The TTC board met on July 23 with some items of modest interest on the agenda. This is the second last meeting of the current board before the October municipal election sweeps away at least some of the current crew. Nothing of real substance will happen until the new Council takes office, and a new Mayor attempts to forge an agenda for transit that is more than a simplistic, pandering slogan.
Included in the agenda are:
- The monthly CEO’s report;
- A purchase amendment regarding the new TR trainsets to retrofit additional handholds and to provide speakers outside of cars so that riders can hear door closing announcements;
- The Transit Project Assessment (TPA) for McNicoll Garage (a proposal already contested by the neighbourhood where it will be built);
- The proposed sale of the Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) used for the Spadina Subway Extension;
- A proposal from Commissioner Heisey that the City of Toronto seek a change in TTC and Metrolinx governance so that one member would be cross-appointed between each board; and
- A request from newly minted Commissioner Pasternak for a report on his pet project, the Sheppard Subway extension west to Downsview.
Update: An additional item came in via correspondence: a request for an express bus route from Liberty Village to downtown.
Update: There was little discussion of this report as it came near the end of the meeting after a long series of deputations and debate on the proposed McNicoll Garage.
There is little new in this month’s CEO’s Report. Ridership continues to run slightly below budget thanks to the severe winter, but even in the spring (stats are shown only to the end of May), ridership remains slightly below expectations. Combined with a lower average fare than predicted (in part because those pesky Metropass buyers keep trying to save money), the TTC’s projected revenue for 2014 is $7.6m below the budgeted value of $1166.5b.
Meanwhile, expenses are predicted to come in almost exactly on budget, and so there is an $8m “hole” to be filled. This is under one percent on a total budget of $1.6b, but the TTC will sweat bullets to “break even” somehow.
Remember that this is the same TTC whose former Chair attempted to squirrel away a “surplus” from 2013 to finance a 2015 fare freeze.
Route reliability statistics continue to be reported against a goal of ±3 minutes of the scheduled headway. That’s rather generous, especially on routes with frequent service like the subway. New measures to better reflect the actual customer experience have been under development since 2013, but they have yet to make a public appearance in status reports. I understand that this is part of a larger project to improve real-time service monitoring now underway.
The TTC has a new Customer Satisfaction Survey for the first quarter of 2014, but the details have not been published yet. However:
The overall customer satisfaction score in Q1 2014 (71%) was consistent with results observed in the previous quarter and a year ago. Perceptions of streetcar service improved significantly, and currently overall satisfaction is comparable across the different modes of transportation. [Section 2.2, page 6]
It is a mystery why in the dead of winter, riders thought better of streetcars than they did last fall. Possibly last fall was a statistical aberration, but if so this would indicate that the survey has a fairly wide margin of error and should be read accordingly.
According to the report, the second “production” new streetcar was delivered on July 4, 2014. When we will see more depends on the current labour dispute at Bombardier, not to mention their ability to ramp up to the planned 3/month rate.
The TTC has not yet published a revised fleet or rollout plan to explain how service will be maintained with the available cars, nor is there any indication of service improvements beyond some net benefit of larger (even if fewer) new cars as they enter service. Some routes may wait 5 years on current plans before they see any capacity upgrades.
Update: Approved without debate.
For several months, the TTC has been testing handholds in the low ceiling sections of one TR trainset as well as door chimes audible outside of the train.
The handholds were, putting it mildly, an oversight in the original design which left a large area for standees who had nothing but each other for support. The exterior door chimes are an accessibility requirement so that blind passengers will know that the doors are about to close. Both of these are described as “safety” features, and one cannot help asking why they were omitted from the base design.
The cost to retrofit the TR fleet will be $4.3m and $10.9m respectively for these features, but this will be largely offset by reduced costs in other parts of the contract notably liquidated damages (e.g. penalties) for late delivery ($7.2m) and a reduction in the number of spare trucks (the undercarriages including the wheels, axles and primary support for the cars) that will be purchased under this contract ($8.1m).
McNicoll Garage has been on the TTC’s books for years as a site that will permit expansion of the bus fleet. The property was purchased by Metro Toronto for this purpose about 25 years ago. When the Transit City plan would have led to a major reduction in bus requirements, this project went onto the back burner, but as Transit City withered away, the TTC had to bring it forward. Indeed, the project is now a top priority for what TTC management would do if $100m fell into their lap.
It is little surprise that since the land was bought, development has crept around the margins, and the neighbours are now upset about the traffic and other effects a new garage might bring. Deputations are expected at the board meeting, and it will be interesting and instructive to see whether the Board has the courage of its convictions to proceed with approval of the Transit Project Assessment (TPA), or if the whole question will be punted beyond the election to ensure a few more votes for some worthy Councillor.
Update: There was a long series of deputations from residents opposed to this project, followed by a lengthy debate among the board members, but in the end the report was approved with amendments.
The proposed garage site (see page 7 of the report) has two neighbours: the Mon Sheong long term care home and the Scarborough Chinese Baptist Church. In the case of the church, its parking lot on the east side of the site and immediately north of the new garage would be separated from the church by a proposed new road. In the case of the seniors’ home, the concerns are the noise, fumes and potential danger of an industrial facility next door to a home that now borders an open field.
The deputations by people involved with Mon Sheong varied in quality and credibility. Their strongest case lay in issues of process and transparency with echoes of the “bad neighbour TTC” we saw on the additional subway exits project for Greenwood and Donlands Stations. The major points here are:
- A claim that the TTC changed the garage design to shift the entrance and exit traffic from the south to the west side thereby affecting the seniors’ home. This change was made because a proposed grade separation of McNicoll at the GO Stouffville line immediately east of the site would change the road grade and make access from the south impossible.
- The land is and always has been zoned “industrial” and that is why the City of Toronto bought it in 2005 for a future bus garage. However, because certain institutional uses, notably churches, were having trouble gaining acceptance in residential communities, the term “industrial” was widened to allow their construction in lands that were otherwise sitting unused. The problem here is that the conventional sense of that designation remained setting up an inevitable conflict between old and new uses.
- It is unclear whether the two affected properties have a caution on title that disruptive uses might spring up next door on what was once vacant land.
Some deputations engaged in irresponsible fear-mongering showing a photo of a major explosion, and citing disasters both in Downsview (Sunrise propane) and Lac Megantic (volatile crude oil) as examples of what might happen at the garage. The deputants also cited bio-diesel as a health and explosion hazard despite the fact that the TTC stopped using this fuel in 2009.
The fact that diesel fuel used by buses is not subject to explosion was not mentioned, and we were even treated to one board member fearing that the bus terminal at Bay and Dundas might endanger the building we sat in, City Hall, a few blocks to the south. The TTC has operated diesel garages in the middle of residential areas for decades. Management finally corrected this misunderstanding quite late in the debate.
By overstating their case and using misleading, dare I say, inflammatory information, opponents of the garage created a perfect environment for their concerns to be discounted.
The board was also well aware of the problem of storage capacity and the shortcomings of the current bus fleet. Staff described McNicoll Garage as something they should have started three years ago.
It is worth tracing the history of this site:
- Anticipating the need for a new garage in Scarborough, the City bought the site in 2005 after a search for appropriate properties in 2004.
- When Transit City was announced, the TTC forecast that its future bus storage needs would be replaced by new carhouses for the LRT lines, and the McNicoll project was put on hold.
- With Transit City delayed by Queen’s Park and then cancelled by Rob Ford, the garage reappeared in the capital project list.
- When Rob Ford and Karen Stintz engineered the cut in TTC service standards, this allowed the bus garage project to be deferred again, thereby pushing its capital and operating costs into future years and artificially trimming the TTC’s budget.
- Those “future years” are now upon us thanks to strong ridership growth and the garage is needed even without a return to the more generous “Ridership Growth Strategy” loading standards.
In another of her breathtaking attempts to woo votes any place she can find them, former TTC Chair, now mayoral candidate Karen Stintz proposed that no money be spent on McNicoll until the TTC’s legislatively mandated accessibility program be fully funded. The amount required is $240-million (see last page of the TTC’s Capital Budget). Yes, this is the same Karen Stintz who attempted to divert a $47m “surplus” from 2013 operations into a 2015 fare freeze rather than to capital funding as is the City’s policy. This is the same Karen Stintz who engineered the service cuts for “the greater good” of Toronto’s transit system. Her attempt failed on a 6-to-3 vote with support from board members Josh Colle and James Pasternak.
In the end, the report passed with amendments:
- The TTC will explore a land swap between the Scarborough Chinese Baptist Church’s parking lot and the lands proposed for the TTC’s own parking. This would make the church’s land contiguous on the west side of the new roadway and leave the TTC entirely on the east side.
- Although the design already foresees construction to Toronto’s Green Standard, there will be attempts to improve beyond this.
- The Toronto Board of Health will be asked for comments on the health issues around urban garages as this has implications for all existing TTC sites.
Separately, the board asked management to report in August on tradeoffs in the Capital Budget that could be made to bring the Accessibility projects back “above the line” into funded status. Management had already flagged the bus garage as its top priority if any new money becomes available, and future changes in priority will depend both on updates to funding projections (including the use of the 2013 surplus) and on any “new money” that may arrive from other governments.
There is also the small matter of a Council that is prepared to levy a special tax to fund its share of the Scarborough Subway, but won’t provide the considerably lower funding needed for accessibility.
The McNicoll Garage has a Project Website.
TTC-Metrolinx Board Cross Appointments
Update: This item has been referred to the August board meeting so that Commissioners can offer additional suggestions and the Board can take a position in advance of the August Council meeting. The general reception of this proposal was “nice in theory, but there are many potential problems”.
Commissioner Heisey, for a variety of reasons listed in his motion, proposes that the TTC and Metrolinx Boards should each include one member cross-appointed from the other agency. The idea is that the goals of both organizations could be better co-ordinated.
Aside from the fact that Queen’s Park is already reviewing the Metrolinx Act and there have been proposals for a return to some municipal representation on that board, there is a much more basic problem with the fact that these are two different levels of government that do not always see eye-to-eye. Moreover, these are two boards whose demonstrated level of involvement in actual policy of their respective agencies is, shall we say, tenuous. Management and external political bodies (Queen’s Park or City Council) make the important decisions and the boards may ask a few soft questions to indicate that they are “in control”.
Negotiations between the agencies for, say, an operating agreement for a fare card system or a shared piece of infrastructure could run into delicate problems of inter-agency conflict with board members wearing two hats at once. And we won’t even talk about a TTC board member whose mission in life is to get one pet project built even if other plans must be distorted around it, or a Metrolinx member with no appreciation for transit’s function at the fine-grained, local level.
Challenges of provincial-municipal relationships on transit require far more than simply having a seat at each other’s table. Neither a transit commissioner nor a Metrolinx director can commit their respective governments to policy or funding directions, and may not even be aware of work happening within, nominally, their own sphere. I have been at enough meetings listening to badly informed board members at both agencies to know that the idea they might fruitfully interpret each other’s world has the makings of comic opera.
Sale of Tunnel Boring Machines
Update: This item was withdrawn from the agenda as the potential purchaser no longer wishes to pursue the purchase of the TBMs. Meanwhile, Mayor Ford has objected to the proposed sale, but TTC management remains convinced that as and when new subway construction begins, it should be with new boring machines.
In the continuing search for ways to build a Scarborough Subway as quickly as possible, the Board asked for a report on whether the Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) from the Spadina extension project could be reused for the Scarborough line. This option is not recommended by management because:
- the cost to retain and refurbish the four-year old machines would be about $28.8m;
- new machines are expected to be more productive based on improvements already seen in the TBMs used for the Sheppard Subway vs the Spadina extension project, and the value of this productivity in reduced construction time is about $22m;
- the company that produced the TBMs, Lovat (subsequently bought and then closed by Caterpillar), no longer exists and there is no ongoing support for their technology;
- the TTC has a buyer willing to pay $9.2m to purchase the Spadina TBMs.
Update: This item was referred to staff for a report.
With the election of former Councillor and TTC Board member Peter Milczyn to the Ontario Legislature, Council was faced with a vacancy to fill. Who should show up as our new Commissioner: Counciller Pasternak from North York.
His pet project is the extension of the Sheppard Subway to Downsview Station, and to that end he has a motion on the agenda asking for a staff report on the status of any past studies on this option, timelines for conducting an EA, and estimated costs.
Never mind that the Sheppard West line isn’t even part of The Big Move’s phase 1 or 2 “waves” of projects. With Toronto’s rapid transit plans being gerrymandered to suit every election campaign, what’s one more change?
If nothing else, this will get us an update on the status of the proposal, and a clear statement of the cost and possibilities. All that is needed then is a by-election in the appropriate riding, and the Sheppard West line will be home free!
To answer some of Pasternak’s questions in advance:
No, there is no track heading east from Downsview Station. When that part of the Spadina line was built, the structure was set up to allow either an extension northwest (the TYSSE now under construction) or east along Sheppard. It was not designed to permit a blended service, and most certainly not to allow trains to originate north of Downsview and head east on Sheppard.
This was a political compromise between the then deadlocked advocates of a York U subway and those who wanted the Sheppard line. The Downsview extension from Wilson Station was common to both, and it was designed so that either could be built.
West of Sheppard-Yonge station, there are tail tracks extending beyond the station, but that doesn’t take the line very far, and a 4km extension, including a new crossing of the west branch of the Don River, would be required to reach Downsview Station. We are easily looking at over $1b even if the line has only one net new station at Bathurst. That sort of spacing will not do well to support intensification of Sheppard Avenue except at a few locations.
Liberty Village Express Bus
As if we don’t have enough Councillors trolling for votes with transit proposals, Mike Layton has asked the TTC to study the possibility of an express bus from Liberty Village to downtown to supplement the King car.
Leaving aside just how “express” any such service could be and the resources it would entail, this is symptomatic of a much deeper problem with Toronto’s transit. Rather than making what we have work better (the trunk streetcar routes), we see bandaid “solutions” that are at best applicable only to specific trips that might have a “bypass” route to their destination.
The TTC does not publish cost and revenue stats for its express downtown routes and this leaves the impression that they are a cost-effective way of serving demand. The fact that they only come into existence when a Councillor (often also a Commission board member) lobbies for them speaks volumes about their true place in the network.
Steve Munro 
I guess this answers the question … the CEO report says August 16 and 17 there is a closure Union to St Andrew for second platform work.
I guess this means they are running behind and August 30th wasn’t an attainable target.
Also … it’s saying the work north of Eglinton will proceed through 2014 and 2015 … looks like we are hitting a decade now lol.
Steve: The 2015 date has been commonly cited for some time. That’s old news. As for the second platform, the announced opening date is “summer” which ends, the last time I looked, in September.
LikeLike
About Commissioner Pasternak’s request for a subway extension west on Sheppard Avenue. Every commissioner, or rather each councillor, should request a heavy rail subway in each of their wards.
Not going to happen. The councillors who say so, only do so to get re-elected.
LikeLike
Well, there you go, Steve. Pasternak asks TTC staff for a report, and you do their work for them for free! 😉
Steve: I am very public spirited!
LikeLike
There is simply answer, Steve. The TTC may already know what anyone with some common sense knows, that the new streetcars will be providing less frequencies. I personally am not so concerned about capacity, as service levels. I full streetcar car every 15 minutes does not benefit me as much as a 2/3 empty streetcar every five minutes does.
Steve: It will be vital that the “new” service be much better managed so that we do not have a repeat of what happened with ALRVs on Queen Street where service was cut by 1/3 and riding plummeted because what was left was so erratic.
As long as the TTC refuses to have integrated fares with GO Transit (like most other agencies have done) or properly use PRESTO (i.e. their slow rollout, plus only adult fares being charged, unlike other agencies that all for a fare structure including child, student, adult, and senior) then having an individual seat on both Boards is pointless. The TTC needs to see the big picture first.
Steve: I beg your pardon! It is GO that refuses to have an integrated fare with the TTC. First off, they dropped the GO share of the subsidy for a joint pass between the two systems. Also, GO has never offered the co-fare subsidy arrangement for TTC riders that those in the 905 have because GO quite explicitly does not see it as their role to serve riders inside the 416.
Only adult fares are charged today on TTC/Presto because Presto, in the form Metrolinx first implemented on the TTC, can’t do anything else. The slow rollout has been due to the fact that the “Mark I” version of Presto was simply not up to the scale of TTC operations. Toronto waited out the “Mark II” rollout in Ottawa (which had no end of problems, now fixed), and still has a challenge to implement Presto system-wide.
If there is any foot-dragging in Toronto, it is with Councillors and Commissioners who refuse to engage in a debate about a new fare structure that would take advantage of the technology. We hear musings about time-based, distance-based, zone-based fares and other concoctions, but nobody wants to address the issue of whether total fare revenue will fall and who will make up the difference. If fare revenue stays the same, but under a new model, who benefits from cheaper riders and who is stuck with higher fares? This is a political hot potato, and it extends to Queen’s Park because any “integration” of fares between the TTC, GO and the 905 will inevitably have effects on what people pay and, probably, on subsidy requirements.
To put things in context, the TTC is already the second highest user of Presto (by fare count), and will quickly surpass GO by over an order of magnitude at full rollout. This is not a small-scale implementation. If it’s cocked up, the TTC will take all of the blame and have to suffer with revenue problems while Presto sorts out the problems.
As a general rule, there is a far too high, too adulatory view of Metrolinx in Toronto compared to the TTC because, in part, Metrolinx serves a much smaller clientele and has a much simpler operation. Press reports from Ottawa during the Presto rollout were not very complimentary.
Steve, how hard would it be for the the TTC to convert the Sheppard line to an LRT? If it would be hard, then it makes sense to have the entire Sheppard line as a subway. Otherwise, make it all LRT. Mind you, this issue is not as important to me as the DRL.
Steve: This issue has been studied before, and the biggest problem lies at the stations where (a) platforms, stairways and escalators are at the wrong height for LRVs, and (b) the box tunnel sections are, in places, too low for overhead. The floor height would also be an issue in tunnels where the emergency catwalk is higher than the LRV floors making emergency evacuations more difficult.
LikeLike
I kind of assumed that the scheduled August 16/17 closure of Union subway station would have been to open the second platform, and reconfigure the first platform accordingly to allow for the change in operations and beginning of the next phase of construction.
I’ve no basis for this, other than it being the only scheduled closure of the station in the near future.
Do we know that this isn’t the transition date?
Steve: I suspect it may be, but the TTC has not announced anything yet.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine a Sheppard West extension without the inclusion of stations at Senlac and Faywood, the stop spacings otherwise would be too far apart. There should also be an infill station at Willowdale. Doubling the total number of stations from five currently to ten ought to increase the Sheppard Line utility significantly.
LikeLike
If Pasternak is trying to use the Sheppard west subway extension so that work can be done at the Davisville area, it will not work. First, EAs, public consultation, design and construction of that extension will take probably 7 years. Second it’s easier to use the Crosstown to shift people to Spadina line.
In short, the TTC will not doubt have to wait till the Crosstown opens and then they can fix the foundational area at Davisville.
Steve: Davisville needs repairs long before any of the new lines will open. Current word is that they are likely to rebuild to the existing design (ties on ballast) rather than trying to convert to a concrete foundation. Even a rebuild will take time, but nowhere near the amount to excavate, pour and cure a new foundation, and then build a new track structure on top. At the outside, this will happen in 2016, and would be sooner if not for the artificial constraint on major works imposed by the Pan Am Games.
LikeLike
I can’t see any justification for the Sheppard West subway. Maybe it would make sense if Downsview Airport were closed and a large number of tall condo buildings were built there, but that is at least several decades in the future. Leave Sheppard West alone. I say this as someone who tends to support the Sheppard East subway extension (which has more development along it and is further from existing subways).
LikeLike
If the TBMs for the Vaughan subway extension are sold, then will it not make a DRL subway less likely? Will it also not make a Sheppard subway less likely? Will it also not make a Scarborough subway less likely?
Steve: No to all. By the time any of these is actually built, we would be better off buying new equipment. It is ridiculous to claim that something worth $50m (gross, before refurbishment costs) would have any effect on projects that will cost billions.
LikeLike
This is simply not true. The same generation of terminals in various forms are used across the GTHA by all other agencies, for all types of concession fares.
Furthermore, once one has registered their card for a concession fare with one agency, the CARD is registered that way and ANY agency that has a concession fare defined for Presto will charge it.
I know this from my daughter’s experience when she was still in high school two years ago. We only went to YRT’s office to show proof of secondary school attendance and her card was a student card until at least the following June (cannot recall if it retains the student status over the summer). There were a few occasions where the card was used on other systems, including GO, and she was charged student fare.
At that time, in addition to the TTC charging the adult token price, and DRT only implemented PRESTO for ride-to-GO fares. If GO had been used prior to the trip, the ride-to-GO fare would be charged. If heading to GO, then the DRT adult CASH fare would be charged, and the difference between that an the ride-to-GO fare would be credited against the GO fare.
Now DRT has regular fares defined for their PRESTO terminals, and the only reason that the TTC does not is because they cannot be bothered.
Steve: Read what I said. “The form Metrolinx first implemented on the TTC”. They did not include support for concession fares because the only sites were downtown subway stations and the target market was weekday commuters. The “production” rollout of Presto on the TTC will support concession fares.
LikeLike
I am not sure what provisions there are at Downsview for a future Sheppard line, but I believe there are only double cross-over tracks south of the station and a pocket track to the north.
I think Sheppard West does not have a chance as a 4km subway extension. What it needs is to interline with the Spadina Line, both north and south. This way 4km of construction will turn the 5.5km stub into an 18km line from Don Mills to York U and Vaughan. It will also create a 40km line from Don Mills to Downsview to Union and back up to Finch. On the Spadina line, at peak hour, trains would go north to Vaughan, short turn, east to Don Mills, short turn and repeat on about a 2 minute frequency. On Sheppard, trains would be every 4 minutes, alternately going to Vaughan and Union.
The beauty is that the construction to connect Sheppard to the Spadina line would be done on the SW corner of Sheppard and Allen – disrupting no-one. The new
Downsview station would be east of the current station (still sharing the bus bay, but also serving Wilson Heights) since no actual transfers would be made at this station. This means a Faywood station would not be required, just a Senlac and Bathurst a few hundred metres from either end of the West Don Valley bridge crossing. The only tunnelling required under the existing Spadina line is for 2 tunnels, not a gigantic excavation for a station. It looks doable with about 350m radius curves, which is somewhat better than on the TYSSE.
See map
How much will ridership increase on Sheppard by connecting it to York U?
How many people will stay on Sheppard instead of transferring to Yonge?
How much will this help with planned and emergency closure situations?
LikeLike
Congratulations, you just spent an extra $200,000,000 over and above the absurd amount of money already required to build subway from Yonge to Downsview. For that money you could build an LRT line several kilometres long (depending on local conditions).
LikeLike
Steve, I am sorry – it’s just that anytime people talk about ideas that would save TTC passengers money, the TTC seems to use their “we can’t afford to do that” defense. I know that GO is not too concerned about 416 riders – anytime they need to express run a GO train (because it is late) or use buses instead, they also seem to skip the 416 stations and tell their customers to take the TTC. But, what has the TTC done to get integrated fare? I don’t know of anything they have done.
Steve: The TTC is happy to have an integrated fare provided that it does not mean that they will be giving away rides primarily to commuters from the 905 using the subway as a distribution system from Union. The fundamental point here is that there is only so much money to operate all of our transit systems, of which the TTC is the largest. People happily talk about mechanisms to reduce TTC fares, but nobody wants to make the subsidy changes needed to fund this. And quite bluntly, anyone who claims that increased ridership and revenue will offset the loss is seriously deluded. A big problem that is often forgotten is that all of the people who are today paying a TTC fare somehow for a combined GO-TTC trip would receive a fare cut. You have to make back all of that revenue before you can even start to talk about marginal new revenue from increased riding, and that presumes the increase won’t require additional service or strain network links where improvements are impossible.
Seeing how few subway stations use PRESTO cards, certainly they could be updated. I mean any other transit system that uses PRESTO has the multiple fares. I see no reason the TTC should be different, nor do several people I have spoken to.
Steve: The Presto readers in stations that have them are being replaced with new Mark II hardware, and the system will support concession fares as part of the rollout this fall. I don’t care who you have spoken to because (a) the system as originally installed was a trial for commuters and (b) it is currently being upgraded. This is a dead issue.
In my experience, this is because of the culture at the TTC, as in “We have always done it this way” mentality. They won’t split up the 501, they don’t want time based transfers, etc. Yes, it would help if the councillors and commissioners would support having change, but management is responsible, through reports, to recommend change. And I personally don’t see the TTC changing their way of doing business. But my opinion is based on my personal experiences with the TTC, so are not likely totally unbias.
Steve: Yes, the 501 is a very long standing problem where “the TTC is right and everyone else is wrong”.
Time based transfers were studied by the TTC, but the report was not made public. Karen Stintz originally favoured this idea, and wanted staff to bring forward their report, but she has since decided that zones or some other fare-by-distance scheme is the way to go, and the report has disappeared into the woodwork. This is a political problem, not a management one. An essential part of any debate once we have a new Mayor and Council will be to look at the implications of various fare schemes. As things stand, I don’t think you will see this until the 2016 budget as Council has already asked for a report on provision of lower fares for disadvantaged riders aimed at that budget cycle which will start in late summer 2015. We could have had this debate over the past few years in anticipation of Presto, but any talk of new fares inevitably gets into who benefits, who pays, and how much more subsidy (if any) will the city pay. Do you honestly think such a debate would be entertained by a Ford/Stintz administration?
LikeLike
How would that eastern extension work? I’m having a hard time visualizing that without splitting off the main line before reaching Downsview.
Steve: Downsview Station is actually far enough south of Sheppard that a curve will fit between the north end of the station and a Sheppard Subway. Don’t forget that the bus loop is somewhat north of the main part of the subway level. Note that there is NO provision for a grade separated junction as this was designed for one option only, not for some sort of blended service.
I would bet on not much. York University proudly lays claim to over 50,000 students and staff with only half coming from inside the 416. Assume random distribution throughout the 416. Do the math. Factor in the fact campuses don’t tend to have the same super peak periods as 9-5 trip generating employment and you realize you don’t need that much capacity.
Steve: I have suggested on several occasions that York U simply enumerate the postal codes (first three characters) of the addresses of all of its students and staff to establish where they are actually coming from. This is a standard method to create a scatter chart of a population. Certainly once a subway is opened, there will be a shift as more would-be students will consider a subway-based commute, but I am sure we would also see just how many students actually originate in areas where various rapid transit proposals would, or would not, be of any benefit. That said, I am quite sure we cannot run a subway line to the entire catchment area of the university.
P.S. Glad to hear 4404 made it 2 weeks ago. It seems like Bombardier is destined to pay penalties on this order as well. Maybe the city won’t have to find the budget room for 60 more when all is said and done. Rob Ford will no doubt be there ranting about free streetcars screwing the taxpayer.
Steve: If Bombardier endures such penalties that they have to give us free streetcars, then I don’t hold much hope for that company. As things are, the Thunder Bay plant has been supported largely on orders from the TTC and GO for years (with funding for both flowing from Queen’s Park), but the proposed 100% buy America policy now under discussion may cut Thunder Bay out of participation in the North American market. This is a very serious issue for any rail transit operator in Canada.
LikeLike
Are elevators the centre of the universe?
Steve: Only if they are Toronto elevators.
LikeLike
The drawing I know of seems to show that the platform is roughly straddling Sheppard (100m south and 50m north). It looks like the bus terminal is actually mostly south of the platform (page 2-5).
Possibly there is some type of Wye south of the platform and cross-over that was intended to serve a north to east movement, or there are no such provisions at all.
Steve: You are correct and I erred in my previous comments. The original EA drawings for the Downsview extension show the station box much further south to allow for the option of turning east on Sheppard. Clearly, a decision was taken at some point that this option was no longer to be pursued and the station was shifted further north. (Somehow in my mental image of the station I got the offset between the subway and bus levels turned around.)
There were two proposed alignments in this area. One called option “A” made a wide swing around the west side of Wilson Yard and placed Downsview station on an east-west alignment on Sheppard. The other called “B” went straight north from Wilson Station with Downsview Station south of Sheppard far enough to permit a north-to-east curve. The “A” alignment conflicted with some DND facilities in the airport, but I don’t know if these still exist. In the scheme you posted on Twitter, you take a wide curve west of Wilson that is not unlike the “A” alignment.
The drawing on page 21 of the file you linked shows that there is no provision in the structure south of Downsview Station for a curve onto Sheppard, although one might be constructed by breaking into the existing tunnel. The biggest challenge would be a grade separation of the two branches.
All that said, restructuring the subway at Downsview to incorporate a Sheppard West interconnection would not be a trivial task especially if this were anything more than a link for carhouse moves, not for regular service. If only for carhouse moves, a branch off of the existing line south of Downsview could include a grade crossing, or this could even be a single track link with a crossover. Any interlined service such as you have proposed would require much more complex structures and would substantially add to the cost of the Sheppard West extension. As for a through service from Sheppard to York University, that is simply not going to happen without major construction work.
At some point, the goal of a one seat, transfer-free ride simply becomes more expensive than the benefits it may confer.
LikeLike
There’s no indication that 4404 has arrived. Production car 4403 arrived in May and production car 4400 was returned to Toronto in July after modifications. I’d assume that when Spadina starts running the new cars in August, they’d only have these 2 new cars and 16 CLRVs in service at this rate.
Steve: I am quoting info in the CEO’s report. If 4404 is not here, then CEO is “badly advised”. Wouldn’t be the first time there are errors in that report, and Andy Byford needs a writer with better fact checking. Counting 4400 as “production” delivery is misleading because it gives the impression that another “new” car is here.
LikeLike
I thought the long-awaited time-based transfer report finally appeared at TTC in January.
Steve: Ah yes, there was the January report, but we’re still waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Given the decision directed staff to further refine the business case then I’m surprised to see that it isn’t in the list of outstanding items. It also directed staff to consider implementation as part of the 2015 Operating budget (and discontinue the current 512 trial if it isn’t in the 2015 budget).
Which does make me wonder when we are going to see the 2015 operating budget. The 2011 operating budget came out in a pre-election TTC meeting on September 30, 2010; however no meetings are scheduled this year for almost 4 months after mid-August until December 9! August seems too early. And December 9 is surely after the January passes have gone to the printer …
Steve: A few things have happened since January. First off, Karen Stintz decided that she likes distance-based fares and so the topic has dropped from view again. None of the other Commissioners is pressing on any fare-related issue because that’s all going to be part of the 2015 budget debates. Normally budgets come forward in September, but election years are different, this one especially so. It would be suicidal for staff at the City or TTC to bring forward a budget that advocated a particular “world view”. The real problem will be how much “Ford hangover” will there be in whatever budgets we do see in the new administration, and whether Council is given optional scenarios to consider.
As I have said before, I don’t expect to see any significant change in fare structure until the 2016 budgets which can be struck whatever new political context the City and TTC might find themselves.
LikeLike
The DRL subway is only required for rush hours and so why not make Yonge St a toll road with also increased costs for Yonge St parking in addition to 2 way all day fully electric subway like service on all rail corridors. The toll and increased parking costs will free up space on Yonge St which can allow for frequent high capacity triple articulated buses to be run during rush hours. All this can be done for a fraction of the cost of the DRL subway and in a fraction of the time required for a very expensive subway that can easily be avoided by other cleverer means like the ones I suggest.
Steve: You have forgotten that we could through route the Don River swan boat system into a series of canals and aqueducts.
LikeLike
I don’t think either you OR the CEO report mentioned 4404 explicitly, only L. Wall. The CEO report simply mentioned that the second production vehicle arrived on July 4, 2014. Previously @StreetcarTO mentioned on July 3rd that 4400 would arrive at Hillcrest “tomorrow” (see Tweets here and here). So there’s little doubt that the July 4th arrival was 4400 not 4404 (or 4403!).
Given that 4400 left the TTC for Ottawa back in mid-2013 and was then shipped from Ottawa to Thunder Bay for modification, and the replacement of a module, I don’t see what’s wrong with TTC calling this a production vehicle arriving.
Steve: When I wrote to Brad Ross about a second car arriving, the subject of my note was “4404” and he didn’t correct me.
LikeLike
However, there presumably TTC does have to finalize the Presto transfer rules at some point. I also wonder what exactly the transfer/receipts issued by the new fare machines on the new streetcars next month are going to say. Though knowing the TTC, the left and right hands probably don’t know of each other’s existence.
LikeLike
Nfitz said Though knowing the TTC, the left and right hands probably don’t know of each other’s existence.
I can hear it now: “New streetcars?” “New ‘tickets’?” Why weren’t we told?”
Steve: Things will probably be under control on Spadina, but I expect we will see operators further afield who have not got the faintest idea what is going on.
LikeLike
As a person who travels along that Pasternak dream every day, I can indicate that infill isn’t really in demand along Sheppard West of Yonge. The 6-8 story condos west of Bathurst are not selling well, even after being built. And the condos around Idomo are less then full too.
As for demand along the route to get to or from York U, the 196B buses lose 1/3 of their load at Downsview (1/2 during the summer) and then continue on with people who have other options – i.e. its not that much in demand. This on buses every 5-7 minutes (in theory).
The amount of bodies waiting to go East from Downsview to Bathurst or Yonge in the afternoon rush or West from Sheppard to Bathurst or Downsview in the morning rush would fill up a bus every 3 minutes – not even LRT worthy, let alone subway.
Admittedly, this is more demand then would occur at that subway stop in a Canadian Tire Parking lot out at McCowan and Sheppard. But, let’s not build stuff based on that whacked out plan.
LikeLike
Correct, but my point was that enabling concession fares is a configuration/software change and could have been done at any time if they only gave a damn.
Steve: You may remember that until the TTC was forced to adopt Presto, they were going down another path. Then Queen’s Park said “use our system or lose our subsidies”.
LikeLike
Which, for all we often bemoan QP’s interference in Toronto transit, was the right decision. Presto may have its flaws, but it’s imperative for regional transit to get everyone on the same system.
Steve: Actually, many of the features that are in Presto “Next Generation” exist only because they had to compete with other products and capabilities that “Presto I” didn’t offer. The day will come when the idea of having a proprietary fare card will seem rather quaint, like transfers, and people will use generic cards like credit/debit or apps on NFC-enabled devices to bill their transit fares.
LikeLike
Has anyone done the analysis to find out exactly how much revenue could be lost? They should be able to estimate how many people ride the GO and then transfer to the TTC at union station. Presto data could be used to see how many people tap on the GO system and then tap on the TTC at Union subway station.
Steve: There are lots of people making proposals for new fare structures, but no detailed analyses of their implications. The absence of a solid policy debate on this is a major failing of both the TTC and Metrolinx.
LikeLike
I think that frankly the only express service that could work from this area now, would either involve GO, or the one that is more commonly used than streetcar, namely the sidewalk.
Why is the idea of real signal priority, no lefts or parking and real enforcement simply taboo? Why is talking about what is required to make the existing surface transit not approachable? Could it be that too many voters will not believe that their car in certain areas is the problem? Does Toronto need to bring in special permits to drive in certain areas at peak?
Steve: When you have major committees of Council that have no representation from people who live downtown, what do you expect? It’s all about getting RoFo’s escalade to City Hall as fast as possible.
LikeLike
Sure, but one way or another (COTS systems, smartphone apps, whatever) it makes sense to get everyone or (or at the very least TTC, YRT, and GO) on the same page. I’m not saying Presto was necessarily the best choice, but someone had to step in an push all the players into adopting the same tech.
LikeLike
The function of a Downtown Relief Line should not be simply to provide relief to the Yonge Line and Yonge Bloor station but we also need relief on the heavily crowded King streetcar line and so why not bury the King streetcar line completely? Doing so will also save money and free up road space for cars and bike lanes and such a project can also be implemented much faster than a full blown subway and the approval of such a project is also more likely given support from downtowners, suburban drivers, and cyclists.
Full disclosure: I am neither a driver, nor a cyclist but I do occasionally take the King streetcar although most of the time I prefer to walk instead of take the King streetcar as there is often no room on it to even breathe (during rush hours).
LikeLike
To help the new residents of Liberty Village how about extending the western loop of the rush hours only 503 KINGSTON ROAD service from York Street to the Dufferin Loop?
Steve: Considering that the 503 only runs every 15 minutes, assuming that all of the cars actually make it out of the carhouse, that’s not going to have much of an effect.
LikeLike
Why is everyone running for the mayor? I mean did city council not remove most of the mayor’s powers and transfer to the deputy mayor? If it were me, I would be running for the position of the deputy mayor but of course it’s not a position that the people elect. Would the new mayor automatically have full powers? What if the new mayor is again Rob Ford, would he then automatically have full powers? If Ford is re-elected, then do you support council or the province to step in and remove him from office? I am kinda hoping Chow or Tory will win or anyone but Ford and if Ford wins, then I am moving to the 905. I would love to hear Steve and his site visitors’ opinions on these issues and a new thread on these issues would also be nice.
Steve: The motion transferring Ford’s powers to Norm Kelly has an expiry date of the end of the current term. Should RoFo be re-elected, Council could do it all over again and could petition Queen’s Park for changes to the City of Toronto Act. If Ford is re-elected, he will claim that he has a “mandate”, even if he doesn’t get anywhere near the number of votes he had last time out, and stripping his powers again will be challenging. Personally, I look forward to his being thrashed and the Ford name erased from City Hall, but we probably won’t be that lucky.
LikeLike
What would be really funny is if Karen Stintz wins the mayoralty and nominates Rob Ford as her TTC Chair.
Steve: Karen will do well to make it into double digits in the vote.
LikeLike
I am always amazed that people who buy into being near enough for short commutes wonder why congestion follows and lengthens those commutes.
Anecdotally, yesterday I got from the Eaton Centre to Liberty Village in 40 minutes, going the long way up to Ossington station and then taking a bus – and this in rush hour. From experience, I could have spent 30 minutes on a streetcar. Acceptable? Not for some it seems.
Do we have any data on the average commute of people across the system? This might help alleviate some of the “But we are hard done by!” demands for precious TTC resources.
Steve: Another important distinction is that bad scheduling and multiple construction projects have cocked up the King car even more than usual thereby compounding calls for alternatives.
LikeLike
There are a couple of issues with this.
1. It does not address the issues north of the Danforth.
2. The streetcar is to provide fine grained service to the area. I think that there would be issues with the loss of the so many stops along King, and the resulting loss of service. If you were to retain a relatively fine grained service, even stops every 700 metres, this would be an expensive line.
3. Burying a streetcar line, while it would permit more capacity, and a faster trip, would likely not mean that much capacity in subway terms. Unless you are actually talking a full blown LRT, this would be nowhere near enough capacity to address the issue on the Yonge or Bloor-Danforth lines.
The Downtown Relief Line, is not really meant to relieve the downtown, let along the King car. That will require more streetcars on the street, and will be helped by larger ones. The “Downtown Relief Line” is about providing greater ability to the subways to get those who do not live downtown to the core and across downtown. A DRL may also, along the way, provide a couple of points where the King car can be relieved of some of its load. The King car may require relief, but that is just as likely to be provided by a Waterfront East or West LRT, depending on where you seek relief.
I would love to see a tunnel from the end of the Queensway ROW to the Ex for a Waterfront West LRT, with a station at the foot of Roncesvalles, and another near at say Liberty and Atlantic (or King & Atlantic to meet delusion of an LRT in the UPX corridor). Of course this is a dream, as the tunnel would have to be kilometers long to run that way, and the costs would be out of keeping with the basic notion of this LRT.
Steve: I am often amused by people who talk about the DRL offloading the east end of the King car. Anyone who actually rides this service knows that passengers board at stops all the way from Danforth south on Broadview and west into downtown at locations nowhere near potential DRL stops. Even the load getting on at Broadview Station comes substantially from bus feeders and walk-in traffic, not as transfers off of the subway who might be intercepted at Pape Station. A similar problem with the misalignment of demand origin and a likely DRL corridor exists.
As for a tunnel under King, one thing that has already come up in discussions of alternatives through the core for a DRL is that King Street would be extremely difficult to tunnel under because of what is already there.
LikeLike
My understanding is that the idea of using ranked ballots for City of Toronto elections is a live idea. In fact wasn’t legislation permitting the City to make that change in progress before the provincial election?
Steve: Yes, and Wynne has announced that legislation will be amended for all Ontario municipalities, not just Toronto, allowing them to switch to ranked ballots.
If Rob Ford is elected, it might just be the kick needed to push that idea forward. When he was elected the first time, it was not actually one of those really obvious examples where the election result is clearly wrong — with him taking 47% of the vote, it’s possible somebody else would have won with ranked ballots, but it wouldn’t have taken many second-place votes for him to push him over the top. So in 2010, the voters were wrong, not the system. In 2014, if Rob Ford wins, the system is wrong.
This time around, he can win only by exploiting the serious flaw in our voting system, and it will be obvious that people voting for other candidates should have been able to express a second, third, etc. choice and have that choice affect the vote counting.
Unfortunately I fear Steve is right about the “mandate” bit. Not only in the sense that he will claim a mandate, but others will go along with the claim. It is an unfortunate characteristic of our system that people in general — journalists, politicians, and other — overemphasize the end result rather than what the votes actually say when determining what sort of “mandate” has been given. If five people each get approximately 20% of the vote, it’s dishonest to consider the winner to have some sort of big “mandate” to do anything, especially controversial things — they just happened to get a few more votes. Of course they are duly elected, but they haven’t earned the right to ignore huge swathes of the electorate.
Steve: Don’t forget that more people voted against Stephen Harper than ever voted for him, but he has been able to wreck the federal government without a majority, only a “mandate”.
LikeLike
I understand the sentiment these people have, given how overloaded the line is. There has to be some options in terms of providing capacity. While the increased capacity of the new cars will reduce the issues, I have some serious doubts about that being enough.
While clearly the Don Mills subway is not intended to serve this load, would not a couple of well placed stops at least provide a transfer point for a small amount of the load that may be core bound for the King and Queen cars. This is clearly not a replacement, nor will it greatly reduce the load, but might it not help the overload?
How much load will arrive when the capacity is again seen to be there with the new cars. Should the TTC deign to manage the line better, and the city the signals on the route and parking, will not this capacity also be eaten up fairly quickly given the growth and arising density in the area? How reasonable will it be to run a car every 90 seconds?
Steve: The major effect of the Don Mills subway would be to intercept riders who now come to Broadview Station on the Flemingdon, Broadview, Cosburn and Mortimer buses. From there south, the lines simply do not cross. A “Don River” station is likely to be by the Unilever site, well south of Queen and Broadview. Even if there is a station west of the river, it will be in an area where King cars are already commonly full during the height of the AM peak. I cannot say this enough times: look at a map, ride the route, understand where the riders actually come from.
LikeLike
The Liberty Village express bus idea is great.
This does not take away from local services like the King car at all.
All it does is provide enhanced commute options to a new high-density area, and this is similar to the express bus services which operate to all lakeshore neighborhoods in Chicago.
Toronto needs more of this to all the lakeshore commutes.
LikeLike
I would add that the only significant relief that the Downtown Relief Line may provide to the streetcar network would be in the form of station loops. They would encourage the TTC to add east and west branches of the 501 and the 506 in addition to the current through service which would help improve service reliability along the entire route.
LikeLike
OgtheDim,
40 minutes from the Eaton Centre to Liberty Village, or even 30 minutes is pathetic.
In that time, one could drive even in rush hour to many points in Scarborough, or take a GO Train to Mississauga.
If transit is going to continue to be a viable travel option, then it has to speed up. There is a great write up in Transport Politic about how all the transit we have been building lately is too slow, and we need to get back to building true rapid transit.
But wow, 40 minutes from Liberty Village. No wonder someone I know just further west at Humber Bay drives downtown. He can do that trip in less than half the time by car, even in peak hours. And non rush it is an easy 8 minute drive.
40 minute streetcar rides are not going to cut it for these new residents, who have options, and do not have to take transit unless they want to.
LikeLike
On the subject of the McNicoll Garage, I find it astounding that the city was proactive enough and was able to properly forecast that this garage would be need 25 years in the future. Its too bad that today we lack these futuristic views (ie: we sell off land that can be used for future transit use, instead of acquiring land)
LikeLike