The newly reconstituted Toronto Transit Commission will meet on Friday, March 30. This article reviews major items on the agenda.
The TTC’s new CEO, Andy Byford, has revamped the old Chief General Manager’s Report with the intent of making it more informative and timely. The old version had gradually been stripped of most meaningful data, and generally reported on activities several months after they occurred. The new version attempts to report on more recent events and plans, but achieves mixed results.
Those of us who have spent any time in management usually cringe when the term “KPI” makes an appearance. It stands for “Key Performance Indicator”, and it usually means a number that looks good on paper, but does not necessarily drill down to the level needed to understand what’s really going on. Even worse, a standard way of “gaming” KPIs is to set targets for them that are trivially easy to hit.
(If your job is to make the sun come up every day, you’ve got it pretty easy; making it come up in a clear blue sky with birds singing in the trees and a moderate temperature just right for coffee and croissants on the patio, now that’s a bit more of a challenge. If the TTC were responsible for this, we would hear a lot about how traffic congestion held up the fresh croissants, and how cutbacks limited blue sky painting to alternate Thursdays. Birds were cut from the budget so long ago nobody can remember what they sound like, let alone why we might want them.)
The first and most obvious KPI is “Customer Linked Trips” — that’s “Ridership” for the rest of us, and it’s a shame we start off with a needless renaming of a long-used and clearly understood term. This is not a good omen. In any event, riding for Period 2 (the TTC divides the calendar into equal blocks to avoid problems with month lengths and the shifting location of weekends) is up slightly over “target”. One hopes that this target is the budgeted ridership, and that is in fact the case as described later in the report (in section 2.3). Two charts track ridership for 2011 versus 2010, and for 2012 actual versus 2012 budget. However, what is not immediately obvious is how 2012 actuals compare to previous years.
A problem that can arise with this measure is that the ridership targets are sometimes changed midyear in order to bump the projected revenue and create headroom for more service or some other spending requirement. Which “target” should the ridership be measured against — the original budget, or the updated one
Performance of the rapid transit lines is tracked relative to on-time values with a 3 minute leeway either way. The reported values are quite high, and I really have to question the validity of these numbers. Regular riders know that there are many routine subway delays, and the TTC frequently uses mid-trip crew changes to get crews back on time, if not the trains. In any event, subway riders don’t care if the train is on time, but if it is reasonably loaded and not carrying a gap. Relative to the scheduled headways, a window of six minutes can lead to some very overcrowded trains.
On the surface lines, the target is a headway within three minutes of schedule. That’s an interesting idea, but it begs the question of, if headway, not schedule, determines the KPI, what is the purpose of short turns?
In either case, the problem with these metrics is that they lump all service, all day long (and for surface routes for all routes of one mode) into a huge pot. Much more fine-grained reporting is needed, and this should done on an exception basis to flag routes and periods when the TTC does not meet its targets.
A truly astounding metric is the number of scheduled trips operated on the RT. The target value is only 80%, and the TTC manages to hit this, but only barely.
Both lost time injuries and employee absences are on the rise, although it is unclear what relationship may exist between the two measures.
The “Financials” section reports on the year ended December 2011, and a fast reader might erroneously miss the distinction. Revenue for the year was $19m above target (good, a “green” indicator) while expenses were $4m over (bad, a “red” indicator). Oddly enough, the really important number — how much subsidy was required, a value that tracked “good” because the extra revenue was higher than the extra expense — isn’t mentioned.
Capital expenditures are very much below the budgeted level, but this is not explained in detail. Some of this is a true “saving” — projects that came in under budget. Some of it is through cancellations (although one must always be careful that projects do not reappear a year or two later), and some if it may simply be deferrals. The meaning of the underspending is different for each case, and lumping everything together eliminates any relevance from the metric.
Having said all of this, I find that some statements in the detailed explanations offer hope for improvement down the line. For example:
Clearly, some of the current targets will need to be stretched over time. For example, a bus reliability target of 65% is not nearly satisfactory in the long run. While buses in mixed traffic are always subject to the vagaries of busy streets, the TTC needs to have a much higher target than 65% of the time meeting scheduled headway within 3 minutes.
[…] Staff will also be reviewing performance in this area with other major North America transit systems to ensure best practices are applied and to have a measure that is similar to others. The threshold for this measure will also be looked at.
For measures where the current target is viewed as satisfactory, those targets will be tightened over time to work towards continuous incremental improvement. For those that are not challenging enough in the long run, the Commission will examine all contributing elements to that performance to establish short, medium and long term improvement plans.
In the details, we learn that performance of the Yonge-University line has been affected both by the supposed misuse of Passenger Assistance Alarms, and by reliability problems with the new TR trains. This is a rather odd claim considering that the same alarm strips exist on BD trains, and there is no reason to think that passengers on the YUS need special education. Is the real reason that irregular and overcrowded service leads to more cases of fainting on YUS trains? Similarly are “passenger incurred door delays” a function of crowding, not of passenger error? The TTC really has to get away from the idea that if only those pesky passengers would just behave, things would run so much better.
For some unknown reason, Customer Injuries are reported relative to unlinked trips (each transfer generates a new “trip”), while Offences Against Customer are reported relative to “journeys” (yet another name for “ridership”). If there is a reason for this type of inconsistency (e.g. compatibility of statistics with other transit systems), then this should be explained.
Elevator and escalator availability are both reported to be running close to high target levels. However, it is unclear whether planned outages are counted in this metric. As a customer, I don’t want to be told my elevator was available 100% of the time when, in fact, it was lying in pieces undergoing planned maintenance. The TTC needs to build metrics that see the system from a customer’s point of view. A stopped escalator is stopped, no matter if an army of mechanics is working on it or not.
Station Cleanliness managed to creep over a target index of “70”, whatever that means, in late 2011. However, we have no sense of the scatter of the data between truly appalling conditions and pristine, almost-good-as-new. The average is meaningless without data showing the distribution of the components and identification of the worst of the worst.
Customer Complaints are broken down into the Top Ten reasons, but oddly enough “Other” outranks them all at about 1/3 of the total. This sounds as if somebody isn’t making a careful choice of complaint categories.
Next we come to a list of planned route closures and diversions (see section 3.5). These include the two remaining weekends for completion of King crossover, major work around Russell Carhouse, and reconstruction of major parts of the Spadina route. Oddly enough, there is no mention of planned work on Queen’s Quay.
Part 5 of the report gives details of various “critical projects” including:
- increased capacity for train storage on the BD line including at Kipling, Keele and Greenwood;
- ongoing delivery of the TR fleet which is now at 13 trainsets and growing at 2 per week;
- new LFLRV prototype deliveries (1 in September, 2 more by yearend, production cars in fall 2013)
- Ashbridges Bay LFLRV maintenance facility and connection track to Queen (running behind schedule for various design and approval issues);
- the Spadina extension is on budget but is seriously behind schedule.
My overall reaction? A tolerably good first try, probably limited in places by available data. The TTC has far more information available internally judging by other reports, and this needs to be published for easy online access.
The challenge will be to report useful information that politicians and riders alike can interpret in the context of their own routes and travel experiences.
Finch Avenue Bus Service Improvements
This report discusses possibly physical changes to Finch Avenue West and bus operations on that street to speed up service. The major proposals are:
- queue jump lanes for buses where there is a large volume of right-turning trafic
- shifting major stops from nearside to farside
- implementing more transit priority signalling.
All of these are expected to benefit both transit and road operations, but there is a significant caveat. The work would cost $25-30m, and would, given a likely start date for the Finch LRT project of 2016, be a throwaway project. TTC staff recommend that the work be done only east of Keele Street albeit with no cost estimate attached. The report notes that Metrolinx plans see an LRT from Keele to Yonge at least 15 years in the future and there would be ample time to reap the benefit of the changes.
Also noted is the fact that the TTC will being operating articulated buses on Finch West in 2013. This will permit an increase in capacity (presuming that the TTC adjusts its Service Standards to actually leave space for riders) and may reduce loading times at major stops (with the assistance of ground crews to permit all-door loading).
Signal System for the Yonge-University-Subway and Extension
The TTC will award a contract to Ansaldo for phases 2-4 of the Yonge Subway resignalling project and for the signal system on the Spadina Extension. The automatic train control portion of the Spadina work will not be completed in time for the line to open with ATO. (A related question will be the service design for the extended line and whether the TR fleet is actually large enough to serve it.)
The system will remain with two sets of signals — conventional block signals for trains that do not have ATO gear, notably work trains, but also the T1 fleet — and automatic, moving block signalling for the TR fleet.
Service to George Brown College’s Campus on Queen’s Quay East
George Brown’s Queen’s Quay campus will open in the fall of 2012, and there is no LRT service east of Bay yet. When this project will be funded, let alone built, is a matter for conjecture given the focus on rapid transit to suburbs far from this location.
Effective at the end of July, the TTC proposes to revise 6 Bay services as follows:
- The route will be extended to loop at GBC and this will end operation around the loop via Freeland, Lake Shore and Jarvis.
- The short-turn operation at Dundas will be discontinued, and all Bay buses will run to the south end of the route.
- A new branch of the route will be created to run between Union Station and GBC. The loop will be via Yonge, Front and Bay.
Effective September 4, service on 75 Sherbourne will be modified as follows:
- Service will operate every 7 to 12 minutes during the daytime weekdays, and every 11 to 30 minutes at other times. For reference, the current service is every 9-10 minutes peak, and every 12 minute midday. Headways at other times range from 15-30 minutes. At this point, it is not clear which periods are receiving no additional service.
There is no planned increase on 65 Parliament at this time, but the TTC will review this as construction builds out on Queen’s Quay and as the state of the road network in the area evolves (major reconstruction is now underway for the Pan Am Games and for new housing in the area).
Steve Munro 
Steve, “carrying a gap”?
Steve: A vehicle which is running with an unusually large headway to the one preceding it (the “gap”) is referred to as “carrying a gap”. Inevitably such buses or streetcars get later and later because they have an unusually high demand at every stop.
LikeLike
I’m not so believing that the implementation of queue jump lanes + farside stops + signal priority would automatically eliminate queues in front of buses. Those right-turn lanes would still be occupied by right-turning vehicles, and it’s not like those vehicles won’t have to wait at the intersection to make a turn when it’s clear. At best, I expect these measures to reduce queues in front of buses, not eliminate them.
LikeLike
That Finch report is quite interesting.
This is the type of thing that needs to be done on a more widespread basis across the network. Surely there are lots of sections where buses face bottlenecks or delays, and where relatively minor construction could improve reliability and/or reduce travel times (and therefore improve headways or reduce vehicle requirements). Finch West was done along the entire line, which makes the benefits greater, but this should be considered at isolated locations as well. Get operator input as to where they regularly experience problems or delays on their routes. There may be an attitude that “it’s an isolated location, the benefit will only be a minute or so”. But the cost/benefit ratio may be comparable.
(It’s too bad that there wasn’t any discussion (that I saw) of how the improvement would impact operating costs, and how long (if at all) it would take for operating cost savings to offset the capital cost. That may be because the intent is to use the RTT savings to increase frequency at no cost, but one can still compare the cost that would be incurred to reduce headways with the current RTT.)
It’s not clear how the right turn lane / queue bypass lane lengths (either new or extended) were determined. Many of them are quite extensive and appear to be a case of carrying the lane back to the next upstream intersection. (In a lot of cases, existing “right turn lanes” are really just bus bays that are long enough to hold a couple of buses, that happen to serve as right turn lanes whenever there aren’t buses present.) The proposed new downstream stops are specified at 70 metres, which seems long to me — they would hold 5 standard buses or 3 artics — and could result in the lanes being used for queue bypass by general traffic as well (long enough to merge back into traffic). Maybe not an issue during periods of higher bus frequency.
LikeLike
Is this meeting open to the public, Steve? What is the time and place of the meeting?
Steve: This is the regular Commission meeting. 1:00 pm, Committee Room 2.
LikeLike
A separate comment on signal priority; the Finch report recommends improvements to the locations already in place but doesn’t say what those improvements would be (any ideas?).
A common problem with the current setup is when a bus (or a streetcar) triggers an extension of the green time approaching a stop, uses up the entire extension period serving passengers, then needs to wait for the red. Then it takes longer to get through the signal than it would have without the extension (the bus would have otherwise arrived on a red, loaded during the red, and would be ready to proceed at the end of the red). For this reason, I have often heard planners say that stops need to be on the far side of the intersection for signal priority to be effective at all.
My understanding was that the detectors were usually installed some distance away from the intersection, rather than, say, at the near-side bus stop. Is this correct? It has occurred to me lately that it would make more sense to place the detector right at the stop, at least at locations where buses are more likely than not to stop for passengers. It usually doesn’t matter if the green extension starts while a bus is approaching the intersection — in fact it can often lead to the above problem because there isn’t enough time to get to the intersection, stop and serve all passengers, and then proceed. But there usually would be enough time if a green extension was triggered while a bus was actually waiting at the stop to serve passengers.
It seems to me that upstream detectors are really only useful in the minority of cases where buses can sail through the intersection without stopping for passengers (either because there is no stop — uncommon in Toronto), or because the stop is on the far side. In those cases, you really do want the detector upstream of the intersection (either the bus triggers the extension and barely makes it in the 30 seconds, or it misses the extension period but is far enough away from the intersection that it arrives near the end of the red).
(There are other cases where the priority signals can be a detriment — like when a streetcar is within the priority zone but can’t proceed because there are left turns blocking the way. In that case, an early red would actually be more of a benefit by clearing left turns earlier. But that’s not an issue on Finch.)
Steve: Depending on the geometry of the intersection and the stop placement, signal priority has different behaviours and effects. There are generally two places where streetcars are detected on approach — one is upstream from the intersection, and one just at the stop line. The first detector requests extra green time, and the second clears the request. As you note, if the stop is busy, the extra green time is wasted and the signal times out before the vehicle can leave the stop. Another problem is that the requesting detector is placed no more than one block away from an intersection. In many locations in the old city, this is so close to the signal it controls that it is impossible to create a clear signal by the time the car arrives at the stop. This sort of thing happens at various locations with farside stops and results in the two-stop pattern we see at some locations.
The growing number of intersections in the old city with traffic signals but no associated transit stop (typically locations where a pedestrian crosswalk was replaced by a traffic signal) gives some very closely spaced signals that do not get enough advance notice to give transit priority. Finally, new signals are installed without detectors. Only in the fullness of time does the City get around to adding transit priority to them. The most recent example is the brand new signal at King and River which can be counted on to hold King cars.
LikeLike
The bus/subway/streetcar reliability was interesting. The subway numbers look very good, but we keep hearing about how subway trains are often very behind the actual schedule, however they maintain a regular frequency anyhow.
So are these subway on-time numbers reflecting the schedule, or the frequency?
And when we get to frequent bus and streetcar lines, are the numbers reflecting the schedule, or the frequency?
If I were to lay a bet, I’d guess the Subway/SRT numbers are based on frequency, and the bus/streetcar numbers are based on schedule. As that seems to be the goals they always seem to be pursuing … (though I have to wonder if I’ve seen better attempts at trying to control the streetcar frequency since New Years … or perhaps I’ve just had more luck).
Steve: According to the report, the subway figures are relative to schedule while the surface figures are relative to headway. This seems to be the direct opposite of how the system is actually managed.
LikeLike
Amen to that.
LikeLike
Regarding Passenger Assistance Alarms: I can testify to this happening on one of the TR trains. A mother was sitting down on one of two seats, while attending to her younger child in a stroller. The older child was fussing around in the other seat, and grabbing the Passenger Assistance Alarm handle, not knowing what it was. I was probably not the only one to notice this (it was an early evening train northbound train) and know the probable result. Sure enough, the child accidentally pulled the alarm handle, the train stopped at the next stop (York Mills) and a TTC worker came in and reset the alarm, but not before giving a stern reprimand to the mother. Could the siting of the Alarm handles make for more accidental PAAs? This surely wasn’t the first or last bored or curious kid on the TTC.
LikeLike
Steve mentioned,
Was last weekend’s closure just for the King crossover? If so, why wasn’t the College crossover used to allow service as far south as College instead of Bloor?
I’m guessing that the signals haven’t been changed for the crossover at College (and at St. Clair, for that matter). If so, then why do the King crossover now when the College one is not ready to “lessen the pain” of the closure for King?
I’m guessing that the new signals needed to use these crossovers won’t come until the signal replacement on the line comes to these locations. This still raises the question of why do all these projects now?
Steve: You are correct — there is more work to do at all three locations, but getting the tracks done is the first step. Still to come are the inclusion of signals to control movements through the crossover (part of the new signalling contract now in progress) and changes to the power supply system so that, for example, a power cut at Union will not kill power all the way to the south side of King Crossover. As things stand now, the crossovers are also section gaps in the power distribution system. If someone cuts power at Dundas, both College and King crossovers are useless because there would be no power from north of King to south of College. This change was made at Bloor when it was electrified years ago (power from the south end of Bloor Station to halfway north to Rosedale is independent from adjacent feeds), but must still be done for the new crossovers, along with associated changes in the central power control system. These are not small projects.
LikeLike
Jacob Louy said,
In York Region, most bus bay/right turn lanes are long enough to hold five regular length buses and some are even longer than that. Over the past couple of years, YRT has shifted many bus stops further from the intersection, typically about two bus lengths back. While this means a longer walk when transferring between buses, it goes a long way to helping things move better.
When a bus is stopped to take on or discharge passengers, other traffic needing to turn right can pass the bus and enter the lane for making the turn without performing a potentially dangerous (if not illegal) cutting off of the bus. If there are right turn vehicles queued when the bus is ready to move, there is generally space for it to return to the next lane.
LikeLike
Measuring on-time performance relative to headway is not satisfactory for most routes. If a route on a 30-minute headway is always 20 minutes late, then that counts as on-time (!) because the headway is maintained.
Most agencies measure relative to schedule (+3/-1 minutes is common). Measuring relative to headway makes more sense only on high-frequency routes (say headway under 10 mins).
Steve: Yes, the TTC needs to break apart its measures of service quality and use indices appropriate to the type of route, time of day and scheduled frequency of service.
LikeLike
Steve, can you give any more specifics as to how the TTC plans to increase storage at Kipling station? I am intimately familiar with the station, having lived near it for 25 years, and the only 2 possibilities I see are either extending the tail tracks further west between the railway line and the various buildings along Dundas, or finally making use of the third tunnel under the bus platform which has sat empty since the day it was opened.
Don’t tell me they intend to use the never-utilized “ERT” train ditch across from the bus bay, LOL! (I kid, of course)
Thanks.
Steve: It’s the third tunnel.
LikeLike
I am ‘amused’ to note that the promise of “transit first’ appears to have been forgotten for both the East Bayfront and West Don Lands. When the City transferred the Corus site to Waterfront Toronto it was on condition that an LRT would be in operation (I think by end-2012) and extending the Bay bus and marginally increasing the frequency of the 75 Sherbourne bus are certainly not going to properly serve Corus (who now must run an employee shuttle bus), George Brown and the developments now being planned (and sold) along Queen’s Quay. I understand that the Cherry Street LRT (more a streetcar line) from King Street is going to be built but will not open until after the Pan-Am Games so I suppose the first residents (as opposed to athletes) in the WDL (if not the Distillery) MAY have decent transit.
Steve: The fights over design of the QQ East LRT diverted attention from getting funding which, beside the Eglinton, Finch and Sheppard lines would be chicken feed. However, it’s downtown chicken feed and therefore not worthy of attention by many politicians.
LikeLike
Does the TTC have any stats on how many people get left behind by overcrowded trains? At certain times, this is just normal on the YUS now. They might be running on time, but that’s no use to people who have to let one to three trains go by before being able to squeeze on to one. (This is obviously a problem with buses and streetcars at certain stops as well.)
Steve: I’m not sure if they count this sort of thing, but what is needed is some measure of the degree to which service is delayed and capacity constrained by very long dwell times at stations where people cannot all get onboard. There is too much focus on the Bloor Station AM peak southbound crowd management (which does improve things), and not enough on northbound service from King to Bloor in the afternoon.
LikeLike
Why aren’t these sorts of bus improvements like those along Finch being proposed everywhere on the network? Due to the high cost of light rail (a billion for each of Finch West and Sheppard East) it would cost tens of billions of dollars to build surface light rail on every overcrowded bus route in the city. Bus rapid transit with articulated buses is much much cheaper and is the only type of transit we have any hope of being able to afford to put everywhere.
Queue jump lanes will provide some improvement, but a system designed similar to the VIVA system being built on Highway 7 could offer similar speed to light rail at a fraction of the cost and can be implemented in phases (e.g. Sheppard East can get centre bus lanes between Don Mills and Kennedy, run in mixed traffic east of Kennedy and run multiple branches: 85 to Morningside/Rouge Hill, 190 to Scarborough Centre, and potentially a third branch could be added to UTSC).
This of course allows the subway to be extended in phases as well – to Victoria Park (this is badly needed now), then to STC (in a future phase when more money is available). Similarly a Finch West bus rapid transit could branch west of Humber College and have buses going to Westwood Mall and Pearson Airport.
Steve: In many locations, queue jump lanes require expropriation of property to fit on the street, and the worst places for congestion are often the very ones where the public land isn’t wide enough to just build them. Oddly enough, we get into huge fights about giving up land for LRT lanes, but are quite content to undertake road widenings at intersections.
LikeLike
Jacob Louy said,
In Brampton they have a number of these on Queen, Main and Bovaird and unless there is a really long backlog of vehicles making right turns the buses usually sneak up the right side past the right turn curve and then continue straight through to the far side stop. I was also told by a Brampton fire inspector that there are radios and the major traffic signals that get signals from the Zum (Express) buses, fire and ambulance vehicles which modify the signal timing to get them through the intersections faster. He also said it sets up a cascade to get the vehicles through the minor light to the next major intersection faster. I haven’t talked to anyone in traffic in Brampton but the buses do seem to sneak o[ in the right hand turn lane and shoot across the intersection almost immediately when I have driven along those roads much but I think I will ride those routes in the next couple of weeks to see how well it works.
LikeLike
Earlier on I thought I had read that the new crossovers would only be enabled as part of the ATO signalling system. Do you know if the new conventional signal system replacement will also feature complete routing control for these locations?
On a related note, I have never confirmed it but the Sheppard Line appears to have the ability to allow reverse-running everywhere using widely spaced dedicated signals and train stops. Is this true and if so have they ever taken advantage of this feature? Has reverse-running been factored into any parts of the YUS re-signalling project?
Steve: I believe that there will be conventional signals at the crossovers so that they can be used by work trains and by passenger equipment that does not have ATO gear on it. There was talk of reverse running as a way of providing night service, but that has not been mentioned for a few years. There’s more involved than just signalling because it must be possible to provide power to only one of two sets of running rails.
LikeLike
One thing I would like to point out with regards to PAA’s and the TR’s is the one major design flaw inherent in that series of train. Apparently whoever designed the car and placed the PAA’s must have been very short because the PAA directly behind the cabs is at head height. What I mean by that is the average person when resting their derriere on the seat things is able to inadvertently hit their head on the PAA. One night my friend and I were riding at the end of a TR, resting our behinds on those seat things (behind the cab) and he almost hit the PAA strip with the back of his head when the train stopped. It was then I noticed it was placed in a bad spot in relation to people’s height.
No doubt this is responsible for a number of false PAA activations.
LikeLike
Can someone explain to me what reverse running is?
Steve: Provided that the signal system is set up to handle it, trains can run in either direction on either track. The Toronto subway is set up for operation only in one direction, except at crossovers where, by the very nature of the track layout, some “wrong way” running is necessary within one train length of the switches. If the signal system will support reverse running, service can be maintained using crossovers and operating trains in both directions (alternately) on one of two tracks. The service won’t be very frequent, but there will still be service. This is intended for off hours when maintenance might take place on the unused track.
LikeLike
Well, for what it’s worth, today’s Toronto Star has an article about how the TTC is fixing ‘bugs’ with the Toronto Rocket cars like the handles that screech when you move them and the painfully slow door sequence as well as other door issues. There are already some comments on the Toronto Star website from readers adding more complaints to the list about grab bars by the doors that bend back out of reach as they get closer to the ceiling, the unreadable destination signs etc.
Interestingly, Brad Ross attributes some of the door delay when arriving at the stations to a zero motion detection system that the older trains don’t have. I could’ve sworn that a zero motion detection was retrofitted to the older trains a few years ago after several incidents of doors opening while trains were moving but I can’t remember for sure.
We’ll have to wait and see what actually changes though, considering that it’s taken 15+ years and counting to get the T1 braking screech fixed.
Steve: What is really appalling is that the TRs had that problem with the squealing handholds the day the first train went into service. Obviously someone at the TTC cared more about showing the trains were actually “arriving” than dealing with a basic problem. How many other design cock-ups will we have to deal with, or will we blame all of the problems on the passengers?
LikeLike
Andrew you sound suspiciously like one of Fordo’s minions lol.
Steve: A truly low blow!
LikeLike
Global TV recently interviewed Andy Byford, with the full interview available as a 13-minute YouTube video. They were on the platform at Davisville when a T-1 squealed to a halt, at which point Byford interrupted the interview to point out that the squealing brakes were unacceptable and to say that they apparently have the solution for the problem and are in the process of fixing it.
Steve: This may be so, but I will believe it when I regularly don’t hear squeals every time a T1 pulls into a station.
LikeLike
The best thing in the report about service on Finch was the picture of Dufferin that they had in the report to help visualize traffic on Finch. 🙂
I can’t believe they couldn’t find one employee with a camera who could dedicate a little bit of time to get a picture of Finch for a report about Finch.
Steve: Not only that, but it’s a rather aged photo given the style of the bus and the license plates. The comparable view (looking south from just north of Dufferin & Cork, east side) on Google Maps is almost unrecognizable but for the highrise on the west side about a block further south. The Google view is taken with a very wide angle lens, while the TTC’s is taken with a telephoto which exaggerates the traffic congestion and pulls that highrise much closer to the viewer than it actually is.
LikeLike
Have no fear – the TRs are 10 times more reliable, no, more like 100 times!
No matter how reliable a system is, it’s no good if it doesn’t function in a practical manner. Sounds like those PAAs and door fault switches are quite reliably causing delays every day, functioning just as they were designed to. So much for better running times…
LikeLike
What advantages are gained by activating and storing trains at the Keele Yard? For service I presume? I thought it was pretty much a dead yard, wouldn’t they have to refurbish it? Those tracks look to be in bad shape!
Steve: The problem is that the TTC is running out of places to store trains as the fleet grows. As the TRs displace the T1s at Wilson, there isn’t enough room at Greenwood to hold all of them. Yes, Keele Yard will have to be refurbished.
LikeLike
The TTC running articulated buses on Finch next year?? I highly doubt that this will come into fruition, but I’m not expert on the matter. I have a few questions on this matter and the subway capacity issue on the BD line.
1st: Has the TTC even finalized which manufacturer they are going to select for the articulated buses? Last time I checked they were still looking for manufacturers who met specifications. The only two companies that could supply these buses are Nova Bus and New Flyer.
Steve: There is a tender call for buses on the street. We will know later this year who bid and who was selected.
2nd: I am curious about how the TTC would add extra yard capacity at Greenwood and Kipling. Isn’t Greenwood at capacity in terms of physical yard expansion? And would a yard at Kipling even be accessible by trains anymore via the third tunnel after the pedestrian ramp was constructed right over it.
Steve: Yes, Greenwood is more or less full. Keele Yard is to be reactivated (8 trains), and they can fit one or two more in at Kipling using the third tunnel.
LikeLike
Just for interest, in London Docklands Light Rail uses reverse running for the last couple of stations on at least one line. There is only a single line with a switch at each station – which is a centre platform with tracks running up each side. The oncoming train waits in the station while the opposing direction train completes its trip to the same station. I rode at the front car and was some surprised to see the arrangement. This was also with automatic train control. The manual driver controls were right in front of me – unused.
One question – since we have it on good authority that “no world class City uses streetcars” – what is London….. (Just in case one wants to make an exception for DLR) they have another couple of lines at Wimbledon – some of it in “mixed traffic” though to be fair the majority is off road.
Steve: The Docklands line is one of those exceptions to the nomenclature. It calls itself a “light railway” which it certainly is compared with the infrastructure needed to run conventional rail lines. However, it is automated and uses third rail power pickup. “LRT” as the term is normally used is a mode that, if push comes to shove, is capable of moving out of its protected right-of-way to run at street level with pedestrians and other traffic able to cross the rails. This may not be the design target, but the possibility creates options to simplify structures where feasible and necessary.
In the Chong report, the Dallas DART (which is an LRT system) is cited as one where grade-separated construction is being pursued. Yes, that’s true given the rights of way available to some DART lines, but as anyone who has been to Dallas or watched videos of the system knows, it includes grade crossings, pedestrians walking across the tracks at stations and street running.
LikeLike
“World Class” is Toronto development jargon for “third rate”, usually applied to a city that has something like a covered football grounds or a monrail that somebody wants to copy.
LikeLike
In February the TTC put out a tender for the supply of 60 foot articulated buses in 2013, 2014 and 2015 (along with 40 foot buses in 2013 and 2016). For both tenders the info was sent to Orion, New Flyer and Nova Bus. The original closing date was suppose to be April 3rd but they seem to have extended the date over to April 24th. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised (and I’m also hoping that) Nova Bus gets the 60ft order. I say this since the TTC did get a chance to inspect one of VIVA’s Nova LFXs last year and I believe they have also been paying attention to how they’ve been holding up in Montreal and New York. As for the 40ft order, I’m assuming Orion will get it, as they have for the past decade although I wouldn’t mind seeing some Nova LFS as part of the bus fleet.
LikeLike
Well Steve, with articulated buses going back on the road, it’s about time Finch West will improve. With Finch East and Finch Rocket will use 40′ Lift Equipped/Low Floor and 60′ Articulated Low Floor buses, Finch-Don Mills will still be a 40′ route running 4 buses. It’s safe to say by 2013, it’ll be 6, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 52, 53, 58, 60, 85, 95, 96, 129, 131, 139, 165, 190, 191, 199 will start using artics. Funny story is 54 Lawrence East runs 26.95 km a little improved and operates less than 60 buses than Finch. Since Eglinton garage (which is the route operating) has no 60′ hoists, it’s possible 54 will use the Artics next year from Malvern. Could there be a change to 54’s loading standards? 32 runs 51 buses in the morning because of the LRT work and 54 needs to add 24 buses to compensate so service (add 54E) could have less short turns and can run the 20 second frequency to maintain service there.
LikeLike
The TTC and the traffic signals are both part of the same organization — the City of Toronto. (Perhaps there are exceptions for provincial highways, but that should be minor.) Why can’t Toronto City Council order the people who install signals to *always* check first with the TTC, and install transit priority if the TTC says it’s appropriate?!?
LikeLike
Jacob Louy said,
Other comments have mentioned what is happening in York Region and in Brampton. I’ve personally been impressed by the short diamond lanes at intersections along Highway 7, but I’ve never seen the situation during heavy traffic.
Dundas St. has diamond lanes from west of Shorncliffe to Dixie Road but it is tough to enforce. I suppose that the number of MiWay’s MiLocal (1, 1C and 201) and MiExpress (101) services probably helps keep some cars from spending more time in the lanes than they have to.
Mississauga has also introduced a new Queue Jump lane at the intersection of Centreview Drive and Mavis Road. Instead of being on the right side it actually is the middle lane (the left lane offers turns to SB Mavis Road, the middle is for right turning buses, and the right lane is for cars). The cost for the project was 1.33 million. The city also revamped the Rathburn Road off-ramp from Hurontario St SB to make it bus-only, diverting cars onto Centreview Drive. That project cost 4.17 million. All the money came from federal infrastructure funding.
Are there any other examples in the GTA of such lanes, where the queue-jumping bus is actually to the left of right-turning cars? Because it seems to me that if such lanes could be combined with far-side bus stops, it would help reduce waiting and creep-forward time at intersections.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
I’m also disappointed by the lack of progress on Queen’s Quay East . . . it raised a question in my mind that I haven’t seen asked here before.
Steve – if the city got a windfall of funds for transit, or alternatively let’s say some new revenue stream came available (a vehicle registration or parking tax for example), what would YOUR priorities be for TTC network enhancement and/or expansion? I.e. what do you think the most important capital expenditure projects are for the TTC right now, in order of priority?
Steve: Aha! A variation on the classic “draw me a map” question. First off, the priorities are not just for the TTC. Some of our rapid transit planning pressures come from the fact that GO has been shirking on building out into parts of the 905 that are underserved, and this leaves potential riders with only the TTC to turn to. There is also the question of fares and the way GO discourages trips that they would prefer to offload onto the TTC even if this means considerable cost and capacity problems for the city’s agency.
Another issue is that we always talk about the capital and operating budget needs as if they are completely separate. If we have a windfall funding source, we need to think about whether some of it should go to improving transit service, not just building infrastructure. This is especially important for the 905 systems.
Having said that, if I had to set priorities for the TTC (and taking the four “Transit City” projects as already in the pipeline and not part of this discussion), here’s what I would do:
1. Finalize plans for and fund Waterfront East. This area is going to develop whether we build transit to it or not, and it would be a disaster to see this become a gigantic car-centric neighbourhood by default. The transit investment here relative to the amount of land involved is quite small and well worth doing.
2. The Downtown Relief Line should be built from Don Mills and Eglinton to Downtown. The exact terminus is still up for grabs and this ties into various plans such as Metrolinx’ Bathurst North station, possible development of the CNE lands and the future of the Weston corridor. It’s too early to pick one specific alignment, but we need to recognize that this project is a must have for the next decade. We cannot even begin to talk about a Yonge North extension without the DRL. It might be nice to rename the DRL the “Don Mills” line to give it a more suburban flavour and hint that it has a purpose somewhere other than the overcrowded Bloor-Yonge station. Note that this is a long-term project and other work should proceed in parallel with it.
3. Completion of the SRT/LRT extension to Malvern and the Sheppard LRT to UTSC should immediately follow or be coordinated with the opening of these lines.
4. Service needs to be improved to handle rising demand, and to provide a more comfortable riding experience.
5. Cross-border “integration” must be more than the occasional TTC bus wandering into York Region, or Miway bus coming in to Islington/Kipling. A way must be found to integrate fare structures and service across the 905/416 border, and GO must be an integral part of this scheme.
That shopping list will keep an army of planners and politicians busy for ages. There’s lots more to talk about further out (the airport, more LRT lines), but there is no point in setting priorities for things that won’t be built until well into the 2020s. Study and understand what we must do, but don’t make study of the future an excuse for inaction in the present.
LikeLike
Steve
That’s very well said. I have often thought that the outer “416” and inner “905” areas (the inner suburbs) have a lot in common – residential areas with a combination of car-centred early subdivisions and dense apartment development along streets and at major intersections, plus low density commercial and office development located along major streets.
It’s those inner suburbs that “borderland” that really have some potential for improved public transport usage, as well as getting people out of their cars for most of their day-to-day trips (leaving the car for weekly grocery shopping etc). Too bad about the artificial “borderland” nature of the area that seems to divvy up the local public transport services and confuse users. Then there is the lack of regular & frequent GO services.
All of this serves to discourage rather than encourage people. I’m actually glad that I live far enough into Mississauga (and on Dundas St., a main road) that the cost of my extra fare is justified by the service I get, and the distance I travel. If I lived closer to (but not in) Toronto I would probably drive to Toronto more often … unless I was lucky enough to live right at Etobicoke creek and could walk over to Toronto to pick up the TTC bus or streetcar.
These next few years are not only going to be big for public transit in Toronto, but they are also going to be a huge test for GO.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Out of curiosity, what’s the status of the Kipling/Islington stations rebuild projects? Given that Vic Park is finished (and Pape and Dufferin are both underway), one would assume the TTC would be moving to replace/update these facilities (more so than a second exit, fixing the lavatory, and adding storage tracks at Kipling). Have you heard anything on this joint project, or are GO/MiWay not interested anymore?
Also, if memory serves me, didn’t the TTC test out a Nova LFS before? What did the TTC make of it at the time?
Steve: The Kipling project is under Metrolinx now, but I cannot find any reference to it on their site (or GO’s either). I have sent a query to Metrolinx for an update. The Islington project is sitting on the shelf because it was originally to be funded in part through redevelopment of the site. This scheme fell apart.
As for Nova, that’s a rather sad story for people who want to see an alternative to the Orion fleet. In the last round of bids for new buses, there was a requirement for early delivery of vehicles, and only Orion claimed they could meet the date. On that basis, they won the bid, but then failed to deliver the buses on time. I look forward to the result of the bus tender that’s now on the street.
LikeLike
Hi Steve:-
I’m going to make an assumption here about the positioning of the PAA strips in TRs. Gee it’s hard to say that and not mean the wooden bodied Toronto Railway built on Front Street, high floor streetcars, but…
I am going to suggest that these strips were positioned at this height so that wheelchair bound passengers (can’t get a handle on TTC’s newspeak term ‘customer’) will be able to reach it. I found out recently that the new fire codes have a requirement that fire alarm pull stations need to be ‘accessible’ and therefore are positioned much lower than we have been used to for this same reasoning.
Dennis Rankin
LikeLike
I think it’s also worth mentioning that the recent spike in gasoline prices (and expectations of continuing increases that will have prices approaching $1.5o/L) could present an opportunity.
Now is the time to demand more improvements to public transit to make it more available, more reliable, and more “rapid” … and projects that can be completed faster (like bus lanes, purchases of 18m articulated buses, and LRT) should be expedited.
LRT lines & bus service improvements in Toronto. The Hurontario LRT, the Mississauga BRT (MiWay-GO 403-Transitway), improvements to bus services on Highway 7, the Main Street LRT, the Kitchener-Waterloo LRT, the Ottawa LRT – as well as GO service improvements – all of these projects have the potential to get off the ground sooner rather than later.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Gas prices do not present much of an opportunity in terms of transit expansion – mainly because by the time something is actually completed on the transit front, gas prices may have fallen, a pattern that has recently played out just a few years ago. It takes years to make significant transit expansion; gas prices can change markedly in a matter of weeks.
Transit is something that needs to be invested in on an ongoing basis, not only when there’s an excuse like high gas prices, or economically crippling congestion at a regional scale, or a recession.
LikeLike
Hi Dennis
I had this response from Chris Upfold (@TTCchris) on Twitter when I asked about the low PAA on new Rockets being triggered too easily by kids, heads and other accidents. “Perhaps. They need to be accessible for people though. Looking at some options on covers etc.”
LikeLike
Karl
I agree with you in the abstract. What I’m saying is that in the current situation, the rise in gas prices might actually force the public & government to pay attention to the fact that we need better public transit now (or sooner rather than later).
Heaven help us if the government is hoping for gas prices to fall again, in the mistaken belief that people will start paying attention to other things rather than improving public transit.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: I think a more subtle part of this question is the actual mix of the “fleet” of cars used by “typical” commuters. One way people have adjusted to past price shocks over time was to downsize to more efficient vehicles. This does not happen overnight, and fuel prices must be at sustained high levels to drive the change. However, it is likely that the ability to trade down may not be as widely available to some groups (those who could not afford high-price, low fuel economy vehicles) as others, and they may have “hit the wall” regarding gas prices. How, in turn, does this translate to transit demand?
LikeLike