO Transit touches, to anywhere GO Transit touches. Getting back on topic, whatever happened to having a trial service and see what happens? You can decide on the fate based on avg. cost recovery per day.
Ray Kennedy said: Now that the TTC is unwilling to provide this Express bus service it is time to allow the private sector to have a go at it. Jitney service run by owner/operators similar to the Ambassador Taxicab. No cost to the city, all the risk is someone else’s.
Ray Kennedy then said: The jitney would pass right by the condos etc. and you would just walk out to the street and flag it down. Jitneys (minibus) would carry about 20-25 passengers not just 4. No subsidy required, private enterprise at work. It has to be owner operated similar to Ambassador Taxicab. I’ll bet they would stay in business a long time.
You think for one second that a private company would put up the capital, hire the employees, and run the service? This is a very risky way of doing buissness, and no private company outside of Japan in G8 will run services like this. There is a reason it’s called public transportation, and in my view part of the basics in running a city. Don’t mention VIVA, York must be getting shafted somehow.
LikeLike
GO trains between the Mimico station and Union run every 20 – 40 min during peak hours, travel time being 11 – 13 min.
So, would a regular-fare, all-stop, peak hour bus Long Branch – Lakeshore Blvd – Mimico Stn be useful? Perhaps just one vehicle will be sufficient to attract quite a few new transit riders, as long as each trip connects reliably to a particular GO train arrival / departure.
I wonder if many people use the 501/508 streetcars to get to Long Branch Stn for a ride to Union, but suspect that such commute is not very popular due to the 501 reliability issues. The above single-vehicle bus route could work around such issues by avoiding downtown altogether.
In future, the scheme should become even more popular as the Lakeshore GO frequency increases while the Presto card reduces the fare for this itinerary.
Steve: The vehicle monitoring data I have for the 508 shows that, at least in December 2006, its arrival times were not reliable inbound from Long Branch with outbound times to match. Counting on it for a trip downtown is more of an “if it’s there, take it” sort of thing. This brings us to the basic issue with service on Lake Shore, regardless of the route. If it’s not there frequently and reliably, the access and wait times make up a disproportionately large part of the trip.
The same issues will exist with a premium fare bus or a jitney unless (a) they are managed properly and (b) there’s lots of them.
LikeLike
The Palace Pier and Palace Place condominiums already have their own private shuttle service from their complex to Union Stn. The service has been contracted most recently to Can-Ar, who for a while were using ex-GO Transit 1400s painted up in silver-grey and actually lettered for Palace Pier/Place. Currently Can-Ar is using larger type luxury “cutaway” coaches. I don’t know what the cost of this service is for the residents, but I don’t imagine that it’s inexpensive. The buses travel along the Gardiner and come up north on York St. dropping off/picking up at Union. They seem to operate every 20 minutes during the rush hours and I’ve passed them on the GO train to find them sitting on Front St. by the time I walk out of Union Stn.
They seem to pull in a good number of passengers, but then this is a “door to door” private express service that runs on a fixed schedule and is restricted to residents, making the trips a lot faster. If the other condos want to run a private service, what stops them other than the cost of renting the vehicle and getting enough people signed up? Yes, this would take potential riders away from public transit, but they’re willing to pay up for their own taxi service. Potential jitney operators would have to provide the same quality of service, otherwise those residents would be taking the TTC already.
Steve: It’s worth noting that a private service like this is allowed under the City of Toronto Act because it is operated on behalf of a set group of people and cannot be hailed by someone waiting on the curb.
LikeLike
Why not merge this idea with your idea, Steve, to return the old lakeshore streetcar line. Have this bus line run all day between Long Branch and the Humber Loop with every X bus going beyond to Downtown. The X can change based on the time of day and ridership predictions, etc. No premium fare needed.
From Long Branch to Humber it would be local, but from Humber to Downtown it would be express.
Steve: If you are going to carry a lot of people, then you need a lot of buses. Infrequent service isn’t worth waiting for as anyone who tries to use the 501 will tell you. Also, the downtown loop from the west is not as simple, relatively speaking as the one from the east due to congestion from various events on the west side of downtown.
LikeLike
Steve,
Sorry, your comment at the end of my post actually answers other posts : ). My suggestion was different:
– Bus would run between Long Branch and Mimico GO Stn only (on Lakeshore and a short stretch of Royal York). Hence, it would automatically avoid downtown and its conjestion.
– That bus would make all stops and the fare would be regular TTC (not premium).
– The schedule would be tied to GO train departure /arrival times at Mimico. For example, it could arrive to Mimico 10 min before the 6.54, 7.32, 8.19, and 8.54 AM trains to Union. It could depart Mimico 5 min after the 16.56, 17.24, 17.56, and 18.56 trains from Union.
If that new bus operates AM peak and PM peak only, and the target GO train departures/arrivals are spaced 30 min or more apart, then just one vehicle should be sufficient to run that service.
Steve: However, the proposed frequency of the Lake Shore bus is considerably better, and much more tightly coupled to the peak travel period. Also, your bus, originating at Long Branch, would not serve the people east of Royal York.
From a service attractiveness point of view, someone would have to be at their stop in good time to ensure they caught the bus, then have to make the transfer at Mimico Station where they would board the train at it’s peak point.
The catchment area is also served by various north-south routes that take people up to the subway.
The basic question is this: Just how much of a market is there for a service that is infrequent and requires a transfer?
LikeLike
Rainforest says:
“- The schedule would be tied to GO train departure /arrival times at Mimico. For example, it could arrive to Mimico 10 min before the 6.54, 7.32, 8.19, and 8.54 AM trains to Union. It could depart Mimico 5 min after the 16.56, 17.24, 17.56, and 18.56 trains from Union.”
Between the vagaries of TTC on-time management and GO on-time management, this is going to be a headache. The 8:19 train this morning arrived at Mimico something like 8:32 due to “signal problems and traffic” (even though it originates two stops west in Port Credit). So you would have caught the bus at say 7:49 at Kipling and Lake Shore, get to Mimico station at 8:09, catch the train at 8:32, get to Union at 8:47….could have just taken the bus up to Kipling station and saved the GO fare.
There’s also the issue of late outbound trains. (Presumably most traffic would be bus to Union-bound trains in the morning, and Hamilton-bound trains to bus in the evening.) If the train is late, does the bus now wait around for it to arrive, or does it vanish, to reappear an hour later?
Given that there’s no fare integration between TTC and GO, I don’t see this service being worth anyone’s while, really.
LikeLike
I see. So, it looks like such a “TTC shuttle” bus won’t be useful, at least with the current GO train frequency and the lack of fare integration.
LikeLike
You wrote previously (https://stevemunro.ca/?p=301) that GO now has no plans on relocating its Mimico station to the area around Park Lawn (the condos on the former motel strip). Any reason why?
The Mimico location is not great, imo. A station near the junction of the Queensway, Humber Loop, the condo area, would be preferable, no?
LikeLike
Actually, with the line scheduled by Metrolinx to be express (electrified like the RER) what would feasible station placement be on these express lines? Is 2 km still too small?
Steve: Yes. We have to recognize that fast lines cannot stop beside everyone’s doorstep.
LikeLike
This is a topic that is close to me as I live in Mimico.
I frequently travel downtown, but as I don’t work downtown all of my trips are “off peak.”
The lack of frequency of the lakeshore GO line means that it’s not a good option to get downtown quickly. Me, I don’t like waiting the better part of an hour when I can bike downtown in less than that time.
I have given up on the 501 streetcar.
The current problems of the 501 makes me understand what it is like to be a Christian — that is what it is like waiting for the second coming. There have been several times where I have attempted to use the streetcar to get downtown, but the wait times I experienced of 1.5 hours, or one day 2.5 hours, is just far too much! To those of us who live in South Etobicoke, TTC stands for Take the Car.
I don’t have a problem with paying a premium fare for premium service. I do, however, have a problem with paying a flat rate fair for sub-standard service.
When I don’t bike it downtown, I drive. On occasion I will take GO, but only when the schedule meshes with the timing of my events downtown
It also does not help that once I catch the streetcar my travel time is still the same as if I had cycled, and I can skip the messianic wait.
I understand the appeal for an express TTC bus to use lakeshore and avoid the congestion on Queen. But GO is the better option for this type of service. However GO needs to run a bit more frequently, and the Mimico station (specifically) needs to be better integration into the area’s TTC routes and, and the same needs to occur with the fares — I don’t want to be dinged twice for one trip.
LikeLike
So maybe the better deal is no WWLRT nor express bus service, but instead put the c. $550M of the WWLRT into better GO service with a strong focus on Etobicoke to Union every 20 minutes. Could there possibly be some way of doing a more analytical comparison ahead of the c. $700M of the WWLRT – and I add another $150M for a share of the adjustment to the Union Station loop that would be required for the crowds.
Steve: Actually, the detailed Benefits Case Analysis of Metrolinx should include this sort of comparison, but I am not sure (a) it would be done properly for reasons I will discuss in a separate post about Metrolinx and (b) it may not even go through that filter if it is perceived as a “local” project.
LikeLike