I have been remiss in completing my coverage of the TTC Board meeting on May 28 as other issues and activities have drawn my attention.
The big issue was the $47-million so-called surplus in the 2013 operating results which I addressed in an earlier article. Let’s just say it was one of the less well-informed debates I have seen in my years watching the TTC.
Another issue of note was the matter of eliminating stops on the streetcar system, an issue also covered elsewhere on this site.
Additional Meetings in the TTC Agenda
A fascinating motion was placed before the Board by one of the “citizen” Commissioners, Alan Heisey. Its purpose was to ensure that the Board formally schedule meetings for the purpose of (a) discussing general policies rather than specific agendas, and (b) in advance of labour negotiations (such meeting to be held in camera).
The motion includes a very troubling statement in its preamble to the effect that there has been no meeting of the Board to “discuss strategic and policy direction” since the appointment of the four citizen (non-Councillor) members of the Board in October 2012. One was attempted in January 2014, but could not proceed due to time constraints.
Considering the hype surrounding the appointment of outside “experts” to the TTC Board with the idea that they would contribute fresh ideas, the lack of any meaningful discussion renders these appointments almost useless. Members are at the mercy of management and the Chair for the items that are discussed and how much “blue sky”, if any, is presented in the public meetings.
Former Chair Stintz was all about “good news”, and complex debate on policy were simply not her style. An attempt by now-Chair Augimeri to bring reports on budget alternatives forward this year was shut down by Stintz and her faction on the Board lest it give ammunition to her mayoral opponents.
The Board adopted Heisey’s motion, but the actual execution of it will fall to the next Board who could decide, depending on the outlook from the Mayor’s office and Council, that a detailed examination of transit policy does not belong on a public agenda.
We shall see come 2015.
The CEO’s report gives updates to financial and performance data to the end of the first quarter, 2014. Ridership is down 1.5% from the budget because of the harsh winter, although it is up 2.1% on a year-over-year basis because the strong results of 2013 still dominate the running year-long total.
Although the budget hoped for 540m rides in 2014, the current projection is for 537m. On the financial side, the originally projected “break even” budget (subsidy required equalling subsidy committed by Council) no longer holds and a deficit of $8m is projected. The manner in which this will be handled depends on evolving ridership, revenue and cost trends over the year.
Once again, management blames the increased use of monthly passes as a factor in lower than expected revenue, despite the increase in the fare multiple in 2014. The basic point here is that people are using transit more (or at least trying to), and a higher proportion of riders is finding a fixed cost pass attractive. It is tiresome that for years management has blamed their most loyal customers for their financial problems.
A major increase in costs arises from construction projects at a greater than budgeted scope. When the operating budget was struck in November 2013, there were still hopes that Queens Quay would open in the spring, but the hard winter put an end to that. Indeed, anyone watching the project (and related work at Union Station) might have doubted the target even without the bad weather. Between Queens Quay and other construction activities in Toronto, there is considerably more replacement service needed than had been planned for in the budget.
The combined effect of the unplanned construction-related services and the possible shortfall in subsidy could affect the rollout of planned service improvements in fall 2014.
Service punctuality continues to be a problem, and the winter weather did not help. However, it is noteworthy that the report acknowledges that there are internal reasons contributing to performance problems:
In order to bring levels to target, efforts are focusing on improving efficiency by allocating more resources to minimize dwell times at crewing locations and end terminals. In addition, maintenance programs aimed at improving fleet reliability and minimizing signal problems and restricted speed zones are being implemented. [Page 8]
A major challenge in the maintenance of a regular headway is that terminal breaks and crew changes can trigger noticeable delays. It is also intriguing that fleet reliability is a problem on a line with the newest equipment, although according to another section in the report, performance of the TR trains is improving. Detailed metrics for the reliability of different types of equipment are not published.
The SRT continues to exhibit poor performance, and its relatively high score on headway maintenance is possible only because the schedules were changed to be less demanding. There is no published plan yet explaining how this fleet will be kept in operation until the Scarborough subway opens, nominally in 2023.
Surface routes suffered badly during the winter. The bus fleet rebounded in March, but streetcars continued to decline. Two factors were tagged in this: the water main construction project on Bathurst which was incomplete and suspended over the winter leaving the curb lane blocked in various locations, and problems on St. Clair:
The 512 St. Clair route was negatively impacted by passenger congestion at St. Clair West Station and inoperable transit signal priority at the St. Clair/Yonge intersection. The TTC has requested the City to restore the signal priority. [Page 10]
Passenger congestion? Is the real problem a lack of service, or at least of reliable service? As for transit signal priority, why is it allowed to be out of service for so long that it has a significant effect on overall reliability stats?
The TTC has still not posted first quarter reliability figures on a route-by-route basis, although I am advised that this will be done soon.
The financial statements for 2013 are presented in a format that may be unfamiliar to readers of past statements thanks to a change in the accounting standards for public sector agencies. The major change is that capital assets are now included in the books along with the revenues (subsidies) used to build them and the ongoing depreciation of assets that are in service.
In previous years, the financial statements for operations and capital were separated almost as if the operating and capital sides of the TTC were separate companies. (Also included in the consolidated statements are various subsidiaries and related corporations.)
Although this is a new standard, it can actually be confusing because aspects of the TTC that are funded through separate streams show up as one entity. This may establish the overall “cost” of the TTC, but unlike a private sector corporation where profits are used to pay for capital investment, almost all TTC capital costs are funded through contributions from various governments that are more dependent on political than market forces.
There is now an “accounting surplus” which arises primarily from the infusion of subdies on capital projects. This totalled just over $1-billion in 2013 and created assets that will over time be depreciated. However, current depreciation is much less than the capital subsidy revenue for 2013, and so there is a surplus on paper.
Financial Assets and Liabilities are now shown to give an appreciation of the future exposure of the TTC, and through it the City of Toronto. On the Asset side, the roughly $1-billion is substantially accounted for by Subsidies Receivable (see accounting note 5). Many of the TTC’s costs are booked when they are incurred, but are not actually payable immediately (notably benefits and accident claims). The City does not advance funds for this portion of the operating subsidy until it is actually required thereby avoiding having to pay out the money from City accounts.
Non-financial Assets totalling just over $7-billion are the tangible assets of the transit system at their cost ($12.8b) less accumulated depreciation ($5.6b). This does not represent the replacement cost of the assets. The “accumulated surplus” for the TTC is almost entirely made up these tangible assets, not of money waiting to be dispersed in a dividend or invested in expansion (see note 12).
The Consolidated Statement of Operations and Accumulated Surplus similarly combines what used to be called “operating” and “capital” accounts. Revenues include fares and other miscellaneous income, operating subsidies and capital subsidies for a total of $3.2b. On the expense side, the numbers include both the cost of day-to-day operations and the net capital expenditure (the difference between capital income and the change in depreciated value of assets). This gives us about $734m in “surplus” which should not be confused with the recently reported $47m difference between the budgeted and actual operating subsidy.
Notes 13 and 14 set out the various subsidies the TTC receives. On the operating side, $91.6-million came from provincial gas tax while the rest came from the City of Toronto. (The gas tax flows through the City accounts so that the total City subsidy to the TTC is larger than the net cash requirement. To the City, the transferred gas tax is “revenue”.) In these statements, the subsidy sources are split apart.
Other provincial subsidies totalling $155m are split roughly half-and-half between project specific funding (such as the 1/3 share in the new streetcar purchase) and general capital subsidies from gas tax revenue ($71m). A reserve that had been used to fund subway car purchases since 2007 was completely consumed in 2012 and provided no income in 2013. Other reserves holding provincial funds from past years have been substantially exhausted. These arose initially from “one time” grants to the TTC that typically were made when Ontario had extra money looking for a home at fiscal year end. This was common before the 2008 fiscal crisis, but not since.
Two programs whose costs formerly appeared on the TTC’s books as capital projects, the Presto fare card and the Transit City LRT lines, are now in Metrolinx hands and they no longer appear in the TTC’s accounts.
Finally, federal subsidies of about $158m are almost entirely from gas tax revenue. Note that this does not include monies for the Spadina Extension project that flow separately as described above.
Sorting out the claims by various governments on how much they spend on Toronto’s transit system can be complicated because:
- Some money flows directly from current revenues to the TTC via the City and is spent in the year it is received (gas tax).
- Some money flows into reserve accounts outside of the TTC and is an “expense” to the funding government when it is made, but is treated as “revenue” by the TTC when it is drawn from the reserve.
- Some “spending” takes the form of a commitment to pay future costs. This results in no current expense to the funders, and the revenue comes to the City and TTC only as required to cover ongoing capital work.
- Some transit assets are owned by Ontario (GO Transit, Eglinton Crosstown LRT, Presto). Spending on these is recorded in provincial accounts, not in City or TTC books. Moreover, provincial “commitments” to future work do not represent real spending today.
Dupont & Ossington Stations Improved Accessibility
The Dupont Station report is an update on the progress of the design for accessibility and includes a presentation showing the proposed station layout.
The Ossington Station report is the contract award for construction. It also includes diagrams of the proposed layout for the station.
Of note in the body of the report is a remark that:
To date, 32 stations have been made accessible and all remaining stations are to be made accessible by 2025, subject to available funding.
Because of the shortfall in long-term capital funding, the TTC has been attempting to get a special subsidy from Queen’s Park for the Easier Access program. This request has been rejected.
Islington Station Bus Terminal
From time to time, readers ask me what is happening with the regional bus terminal at Kipling Station. The problem lies with Metrolinx and Hydro One because of hydro’s concerns about the use of their land. Metrolinx has not been pressing the issue as the situation was not critical, but the TTC discovered that Islington Station is gradually becoming unfit for bus operations due to structural problems. This station was to be rebuilt some years ago as part of a redevelopment plan, but that project fell through.
Metrolinx has now agreed to pay $7.1-million toward a shoring system that will brace the bus roadways so the MiWay can continue to operate from Islington safely while awaiting the new terminal at Kipling planned for 2019. The shoring will be installed in 2016.
Prince Edward Viaduct Pier Rehabilitation
The Prince Edward Viaduct carries the Bloor-Danforth subway over the Don Valley. It was built nearly a century ago and included provision for a lower level that would have carried streetcars from the then-suburbs of Toronto into a downtown subway system. The bridge piers are in need of repairs that cannot be delayed, and the City wishes to undertake the work in 2014 in advance of the Pan Am Games next year.
This project requires changes to the TTC’s physical plant at the subway level at a cost of almost $2.8-million.
This project was not included in the 10-year capital plan, and to make room, other projects have been set aside to 2015 when their cost will be included in the next 10-year plan. These include:
- $750,000 for subway and SRT track renewal
- $832,000 for changes to the streetcar power feeder system at intersections to allow isolation of lines from nearby power cuts
- $750,000 for replacement of cables
- $450,000 for replacement of streetcar track switch equipment
The exact details of the deferred work are not included in the report.
Steve Munro 
I wonder if this work on the piers has anything to do with the structural rehab of the deck that has been ongoing for years. I always wondered if and when work would need to be undertaken to rehabilitate the piers looks like we know the answer.
Steve: No, these are separate projects. The sections of the deck are replaced on an onoing basis as routine maintenance, not a one-time job.
The big question here is how they choose to do it. I mean given the piers hold up the bridge … I wonder if they will shut down the bridge for safety reasons while the work is undertaken or if they will allow it to be used by trains and vehicles. Either way its going to be interesting. If they close the bridge all vehicles either go via Gerrard or Pottery Road.. if they keep it open they may limit traffic and turn back trains anyway.
All in all at least the TTC did something right by putting a turnback point at Broadview for just such an emergency (I believe a similar situation exists at Jane in the event the bridge is out at Old Mill).
Steve: As far as I know, the bridge remains open for traffic of all varieties. Broadview Station cannot handle the load if this were to become a temporary terminal.
LikeLike
“Transit priority”? Toronto has “transit priority”? I don’t call buses or streetcars having to wait for their signal, “transit priority”. More like “vehicle priority”, the more “vehicles” the better. Ignore the number of people on board a vehicle, its the number of vehicles that seems to be important (ignoring bicycles, of course).
I may see the green signal delayed a few seconds, but I have seen very few intersections where there is a “transit signal” that allows transit vehicles to move on their own. Very, very few.
Then there is the rather obsolete Ontario version of “transit signals”…
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
Do you know if when the TTC undergoes its accessibility improvements at Dupont/Ossington, it’ll take advantage of the construction of new fare gates to also install Presto there? I didn’t see that mentioned, and it seems like a logical thing to do.
Rob
Steve: I suspect that Presto will get there before the reconstruction reaches the point of dealing with fare gates. Whether the change will come in on step or two depends on how quickly the reconstruction goes.
LikeLike
It is disappointing to read of the failure of the TTC Board to properly discuss key matters such as you describe. Disappointing but not surprising all things considered. Perhaps it is time to do away with the Board and let council handle matters. They can’t do any worse. Put the savings on the front line.
LikeLike
I know I had a previous line about Stintz moderated but I stand by it.
Her cronies have put the kibosh again on possible service improvements for TTC customers (remember those people?) in the name of coddling her stillborn ambitions.
She’s a two faced obstructionist who deserves to join the mayor at the curb next garbage day.
LikeLike
This is coming to the Toronto & East York Community Council next week.
Of course, the usual question remains. ‘Will the police actually enforce this?’
LikeLike
Perhaps parking enforcement is one item that should be out sourced. There would be a 2 part method of paying the company:
1. would be by how well the street is kept clear of cars and
2. would be a percentage of the fines they bring in. Towing and storage fees would also be allowed. Mayor Ford cannot object to this because it out sources what was a government activity that kept the money grubbing left wing leaning latte sipping pinko downtown bike riding union bosses employed. He wouldn’t think that it was a “war on the Car” would he?
LikeLike
What else is to be expected? I am referring to the increased use of the metropass – the TTC blaming loyal customers goes without saying! 😉
There is a lesser-known effect of supply and demand at work here. We all have heard that sales tend to go down when price rises. In the case of an item where there is little room to choose how much one consumes, as is the case with transit, this is not so simple.
What comes into play here is that the consumer will increase efforts to maximize the value they receive for the increase in price. If already using a pass, they will make the effort to use it more. If using tokens, they may switch to the pass. So it is only natural that the use of passes has gone up with the increase in the fare multiple.
LikeLike
The police will likely enforce what they are told to enforce. The voter needs to make a choice, vote for a blow hard bull shitter, someone who will sing me a sweet song of what I believe, or someone who will tell me what is actually required.
Seems to me that there are a couple of candidates that come much closer to the last, however, they have not gained as much traction. Neither is really mentioned much. However, it sort of makes the point that we are looking for easy solutions. The 1st issue is management, and that means the voter has to elect somebody who will actually do so. The big transit plans need to be done, but they need to be done as part of a well managed city. Transit is part of the city, and needs to be treated as a serious issue, and not just by the TTC (although that would help.)
LikeLike
He would rail on it for being a cash grab as when council increased the fines for illegally stopping on the road.
LikeLike
Here’s the acid test: If it could possibly effect, in any way minor or major, Rob’s ability to drive his SUV where he wants, when he wants, and in any way he wants, then he will consider it a “war on the Car”.
LikeLike
Interesting, clearly he prefers to raise taxes on the well behaved, than to raise penalties on those who cause disruption to others. I wonder if this is a reflection on where he sees himself?
He does not seems to mind spending billions on subway, but has serious issues with finding available ways of running transit more efficiently (no desire to have transit light priority, headway management or preference to retain rights of way that were available – Richview).
There is some clear needs to make the city move efficiently, basic management, and appropriate incentives are among them.
LikeLike
So, who should we vote for in the provincial election? I like Progressive Conservative’s subway plans and I like their jobs plan but I don’t like Tim Hudak so much. I am not anti-LRT but the problem with the Liberal LRT plan is that it runs on surface having to wait for traffic signals and taking away precious traffic lanes causing further gridlock. LRT itself is a train technology and matters not whether heavy rail is used or LRT. I like Andrea Horwath but the NDP doesn’t seem to have any transit plan (correct me if I am wrong). So, who should we vote for? Please advise.
Steve: I am not making any endorsements beyond hoping fervently that Tim Hudak and the Tories are consigned to the outer darkness never to be heard from again. Unfortunately, it seems that this is a more likely fate for the NDP given their misguided platform. In many cases, who to vote for depends on the riding, the candidates, and whether it’s a tight race where a vote against the Tories is important.
As for your comments about LRT taking road space, that is flatly not true, but is a lie perpetuated by LRT opponents. Most of the Transit City lines would have included road relocations into available boulevard space, and where this was not possible, Metrolinx was thinking of buying adjacent property to ensure roads were not narrowed. Unfortunately, they took so long deciding about that that the anti-LRT argument was all we heard.
Similarly, some of the left turn designs with hook turns were flat out dumb both from an operational point of view and from the impression that they gave the public that the engineers really didn’t live in the real world.
That said, LRT could work, certainly in Scarborough where, instead, we plan to spend over $1-billion extra tax dollars to overcome the self-serving disinformation campaigns of politicians who are only trolling for votes.
LikeLike
How long has this situation existed? What is the reason/excuse for it? If it is a serious delay on a regular basis then perhaps the TTC should take matters into their own hands and get some paid duty cops to direct streetcars through red lights ASAP the operator signals his approach. That ought to get somebody’s attention.
Steve: There are statements in the CEO’s report from time to time that should really be banner headlines. The fact that they are not shows just how serious the TTC is about forcing the issue of transit priority.
LikeLike
One of the issues under discussion was the Downtown Relief Line but why are we hell bent on wasting as many as 25 billion dollars on a Downtown Relief Line subway that will take 20 years to build when a DRL already exists or can exist in just a few years and a very small fraction of the subway cost?
My suggestion is to build the Scarborough LRT and follow Mr Jim Jones suggestion with regards to the DRL saving tens of billions of dollars and having relief in a few years as supposed to a few decades which a DRL subway will require.
Steve: Well, first off, the DRL is not going to cost $25-billion. The estimate is around $8b and that includes the branch up to Dundas West which as far as I am concerned is a second-tier need for “relief”. By the way, in order to pay for his fantasy, Jim Jones proposed scooping all of the new tax revenue in a broadly-defined corridor including all of the eastern waterfront and Port Lands even though much of them would not be served by it. Creative accounting with tax revenue is a common feature of many rapid transit proposals.
There is certainly relief to be had short term by upgrading service on the GO corridors, but let’s not get carried away with one line for Markham (if we are not careful they will want a subway extension any day now).
The DRL will not come into its own simply as a Danforth to Union link, but needs to go further north, initially to Eglinton to provide an alternate path to downtown for riders originating inside of Toronto, not those out in the 905.
LikeLike
Not only were most of the Transit City lines NOT going to take away road space, but it is important to note that with the reduction or elimination of bus operations along those routes, they would actually INCREASE road space for other vehicles.
LikeLike
Glad to see they are finally addressing the situation at Islington Station. Over the years, increasing numbers of bus bays have been closed — MiWay now loads most of its buses on the outdoor platforms, often with two or three major routes attempting to load on the same section of platform at the same time, requiring a ridiculous choreography as MiWay and TTC buses jockey for position and idle in packs near Islington and Bloor.
For those of you who are not familiar with the setup there, imagine if the Eglinton Station bus loading area were halved in size, with the same amount of bus traffic, and buses were forced to both enter and leave via the Duplex Ave. driveway. That’s pretty much what Islington is like now.
Steve: For some years now, most buses already enter and leave Eglinton Station via Duplex Avenue because of structural problems with the old bus bays.
LikeLike
Actually can’t be true for Eglinton East? I’ve asked TTC repeatedly for rider stats but they so far refuse. (I’m not talking ENTIRE route which is published, I’m talking about individual stops) WB ALL of the ‘minor’ stops such as Rosemount, Thermos, 2001, Prudham Gate, 1900 (The CTC and Walmart Stop)and even Jonesville (just west of VP) are ALL really really busy stops in rush hours. (Walmart/CTC all-day busy). Whether it’s subway OR LRT, the TTC cannot ignore these riders and make them walk substantially to get to work and back… can they? They must need or be planning a shuttle bus service on Eg at least to VP from Kennedy. In this portion of the route people are looking for convenient stops, not speed. IMO, very few will travel LRT east to get down Kennedy subway running west. Even if standing its only 10 minutes from VP & Eg to VP Subway Stn, much quicker ride. Are there plans for an EG bus Steve? and do you have any rider stats for all these individual stops?
Steve: Fewer stops is a fact of life that is coming not just to downtown streetcar routes but also to the suburbs. With luck there will be a surface bus between, say, Laird or even Don Mills to the east, and Mount Dennis to cover the portion of the route that’s underground, but the TTC has not been exactly enthusiastic about this. Just look at what passes for service on Sheppard East of Yonge, or on Yonge north of Eglinton.
LikeLike
One question for you Steve, will you be willing to destroy beautiful green tree lined boulevards in areas that are closer to your heart? Why not destroy the boulevard at university avenue and take some space from Queen’s Park (both the actual park and park like area on 3 sides of the provincial legislature) to make space for curb separated bike lanes, LRT, buses, or whatever? Having curb separated bike lanes will save lives. Why not remove the trees on Spadina to create curb separated bike lanes in order to save lives? Why not destroy parts of Riverdale East park to make space for streetcar right of way and curb separated bike lanes (the latter saving lives)? If you will not agree to these changes even to save lives, then why should the people of Scarborough have to have their precious trees cut down?
Steve: So nice of you to make my blood boil even more at the artificial mixing of issues. Whether or not we implement bike lanes “to save lives” there are many, many places where this is not possible given the road layout. Spadina, for example, does not have a continuous boulevard that can be removed to provide space for such lanes. Broadview would require two additional lanes’ worth of space and some interesting construction on the hillside. Of course, you would have to end the extra lanes when you hit locations where there is no place to widen the road.
LikeLike
Thank you Steve for your response and sorry for making your blood boil. I was trying to make a rational argument and trying to make you angry was not my intention and I apologise for doing so.
But does that mean that we should not make it safer for bicyclists where we can? There is no space for LRTs everywhere but does that mean that we should not build them anywhere? There is no money for subways everywhere but does that mean we should not build them anywhere? Having curb separated bike lanes throughout a route will save more lives than having it only on parts of a route but even the latter will save a few lives and so why not focus on saving bicyclists’ lives who are also doing us all a favour by being environmentally friendly and yes way more environmentally friendly than subway riders (the construction alone causes so much pollution) or bus riders (use so much dirty fuel) and even streetcar riders?
You answer your own “question” (I realise that it is not formulated as a question) which is as follows:
I look forward to your response as I value your experience and knowledge.
Steve: You put your argument in a form that is almost a motherhood issue where if I say, “no, we cannot always build bike lanes everywhere cyclists want them”, I somehow have the blood of cyclists yet unborn on my hands. That is a foul debating tactic. The question throughout all transportation planning is trade-offs. People cannot have expressways, or subways, or LRT, or etc etc everywhere they want them, and the same goes for cycling lanes. I could even turn your point around and ask how many trees you are prepared to cut down just to create the cycling network of your dreams.
If you are speaking of the section of Eglinton between Birchmount and Kennedy, you will note that the trees are generally set back in lawn space and would, generally speaking, not be touched by a road widening. Another important point that was made about this section is that it has reserved bus lanes that would not exist in a future LRT environment, although those are peak period only. The question then is whether these lanes should become parking spaces or if they might be put to better use.
Further west, Eglinton is a sea of concrete with parking lots, not trees, and so your claim about the poor trees rings a bit hollow.
For the record, I am deeply fond of trees and would object mightily to their needless destruction. I am not quite so charitable to cycling advocates who warp arguments to suit their agenda.
LikeLike
Actually there is a section of Eglinton along the Crosstown where the plans currently call for a reduction of the number of lanes.
The proposed changes to Eglinton once the Crosstown is running includes reducing it to one lane each way from Oriole Parkway to east of Yonge (with bays for parking, like Roncesvalles). This can be seen in the map [PDF] at the city’s Eglinton Connects site.
I find it rather ironic that the only loss of lanes for cars is to occur where the LRT is buried.
Steve: Clarity for unfamiliar readers: the changes on the surface as part of the revised Eglinton Avenue have nothing to do with the LRT project per se, but are the work of a separate project by City Planning.
LikeLike
Nice try. There are very few trees in the boulevard areas of Sheppard and Eglinton East. Easily proven by pulling up Google maps.
Someone else may correct me on this but I don’t believe they are supposed to be there anyway if there are any.
Not that anyone would ever call those suburban streets “beautiful”.
Steve: Please see my earlier reply on this subject. It is always amusing when someone so distorts an argument as to render it worthless.
LikeLike
This was said in a way related to LRTs running in boulevard space in Scarborough.
Ok are we talking about the treelined areas of Eglinton or Sheppard avenues? Are you really noticing those trees ? Many of those on Sheppard are far enough from the roadway itself to be preserved (not all) much of the roadsides are grass. The distance in many areas outside of sidewalk to outside of sidewalk is 35 meters, on Danforth this is 20. Do you suppose that maybe there is a little more room to work?
I would have an easier time talking about the notion of taking space for things off University for transit, however there is already a subway there. Otherwise this would likely make sense.
Ask yourself, how wide is Sheppard, Eglinton or Morningside compared to say Spadina. The lanes of traffic have already been given up on Spadina. Note the areas where the road allowance is tight on Sheppard is subway, on Eglinton the LRT will be in a tunnel.
Also note that in the core, the road allowances were long ago consumed. Look at the distance from the road to the building face on Spadina, and then look at the distance road to the parking lot on Eglinton or Sheppard.
There are areas of Broadview you could likely widen. However, it is only about 20 metres building face to building face on Broadview at Danforth, and once the park is done again at Gerrard pretty much to Dundas.
It is worthwhile reminding oneself that these downtown areas were built prior to anybody thinking Toronto would actually be a substantial city, and before the car was quite such a thing. Perhaps we should look at simply removing lanes of traffic, however I suspect that this would be a non starter.
LikeLike
Moaz: I’m guessing that should be $8 billion. Frankly for $8 billion they should be able to build a crossing of the Don Valley (ideally just west of the Millwood Bridge connecting to city-owned land on the other side) and a station in Thorncliffe Park … as well as run the line to University Avenue … as part of the first phase. I think that would be a better option.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: Ooops!
LikeLike
Steve I would say perhaps John mispoke I think he was referring the budget required for that other transit project, you know the TTRLs (Toronto Transit Relief Lines). It would be important to note that the DRL is a critical part of this important Toronto project, and I believe that John’s number is not far from the mark.
Likely need about 8 for the DRL portion, 4 for the SRLs, another 3 for the FRLs, say another 1.6 for the DMRL, don’t forget the 3 for the LRL the balance for additional locations not specifically listed – oh yes SRLs -Scarborough Relief lines, FRLs-Finch Relief Lines, DMRL Don Mills relief Line (LRT), LRL the Lakeshore Relief line (Waterfront East and West). Throw in the required, Hamilton, Mississauga and Richmond Hill LRTs and that money is fully consumed, and much relief is felt.
The problem in Toronto, is that Toronto is not likely to see that much money any time soon. This is why HSR, and non critical subway proposals should be so frustrating. There is not quite enough money on the table to fix transit the most cost effective way, why are we looking take on more expensive projects, and thereby guarantee we do not have sufficient resources.
Steve: And a prize to any reader who knows what that alphabet soup of acronyms all means!
As for John’s comment, it is based on a false premise, but he hangs an entire claim of savings and the lack of real need for the DRL onto it. Many people are following that path, and I suspect nothing will be built for a very long time, if ever.
LikeLike
There’s a reason why I’ve been referring to the “DRL” as the Don Mills & City Line…well, two reasons. One because it fits in with how we have traditionally described our lines … as corridors and connectors … and two, because it sounds vaguely British and Andy Byford would probably like that.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Sorry Steve, could not resist repackaging all of the high import Transit City lines as relief lines. In reality, if you want to call it a Downtown Relief Line, then Finch West LRT could reasonably be called the Finch Relief line, as it address the essential delays and capacity issues on Finch, as will the Scarborough LRT, the Sheppard LRT.
Implementing the Don Mills subway and most viable Transit City Lines, plus Richmond Hill, Mississauga/Brampton LRTs, is in essence a Toronto Relief project. As long as it is combined with decent GO improvements (8 trains + per hour on Lakeshore 4-6 elsewhere) and a solid improvement in bus service and a a few well located BRTs. Also it should be doable for an amount that is not that much more than the 25 billion.
Unfortunately, $14 billion will not get the region there. Building the most sensible projects now, will provide a real chance of relief, attract some growth, provide jobs, and advance the city dramatically. Borrow 30 year money and build the Don Mills subway, Scarborough LRT, complete the Eglinton LRT to the Airport, build Finch west, and Sheppard East, build the Don Mills LRT to Steeles.
The point I think that needs to be remembered, however, is that the lines inside the city do not eliminate the need for dramatically improved GO Lines. Nor does dramatically improved GO eliminate the need for high order local transit. The Markham area needs much improved transit and to be connected to Toronto, and improved GO is the way to do this.
Delivering GO riders to areas beyond the core, requires much more widespread high order transit. GO to and from T.T.C. and other local providers needs to provide high order service to much more of the region.
LikeLike
However, you seem even less fond of politicians who warp facts to suit their agenda. I still chuckle when I recall Rob Ford standing in front of a bike lane saying how empty it was and what a waste it was, and behind him, yes the bike lane seemed empty, but there were as many bikes as there were cars going by in the adjoining 2 lanes. There is a clear need for bike lanes, however real limits to space. Strong enforcement of “clearways” along with other basic parking and other lane restrictions, would likely help bikes nearly as much as transit.
LikeLike
Steve said: “For some years now, most buses already enter and leave Eglinton Station via Duplex Avenue because of structural problems with the old bus bays.”
Steve, the question has to be, why is this sort of basic system maintenance not a higher priority. Is this being ignored because they feel the capacity required will drop soon enough with the LRT? Is the notion of buses moving to Kipling the reason they feel happy ignoring the situation at Islington? If this is the case the riders need to be aware, otherwise it appears as terrible neglect.
Steve: At both Islington and Eglinton, there were plans to redevelop the sites, and this would have at least partially funded the capital work to build new bus terminals.
At Eglinton, the project was put on hold when the Eglinton LRT was proposed because (a) the site will be needed as a staging area for construction and (b) the number of buses to be accommodated will be much lower with the LRT in place. Construction of a temporary terminal nearby was possible in space formerly occupied by Eglinton Garage.
At Islington, a combination of factors has delayed the project. SNC Lavalin were planning to build a new office tower on Bloor Street West, but that deal fell through. Meanwhile, plans to build a regional terminal at Kipling have been snagged by Ontario Hydro. Metrolinx took over the project, but has not seemed very interested in forcing Hydro’s hand, and the completion target kept slipping into the future. Only when the TTC said “we can’t wait any longer” did the need to fund at least an interim fix at Islington become obvious.
Other stations with a similar structure of bus bays were/are Victoria Park and Warden. The former has been completely rebuilt with a new layout. At Warden, there is a proposed new terminal, but this awaits development of lands at St. Clair and Warden to pay for the project. The whole situation is a good example of how “developers will pay for transit” is a false premise unless a site is extremely attractive. By the way, it is Build Toronto, not the TTC, who are responsible for marketing these properties.
LikeLike
This premise seems to ignore the very basic precept of the commons. Clearly as a developer, if I can wait to see transit appear, my value will increase regardless of whether I help to pay for it or not. Even if a development is in the most immediate catchment, there is no way it will all accrue (or enough to pay for it) to the developer.
I would have thought that on a first principles basis, this would not work, unless there is a single very large plot, that requires a very small addition to transit, in an area that will enjoy a very large property value increase. Too much of the general value of transit is a common good that does not accrue directly to the user or property owner.
A large part of the value of transit will accrue to those who do not ride it, or even go to an area that is well served. The mere fact of reducing the number of cars on the road, will allow road users a less painful trip. Someone on a through trip (say Woodstock to Napanee) would benefit from any transit project that reduced 401 congestion across Toronto.
Steve: The problem with the premise of reduced congestion is that it ignores backfilling effects. Opening up more room just makes the 401 more attractive to motorists who otherwise would not attempt to use it, and also provides capacity for expanded travel due to population and economic growth. Only if at some point there is so much transit between London and Toronto (and many of the points in between) that it overtakes the demand for road space would we see a real change.
LikeLike
Steve regarding the backfill argument, to the extent it draws traffic because of improved flow it should only partially revert, as you will cause a reversion of some as it fills. As to growth well it may be encouraged to move to the 401 but only to the extent that it offers the best alternatives. So it should be able to reduce the degree of congestion marginally or at least reduce the rate at which it gets worse. However I would agree you are not eliminating the fact of crossing Toronto anywhere near rush being a slow and painful process.
LikeLike
There is a good article in “Wired” about induced demand. Based upon a study looking at road expansion and reductions in the US between 1980 & 2000, it showed that any changes did not affect congestion.
Glenn
LikeLike
I would not gain say that people will be less likely to avoid trips if they are facing empty roads. However, I can tell you that there are limits to the theory as pointed out. The issue it Toronto is especially bad, in part because the options have not been built. Chicago, for instance, while terrible, in my experience is not as bad as Toronto. I would suggest that Toronto could, by building additional appropriate transit, reduce the congestion levels to those of Chicago or less. Road pricing, would likely make this even better, however, those with least income and flexibility need a reasonable transit option. It is also noteworthy that one of the points in the article is that business that requires transportation (all to some degree, at least for the employees) will move to cities with additional transportation, and thereby fill the road network. This is really the point.
While the article makes the point that the study is bounded, the experiment has been tried in reverse more recently, reduce the number of jobs and people hold roads constant. Greater Detroit did see a reduction in congestion during and even after the recession. It was not as great as the reduction in jobs, but well. By the way not a suggested experiment.
All need to understand that those new road users taking advantage of that capacity, have benefited from the transit project that opened that road space initially. Growth or stagnation, no additional ability to move will mean stagnation. Also I would point out that an extra 2 minute headway 3 car LRT is like adding 7-8 lanes in each direction (while looking like less than 2 lanes of roadway), yes it will induce extra demand, some of that will be job growth. These LRTs need to provide the support for people to travel where they need to for work and recreation.
I would put to you that Toronto is at the top end of the congestion problem, and likely outside the bounds of the study. We will not make congestion go away but should be able to make it better. We will not do so by building roads and inducing low density high commute distance growth. We might by building LRTs & BRTs and inducing higher density and reducing commute distances.
LikeLike
I have had the pleasure of driving in Chicago three times coming in from Indiana and going out to the Northwest, passing across the south side once and coming and going from the Northwest once. It may have been the time of year that I was there but I did not consider the congestion to be better than in Toronto. Perhaps it is because I know where to go in Toronto while I was just a tourist in Chicago but I will take Toronto traffic any time, especially in the south part on I 80 and I 90.
LikeLike
@Robert I have driven both near morning and evening rush and my experience is neither is a pleasure but getting to from core to reasonable normal commuting distance for Toronto takes longer. However Chicago is still a zoo. Auto industry people I work with who go both ways generally complain more about Toronto. Also I believe commuting times in Toronto seem to rate notably longer despite the fact Greater Chicago is larger than Greater Toronto. However I have seen Chicago road crews close 2 lanes to clean the shoulder at 3:30 in the afternoon.
Steve: An important stat that is missing from all of these congestion comparisons is the average trip length. I don’t have the answer to this question, but here is what we need to know: does Toronto have longer or short trips (in km or miles) than comparator cities? Are the long commute times a side effect of longer trips, a pattern that might have been established before congestion set in?
LikeLike
Interesting point, and it does likely help to offset Chicago’s size in that it has expanded into about 250 degrees, whereas Toronto only has about 200. It is also a very good argument for building transit that will encourage intensification. I believe that one of the reasons that expressways fail is that they encourage longer distances of commute, and a built form that requires large roadways consuming much space, force many km of driving, and encouraging much congestion.
LikeLike