Updated September 6, 2013 at 11:10 am: There is an excellent article by Stephen Wickens on his blog recounting the sorry history of Queen’s Park’s imposition of the ICTS technology on the Scarborough route.
It is worth noting that the ICTS cars cost over $2-million each 30 years ago, an outrageous sum. The price to Vancouver was much lower, well below $1m each, and the TTC order was used to funnel money from Queen’s Park to offset the development costs of the new technology. This is what passed for a “transit strategy” in the Davis government.
Updated September 5, 2013 at 11:00 am: My comments about Transportation Minister Glen Murray’s Scarborough subway announcement yesterday are now online at the Torontoist.
The original post follows below.
The prestige and success of the TTC, and of transit in general, depend on its being seen as constantly improving. A great deal of time has been wasted between 1969 when the TTC first proposed the SLRT [Scarborough LRT], through the failed premise of GO Urban (which should have been running in 1975) to the present. Only the rising cost of operating a car has driven up ridership during a period when the Commission’s common response to complaints was to cite its “service standards” and look the other way.
Despite the cost of fuel, there is a large demand for transportation in the Metro region which will not abate. Pressure for the completion of the expressway network continues at least partly because the TTC network does not address large segments of the travel demand.
If the Scarborough line fails, and with it the promise of comparatively cheap suburban rapid transit lines, the TTC will have set back its own future and the future of Metro with it.
Letter from me to Julian Porter, TTC Chair, June 12, 1981, in anticipation of a decision to change the mode of the proposed Scarborough LRT to the provincial “ICTS” technology.
In the intervening decades, we have been badly served by Queen’s Park, Metro/City Council and the TTC with scheme after scheme based on short-term political considerations, make-work projects and “who you know” transit planning.
Little more needs saying.
Steve Munro 
Deb Matthews was on Metro Morning this morning.
At one point, when she was going on about how “Scarborough deserves a subway”, Matt Galloway interrupted her, and said, “What is this, *deserves* a subway?”
Without missing a beat (the long dead-air pause was later on another, later question), Deb brightly said “Scarborough has been waiting for a subway and Scarborough deserves a subway and we are committed to the subway!”
So the Ontario Liberals are basically mutating into Rob Ford.
Since some politicians do read these, let me say that I vote in every election, including the recent by-elections. I did not want Doug Holiday to be my representative in the Legislature. In my opinion, Doug’s true metier is to sit on a bench in front of the old-age home, yelling at squirrels. Nevertheless, I could not bring myself to vote for Milczyn, based not only on the candidate himself but how the Liberals have lost their way — with Deb Matthew’s comments just reinforcing that realization. And what I have seen of the NDP platform leaves me totally immune. I don’t know who Andrea Horwath is trying to appeal to, but it sure wasn’t residents of Etobicoke-Lakeshore.
I seriously looked at the procedure for declining the ballot, but eventually voted for one of the “fringe” parties. Consequently I’m represented by an angry old coot, but that’s the way it goes. It could be worse … and it probably is.
Steve: I too was disappointed with Matthews and couldn’t help feeling she is trapped into supporting the mess that Murray has us in now. Ford has certainly succeeded in making every discussion play by his rules.
LikeLike
Steve: I don’t understand how an LRT conversion gets the Sheppard line to “Downsview”, and I think that you mean “Don Mills”.
I actually mean Downsview. Or more specifically, extending past Downsview. I believe that converting the Sheppard subway to LRT will achieve several goals:
1) Transferless ride to Yonge and eventually Downsview from Scarborough;
2) Allow for lower cost extension on Sheppard past Downsview; and,
3) Allows for cheaper in-fill stations. Willowdale for example.
Transit fans may not want to admit it, but transfers are so hated now in Scarborough that people are actually willing to accept longer bus rides to avoid them (and not have regular transfers imposed on them). Sheppard is terrible in this regard because it’s viewed entirely as an artificial and unnecessary transfer. Getting rid of the transfer will boost the LRT case. And further promoting Sheppard as a potential end-to-end corridor will massively improve its attractiveness.
Steve: And but for the fact that the TTC has already confirmed that an LRT conversion is not practical, I might agree with you. As it is, you are spending a lot of time with arguments that won’t get you anywhere.
LikeLike
After reading that, I’m going to recommend that Steve laughs at the whole thing.
LikeLike
Steve:
It is already a single fare on the TTC if you use GO as a bridge between two TTC routes. This is not well-known.
I think what other commenters are proposing isn’t this type of ticket, but an integration of GO service in 416 into the TTC fares. For example, only those that are getting paid very well will be able to afford using GO to travel in 416 between TTC services right now – suppose you live in condos at Bathurst/Queens Quay and work somewhere along route 116 past Guildwood GO Station the GO ride would add $10.50/day to your total commute cost which is pretty hefty (extra $2625 per year).
Perhaps the GO fare structure should be something equivalent to the combined multi-system fare. For example, if you go from Toronto to somewhere in YRT Zone 2 you would pay sum of TTC + YRT multizone fare.
Steve: Yes, this is more appropriate, but my remark was in response to a specific proposal to continue a “TTC” trip after a segment on GO. You don’t need Presto to implement this. The real challenge is to get a combined fare that is lower than simply adding one TTC fare and one GO fare. There are also permutations involving people who have pass or multi-ride discounts on one of the two systems. Most people making this type of trip regularly will not likely be paying single fares, and a discount based only on that class of fare would not benefit the majority of riders.
LikeLike
Hello Steve,
I’ve just a couple of snippets regarding the upcoming Pan Am Games:
* The biggest athletic event ever held in Canada – twice the size of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics
* 10 000 athletes
* 250 000 visitors
How is Toronto going to move that many people? We can barely fit our own daily commuters!
Steve: It is worth noting that a very large proportion of the events and the transportation demand will be to locations outside of Toronto. As for the athletes, they will have dedicated bus services and roads closed (or at least restricted) for their convenience.
LikeLike
But we already have this premium fare structure already. The TTC charges an extra 37.75 to ride certain downtown express routes. The question is can the TTC and Metrolinx come to an agreement to share this premium fare revenue? Would 905ers prefer to be able to use the TTC to travel as well ? Does the premium fare have to increase substantially to cover GO costs? I only ask this because many agencies in the GTA have a co-fare system (e.g. get on YRT for $0.75 more) so there must have been a revenue sharing system between them.
Steve: GO enters into co-fare arrangements to avoid building more parking. Within Toronto, they don’t want to subsidize TTC riders who will just contribute to their capacity problems.
LikeLike
Mike Vainchtein wrote:
That is roughly what I have proposed on my site’s page about ‘fair fares’ (see point 4 of the plan), though I suggest that the express benefit of using GO should at least warrant an additional zone upgrade charge (point 3 of the plan).
Fare integration is a balancing act between not making short-distance users feel they are subsidizing long-distance users while not discouraging the long-distance users from using transit because driving is less costly (financially and in time).
LikeLike
For those who don’t think that the LFLRVs can provide heavy transit service take a look at the CTA in Chicago. ALL the L and subway cars are 12 ‘ tall, 9’4″ wide and about 46′ long. They run in 4, 6 or 8 car trains. The new LFLRVs for Eglinton are about 100′ long and just over 8′ 6″ wide. They will run in 2 or 3 car trains but there is enough room in the stations to run 4 car trains as there will be an extra 100’ dug out for “utilities”. One LFLRV has about the same capacity as a married pair of CTA cars.
Most CTA lines operate every 6 to 8 minutes in the rush hour so Eglinton will be able to compete in capacity with any CTA line. While it is true that Toronto has better headways that most other systems don’t dismiss the ability of LRT to carry a large number of people.
LikeLike
The above was in regard to the Crosstown and the possibility of it being grade-separated to Don Mills as opposed to the EA which has it come up in the median just west of the West Don River.
Steve, forgive me because I said months ago I would drop this subject but please allow me one more comment since the game has changed yet again. If Kennedy station has to be totally redesigned then I assume the Eglinton EA will need to be amended and therefore re-passed by City Council (anyway). Do you think there’s a chance of a south-side alignment between West Don portal and Don Mills? In one of the Metrolinx presentations they said that a separate bridge and an elevated (/at-grade?) Leslie stop was rejected as an option because it still required the launch shaft west of Leslie which is what they were trying to avoid at the time. See slide 26 of this presentation.
Since the launch shaft is apparently going to be there now, and if they have to get council to re-approve things anyway, what’s stopping them from doing the right thing and having it grade-separated all the way to Don Mills as it should be, (with a Leslie stop)? Everybody should be happy then, no?
Hopefully some of your Metrolinx contacts might be able to let us know through you if this is a possibility.
Thanks so much!
Steve: I suspect at this point the folks at Metrolinx are just trying to keep their heads on. Fine tuning Eglinton won’t be an issue anyone wants to talk about until Scarborough is settled, by which time it may be too late.
LikeLike
Yeah? Have you ever tried to do this? Has anyone done this successfully? I know when I tried I got into an argument with the ticket taker at Union who yelled at me that it was impossible to do this and I should just pay my fare and stop holding up the line. Just cemented my opinion of the TTC as a useless organisation of bottom-feeders.
Steve: Carry a copy of the web page with you. When they hassle you, complain to head office, loudly.
This is in the same league as TTC staff who don’t know you can take pictures without getting permission as long as they are not for commercial purposes and you don’t interfere with operations. I have had some very officious people who should pursue other lines of work come onto be about that even though it is explained in two separate places on the TTC site.
They are not all useless bottom feeders, but sadly, experiences with that class of employee are the ones we remember.
LikeLike
Steve wrote:
Is it really a challenge? GO does this now within their own system when one must take more than one route to reach a destination. In the days before Presto, one only needed to ask for a ticket to the destination and the zone-to-zone fare was charged.
Presto adds the issue that one needs to tap on and off of each leg of the trip, combined with a minimum charge that is applied when tapping on.
For instance, a trip from York University to the University of Waterloo (involving two buses via Square One) results in a total fare of $15.35 even though the first leg is $6.50 and the second leg is $13.50 ($20.00 in total). Tapping on the first leg deducts $4.85 and tapping off deducts the remaining $1.65 for the first leg. Tapping on the second leg deducts another $4.85 and tapping off deducts $4.00 to make the total for the trip $15.35.
This, of course must all be done in the 3 hour travel window, However one odd side effect is that if one were to make a round trip within that 3 hours, they don’t get charged the full fare for the return trip.
Steve: The challenge is not technical, but organizational. Nobody wants to give up fare revenue.
LikeLike
And today, Metrolinx decided that this route was the best possible idea whatsoever.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: Actually, it went through the middle of nowhere because the folks living along the old Canadian Northern corridor (the continuation of the route the subway uses from Warden to Kennedy, and that any new line would use from south of Sheppard to Malvern) didn’t want an LRT line in their back yards. Hence the rail corridor alignment to the north, and Highland Creek/Progress to the east.
LikeLike
Calvin Henry-Cotnam wrote:
You could do something similar by reducing fares across the board by a certain amount — say, $3 — and then implementing paid parking for the cost of $6/day (equivalent to the fare reduction on a round trip). Riders come out even, but there is an added incentive not to use your car to get to the station.
Over time, once riders are used to the change, parking fees could vary by station depending on what other access options are available and how full the parking lot tends to get.
LikeLike
Amusing considering that in the forties, the old Canadian Northern corridor was the original proposed route for the Scarborough Expressway. One begins to wonder if all the transportation problems in Scarborough are self inflicted.
And just as an aside, the subway uses the corridor starting from Victoria Park while the power lines continue to follow it west from there all the way to the former junction in the Don Valley.
LikeLike
If I recall correctly the subway runs underground along parts of the old Canadian Northern corridor because of noise complaints about the surface running of the subway.
Steve: Yes, from Warden eastward.
Rob Prichard was saying at the Metrolinx board meeting that the Murray line would have substantial savings because it would be on the existing route … and because it would run above ground.
How long before people living in the area start pointing out that the subway will be extremely noisy … especially with the tight turn at Ellesmere. If it’s anything like King-Union-St. Andrew … that noise will definitely carry a long distance. Imagine hearing 30 seconds of that, every 4 minutes, from 6am (8am on Sundays) to 2am.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
And just when you couldn’t believe that this could get any more ridiculous.
LikeLike
I was surprised to see a headline in the Scarborough Mirror newspaper yesterday titled “Bigger Condos on Sheppard called for”. It seems Glen De Baeremaeker wants the Sheppard-Warden intersection redevelopment changed from 11 storey mid-rise towers to something “tall enough to provide enough transit riders 20 years from now when there is a subway”. Apparently he is now in favour of a subway extension for Sheppard Ave.
I’m beginning to think Scarborough has the worst councillors in all of Toronto – and that is really saying something!
LikeLike
I think when people start talking of transit technology like Rapid Bus versus LRT versus Subways, the whole conversation gets a bit silly.
People really don’t care about the technology. They care about what the technology actions means.
Even though the Vancouver skytrain would probably be called an LRT, it has every ‘benefit’ that people associate with subways. The main ones being
1. Separated from traffic (read as reliable and consistent travel times)
2. Large stop spacing (for decent travel time over longer distances).
Heck, even the Eglinton LRT in its underground portions is basically a subway.
Assuming the Mississauga BRT does not get overcrowded, it is completely separated from traffic and will basically provide all the benefits of LRT or subway that people care about.
This is not to say there aren’t benefits to certain technologies. Many are more cost effective or more comfortable… but I think a lot of the time people need to get away from thinking the ‘debate’ is about technology. It largely isn’t. It is about what kind of transit is it and who will it serve and how fast it will go and how often it comes and how reliable it is, how to get to the stop….
Building LRT with small stop spacing isn’t going to stop the major congestion on the 401. Those are people largely doing regional trips. However, finishing up the Eglinton LRT (with sufficiently long stop spacing) to connect with the Mississauga BRT would do something. At least it tries to connect a network. The Mississauga BRT places many large work areas within walking distance of a stop.
I know the ‘office park’ is a dreaded and horrible planning concept, but we have it and places like Mississauga are trying to at least create transit networks to serve them via transit. And it’s not that unworkable. Bell, TD, Blackberry, HP… are all within walking distance of the BRT. If we don’t create the network with fast spines, it will never resolve.
Downtown Toronto is great and is served by transit, but thought must be given to the region as a whole. Part of dealing with congestion might be to build more transit to downtown. The other part is making sure other parts of the region are transit accessible so work can move there. And please don’t belittle this by thinking all jobs are downtown. The number of people who travel to Markham, Mississauga… for work is abundant. I dare say, they cause a large portion of the highway congestion on the 401.
Steve: I think that the concept of what a transit line, regardless of its technology, actually does is a good one. The terms “BRT” and “LRT” are used to refer to a variety of implementations with everything from 100% grade separation down to something akin to St. Clair or Spadina. Obviously the benefits, cost of construction, and network implications will very with the implementation. “BRT” is used as an incantation to beautify the most basic of exclusive lanes for buses, while some use “LRT” and “streetcar” interchangeably and as pejoratively as possible.
I agree that the region as a whole needs more transit. This applies both to regional service such as GO and also to the local system that must provide the collection/distribution services. Out-commuting, for example, is next to impossible if the bus network is designed to bring people to trains so that they can get downtown. This is a major gap in local transit budgets and in the Metrolinx plans. Yes, the Investment Strategy has provision for a chunk of local funding, but even that is seen predominantly for capital, not operating expenses.
LikeLike