With the recent election for a new TTC Chair, both candidates, Maria Augimeri and Josh Colle, spoke of the need to focus on better service for day-to-day riders rather than the endless debates about where a new subway (or, perish the thought, LRT) might go.
The vote was close, 23-21, and with both would-be Chairs advocating for the same issue, this is certainly the moment for the Board of the TTC to concentrate on service quality. This should not be a time to split into competing factions, nor to wait out the term content to polish the floors and clean the windows until a new Council and Commissioners sweep into office.
A month ago, I wrote about the major policy areas where the TTC needs to take a hard look at its future. There is no need to rehash all of that article here. The important point is one of timing.
The 2015 budget process begins mid-year, well before the sitting Commissioners retire. Whatever budget is produced will inform the debates by the new Council and Mayor, whoever they may be. We could be facing a reprise of Rob Ford, although his merry band of followers shrinks by the day; we might have a centre-right Mayor with a coalition willing to support that agenda, or we could have a Mayor from the left.
Whoever wins the election, they should not have to wait until 2016 for analyses of budget and policy options to be on the table, and voters need to know what is possible in various scenarios.
A new fare policy is already under study as part of the 2015 cycle, but service quality deserves a thorough review too.
Major improvements to the amount of service in 2014 are unlikely without supplementary budget authority from Council (some improvements, mainly in the fall, are already in the budget), but nothing prevents the TTC from looking at what might be done in 2015.
- What are the costs and operational implications of returning to the loading standards of the “Ridership Growth Strategy” that were dismanted by Ford/Stintz with the assistance of Josh Colle?
- How much latent demand is there for service that is not being met because of budget constraints even at the current standards?
- What role is there for express bus services and for dedication of a “core network” with 10 minute or better service at all hours?
One area that is entirely within the TTC’s control is service management. Riders know that bunching, gaps and short turns are commonplace. Some of this is down to inadequate schedules, but a lot is simply due to inattention to the basics of spacing service and ensuring that riders get something vaguely like the advertised frequency on their routes.
When will service quality be managed in a way that riders can see real improvement, not an average on time measure that lumps all time periods and service together in one less-than-impressive value? The long-standing bus service target of 2/3 on time, on average, implies that some services are truly atrocious.
These are issues that do not need lengthy negotiations with Queen’s Park or Ottawa, but simply the will to provide better service by Toronto Council and the TTC Board.
Those who still defend the “cut cut cut” mentality of the Ford era will say we cannot afford better service, and some will be covering their butts from actions of the past three years. Some will argue that if only we magically improved line management, we would not have to add any service at all.
What we can “afford” is a matter for Council’s decision, and Council needs to know how much money is needed, however it might be obtained, to make real improvements, and the implications of simply continuing along the Ford path.
The Board should direct CEO Andy Byford to report quickly, preferably with an overview in one month’s time and more details to follow, on options for better service in 2015. Without this, all the fine speeches about improving the lot of riders mean nothing.
Steve Munro 
The TTC chair should stay out of planning subway and LRT lines. This should be done entirely by Metrolinx and the TTC chair/Toronto mayor/Toronto city council should have no say. Past TTC chairs have not done a very good job of this, and none of them actually pay any attention to things like statistics on how much existing and new office space and how many condo units there there are on various transit corridors. It is good that Augimeri wants to stay out of these debates unlike her predecessors.
Steve: Metrolinx and Queen’s Park in general have a terrible record when it comes to planning. Their focus has been on “regional” service to the detriment of local services in which they are markedly uninterested. If you want the Dufferin Bus or the Queen car to run on time (or run at all), don’t expect Metrolinx to do it.
In terms of improving existing service, I think that the TTC needs to buy more articulated buses and put them on routes like 25 Don Mills and other really busy bus routes.
Steve: A rollout of artics on several routes is planned over 2014 as the buses now on order arrive. The degree to which operations will switch to artics generally will be limited by the speed with which Council (through funding) allows the TTC to retire its existing fleet.
Also I think that there needs to be more bus service running parallel to the Yonge line in the hope of slightly reducing overcrowding on the Yonge line, which means more local bus service on Yonge, Avenue/University, Mount Pleasant/Jarvis, Church and maybe Bayview.
Steve: Unless you are prepared to give significant priority to transit vehicles on these roads, they will carry a tiny fraction of the demand in the Yonge corridor, and at high cost.
Finally I would like to see some more minor things like replacing the existing bus stop poles with ones that actually provide meaningful information (like the ones Ottawa has) and replacing ancient signage in the subway with newer signage. The TTC seems really backward compared with 905 transit systems on small issues like this.
Steve: You are aware that the TTC is working on new stop information? What they are doing is, to my mind, not well thought-out, but at least they are trying. You might want to review the work in progress and comment on that rather than just kvetching.
LikeLike
As we both know the TTC never looks forward only towards the present much like the commissioners and Councillors that govern it.
Minor improvements like new buses and streetcars are great but as the saying goes you can put lipstick on a pig but its still a pig. There needs to be lower [less crowded] loading standards for buses rather than the sardine loading standards we have now but that takes money.
That being said, the TTC needs to take a look at its services right now, figure out various options as you said and do a cost analysis. Better service means more riders. That being said if you keep cutting parts of the systems in order to fund others things are not going to go well.
A 10 minute core service network is a good idea but it would have to focus not only on Downtown but the outer areas too. One of the key things the TTC needs to look at when it comes to funding is better service early morning on Sundays. I worked at Yonge and Bloor until 7 am on Sundays but was finding it hard to get home because most routes in Scarborough only start at 9 am on Sundays. Overnights there is only the 302 which is in the middle of Scarborough and not useful to most people.
If they provided better service early mornings on Sundays they would attract more riders. It’s things like this that need to be budgeted in. Make the people happy and your bottom line is happier too. Make life difficult for riders and your bottom line will suffer.
Steve: Despite the TTC’s best efforts to discourage riders, total system usage keeps rising, although mainly in the off-peak when there is still some surplus capacity. The TTC pats itself on the back for this growth, but does not address what it might achieve if it provided more service.
LikeLike
Steve, what the city cannot afford is to make the roads capable of managing the traffic. I am a long term member of the reasonable/logical small government right. I would say that Ford clearly does not belong to this group. If he did he would advocate for the least destructive and expensive services that would be required of government, and hence would likely favour LRT over subway not the other way. Reasoning for size of government and such, should not really affect the approach to transit other than to be more demanding of TTC management, minimizing the funding required to achieve goals and looking at alternate funding models.
Someone who was truly market driven would recognize that at least in terms of city government, all forms of transportation within the city get a subsidy, including roads, and would be looking to minimize this. They would therefore be more likely to favour bike lanes, as they require the least maintenance and real estate. I was amused at a TV news spot a couple of years ago where Ford was standing by Jarvis decrying the bike lane as being empty, and yet as I counted vehicles going by, behind him, there were as many bikes at least as cars. He was right the bike lane seemed empty and the car lanes full, but there were as many people on bikes as in cars.
Unfortunately until we start riding fully enclosed recumbent bikes people will not favour this option in winter, and this leaves transit, which will likely be the next least expensive option for the region to actually function effectively. (Building 6 lanes per direction expressways will be prohibitive, as compared to LRTs). If the government does a good job in creating a positive environment for growth it will need to support increased population, and transportation demands. To me, given that this will likely also mean intensification, means a reasonable logical conservative (someone who is not simply doctrinaire, and does not want to be confused by facts) will support improved transit service, including making long term investments in making the city work (Don Mills Subway, completing the Crosstown to the airport, and looking at and Don Mills LRT or a Malvern LRT, and the Waterfront East and West).
Steve: I have always been amused that I am a fiscal conservative on transit, in the sense that I do not believe in spending money for show rather than substance. That doesn’t mean I would not spend much more on transit than we do today, with a view to supporting the city’s growth and mobility for all of its citizens, not just those who own cars. However, the moment I say “spend more”, the accusations turn to “tax and spend socialism”. I hope all of the “fiscal conservatives” enjoy their nice new Scarborough subway tax.
LikeLike
A true fiscal conservative should be smart enough to recognize the simple notion of a penny now or a pound later. Failure to be able to achieve this means you like to take stances for appearances, and not deal with reality. To me, this is where we are on transit.
We can encourage the best form of growth, or we can try to react to the mess later, and be ready to spend 10 times as much. We need to spend now, as we have not been doing so as the situation presented itself.
A Finch or Sheppard LRT 10 years ago that would have gone 5 times the distance as the subway for similar money, and would likely made some real difference. An LRT from the end of the Subway into Agincourt, Malvern and beyond could have been done for far less, and changed the nature of development.
Who wants a subway, when you can have an LRT done right (oh and keep 3/4 of the money)? Where can you really find a demand for more than 15K passengers per hour/direction?
LikeLike
Steve, let me clarify that by using the word “caretaker” what was meant was that I would not be vying for the role of Chair in the next session of Council, that I would not use it as a leg up to give me unfair advantage after the next election. On another note, I would invite you to meet with me as soon as possible in order to help me design a rider-centred agenda for the good of all Torontonians. Your input would be considered crucial.
LikeLike
Steve wrote about “service management and line/route management” on surface routes. I can’t (and won’t) address streetcar service as I have no direct experience operating that mode. However, as a bus Operator, I will throw out my experiences (and opinions) to add to this discussion. Obviously, my thoughts will have a definate bias based on the fact that I am a front line bus Operator!
Due to the age and technical inadequacies of the TRUMP system, CIS and the route Operators don’t really have a clear picture of what is actually happening on the route. As an Operator, it would be helpful to know what is happening with the rest of the route instead of just my little part of it! Quite often we are not even informed that the subway/SRT are experiencing problems! We sometimes get a text informing us; but quite often not. We get cryptic texts such as: “5 run oos at Warden Stn” – unless you know where 5 run is on the route in relation to you, you may be faced with carrying the gap or having to help the bus in front of you carry the gap.
With the changes to loading standards and vehicle intervals initiated by the original Ford/Stintz commissioners, service reliability took a massive hit. Coupled together with the dwell time issues that the low floor buses have due to the front wheel well crowding and lack of space due to steps to the rear deck, there is a lack of “flow” on the buses. I have experienced many occasions where you will have extended loading/unloading times. In my world, being able to get a green light or missing a green light can be critical to maintaining the schedule!
Another area, which I have commented on before, is the actual scheduling. A lot of our bus schedules are 20 (or more) years old! The schedules do not take into account the heavier traffic we face, additional traffic signals added, heavier passenger loads, etc.
When you comment on bunching, gaps, and short turns please realize that we, the Operators, don’t like it any more than passengers do. It is, however, the reality that we Operators face each and every day. The actual act of driving a bus is quite easy; it is the act of operating in the conditions that we face that is difficult (and the challenge that I actually enjoy)!
I realize that I have written a long post, that only touches on a couple of points. I could probably do a very long article on this subject! Some may disagree with my points; but, as I said, it is based on my experiences.
LikeLike
Gord, how much difference would loading after a light make? Or being able to ensure light coordination to the bus (for instance knowing that if you slowed a little you could get the entire red for load and unload, and run on green)?
LikeLike
In response to Malcolm N: From my (somewhat biased) perspective, the ideal location for all service stops would be on the far side of intersections as opposed to the much more common near side service stops. The scenario would be go through the intersection on the green, service the stop (unload, load), and then be able to go. Transit priority signalling would allow the bus to hold the green light to get through the intersection to the service stop. Transit priority would also allow buses to hold the light to be able to complete right and left turns where necessary.
Most traffic signals in Toronto are timed at 2-3 minutes per cycle (amber/red/green) and about 3 seconds from red in all directions to green. You can trust me when I say that bus Operators quickly learn the timing of traffic signals and that we also very quickly determine which ones follow a different sequence (such as advance arrows or staged sequencing). I also know, for example, that by using the countdown crosswalk signals you typically need at least 6 seconds to get across a “normal” intersection with an Orion VII diesel (7400-7882 series).
Time is the major factor in my day to day work – seconds matter, minutes can kill the schedule. We learn each of our division’s routes intimately – where it may be possible to gain time and more importantly, where we will lose time. Maintaining schedules is a juggling act and a good Operator is constantly adjusting to deal with external factors that can slow down operations. My division (Birchmount) operates about 30 routes and I am well acquainted with the operating characteristics of all of them. It sometimes takes a couple of round trips to reacquaint yourself with a route that you haven’t operated on for a while, but a good Operator never forgets the unique personality of each route (right down to the location of potholes!).
LikeLike
@Gord We need to hear more from the Operators, the people on the ground who face situations first hand and have to deal with same. I get the distinct feeling there is a lack of management oversight on the ground. Someone to make decisions based upon first hand knowledge and interaction with Operators. Not sitting in an office looking at a computer.
How many people are in Transit Control? How many (supervisors etc.) are on the street? Would more eyes on the street improve matters? I can recall years ago when Inspectors were at key transfer points (Eg West & Keele) to regulate headway etc. on multiple routes/branches. Supervisors had an automobile (“taxi” I believe they were referred as) to connect with those Inspectors. I believe too an Inspector was always a promotion from an Operator. In other words, someone who had “been there, done that” and could use that experience to regulate things.
I remember too Checkers that rode the routes from time-to-time and kept detailed counts and times. Funny thing is things ran smooth for the duration! On Time etc. Two or three days after they left things went to Hell again.
LikeLike
Steve, two points: firstly – thank you for this discussion which I am finding to be quite interesting to participate in; secondly – I apologize for the length of my posts, but once I get started in my responses, I find that I have to go into detail to explain in a manner that non “insiders” will understand. Therefore, I ask for your indulgence in advance of this post.
Raymond Kennedy raises a few interesting questions/comments. First of all is the need to differentiate between “Transit Control” and “CIS”. Transit Control is based out of the Gunn Building at the Hillcrest Complex. Transit Control (as its name implies) is responsible for the overall system operation. It has the subway operations centre at that location. As well, it also dispatches the mobile supervisors (cabs) and Chief Supervisors. It is the Emergency Control Centre for events such as “Personal Injury at Track Level” (known as Priority One within the TTC) – suicide or attempted suicide. CIS is the divisional route management which handles the day to day line supervision for routes at each operating division (streetcar operation is centralized at Roncesvalles). I’ll use Birchmount (as it is the Division that I work out of) as my example to explain how route supervision is done.
Within the Birchmount CIS room, there are 6 positions (consoles) that the route supervisors occupy. Depending on the day of the week and time period, the staffing varies. For example, during the weekday peak periods all positions are occupied with the routes split up between the consoles. On weekend mornings there is one supervisor on duty managing all routes; this increase to 2 or 3 during the afternoon. During the weekday off peak period the number drops to three consoles.
There are no on-street supervisors in the bus divisions, although Andy Byford is promising (via the 2014 Customer Charter) to add 20 by year’s end.
Most route supervisors do come from the ranks of operators; however, most do not have a long time of operating experience. Most seem to become supervisors after 2 years as an operator. A good supervisor should, in my opinion, have a minimum of 5 years experience as an operator. This, however, would require the new supervisor to give up seniority (which would be finally getting you decent work at 5 years) and go straight to the bottom of work selection again. My opinion is that 2 years’ operating experience is not enough time to fully understand and have the experience as an operator.
More eyes on the street might be an advantage for CIS. You need to understand the antiquated system that they use: computer monitors with a linear representation of the bus route showing little boxes (representing the vehicles) moving along the graph. The boxes are colour coded: green for on time (+-3 min), yellow (+-3 to 5 min), red (+-5 or more min). Obviously, some routes will get more attention while some will be ignored! The system uses the information collected from the vehicles to update. The TRUMP system counts axle revolutions from “signposts” and updates itself every time it passes a new signpost. A roving on street supervisor on the busy routes could be useful in monitoring the route and updating CIS as the line develops through the day. This, however, is the system that streetcars use and it is well documented how well streetcars are managed.
The biggest problem that I see, as an operator, is the lack of proper tools for the supervisors to do their jobs effectively. They are stuck using an antiquated, out-dated technology. The solution requires funding to bring in proper, up to date GPS based technology. I have more information in the apps on my smartphone than the supervisors have!
In my experience, most supervisors do the best job that they can, given the lack of proper tools.
Overall, the operators and supervisors do the best job that we can. We labour within the fiscal constraints that have been placed on the TTC.
Steve: Even with the long-time problem of getting a new CIS funded (finally included in the 2014 budget, but a drawn-out multi-year project), there was supposed to be a setup where CIS controllers would have NextBus displays to show vehicle locations in a meaningful way, and based on GPS, not signpost technology. I have written here at length about the problems signposts bring.
Part of the new CIS (proposed some years ago) would have included an onboard display to show operators where they were relative to other vehicles on the line. As things stand, operators cannot even use their smart phones to pull up NextBus.
My feeling over the years is that the folks in ops who repeatedly sidelined the replacement project in the budget don’t really care about being able to manage lines properly. The “fiscal constraint” is as much what management thinks is important as it is an externally imposed limitation.
If they did, we wouldn’t see things in the CIS data like vehicles that habitually misreport their locations (faulty GPS) or signposts whose signal is so strong it is picked up by neighbouring routes and confuses the “old” CIS. I found these just trying to do basic analysis and filtering out unreliable data. In 30 years, the TTC might have done some of this itself.
What I really worry about is that the TTC will do another “not invented here” cock-up, and some sweet-talking consultant will make a lot of money inventing from scratch what other cities have had for years. Andy Byford could make a huge contribution to “TTC culture” simply by demanding that available technology be reviewed first and on its merits.
LikeLike
The suburban lights may be on the 2 – 3 minute cycle time but most of the downtown lights are on an 80 to 90 second cycle because of the shorter blocks. Far side stops on narrow downtown streets will result in cars being backed up into the intersection while the vehicles load, especially street cars. The short cycle times linked with the minimum time required for pedestrians to cross the intersection, especially Spadina, means that there cannot be much fudging on the timing of the green phase without throwing the cycle out of whack or running down slow pedestrians, though the Fords might approve of this. Perhaps it might be time to see what happened if the lights were totally controlled by the streetcars and forget about timing for autos; it could not get much worse.
LikeLike
I had an IT director many years ago, who ran the IT for the Canadian division of a much larger company. In this company the IT metrics for the Canadian companies were phenomenal compared to the parents, and one of his core philosophies (this back in 1990) was to “stay off the bleeding edge”. In essence as Steve has indicated, he made a point of only ever adopting technology that was already well understood, proven and stable. Meant he could spend a lot less and get a lot more.
This seems to have been the approach in Calgary with the C-train, use technology that is well understood, and go from there. When they implemented the original system it performed at a high level for a low investment, and produced few negative surprises. If there is a working established effective technology that applies well, we should use existing wherever reasonably possible. There are currently well established systems to track delivery vehicles as well as heavy trucks, establish routes and locations for LTL trucks etc. I would be surprised if this off the shelf technology has not already been applied to a transit control system.
This common sense approach would also apply to light timing, as well. Look at the environment, and try to keep it simple. I think street cars controlling lights in many instances makes sense. If they are loading before the intersection force the red. I am sure someone has already done this in Europe where many cities have substantial tram systems, so there should be something that can be adopted. That way opposite traffic can at least use the intersection and the light is not wasted. The cars caught behind the streetcar anyway will then be able to follow it through. To get the best system need to copy best practice from everywhere, and make sure you do not believe that you are already the best practice operator.
LikeLike
It doesn’t really matter if a bus is supposed to come once every 5 minutes, or once an hour, the key is for that bus, to generally come within a reasonable proximity of that time. A bus that should come at 10:15 that is within the period 10:15-10:17 is reasonable, it should NEVER be early. A route where there is supposed to be a bus every 3 minutes, where there are 10 buses coming in a heard every 30 minutes, is unacceptable. Much of that is a failure in spacing, there are two ways to control this, first is have the onus on supervisors, second is to have the onus on the driver.
In the first case, you put a supervisor at one end of the route, if two vehicles come in at the same time, the supervisor will hold one, until the gap is re-established, which would result in most buses being within a reasonable proximity of on time.
If you put the onus on the driver, when that driver comes up behind another bus on the same route, the driver calls control, and control can assign the route a supervisor to get it back on track.
LikeLike
It is not a driver’s job to report on other drivers; the union would not allow it. Computer systems should be good enought to show 2 or more buses at the same spot.
LikeLike
Regarding Wogster’s comments:
This is a method that is typically used in streetcar, called putting a route on headways (generally a few minutes longer than scheduled). Doing this puts the operator in the position of gauging the vehicle ahead. Gaps will still form (traffic, rider volume, obstructions, mechanicals) and vehicles will still need to be turned – the end cannot correct everything. Operator change overs help in getting the run (versus vehicle) back on time, but is difficult to do with buses. Change overs are not always possible, due to needing facilities and other factors.
The 501 SAC [Service Assistance Crew] program greatly reduces Kingston short turns, because it uses extra operators to bring a new streetcar from an assigned Neville departure time in effect both a end headway management and a change over. Very expensive!
CIS has its own problems, both with technology and staffing. All CIS’s are short staffed, and do much more than just watching the lines. The fact that each console watches multiple lines does not allow micro management (which is what is needed). The addition of bus street supervisors will help. The technology is outdated; the CIS loop still uses sign post (virtual GPS) and odometer tracking, and cannot see vehicles off route. It incorporates the schedule, meaning that if a run is too early or really late it tracks in the wrong direction. The GPS screen is a separate screen and only gives location. The voice system is crap.
Hopefully they come up with more resources, and coordinate with the City regarding on street storage and traffic lights.
LikeLike
I would think an issue on some routes, would be that a bus would catch up to the one in front is due to excess loading. That is, there are too many passengers getting onto lead bus due to excess headway in front of that one. So if there is supposed to be a 3 minute gap, if one bus gets ahead of schedule, it will then leave a larger gap behind it, and will keep getting further ahead on that run as it catches the bus ahead. There will be less loading time required on the bus behind it, and it will keep getting further behind as it faces heavier loading.
To be able to avoid this you would need to be able to continously adjust the time of holds for the buses along the route, and a system that actually fed gap information back to the driver and their supervisor. Noting that the driver falling behind likely cannot catch a schedule without bypassing stops (he would be more likely to know he is in trouble), but one that is closing on the bus in front could hold at a stop for some additional time (he would need to be informed of a close gap, or the need to hold). If this was the case it would help even load (in the scenario above 2 buses would be slowed).
Steve: This is the typical situation with bunching, and keeping the service spaced out properly requires the ability to manage to headways more automatically so that a route supervisor does not have to micro-manage the route. The existing system can tell an operator where they are relative to schedule (and that presumes the system can accurately figure out where a vehicle really is), but does not have the ability to give headway information.
However, there is an ongoing problem with vehicles leaving terminals and merging (from branches or short turns) on uneven spacing. This sets up uneven headways that just get worse as the service travels along a route. When this happens on a short turn, it is particularly annoying because a short turn should fill a gap, not create bunched service.
LikeLike
Many of the systems I saw in Europe had dispatching lights at loops. The vehicle could not leave until the light signalled it to leave. This kept vehicles from leaving early. The loops were also huge. Woodbine loop and Kingston Rd. and Queen would be on the small side.
Toronto’s loops will have trouble holding 1 LFLRV so giving extra time for layovers to compensate for traffic will propose storage problems here. Even given huge loops with 2 to 3 headways worth of cars in them at any one time I was short turned a few times on lines in Europe that were not running in mixed traffic.
The problem with comparing Toronto’s operations with those in other cities is that we ride the TTC in all conditions but only see a foreign city for a brief time and it tends not to be in bad conditions.
LikeLike
Steve, do you know how much the TTC has budgeted for the new CIS program?
Steve: There is $95-million in the Capital Budget spread over the years 2014-18 with most of the spending in the last three years.
LikeLike
Gotta give credit where credit is due, I think it’s awesome that Maria is reaching out to you Steve. I have long been skeptical that the right people/politicians read this blog, and this is the first time that I remember since I started reading about a year ago that anyone of note has publicly replied to the blog and put themselves out there.
Steve: For the record, I had a good working relationship with Adam Giambrone, David Miller and their staff, and deal regularly with other members of Council, as well as staff in various agencies. It is advantageous not to do all of this in the glare of publicity, or to parade around saying “look at what I did” afterward.
LikeLike