Today’s Star contains an article about yours truly. While I’m really not one to bang my big bass drum (I will leave that to the politicians), I felt that some of you who either don’t read the Star or are further flung than its circulation territory might like to know about it.
Many thanks to Tess Kalinowski for such a flattering piece and to others for their kind, if occasionally frustrated, words.
Update 2: The presentation from the Commission meeting is now online. (4MB PDF)
I will write up comments on this project on the weekend.
Update 1: Here is the text of the motion made by the Commission including the various caveats and requests for additional information.
Original Post:
The TTC staff report on the Richmond Hill subway is available online. (Warning 15M PDF)
Today, the Commission voted to endorse this report in principle with futher discussion and deputations to follow at the January meeting. The Commission also reaffirmed that Transit City was its first priority for system expansion, and sought a number of additional reports to clarify the impact of the subway extension on the existing network.
I do not have time now (Wednesday evening) to write this up in full, but will do so over the next few days. Some material was presented at the meeting which is not in the linked file.
Of particular concern to the Commission is the haste with which this project is rolling forward based on an assessment launched by York Region that had very little consideration for how the line would fit in the overall scheme of the network. I might be forgiven for thinking, only a month ago, that we had turned away from “my line first” planning to a network view thanks to the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan.
An argument can be made for extending the subway, but the true cost and impact are lowballed. Yes, the staff report raises many caveats about service and capacity impacts, but there is no real alternatives analysis, no sense that anyone has looked seriously at larger issues. I will turn to this when I discuss the report in detail.
Update 2: The TTC now expects to have all posted schedules updated by Christmas Eve, subject to delays caused by the weather. Please hold your cards and letters, folks, about places they have missed at least into mid-January.
Original Post:
This Sunday (November 23) will see a large number of service improvements both during peak and off peak periods to implement the next major step in the Ridership Growth Strategy. Continue reading
From time to time, the enthusiast community, be they locals or visitors, runs afoul of TTC officialdom by actually taking photographs of TTC operations. This leads us into the quagmire of policies and bylaws regarding photography on TTC property.
Yesterday at the Commission Meeting, the makers of a student video “I Get On the TTC” were celebrated by all present including Chair Giambrone and Mayor Miller who observed that they had managed to make this entire production without official authorization.
Not long ago, a new policy regarding photography on TTC property was before the Commission, and a letter was simply “received” (ignored) raising problems with how this applies to amateurs including tourists and transit enthusiasts.
The problem begins with the text in the policy itself:
“Filming/photographing on TTC property means commercial or non-commercial requests as follows:
“3.1 Commercial Film production agencies to film television commercials, feature films, etc., and photographic agencies for magazines, billboard advertising, etc.
“3.2 Non-Commercial Requests from the news media, students and other non-professional individuals and groups for productions requiring TTC assistance and authorization.”
The policy directs people to various other documents about property permits and the need for supervision. Moreover, it can be read to imply that if I want to take a photo anywhere on the TTC, I have to have a property permit, I have to tell you where I am going to do this and Transit Control must know about it. This is an onerous, unreasonable and unenforceable restriction.
However, TTC Bylaw Number 1, quoted directly from the website, mentions ONLY “Commercial” photography in:
“16.b No person shall operate for commercial purposes any camera, video recording device, movie camera, or any similar device upon any vehicle or premises of the Commission without authorization.”
The bylaw is silent on non-commercial photography. Just to complicate things, many types of “commercial” photography such as a newspaper event shoot are not covered by 3.1 in the policy.
The two documents — policy and bylaw — are not in harmony with each other. Although I wrote a lengthy critique of the new Bylaw No. 1, this appears to have been completely ignored by the TTC (it has many, many more problems than the definition of photography). The problem is that badly drafted policies and bylaws give leeway for TTC staff to harass people who are in no way interfering with their operations and may even be providing free publicity and goodwill.
If “security” is the issue, then say so explicitly. Publish the policies and procedures for complying with them online, not hidden away in documents nobody can access or even know about.
The makers of “I Ride On the TTC” are an interesting case. They were not making their video for “commercial” purposes as defined in 3.1 above. What they were doing clearly did not require TTC “assistance”. All that they lacked was “authorization”.
The key words in 3.2 are “assistance and authorization”. I hate to split hairs, but legal beagles will tell you that “and” means that both conditions must be present for the clause to be operative. If they didn’t need assistance, then the question of authorization is moot because it has no bearing. I should also note that “supervision” is not the same as “assistance”. If I want to take a photo on a streetcar, I don’t need anyone from the TTC to help me do it even though they might want to be sure I don’t catch anything as unseemly as a grafitti covered seat, a scratched up window or an overcrowded car.
I hate to say this again, but this is the sort of petty-minded and ineptly executed “policy” that makes me cringe when I consider matters of substance like the Richmond Hill subway or a contract for hundreds of streetcars.
Recently, the TTC implemented a maximum 30 minute headway across the network and full service from roughly 6:00 am to 1:00 am everywhere. Plans for 2009 include a reduction of this maximum to 20 minutes, a topic I reviewed in a previous post. Whether we will actually see this next year is still a topic for budget debates, and the recently announced fare freeze could put that scheme on hold.
Another option that has surfaced is the concept of a core grid of routes where service would never be worse than every 10 minutes. To get a sense of what this might look like, I culled through the current schedules to produce a list of routes that have headways wider than 10 minutes. This is not a definitive list, and I know there can be both additions and deletions. Indeed, proposals like this are guaranteed to produce all sorts of political fights as each Councillor tries to get “their” routes on the “A list” for service quality. The criteria for picking the routes were:
Where the cells in the table are empty, the service is already at a 10 minute headway or better, and some routes have completely blank rows. What is quite noticeable here compared with the chart of 20 minute routes is that there are more time periods where service improvements would be needed on more routes. Moreover, many of these are major routes where the number of additional vehicles would be substantial.
In a period of tighter finances, this raises the question of which approach to service improvement should get priority:
All of these must be balanced against the debate over fare levels. Regular readers will know that my preference has always been to concentrate on service because that’s what people really need. The greatest prices in the world won’t do any good if the shop window is empty.
Today, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) issued a press release saluting Metrolinx’ inclusion of the Air Rail Link in the Regional Transportation Plan. This really isn’t a surprise to anyone. Metrolinx had little choice given the political situation with a nonsensical premium fare, privately operated route left over from an ancien regime in Ottawa.
The GTAA is thrilled to tell us that
significant environmental benefits will be realized with the implementation of the air rail link. In the first year of operation, it is projected that this will eliminate about 6.6 tonnes of CO2 emissions and see approximately 1.35 million cars from the roads.
Do tell! That’s 6.6 tonnes, not six thousand tonnes, SIX! Only when we compare this with the savings that will accrue to other RTP lines do we see the miniscule effect of this route. Each of the planned GO rail express services will reduce CO2 by over 100K tonnes, and many other RTP projects are well above 10K.
And all those cars! 1.35 million cars must really be trips, not vehicles. This means we are looking at about 4,500 cars/trips per day (assuming the equivalent of 300 weekdays per year with weekends counting for half). That’s about 250 per hour for an 18-hour day. This has to be some new record for low patronage on a line that many would have us believe will change life as we know it in the GTA. Ridership would be better if we assumed a higher than 1:1 ratio of passengers to auto trips, but the market for the Air Rail Link isn’t the car pooling crowd.
To put this in context, daily ridership on selected bus routes: Warden South (4,200), Sherbourne (4,600), Prince Edward (4,200). Yes, people don’t travel as far on them as Union to the Airport, but these will almost certainly be part of longer trips with transfers to other routes.
Can we please put this line out of its misery? Metrolinx may be doing an EA for it in the spring of 2009, but what I really want to see is the Benefits Case Analysis. If this were all to be done with private money, I would say let the project sponsor go broke paying for it, but that’s not the way we do “partnerships”. How much public money will be wasted on a premium fare design when we could be building facilities and capacity to attract a broader demand at a regular fare?
This study will be a real test for Metrolinx. Can they face up to the deep flaws in the Air Rail Link proposal, expose them to view, and propose an alternative that actually fits into their Regional Plan?
Today’s Globe & Mail includes an op ed article Rethinking the Need for Speed reporting on a recent study comparing the cost of transportation modes. The study and the article conclude that trams (streetcars) are the best choice, and that Skytrain (also known as the “RT” in Toronto) is a distant choice.
Those who know me well know that any chance to give the RT/ICTS/Skytrain advocates a black eye is more than welcome, but in this case I have to put a bit of context on the discussion.
The Skytrain vs LRT debate has consumed Vancouver transit advocates, planners and policitians for decades. The original Skytrain was a combined product of a premier who didn’t like streetcars and of lobbying by the Ontario government to get its then-new ICTS showcased for Expo in Vancouver. Certain characteristics of the original Skytrain route including the availability of a tunnel under downtown that could handle stacked Skytrains, but not LRT, an available right-of-way that kept down elevated construction costs, and the operational advantage of close headways of short trains tipped the balance in Skytrain’s favour.
Having said that, I must also observe that the technology was used to its maximum during Expo with a far more sophisticated operating model than anything the TTC has ever implemented on any line. This was automated transit really shining, but only for a brief moment. Probably the most important thing about the Vancouver system is that the people running it really wanted to make it work. From the day it opened, they analysed operations (including automatically produced charts such as those you see in my TTC route studies) looking for ways to handle demands and unusual events better. The idea of throwing up your hands in resignation, the TTC’s approach to line management, was totally foreign.
Skytrain works not just because of the technology, but because the people running the system care to make it run well.
All the same, the love affair with Skytrain wedded Vancouver to high-cost system expansion, and a route design skewed to handling commuters more than local trips. Indeed, most of the original Skytrain line does not follow city streets, and it depends on local redevelopment, walk-in trade and bus feeders for passengers.
The LRT vs Skytrain debate heated up recently with a proposed east-west line along Broadway, a major bus and trolleybus corridor. This is a street with much local development and Skytrain foes look to LRT as a way of achieving better local access and support for the community throiugh which the line will pass. Elevated construction is out of the question, and a Broadway Skytrain will almost certainly be underground adding considerably to its cost.
This is the political background to the Skytrain vs Trams study, and it’s important to read the study in context. The study itself does not address specific corridors, but simply looks at the operating and capital costs of each mode, as well as the environmental effects. When the numbers are combined, trams come out on top (or more accurately on the bottom with the lowest cost and carbon impact). Skytrain is much higher, primarily due to capital cost.
The basic debate in all of this is one of philosophy: should new transit lines be built to serve long trips where speed between stations is paramount, or should lines serve shorter trips and local demands with easily accessible stations? In the ongoing debate here, Transit City comes under fire because the lines won’t be fast enough for long trips. Should that be their purpose? What role does GO have as a regional carrier within the 416?
Some Transit City proposals call out for redesign, especially regarding the Sheppard/Finch transfer and the dubious nature of surface proposals for the south ends of the Don Mills and Jane routes. Work on new proposals is already underway as a spinoff of the Metrolinx studies, but the old plans still get lots of play including the TTC’s own Transit City campaign all over the system. The TTC needs to update the proposals to remove the less credible options and to indicate that they are not just drawing lines on maps.
Finally, I hope to see the Metrolinx study of options for the Scarborough RT published soon. This is an ideal chance to convert the line to LRT, and even the TTC’s own recommendation to upgrade with Mark II cars only, barely, made sense if the line would never be extended.
We now know that the “SRT” will run north into Malvern and possibly north of Steeles Avenue. The cost comparison between LRT and Skytrain should spell the end of the RT as we know it.
GO Transit announced its plan for the next decade’s worth of expansion of (mainly) commuter rail service in the Greater Toronto Area on December 12. The full text is an immense PDF (66MB) on GO’s site that you can download should you desire. The Service Plan, however, fit in a lot less space, and I have reformatted this as a 115K PDF.
Although the text talks about how GO2020 fits in with the Metrolinx Regional Plan, there are a few noteworthy differences especially regarding very frequent service in some corridors. Metrolinx has the electrification of some lines in its short term plans, but it remains to be seen whether this is tehnically viable at a cost that will fit within Metrolinx’ budget. Moreover, there are serious questions about the ability of Union Station to accommodate all of the traffic (trains and people) that Metrolinx forecasts for this hub.
GO’s plans have the advantage of looking out little more than a decade, a timeframe in which the plan is actually credible. Metrolinx has much at the 15-25 year horizon, and while this will keep planners gainfully employed, it does little to address current problems. Continue reading
Among the side comments with the proposed fare freeze announcement came a note that we might not see the implementation of a 20-minute maximum headway in 2009. Indeed, just paying for the changes recently introduced could be a stretch.
Just to see what this entails, I have compiled a list of the services that now run less frequently than 20 minute headways.
This is not meant to be an exhaustive list as I built it rather quickly to get a sense of the size of the issue, not to nail down every last detail. A few important points here:
One overwhelming observation is that the late evening periods (generally after 9-10 pm) most commonly have wide headways on most listed routes. A relatively few routes have 30 minute headways for most of the day.
The debate on use of any funding for service increases needs to determine whether the 20 minute maximum is an appropriate goal across the system, or whether it is time to start subdividing by class of route and time of day. For example:
In my next post, I will turn to what may seem to be a more radical idea, the Ten Minute Network. Such a network would have a guaranteed maximum 10 minute headway on a core network of routes. Please save comments on that idea until I get the post about it online. Meanwhile, the policy question is this: would a Ten Minute Network contribute more to the system overall at this time than the move to a twenty minute maximum affecting only the infrequent services?
Yesterday’s announcement that TTC fares will remain unchanged through 2009 warmed the hearts of many including a packed room at spacing magazine’s birthday party last night. However popular a fare freeze may be, it’s only part of the story.
Through 2008, the TTC implemented many service improvements to catch up with a backlog of overcrowding and to restore hours of service and a half-hour maximum headway to the network. There’s more to do including further catch-ups on crowding problems and proposals for even better service. I will turn to that topic in a separate post.
Meanwhile, the cynics among us have been here before. Freezing fares sounds great until you’re waiting for a bus that never shows up, or is packed to the roof when it arrives, because the TTC can’t afford to run more service. Past years have shown what happens when the “you can just stretch the money you have” attitude prevails — service and maintenance deteriorate.
If City Council wants to freeze fares, they have every right to expect that the TTC will go through its books carefully to look for spending that can actually be deferred or eliminated, but this must not be a shield to hide a subsidy freeze. More service costs more money, and we all know that the TTC does not make a profit on most of its riders. Council cannot bask in the glory of a rejuvenated TTC and the Transit City mantra but refuse to pay the price of a better transit system.
I await details of the 2009 City operating budget and proposed subsidy arrangements with much interest.
Steve Munro 