The Toronto Star reported on July 30 that the TTC may defer its order for new streetcars in a move to free up room in the capital budget.
As I have often written here, the TTC’s capital plans badly strain the ability of the City of Toronto to carry the ongoing spending, and constant cutbacks in funding from Queen’s Park are a major problem. Every chance they get, provincial Ministers tell us about billions “committed” to transit in the GTA. The problem is that much of the actual spending won’t happen for many years, if ever, while current spending is a major problem.
Many programs that funded parts of the TTC capital budget have wound down, and the only provincial funding stream the TTC can actually count on is the gas tax. That brings in about $150-million annually, and even this is partly split with the operating budget. Meanwhile, the TTC has reached a point where it classifies almost every project as “state of good repair”. That incantation, brought to us by former Chief General Manager David Gunn, is supposed to indicate the scope of work and funding needed just to keep the lights on and the trains rolling.
However, it has been abused in TTC budgets to include projects such as provisions for additional capacity on the subway. This is not to say the capacity isn’t needed, but that’s a different class of spending, certainly one that should include regional, not just local funding.
The order for 200 new low floor light rail vehicles (LFLRVs) for the “legacy” streetcar system has a pricetag of about $1.2-billion including inflation, spare parts and warranty coverage. Toronto gambled when it put this deal together that Ottawa would come in for 1/3, but they chose not to participate. Indeed, Ottawa has always been selective in its spending on transit across the country preferring to drop money where there is a time limit to the spending, where funding is project-specific and doesn’t imply or create an ongoing commitment to all cities. Ottawa’s only standing funding is from the federal gas tax, and even that falls in relative value over time because it is not indexed.
Toronto’s and TTC’s budgeting practices have not helped. In a bid to keep the potential draw on the City’s borrowing capacity under control, at least on paper, TTC projects have been either shuffled off beyond the 10-year planning window, or simply ignored as a potential pressure. Confusion about where and when funding might actually arrive adds to the problem.
Although the TTC produces multi-year capital and operating budget projections, there is never any explanation or discussion about the options that would shape future funding. Every year, more projects appear on the list, some the inevitable result of decisions already taken (e.g. if you increase the size of the subway fleet, you need more carhouse space to store the trains, and more staff to operate and maintain them).
Adding to this mess is the Mayor’s desire to extend the Sheppard Subway. Although funding for this might somehow arrive from the private sector or through links to future property tax revenue, if the project is going to launch, a considerable portion will be in public sector budgets.
In this context, the new streetcars are an easy and obvious target especially as they are not loved by the Mayor’s office. The Star mentions a $1.5-billion shortfall in available capital over the next ten years. Whether stretching out or delaying spending on new streetcars will make a big dent in this is hard to say. A scheme for Metrolinx to pick up the cost and lease the cars back to the city is only an accounting trick — one way or another, we have to pay for them just as we will for anything purchased with borrowed money. (The proposed financing of Presto is a similar piece of sleight-of-hand.)
The fundamental problem is that the revenue stream (be it operating or capital) dedicated to transit in Toronto and in the GTA is far too small for the region’s demands. Queen’s Park refuses to address new “revenue tools” even though several analyses of the situation by such radical lefties as the Toronto Board of Trade flag the urgency of more spending on transit.
Once upon a time, we had a plan, no an announcement, called MoveOntario 2020. It had lots of goodies in it including a network of LRT lines in Toronto. That’s gone, replaced now by a single $8-billion project for an “LRT” subway across Eglinton and replacing the Scarborough RT. Planned improvements of GO included electrification of the Lake Shore corridor, but what we actually get are small scale extensions dribbling out one announcement at a time. Even as and when Metrolinx does produce its “Investment Strategy” with recommendations for revenue sources, along with “The Big Move 2.0”, the likelihood any government will have the stomach to raise new taxes is very low.
Meanwhile in Toronto, despite an $85-million hole in the TTC’s operating budget, Mayor Ford wants yet another freeze of transit fares. This is madness. Fare revenue totals about $1-billion and we know that the combination of strong riding demand and good service will minimize the negative effect of a fare hike. The TTC projects a 10% increase (to $2.75 per adult token, with other fares adjusted proportionately) would bring $50-60m, but this is conservative. It includes a considerable allowance for “elasticity”, the degree to which a price increase leads to a drop in demand.
Service cuts alone will not address that $85-million, and that approach would ignore both the overall growth in demand on the TTC and the close linkage between service quality and the system’s attractiveness. Moreover, the $85m does not include the $25-$30m cost of an arbitrated labour settlement TTC workers will likely receive.
While it is tempting to blame everything on Mayor Ford, this is a case where many others must share the burden. TTC financing has occupied a never-never land in Toronto and Ontario budgets for years. Toronto is badly served when an agency appears to have an unlimited appetite for money, but a financial plan consisting of “let’s hope for better next year”. The City is also badly served by doctrinaire budgeting that decrees funding and service cuts with no regard to their effect on system users, on the viability of an essential part of the City’s transportation network, and on the ability of Toronto to attract and serve its businesses and residents.
A 2012 TTC budget will probably show up on the agenda for the board meeting of September 20, although I suspect details will continue to leak out in coming weeks. How many decisions will be made behind closed doors before those budgets formally appear? What options will citizens or Council have to examine the details, to debate the options for the future of our transit system?
Instead of that debate, we have far too much focus on what we can do without, on what we can cut. That is not city building, and certainly is not city leadership.
Steve Munro 
The bad news keeps on rolling in – now it looks as if the Ford Brothers may get their way with streetcar elimination – as this article in today’s Toronto Star newspaper illustrates. This is but the first salvo in what will surely prove to be the total cancellation of the Bombardier order for the 200 new streetcars – you can bet the Fords will insist on it – then move to eliminate the entire streetcar network, citing the aged condition of the present fleet and the city’s inability to pay for the new cars.
LikeLike
There is an article today in Toronto Star about a possible cancellation of the streetcar contract. Do you think this is related to this rumor about providing money for the Sheppard subway? Would the mayor’s office have directed Webster to do this?
Steve: At a minimum, the Mayor’s office probably has and certainly could ask for a report on the options for future spending. However, as the Star article makes clear, there is a shortfall even before the Sheppard subway is added to the project list. More and more, we are seeing that this line will be paid for with public funds, not with private investment, and in the process who knows what necessary spending elsewhere will be deferred.
LikeLike
Steve: If, god forbid, the new streetcars are cancelled or postponed can the TTC actually keep the present old clunkers running, and at what cost?
Steve: There is already a CLRV rebuild program in place, and it will have to be extended. Originally there were plans to make them last at least another 15 years by replacing the electronics, but this was stripped out of the program when (a) the cost of doing this appeared to be rising and (b) there was a push to get a fully accessible fleet in place as soon as possible. At this point, I don’t think that decision will be revisited, and I expect that a Ford administration would starve the streetcar fleet of any funding that would prevent its collapse by the early 2020s. That was the stated strategy of Ford’s chief policy guy, Mark Towhey, quite some time ago.
The real test will be to see what projects survive into the 2012 capital budget, notably the new carhouse project and the continuation of major track construction projects. One of particular importance involves the trackage at Russell carhouse.
There is a real chance that since the TTC is an “independent” board, it will be very hard for Council to put projects back into the budget over the objections of a Ford-dominated Commission. Chair Stintz will have to be more forthcoming on her view of the TTC’s future, assuming she stays in her position.
LikeLike
Steve, I know this may sound stupid, but why can’t a mayor with (Harris’) Conservative ties, approach the federal government (that has a finance minister with Harris’ government ties) using the idea that Toronto and the GTA are OWED! How about the catastrophe that was the G20 that was foisted upon us with little consultation. The monies that were used by the city and it’s citizens was probably astronomical and no other city in Canada will ever be required again to do it.Other cities have got things including transit development for The Olympics, World’s Fairs,and political paybacks among other things. I know what the political climate is like(and who knows ….maybe the Fords,etc aren’t doing anything because they have other political motivations in the future (federal or provincial), so maybe, in their opinion why upset the apple cart. Just a thought, because I still feel this region is owed big time!!
Steve: You may have noticed that the feds are not exactly handing out money like lollipops these days, and moreover have already turned down the Miller administration on the new streetcars. The worst possible situation would be for Ottawa to fund something we don’t need like the Sheppard subway while leaving the rest of the system to fall apart.
LikeLike
Steve:
If there is any fairness in this world the “old clunkers” won’t have to hang in to the 2020’s. 2014 should be long enough to allow the streetcar network to be saved by our then new Mayor.
Steve: But it will take several years for a new fleet to be manufactured and delivered. As things were, the TTC had planned to replace the ALRVs first as they are less reliable than the CLRVs. This poses problems for making service in the short term.
LikeLike
It does look like there’s a perfect storm coming for a real mess with transit. So much progress appeared to be gained, finally, over the last few years and now it’s sliding back fast as one item after another gets cut, cancelled, or postponed in quick succession.
I’m of two minds with respect to the CLRV situation: On the other, I think the new streetcar order needs to go through.The capacity of the larger vehicles has been badly needed for a long time and it’s about time that things like air conditioning and accessibility stuff found on the other vehicles became available on the streetcars. I think the money woes are an artificial creation to manufacture excuses with because one third of the cost of the new streetcars is being paid for by someone else (Queen’s Park) and Toronto should have budgeted for the 2/3 of the cost that the city’s picking up.
On the other hand, if the level of mindlessness we’re watching now continues and the new streetcar order is delayed or cancelled, I think the TTC has no other choice but to keep the existing streetcars running. A delay would be an inconvenience but putting off the order by one or two years wouldn’t be the end of the world as long as the new streetcars do come. The situation the TTC is in now is one where the new vehicles are ordered and the CLRV and ALRV fleet has to be made last from now until delivery date X when the new cars begin displacing meaningful numbers of the old one.
A delay that shifts delivery date X can be managed but an outright cancellation of the order is much more dicey. The existing fleet can continue running as is for now, which would’ve happened anyways since the new cars aren’t due for a couple of years yet, but past that? You could abandon the streetcar system but replace it with what? There’s no giant bus order. There’s no bus garages being built. You’d be throwing away all the money spent on track and wire replacement. Bombardier would be collecting contract cancellation fees. Even if buses were ordered, they’re not free and the cost would eat into the savings pretty severely and then with the operating budget, you’d have more operators driving more vehicles so labour costs go up and you’re back at that 35% increase in diesel fuel costs that now applies to more vehicles. Not to mention the traffic congestion caused by replacing the streetcars with buses on a more-than-1 basis. Suddenly it looks like the gravy’s flowing and the war on the car’s back on.
The TTC was looking at quite a substantial CLRV rebuild. The low voltage electrical system was going to be replaced with a 24 volt system and air conditioning was going to be installed. I think 4041 was the car they prototyped those changes on but I’m not sure of the fleet number off the top of my head. They ripped apart another CLRV to evaluate the condition of the car body and they also ripped apart another one so that a vendor (Siemens? – can’t remember for sure) could install a prototype propulsion system. My understanding was that all the control electronics and all the power electronics were being replaced, and I heard two versions where the existing trucks and traction motors were going to be kept and another that had them being replaced. At any rate, this rebuild was cancelled before the work on the prototype car was finished. One of the CLRV cars that was taken apart was put back together again with the original equipment and returned to service and the other was scrapped. The proposed replacement of the entire propulsion system was overkill though. SEPTA did some modification work on their Kawasaki cars where they got rid of the original Westinghouse logic boxes and replaced them with Alstom Agate units, but kept the whole 600V side of the car with the original power electronics that are almost as old as the CLRVs. I think something like this would’ve been more appropriate than replacing everything.
I had a really good tour at one of SEPTA’s facilities a number of years ago and was taken through a Kawasaki car in detail. I’m an electronics technologist with the three year advanced diploma with co-op and honours endorsements, plus I work in electronics and have a number of years of professional experience now and the level of detail on that tour was geared accordingly. Most of the failures they experiences are from mechanical or pneumatic components – the 1900s technology with moving parts, not the solid state electronics. Occasionally diodes known to fail and there’s one subassembly that’s original Westinghouse equipment that’s known to fail that to me (having looked at the guts of a dead one and a working one that had been repaired) like some SCRs needed to be heatsinked but weren’t. I also went through the schematic for that unit and didn’t find anything exotic or esoteric either. All the parts are easily available with exact replacements and plenty of options for substitutions. If it comes down to keeping the CLRV and ALRV cars running, a sensible discussion about the issues with the electronics and how to overcome them would be reasonable, rather than freaking out about “complicated electronics that can’t be fixed” as soon as the topic comes up. However, at the end of the day, those new streetcars are badly needed now for more practical reasons than concerns about electronics that aren’t interesting except to a very small number of people.
LikeLike
Is there any second hand streetcar fleet that the TTC can purchase for its current streetcar shortage? The only other streetcars I could think of that are remotely similar to the ALRVs/CLRVs were ones used in California on VTA transit (but those were retired 7 years ago). If we the city can’t even get a new streetcar fleet, (as the old ones are decay as we speak), it is inevitable that their won’t be enough streetcars for the legacy network in 5-10 years even with refurbishment.
And also we potentially wouldn’t be in this situation if it wasn’t for Metrolinx and their stupidity to use a different track gauge. The Eglinton line will of course have spares and those could have been used by the TTC for at least a while. The TTC could have leased, purchased or whatever else you want to call it from Metrolinx for the Eglinton line fleet. I know they have doors on both ends and other variables that would make them different from the legacy line fleet but I’m sure it could have been “slightly” modified. And by slightly I mean very FEW changes.
Steve: The Metrolinx cars are different from the TTC cars in more than their gauge. They won’t handle the TTC track geometry (horizontal an vertical curve radii), and they are not designed to work on hills as steep as exist on the TTC system. If it were a question of using Metrolinx cars, what you would really be talking about is the timing of spending on either of the orders. Metrolinx and Queen’s Park already pushed off the need for new cars to the latter part of this decade in the Miller era with the “five in ten” plan, and the whole leasing scheme is a variation on deferring spending by Toronto.
The fundamental problem is that nobody wants to spend any money in the next four years on anything. Queen’s Park is scared to death that any talk of new revenue tools will hand the Tories a tailor-made issue for an election that’s already dicey.
LikeLike
This is probably why Toronto should de amalgamate to the 1998 standards, so Rob Ford and his friends can play in the Etobicoke playground while the smart people manage Toronto properly.
Steve: If only it were so easy. In pre-amalgamation days, right back to 1954, the TTC was ruled by Metro, not by the City of Toronto. Breaking up the city, even if you could get Queen’s Park to agree, would not solve the problem and would leave key 416-region wide issues in the hands of a council and bureaucrats dominated by suburban interests.
LikeLike
Steve:
You mention the “arms length” relationship between Council and the TTC Board and how that would prevent Council from preserving the streetcar order. However, if the “mushy middle” – as I fervently hope – becomes impatient with the Fords and they (the Fords) lose their council majority – couldn’t council vote to replace certain – or all – members of the TTC Board with new more progressive appointees.
Steve: This would be tricky. Such a move would have to originate at the Committee level, and Ford controls all of the paths through which such a motion could reach Council. To do it directly at Council requires a two thirds majority just to get it on the order paper rather than being referred to, say, the Executive. The next “regular” chance to appoint a new Commission does not come until late 2012 when all of the Committee and Board appointments are up for grabs. Even then, Council would have to override the Striking Committee’s recommendations which were stage managed by Ford’s office the last time around. Ford inherited a stronger mayor’s office from David Miller than many realize, thanks to changes Miller himself was responsible for.
LikeLike
I read somewhere (maybe on this site) the cancellation fee for the streetcar contract may be around the $500 million mark which is 40% of the value of the $1.2 billion contract. The city is putting up 2/3 of the cost or roughly $804 million for the new streetcars. After the cancellation fee the city is left with $304 million. That’s not enough money to cover the cost of Ford’s folly (Sheppard stubway extension) or the $1.5 billion capital budget shortfall Steve and the Star mentions.
Steve: That number has been mentioned in the press, but not by me. I would be very surprised that they have spent anywhere near that much so far given that no production cars have been built. That would be a huge investment in development costs. We also don’t know what Queen’s Park would do with its 1/3 “commitment” to the project. Indeed, they may force the City to pay 100% of the cost of cancellation just as they are expecting Toronto to eat the cost of cancelling Transit City.
They’ll eventually have to replace the aging streetcars with buses since replacements will never arrive. Since bus advocates like Ford don’t understand the difference in capacity between streetcars and buses, a one for one replacement is most likely to occur. I think 200 new buses would cost about between $100 million to $150 million. That leaves $150 million to $200 million left. With that many new buses, a new bus garage or two is needed, which costs about $100 million each.
At the end of the day, all of the money is gone and we end up with worse service. It doesn’t make fiscal sense to pay cancellation fees on a contract and end up with worse service in the end.
Steve: “Sense” is not something the Ford administration is blessed with, especially on finances.
LikeLike
All the ramifications of a boneheaded scheme to cancel or even defer the new streetcar order really worry me. Just when we’ve rebuilt most of the track to a new standard and ordered new cars we may see it all thrown away?
And then there are the busy streetcar routes that I just don’t see operating as bus routes without hundreds of millions of infrastructure retooling. How do you widen the streetcar tunnel to Queen’s Quay and Union to accommodate buses; could you even? I can’t imagine the 509 and 510 Union operating as buses on the surface during rush hour; cars going south to the Gardiner completely jam up the streets as it is. Are the St Clair, Queensway and Spadina rights of way suitable for buses?
I really hope as soon as anything definite comes from the mayor’s office the residents and business leaders of these communities rise up and say ‘wait a minute, we endured years of construction and the supposed hardship of reduced parking to get a transit right-of-way and now you’re tearing it up??’ I suppose there’s nothing in theory preventing their conversion to bus rights of way, but of course that would entail more money and more construction.
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
In response to Michael Greason’s question, you explained that it would be difficult for the Council to overwrite or replace the TTC Board.
However, what will happen if the TTC Chair leaves the mayor’s team and joins the opposition? Can that prompt some TTC Board members and other Councilors to reconsider their allegiance?
Steve: This is a more general question of whether Ford’s circle on Council would start to crack. I am not sure Karen Stintz is the one to lead the revolution, and nobody will want to be the first out the door unless they are prepared to lead an alternate centre-right group that does not include the Mayor.
LikeLike
Sigh … I have to wonder how the thought of cancelling the streetcar order will be viewed in two important places … Queen’s Park & Thunder Bay … with an election coming in October.
Jobs & investment in economic recovery are going to be key issues in the upcoming election, and the message needs to get out that investment in public transport (especially in rail-based public transport) is an investment in city-building and economic growth.
Continued weakness & “inaction-as-policy” is not going to help the current Ontario government retain seats …
Regards, Moaz
Steve: I am fed up with the inaction from Queen’s Park on funding issues in general. We are now at the point that any announcement may be seen (a) as a desperate attempt to shore up popularity in the election campaign and (b) a continuation of announcement-based rather than policy-based funding. We don’t need another MoveOntario list of projects where the ink is barely dry before it is disowned, we need a view of how transit will become a more important part of the GTA’s transportation network and how this will be funded on a sustainable basis. That will include lots of money for “the 416” for the simple reason that a lot of GTA residents either live in or travel to and from the densest part of the region. A GO train to Kitchener (for example) is a nice gesture for a few thousand people, but it’s not going to solve the larger problem.
LikeLike
Steve
I’m sorry, I meant to write ‘retain’ seats (not regain).
TQ, Moaz
LikeLike
Steve–these are interesting times indeed. I am trying to console myself with two thoughts:
First, Stintz and Webster are certainly members of what we might call the reality-based community (as is vice-chair Milczyn, who is on-record as a supporter of the streetcar network). The Chair is willing to say ‘no’ to Ford, as we have seen from her (apparent) refusal to sack Webster, and her public proposal for a truncated Sheppard scheme. Toronto’s streetcar system has endured and will with any luck be retained and expanded because it makes sense, not because of nostalgia or sentiment–and I would be surprised to see Stintz go in for something as irrational as scrapping it given the huge costs and worse service that would be involved. This may be wishful thinking but I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt for now.
Second, the most obvious window for Ford to attack the streetcar system has passed. If he were truly hell-bent on its elimination, the day to launch that effort would have been December 1, when work was halted on Transit City. He could have easily claimed a mandate to do so, and would have been acting before any money was spent on his watch and while his Council majority was still rock-solid.
Instead, a Commission almost entirely composed of Ford’s staunchest allies has since then supported the Bombardier order, approved major track and overhead reconstruction, and initiated serious work on the Ashbridges carhouse despite significant community opposition. All of these projects made it into the Ford-approved 2011 Capital Budget. These decisions represent many millions of dollars actually spent and many more committed, not by the “pinkos” but by Ford’s administration itself. A radical change in course now would be odd indeed, and would–I hope–cause some serious concern even among Council’s Ford Nation segment, let alone in the mushy middle. So far all we have heard on the record from Stintz concerns the Metrolinx accounting trick and a possible delay to vehicle deliveries–not cancellation or elimination of the network.
Those of us who care about transit and the future of the streetcar system need to watch this process like hawks, and advocate forcefully for what’s right. I am still holding out hope, however, that reason will prevail and that Council will restrain the Fords’ craziest ideas.
Steve: Although I have an obvious concern for the streetcar network, the problem is bigger than that. “We have a spending problem” is Ford’s mantra, and yet he is committed to the most expensive of transit options at the possible expense of the quality of the existing network. At the TTC, some discipline is required to sort out the “must have” spending that is truly state of good repair related, and the projects that collectively make up the capacity expansion schemes such as additional subway cars, new yards, automatic train control (in part) and platform doors. There has never been an actual decision that we should throw every available penny at capacity on the Yonge line, and the downtown capacity study has not had a single public event or report. Meanwhile, Metrolinx pretends that things happening within the 416 are not really its concern even though this is the heart of the regional network.
LikeLike
But Steve, you overlook the fact that we are getting a new subway to Vaughan. That’s a three level partnership. Why the hell should Torontonians want more from their governments that are so wisely aiding us with choo-choos to the hinterlands of farm country.
And we all know how transit oriented Vaughaners are eh? They’ll use it to ride to work and to the theatre and to the beach and to shop and for walking tours of their neighbourhoods and for sidewalk shopping in their Business Improvement Areas, won’t they? Just like their City Cuzzins in ole Hogtown! So what an important investment our fearless leaders have given us!
And we’re complaining ’cause the proven and well used isn’t gaudy enough for photo ops and mega project announcements. Well how dull and droll we are!!!!
Dennis
Steve: Sarcasm aside, the Spadina extension is “old money” in the sense that it was committed (and in Ontario’s case, paid for) years ago. There is no equivalent “new money” in the pipeline except for Eglinton.
LikeLike
Amy Rose wrote:
Yes because we all know that those of us who live north of Eglinton are all rubes. And that people in Rexdale and Malvern don’t deserve decently planned transit either, as long as Ford can play in that sandbox and not touch the streetcars.
The movement of people within the 416 is a city wide issue. It requires city wide thinking. Thankfully, most downtown councillors, and suburban for that matter, get that as well.
It’s posts like this that have me as worried of a downtown demagogue rising up out of this mess as much as the mess Ford can create.
Steve: And a downtown demagogue won’t get elected in the suburbs leaving us doomed to four more years of right wing lunacy. If I wanted to pick a fight, it would be with the subway fans who gave Ford his springboard for tearing apart Transit City and launching into the Sheppard folly. There is a place for subways, just as there is a place for LRT, but so much of the debate was tainted by the outlook that LRT=Miller=Disaster while Subway=Ford=Success that we now face exactly the same untenable, unaffordable kind of transit plan that hamstrung Toronto for decades.
LikeLike
John A. said:
Even if the TTC could find second-hand streetcars that could handle the curves and hills on the legacy network, there is a further problem – a legal one.
Ontario Regulation 191/11 made under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 states:
In other words, as of last month, any streetcar purchased must be wheelchair accessible, which adds a whole new level of difficulty to the search and/or cost to the conversion to work on the TTC system.
LikeLike
Steve said: “We have a spending problem” is Ford’s mantra, and yet he is committed to the most expensive of transit options at the possible expense of the quality of the existing network.
I suspect in part that respect for the Car Culture trumps respect for the taxpayer. Cancelling or putting underground rail transit leaves more space for the auto on the surface. Also note that Ford pushed to spend $400,000 to eliminate 3 bike lanes including $200,000 to eliminate the Jarvis bike lanes – again a Car Culture appeasement.
LikeLike
I am encouraged by Matt C’s comments, that so much money was sunk into the streetcar network, and continues to be, that there is reason for optimism despite the recent record of our current council. This isn’t the situation faced by the Toronto and Hamilton trolley bus networks in the early 1990s, when neglect of the systems as a whole, and a hostile management and council in both cities brought down the wires as soon as the rolling stock reached the end of their useful lives. With the track and overhead systems largely upgraded, it would be very difficult to see the end of the legacy network for many years, despite Mark Towhey’s vision.
(I was intrigued to discover that Dayton, Ohio has been replacing some of its ETB overhead infrastructure at the same time as major road works in the city and repainting buses while they sit out of service.)
I loved the accounting joke slipped in by the Monty Python troupe in Part I of The Meaning of Life, in which leasing back an expensive piece of medical equipment from the company it was sold to is celebrated for being a triumph of fiscal management. That joke (and that movie itself) ages incredibly well.
LikeLike
Steve says:
According to various Toronto newspapers, the “Save Our Sheppard” group argued that light rail in the middle of Sheppard East would destroy the character of the street and rob it of its vibrant pedestrian life.
It’s an odd thing to say considering that Sheppard East is dotted with strip malls, subdivisions and apartment buildings. I would argue the street lacks a distinct character that separates it from other suburban streets. Also, Sheppard East doesn’t have any kind of pedestrian traffic. I’ve walked parts of it many times. It’s a lonely walk.
The SOS group were opposed to the medium rise development that would accompany light rail because it would destroy the character of the street and rob it of its vibrant pedestrian life. However, a member of the group was recently quoted in the Scarborough Mirror saying that condo development along Sheppard East would pay for the subway extension. This statement is contradictory from my point of view because the condo development that accompanies a Sheppard subway extension would drastically change the character of Sheppard East.
After 20 to 30 years of construction, the areas around subway stations will be transformed to North York Centre. That’s already after the 10 years it will take to build the subway itself. 2 to 3 years of light rail construction and some medium rise developments that can be completed over a shorter period of time is much less disruptive and much more likely to preserve the suburban nature of Sheppard East.
LikeLike
I’m very pessimistic, as I’ve said I’ve said before on previous posts, transit in this city is going to be left to deteriorate, no new street cars, no new buses, you’ll have to make do with what we have now and put up with it; at least you’ll have nice new trains to be stuck on during the more frequent track work failures that will occur. If they do remove the street car network, don’t expect there to be any extra buses to take up the slack, they will be removed from other routes in the city and as I suspect don’t even expect a the number of seats available to match the displaced street cars. The car culture of the right will always prevail, call me cynical but I see this as a way to make the service look bad so they can foist privatization as the only way forward.
You got to remember, the driver is an easy source of revenue, that last thing governments want is everyone riding buses and trains, you can’t suck money from them. What better way to put more vehicles on the road is to destroy transit. Hmmmm, sound like the transport policy of Judge Doom from “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”.
As a side note to the Save Our Sheppard, I don’t know how many condo’s are needed to fund the line, I hear up to 10,000 unit per station. Are these units going to built so only people who live in them can only use the subway, somehow I don’t think so. Even if all the units are taken and 30% of the the inhabitants use the subway, you have a minimum of 7000 extra vehicles on he streets around each station all using up your precious road space. Take a look at this photo I posted on my Flickr.
LikeLike
Ah, that time that David Miller and Adam Giambrone told us Bombardier would walk away from a multi-billion dollar LRV project if Council dared to wait a few more weeks?
Steve: Having found out that their competitor, Siemens, outbid them by 50%, Bombardier was no doubt chomping at the chance to go through another round and bump their markups.
LikeLike
Richard says:
I too read that article and as a Scarborough resident question the existence of any character or “lively pedestrian life”. The reason “SOS” opposes an LRT is that they want keep Sheppard the way it is as an auto expressway which would be the case with an extended subway line. I’m guessing they also want the surrounding neigbourhoods to stay the way they are and would not support huge condo development along that street, especially if that meant lots of tall towers along the street and increase traffic congestion from all the new residents of those same towers who have little option but to drive everywhere. Ironically an LRT line would likely have had added a vibrant pedestrian life that currently does not exist.
I have pondered what would happen if the City decides it can’t afford to buy new streetcars and cancels the order from Bombardier and halts further work on the new car barns:
1) Could the TTC and council wiggle out of penalty costs by committing to purchase additional subway cars?
Steve: The number of new subway cars in the pipeline for future routes will not offset the value of the streetcar contract, and that assumes we would not be competitively tendering the subway cars. That will be a hard sell to Mayor Ford.
2) Could the TTC run the existing fleet (kept running as best as it can) only on the lines with protected ROW (Harbourfont, Spadina, St Clair), replacing the rest of the routes with buses, using some buses pulled from lesser used routes (mainly out in the outer burbs)?
Steve: The number of buses needed just to run King and Queen would be considerably more than “buses pulled from lesser used routes”. Don’t forget that we don’t have very many of those, certainly not in terms of numbers of vehicles that could be “saved”.
(Not that I think any of this would fly or should be done – just wondering).
Phil
LikeLike
Paul Sherwood wrote,
I wrote piece about some comments that were pro-Sheppard subway, and in response to comments by Denis Lanoue of Save Our Sheppard about development paying for the Sheppard Subway, I made the off-the-cuff remark about adding a $2000 annual levy for every 25 metres of frontage on Sheppard to pay for the line.
While a property owner might balk at having that added to their tax bill, I have to admit that it would be terribly insufficient. Doing some quick math, I find that there is 4.5 km of Sheppard from the 404 to Kennedy. If I derate this by 90% to account for intersections and other public property (and that may be high!), I find this would generate $648,000 per year, so that levy would be needed for almost 6173 years!
LikeLike
And that’s okay, because we’re building for the future! [/tongue-in-cheek]
I never recorded the figures in detail, but I think I assumed an additional development charge of $15K per unit would require around 350 40-storey towers along the Sheppard corridor to fund the subway’s capital costs.
It’s not like anybody ever complained about a few condos going up. [/naive]
Steve: To be fair to the advocates of tax increment financing, the premise is that those condos would not have been built without the subway, and therefore the new annual taxes on all of them can be earmarked to pay for the capital debt on the subway. What is supposed to pay for all of the other services required by those condos (not to mention the ones down on Eglinton that are also supposed to help finance Sheppard), I don’t know.
LikeLike
Clearly, the SOS group knew they were lying when they made that statement, which translates into their right-wing agenda of “the hell with the poor who use transit” (and to avoid misinterpretation, “poor” is ANYONE who uses public transit).
LikeLike
Steve comments, “To be fair to the advocates of tax increment financing, the premise is that those condos would not have been built without the subway, and therefore the new annual taxes on all of them can be earmarked to pay for the capital debt on the subway. “
I would be more sarcastic than fair to this theory. I suppose that subway stops are about to appear at Bremner and Spadina, and Park Lawn and Lake Shore, and a whole other lot of places. Because, without the subway coming, how on earth could the condos sprouting in these areas possibly have been built?
Steve: Advance planning for the Waterfront West, er, LRT line?
LikeLike
Karl Junkin said tongue-in-cheek,
Sadly, many think this way for real!
Though, I wonder if Mr. Lanoue and his Save Our Sheppard co-horts would accept a $200,000 yearly levy per 25 m for sixty years. 😉
LikeLike
Don’t worry, big business will build the Sheppard subway for us? After the results of the biggest stock market decline since 2008, I’m not going to hold my breath expecting business to chip in.
Steve: It’s the magic of the free market.
LikeLike
Steve says:
Notice how the “free” market doesn’t want government intervention unless it’s in the form of billions of dollars for corporate bailouts or massive tax breaks for businesses?
LikeLike
Steve, the TTC materials and procurement site appears to have today posted a tender for “replacement of maintenance and storage facility, Ashbridges Bay site” or something like that, though the link to the detailed description is busted. If it weren’t for the very strange use of the word “replacement” I would take this as a sign work is continuing in line with the original schedule. But that word gives me the willies, as though the TTC is canvassing for ideas to do something else with the now-unnecessary site, or something. Any ideas for where detailed tender descriptions go? Many of the other URLs are non-functional too.
Steve: I suspect the bad URLs are just site maintenance problems. Many of the others I clicked on worked. This could also be a case where the documents are so complex that they have not been posted online, although I would expect at least the cover page to be there.
As for “replacement”, this term has been used consistently in reference to this project as Ashbridges Bay replaces Hillcrest as the streetcar maintenance shops.
LikeLike
TTC should keep the GM New Looks until 2015 because they’re not expensive to maintain like the Orion VII’s which always break down like the buses at Eglinton Garage. They break down too much and the hybrids too. TTC and the Orion VII’s hybrids are the worst buses and I don’t know why Rob ford wants them to replace streetcars with them. If Rob Ford just used his head for once, I bet that TTC budget will be better.
LikeLike
Does anyone who want the GMs to stay actually ride them, particularly at this time of year? Are any of them over six feet tall? I think I lost 10 lbs on a Lawrence West bus last year and find the low floor-ceiling height bothersome. I understand the GMs have higher capacity and don’t have the chokepoint of the rear stairs like the Orions but I can’t wait to see them gone. If we want better buses than the Orions we should be trying to get other manufacturers to meet TTC requirements if those are still reasonable, not patching up non-accessible buses which don’t have modern emission or climate control.
Steve: One might ask why it is that when Metrolinx bought buses in bulk for smaller transit systems, the order went to Flyer. The TTC has been locked into buying Ontario Bus Industries (and its successor) products for a few decades, to the point I wonder why anyone else would bother to bid. Last time out, OBI got the contract only because they committed to a tight delivery schedule (which they missed), and they’re still living off of the contract extensions. I wonder if Ford’s gravy hunters will actually look at that situation whenever a new contract is tendered?
LikeLike
Personally, I don’t get the love for GM New Looks. Back when I rode 95 York Mills back in 2002-2003, I used to wait for several buses at York Mills Station until I would get an Orion instead of a New Look. The GMs were absolutely terrible at getting up the hill, and generally had miserable engine performance. This mattered a lot when trying to get all the way to UTSC.
Eventually, they seemed to stop running any Orions on the route thought, but fortunate the Sheppard subway opened around that time so I could take Sheppard -> 190 -> 38 instead of the 95.
LikeLike
I was reviewing the TTC 2011 Capital presentation, and there is a mention of a Plan B alternative if there is no additional government funding. Staff were supposed to report back to the commission by mid-year. Was this ever done? Could it be that this Star article is just reflecting this so-called Plan B from the TTC and not a plot by Rob Ford?
From the presentation:
Steve: I believe that we will see this report on the September agenda. Some of this philosophy is, no doubt, behind the battle between the Fords and TTC management. The Fords want spending on a subway (even though they advertised it as being privately funded) at a time when we have not got the money to repair and operate what we have, and when Council is poised to lop over $40m out of the operating subsidy. It’s a real mess. Karen Stintz appears to be siding with management based on her comments to the press.
Although I have been through the details of the 2011 capital budget and as much detail on the operating budget as I could get my hands on, and have some sense of what might be cut, I am waiting for the budget papers to come out before commenting in detail as there are (a) too many permutations and (b) the possibility of election sweeteners before October 6.
LikeLike
Leo says:
Funny, I wait for the New looks. Orion buses are jerky, cramped, and offensively noisy inside. The doors never open properly and overall seem so poorly designed. I feel like a lower class citizen in an Orion bus. Whoever designed the Orion bus should be sued.
GM Newlook at least have a softer ride, windows that open better, and in the past they also once had compfortable seats , wich have been replaced with hard plastic seats. The fact that they are under powered and slow is ok, because all busses seem slow at average speed in transit anyways.
LikeLike
Mark Dowling says:
Steve, is that why the previous TTC administration opted for a 100% low floor streetcar, instead of 70% (as they believe that a 100% consistent floor level has more capacity than a varying floor level vehicle)?
Steve: The decision to go 100% low-floor was driven in part by a desire for the latest and greatest of the form, and the sense that by the time a 70% fleet was actually delivered, major cities elsewhere in the world would no longer be buying such cars. Whether that’s a valid premise is up for debate, and I’m not sure it was entirely a technical as opposed to political decision. That said, I was not wild about the interior of the 70% demo car that was installed at Dundas Square. It was very crowded and not entirely suitable for the high turnover of passengers we have on our system.
LikeLike
With PRESTO coming on to the TTC, having the driver collect or check the fare might not be needed. That front door could now be moved and made wider, along with moving the rear doors as well. That still leaves the problem of the wheel wells taking up so much “real estate” on the buses. Do you know of such new bus designs coming that would bypass the driver for fare collection, like the new streetcars and light rail vehicles?
Steve: It’s not so much a case of bypassing the driver, as having the convention of using all doors to load. This affects interior layouts, but can also lessen the problem of wheel wells because people don’t need to flow through the vehicle as much. For artics this is an even greater concern with so much of the vehicle a long way from the front doors.
LikeLike
And the Ashbridges mystery tender has now disappeared from the procurement site! Curioser and curioser….
Steve: On the tender responses page, there is an award for
dated August 8. The process still appears to be continuing, but at this point it’s only establishing the right to tender on work. As for the main carhouse building, I will have to inquire.
LikeLike