The TTC Board met on March 26, and considered a meaty agenda that begins to address some important policy issues.
Updated March 29, 2015 at 3:45 pm: The presentation on One Person Train Operation (OPTO) given at the meeting has been added along with comments.
Updated March 24, 2015 at 8:10 am: After this was published, the TTC posted the CEO’s Report.
In a previous article, I wrote about the Spadina subway extension project update. This will undoubtedly be the main attraction both for board members and the media. Other items of interest include:
- An overhaul of system key performance indicators (KPIs)
- A door monitoring system for Toronto Rocket trains and one person train crews (Updated March 29)
- Revision and consolidation of the resignalling contract for the Yonge-University line
- A study of express bus routes
- CEO’s Report
Over many years, TTC management has reported on various aspects of the transit system through tracking indices, charts and tables, and there has always been a desire at the board level to make this information as simple as possible. Two basic management problems arise from this practice:
- Key information that might be evident at a more detailed level is lost in averaging of observations over a broad reach, or by the choice of the wrong measurement factor. The sun rises every day, but this tells us little about the weather.
- Targets for “good performance” tend to reflect current practice with little sense of why a metric may sit at a specific value or how it can be improved. This is further complicated by averaging effects where significant changes at a detailed level are lost in the summary data.
A further problem is that metrics used by the TTC might, or might not, be comparable to data from other organizations in the industry, and external benchmarking is difficult. A recent industry review of subway operations, for example, ranked TTC highly for “efficiency”, but this was a direct result of lower than average maintenance cost. There was no examination of the efficacy of the level of maintenance or the quality of service resulting from TTC practices, nor any comparison system-by-system of accounting practices that could skew the numbers being reported. Surface networks and their role as part of a total transit network including the supply of passengers were completely ignored. The TTC routinely cites this report as showing how well they are doing, but omits any discussion of the context for their rank and performance relative to other systems.
Long absent from published TTC reports is any indication of vehicle reliability, a fundamental point of comparison with peer systems and an important issue internally. How do TTC fleets stack up against those in other cities whose equipment has a similar duty cycle? Do successive generations of equipment show an improvement in reliability not just against older vehicles “as is” but to their historic performance figures when they were of comparable age? What constitutes a good maintenance plan and spare equipment ratio, and how will changes in these translate to better service? Can any improvements be tracked and demonstrated?
Readers here will know of the TTC’s quarterly performance reports on a route-by-route basis most recently reported for the fourth quarter of 2014. I will not reiterate my critique of these measurements here beyond saying that they represent a complete abdication by the TTC to provide anything remotely close to reliable service, or at least to report on service quality in a meaningful way.
The detailed presentation of new metrics is not yet online. I will update this article after the board meeting.
Subway Door Monitoring and One-Person Crews
TTC management proposes that the board approve the next step in a move to One Person Train Operation (OPTO: a new acronym for readers to learn) with a trial on the Sheppard Subway (aka Line 4) of a door monitoring system. Here is a description of the proposed system:
The TDM System consists of four strategically placed CCTV cameras that are installed on the subway platform to provide live clear video of all 24 train doors while the train is in the station. The video images are collected and transmitted by means of a wireless system to the subway train. Similar equipment is installed on each train to collect, process and feed the video images to a monitor in the operator’s cab.
The monitor is installed in the operator’s cab in such a manner that it does not obstruct the operator’s view of track level and the signal system while considering ergonomics for the operator. The view on the monitor is split in four providing a live view from each CCTV camera on the subway platform.
The TDM System provides the operator with the ability to view the subway car doors from a forward facing position in the cab while the train is in the station and as the train is leaving the station. The operator will have the ability to discern objects or people caught in the doors. The system automatically turns on and off as the train enters the station and does not require any action by the operator to operate. [pg. 4]
The specific request in this report is a change order to Bombardier under its current TR car supply contract to design the modifications required in TR cabs for the video displays and for revised door operation controls.
The Board authorize a Change Directive to Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier), in the amount of $2,734,822.98, including taxes, for the additional engineering design to facilitate installation of TDM equipment and modification/relocation of door control systems on the TR trains for OPTO. [pg. 2]
Note that this does not include the procurement of the station camera systems, nor the installation/modification of equipment on the trains themself. A related problem is that the TR trains do not now operate on the Sheppard line. This brings us to the following proposal:
Once Bombardier completes the engineering design a proposal will be requested from Bombardier for installation on one prototype TR train for testing. Line 4 Sheppard Line was selected as the pilot for the OPTO concept because there are only 4 trains operating during customer service hours.
The T1 trains presently operating on Line 4 will require replacement with TR trains that are Automatic Train Control (ATC) equipped prior to implementation of ATC on Line 1 YUS in 2020 because access to Line 4 is from Line 1. The required conversion of a six car TR train to a four car train for the OPTO pilot will be the subject of a future Board report. [pg. 5]
This has all the earmarks of a project that will proceed in bite-sized steps with one funding request after another, but no sense of an overall program. The scheme to shift TR trains onto Sheppard will take equipment that was originally purchased for service improvements on the YUS and redirect it to the Sheppard line. The current fleet plan calls for 10 additional trains (which have already been ordered from Bombardier) that would enter service from 2019 to 2031.
The same plan shows T1 equipment remaining on Sheppard for the indefinite future. The “need” to convert the line to TRs is a very recent change.
One might reasonably ask why the TTC orders trains so far in advance of actual need, especially when there will be a separate order for new trains for the BD line in the mid-2020s. The philosophy, of course, is “get ’em while they’re hot”, in other words, order more trains at a lower price as part of a big order. There are, however, limits to this and the related costs of housing trains we will not actually need for well over a decade. The “savings” may not be quite what they seem, and in the process the TTC acquires a bloated fleet.
In the medium term, the proposed trial implementation looks like this:
Upon completion of the design for the TDM and door control modifications, approval will be obtained to modify one TR train as a prototype. Upon completion of the modifications, testing of the TDM equipment and door controls will take place followed by evaluation processes as prescribed by the Concept of Operations. It is planned to have one TR train available for service in OPTO by the end of 2015.
The associated cost savings and increases related to OPTO will be available at that time for development of a business case for roll out of OPTO for the remaining 3 trains on Line 4 in 2016 and for submission of the 2016 – 2025 Capital Program for roll out of OPTO on Lines 1 and 2. [pg. 5]
This plan becomes even stranger with the following reference to funding:
Sufficient funds are available for the pilot project on Line 4. Modifications to the remaining TR and all T1 trains for Lines 1 and 2 are unfunded. Sufficient funds will be submitted in the 2016 – 2025 Capital Program upon successful completion of the prototype TR train on Line 4. [pg. 2]
The TTC’s fleet and signaling plans call for the BD line to receive new equipment and convert to ATC in the early 2020s, certainly in time for opening of the Scarborough Subway Extension. It is quite strange that TTC would contemplate a retrofit of the T1 equipment for OPTO on the BD line when these cars would probably be less than five years from their retirement. Moreover, design work for the TR trains would have to be redone for the T1s because these have completely different cabs.
There may well be a business case for implementation of OPTO on the TTC system, but this report underplays the technical and financial issues the TTC could face in the actual implementation. It is striking that:
The TR trains do not have provisions for installation of the TDM System or relocation/modification of the door control system. A significant amount of structural work, electrical work and software changes are required in the TR train. [pg. 6]
One could argue that preliminary work is needed just to reach a decision point on proceeding with this conversion now, or as part of a future project involving new trains and station equipment. However, the history of TTC projects is that this could be “in for a penny, in for a pound” with the goal of OPTO overwhelming any technical issues of implementation.
Why, for example, does the TTC not begin with the premise of OPTO and ask “how much will this actually save”? That translates to a sustainable level of spending on technology change from operational savings and at least an order of magnitude figure for capital spending. Of course, if the savings from OPTO are consumed by capital costs, they are not available as offsets in the operating budget.
At the very least, the TTC should examine various scenarios for OPTO implementation including staging conversions to coincide with provision of new trains whose controls are designed for this option from the outset.
Meanwhile, operators on Sheppard should be prepared to walk the length of a four-car train over 40 times per day (an 8 hour shift with the need to change ends every 11 minutes, about 3.7km). They will be very fit.
Updated March 29, 2015 at 3:45 pm
At the meeting, Chief Operating Officer Mike Palmer gave a presentation on OPTO (One Person Train Operation).
OPTO Presentation [skip to page 8 of linked pdf]
One person operation has been in use worldwide for decades, and is appearing city-by-city, line-by-line even on very old systems such as Boston’s. The SRT, albeit with comparatively small trains by TTC rapid transit standards, has operated with one person crews since it opened 30 years ago.
The position taken by the TTC is that the single train operator who will, eventually, not be driving the train, can concentrate on door operations, a move that can improve safety. The presentation cites stats from London where OPTO lines had fewer “door related incidents” than non-OPTO ones, but it is unclear what other factors could have been at play.
One might argue that “safety” could equally be improved by an attitude adjustment of guards who now delight in closing doors on boarding/departing passengers. This is not a case of a last-minute attempt to jam through closing doors, but of failure to pay attention to (or simply ignore) passengers.
Inevitably a move to OPTO brings with it labour unrest. The TTC hopes to avoid this by treating automation and one person control as a chance to redeploy staff rather than to downsize. Whether this is practical will depend a great deal on the duties of the new positions which, if they involve standing around in stations for eight hours at a time, will be none too attractive.
The claim that “future service improvements require no new hires” shows that this is a transitional arrangement, not a permanent one, because any added service will require at least a driver. The cost will be lower than with a driver a guard, but it won’t be zero unless the TTC plans to absorb staff back into driving roles from temporary positions as station monitors. Conversely, the TTC could simply absorb drivers back onto the surface workforce. The TTC needs to clarify its position on train and station staffing because their stated plans are inconsistent.
Among many issues listed for the shift to OPTO is one oddball: tunnel ventilation, listed with the need to “upgrade and repair”. If there are tunnel issues, these should be addressed as basic safety and maintenance matters, and they do not have anything to do with how big the train or station crews might be. Conversely, if OPTO implies a need for better ventilation, then this is a cost and risk that must be identified up front.
As I wrote in the original article, the changes needed to retrofit the older T-1 trains used on Sheppard and Bloor-Danforth (a few sets remain on YUS for storm service because no TR trains have been fitted with de-icing equipment yet) are more complex. Given that the BD line won’t move to a new signal system and ATC likely until the early 2020s, it could make more sense to aim at the next planned fleet upgrade and the Scarborough Subway Extension as targets rather than attempting to retrofit T-1s for a limited remaining lifespan.
The presentation takes a “wait and see” position on conversion of the BD line including the consolidation of conversion with acquisition of a new fleet.
Restructuring the Yonge-University Signalling Contracts
[See also The Evolution of TTC Signaling Contracts]
For some time, the TTC has been engaged in replacing and upgrading the signal system on the Yonge-University subway line. The original section, from Eglinton to Union, opened in 1954, and equipment installed at that time is well beyond its design life. With technology changes, parts are difficult to obtain. The need for a complete replacement is without question.
The TTC launched this process in September 2008 with a contract covering Eglinton to St. Patrick Stations (this covers the 1954 line, plus the southern end of the 1963 University line that overlaps into the control territory of Union Station). The technology to be used was Computer Based Interlocking (CBI), a modern version of the original signalling that is controlled through track circuits to monitor train locations.
Less than a year later, in April 2009, the TTC decided to embark on the implementation of Automatic Train Control (ATC) over the entire line, then Finch to Downsview Station. Although the Spadina Subway project (TYSSE) was already underway, signalling for that extension was not included in this contract. Alstom was the successful bidder for the ATC contract which included on board control equipment for the 39 TR trains then on order.
At this point, three critical assumptions had been made:
- That some of the service on YUS would continue to be provided by T1 trains to which ATC would be retrofitted.
- Work cars and yard areas would not be covered by ATC, but would use conventional signalling to navigate the system.
- That the CBI and ATC technologies from different vendors would be able to co-exist.
The plan for some T1 trains to remain on the YUS ran into problems on a few counts:
- The cost of retrofitting this equipment for ATC proved to be quite high, and
- The TTC wanted to push ahead with replacement of all of the “H” series trains due to reliability problems, and this required shifting many T1 sets to the BD line.
Additional contracts extended the scope of both the equipment and signals procurement:
- June 2011: An additional 21 sets of ATC equipment were ordered for 21 supplementary TR trains (bringing the total to 60 sets) to replace the “H” cars.
- March 2012: A contract with Ansaldo for implementation of CBI on the remainder of the YUS plus the TYSSE.
- January 2013: An additional 10 sets of ATC equipment were ordered for the 10 TR trains destined for the TYSSE.
- April 2014: A major restructuring of the Alstom contract was approved to simplify the phased implementation, to extend ATC to the TYSSE, and to provide equipment for a further 10 sets of TR trains intended for future growth in demand. (See the discussion of TR trains for the Sheppard Subway above.)
The actual implementation to date of the two technologies has not gone well, and the projects are behind schedule. In 2014, the TTC retained Parsons (not to be confused with Parsons Brinkerhoff who worked on the TYSSE project management review) to review the project and recommend improvements. This led to the current proposal to consolidate all work under Alstom and cancel the outstanding contract with Ansaldo.
The confusion about signalling technologies is rather strange, and speaks to inconsistencies in the TTC’s scoping of this project:
The current signaling contract arrangement for Line 1 has evolved since its inception in 2008 with a higher than anticipated passenger demand and an increased scope with the inclusion of ATC on TYSSE … [pg. 1]
During the very period when the TTC was telling anyone who would listen that Toronto didn’t need a Downtown Relief Line and that passengers would somehow fit on an upgraded YUS, the need for a better signal system was somehow forgotten, or it was conveniently ignored as a pre-requisite to increase YUS capacity.
An important technical change that appears only in the recommendations is:
Increase $74,580,000.00 for adding the Alstom CBI system, equipping work cars for ATC and interfacing to the Wilson yard signaling system. [pg. 2]
This sorts out a previous design issue that non-ATC rolling stock, notably the work fleet which does operate during revenue hours, would not be controlled by the ATC system and, therefore, would require management by the CBI system and its interface to the primary ATC system. (The same would be true if a T1 train without ATC ventured onto the YUS.)
Obviously there will be sunk costs for the Ansaldo work that cannot be recovered plus whatever cancellation penalties might apply. The TTC expects to remain within the project budget and timeframe because of significant savings:
The key areas of savings that offset the cost of this contract change are:
- Reduced TTC construction costs, both material and labor as significantly less field equipment is required.
- Greatly reduced number of subway closures.
- Costs recovered from the cancellation of the existing CBI contracts.
- Reduced effort in TTC design with one supplier not three.
- Reduced testing and commissioning activities given the simplified solution as the need for independent subsystem testing is eliminated.
- The ability to test the new system during the day without inconveniencing the public, i.e. running the new system in shadow mode and ensuring greater reliability from day one.
The risks associated with current complex contract and technical arrangements are greatly reduced also allowing more confidence in cost and schedule.
The financial impact on future years is significantly reduced as the maintenance costs of the newly proposed solution are also greatly reduced. [pp 9-10]
A detailed technical review of this project is not online, but according to the report is available. I will be asking to see it if only to better inform myself on issues related to signaling changes on the subway.
In line with the difficulties already reported on the TYSSE project, it would certainly be useful to see an updated project implementation schedule and a confirmation of the estimated cost/savings tradeoffs. Needless to say, this should be tracked to completion.
TTC management proposes a study of express routes that will consolidate two requests from the Board. The first in March 2014 asked for a feasibility report on additional express bus routes. The second was the August 2014 “Opportunities” report that proposed various improvements including increased express services on existing routes.
No new services can be added given the current limitations on the fleet until at best early 2016, and this study will report in October 2015. Whether any recommdations from the study find their way into the 2016 budget will depend on the mood of the Board and of City Council who will still be digesting unexpected costs on capital projects.
A Service Plan for express routes will address:
- the costs and revenues associated with existing express routes;
- an analysis of all existing express services to determine the viability of these services;
- an analysis of instituting peak-period express service on the TTC’s busiest bus routes which do not already have express service;
- an analysis of possible new “rocket” express routes that would directly link major generators;
- the potential benefits of using articulated buses on existing and/or proposed express routes;
- a cost / benefit analysis of different fare structures for express bus route services;
- potential means of alleviating bunching of buses and short-turns on routes being considered for express bus service;
- the implementation of queue-jump lanes, priority signalling, and dedicated lanes as ways to improve speed and reliability on existing and proposed new express routes; and
- a review of other comparable municipalities or transit systems that successfully operate express bus services [p. 4]
A complete review of these routes is long overdue. Many existing “Downtown Express” services exist because of special pleading from Councillors who were on the TTC Board when they were implemented. These routes generally do not appear in the TTC’s annual statistics for its surface system, and there has never been a report comparing the cost of resources devoted to these routes with the benefit they might confer. Could the buses be better used elsewhere? Is there justification for running more service on these or other new express routes? Are there suburban nodes that could support express routes?
Part of the study will look at existing “local” routes to determine whether they could benefit from an express overlay. This is always a tradeoff problem because some riders use local stops at one end or the other of their trip on a route, and the “express” branch is of no use to them. Generally speaking, creation of an “E” branch speeds travel for those who can use it, but hurts those who ride local branches because fewer buses are left to serve them.
This will be an interesting review in particular because it is system wide, rather than a location specific response to “squeaky wheels”.
Earlier in this article, I wrote about the poor quality of the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used by the TTC to track aspects of the system, notably service quality. While new methodology may be in the works, this has yet to show up in the CEO’s report.
Service quality is still reported relative to a ±3 minute target of scheduled headway. The subway achieves a very high rating, but it is almost impossible for a route with all day frequent service to achieve a low rating. During the peak period, half of the service could be missing, but the headway would still be within 3 minutes of the scheduled value. On surface routes, the target is a hapless 65% for bus routes and 70% for streetcars. Many routes fail to meet even these targets on paper, and riders can be excused for thinking even these numbers are optimistic especially beyond common short turn points on major routes.
Streetcar service has particular problems, although oddly enough weather issues are not mentioned.
Construction associated with Harbourfront Toronto continued to negatively impact both the performance of the 509 Harbourfront and 510 Spadina routes and overall street car performance.
The March Board meeting will include a presentation from the Chief Service Officer on actions being taken to arrest this decline and drive up all aspects of performance.
Leaving aside that it’s “Waterfront Toronto”, by January the schedules for the routes on Queens Quay included extra time to deal with traffic signals that interfered with the service rather than helping it. Queens Quay represents a relatively small part of the streetcar system, and problems there should not have a large effect on system-wide stats. A major problem through the winter was vehicle reliability, but the TTC does not report on this aspect of its operation.
Elevator and escalator “availability” is reported above targets of 98% and 97% respectively. Although the report speaks of the benefits of improved maintenance on reliability, there is little movement especially in the escalator numbers. This could reflect what is counted as an “unavailable” device.
Ridership in January 2015 is up about 1.9% over 2014, and on a rolling annual basis is up by 1.8%. However, this is lower than the budget target and the drop is blamed on January’s unusually bad winter weather.
The new streetcar roll out plan is described in conflicting ways in this report:
After much discussion and negotiations, which included me [Andy Byford] and my counterpart at Bombardier, we have now received a revised delivery schedule from Bombardier for our new streetcars. We have four state-of-the-art streetcars in operation on the 510 Spadina route; however, a much higher number should have been received by now, but production difficulties with Bombardier have caused significant delays.
The new schedule commits to 30 cars being delivered by the end of 2015, enough to complete the conversion of the 510 Spadina route, plus the 509 Harbourfront and 511 Bathurst routes. This will require Bombardier to reduce production time to five from 10 days per vehicle. [pg. 5]
Until streetcars begin arriving on a regular, frequent basis, we will not know whether Bombardier has managed to overcome its supply chain and quality control problems.
Meanwhile at Leslie Barns, the TTC expects to have “staged occupancy” in June 2015 with project completion by the fourth quarter of 2015. Construction continues on Leslie Street but has finally progressed to the point where the track bed north to Queen and south from Lake Shore is under construction.
The implementation of the Presto fare card continues through the system, but as yet there is no discussion of a new fare structure such as time-based fares or cross-border integration with systems in the 905.
A common problem through the CEO’s Report is that projects are described in text, some of which changes little from one report to another. Projects schedules are not shown, nor are there exception reports to flag significant changes from previous versions.
Steve Munro 
At least in Montreal many of the express (400-series) routes use highways where possible or designated lanes. It’s a bit of a mishmash of subway/commuter train feeders (trainbus, metrobus), limited stoppers and downtown trippers. Lately (2009) there has been an effort to rebrand these into one “express” network, however the services go back as far as I can remember. There are still some subway/commuter train feeders and downtown trippers which could qualify as “express” that don’t bear the 400-banner and are not highlighted as express on maps.
Feeder routes were not all “express” but there was no scheme distinguishing between them. Unlike in Toronto, many routes in Montreal do not have an obvious end at a subway station, hence it was more important to designate that terminus vs the express service which was really a bonus at that point. Many of the subway feeders were quite long, like the 184 or the 221 which stretched to the ends of the island and didn’t necessarily stick to one road. Some subway feeders were alternatives to the commuter train, like the 173. However these feeders sometimes made more stops than the 400s and had slightly different scheduling. Some 400s avoided the subway altogether including service from the eastern tip of the island direct to downtown on the 410. Limited stoppers could bear the 400 banner or be a play on the local route name such as the 89 which ran express over 48/49. Scheduling was (and probably still) somewhat independent of the service brand. Some 400s are rush hour only. Some aren’t.
These routes were all under the one fare system.
The closest thing to something you might see in Toronto is the 67/467 St. Michel or 39/439/505 Pie-IX which run the length of those boulevards and have an E-W subway at their southern terminus. Although these operate more like the 1 and 101 Dundas in Mississauga than the 35/195 Jane and they have had reserved lanes at rush hour for some time. The Pie-IX bus used to run in the two middle lanes in the opposite direction to traffic and had shelters in the median. But an accident ended that…
Outside view / Inside view
LikeLike
The whole OPTO thing seems like an elaborate Ponzi scheme to keep Bombardier busy and to get rid of those pesky unionized train crew. My gut feeling is that this scheme will cost far more than having a two person train crew given TTC’s track record of implementing new technologies. Not sure how TTC can justify another variant to their fleet, a four car TR for the Shephard subway.
I guess after TYSSE, we now get to hear about overruns on TTC’s next largest capital project, the ATC Project. The whole scheme was messed up from the get go due to poor scoping, multiple contracts with multiple contractors, unnecessary requirements such as a redundant signalling technologies consisting of CBI and CBTC, poor specifications to address interfacing of CBI and CBTC systems from different vendors, yard signalling, workcars etc. This sounds just like TYSSE, at least TTC is consistent in making mistakes.
How did all these problems on TTC’s largest capital projects come to light just now?
Steve: The optimist in me says that finally someone is turning over some rocks to see what’s crawling around underneath. The pessimist says that this was done some time ago, but the information was withheld. Neither option speaks well to responsibility.
LikeLike
Actually it is Parson Transportation Group who did the review and provided the recommendation.
Steve, you are not the first one got confused by the names between the two companies. Last time it was the Star used the wrong name for the Scarborough Subway Extension project.
Steve: Thanks for the clarification. PB is fresh in my mind because they did do work on the first TYSSE review.
LikeLike
Are there operators that run midday, evening, weekend, and overnight service as intensive as the TTC? With vehicles that are expected to run until the age of 18? It might be a short list.
LikeLike
This is especially amusing, in that there is not room in the budget to lease space for buses, nor room to build new garages, for buses that are clearly needed now to support existing service. Nor is there space in the budget to expand other services that are capacity constrained at peak, but we can afford to buy trains for distant future needs, where there is a very large spare fleet that can be cycled through over time to support a very high spares level, and ample capacity within the existing fleet. It would make sense buying additional trains to support closer peak operations on Y.U.S, but not to increase the sitting room on Sheppard. If we can afford to house trains that are not required, we should instead be leasing space for additional buses and adding those to the fleet to permit better service and a lower loading standard. It is outrageous that the argument of no money will be used in terms of procuring fleet for basic service, when it has been consumed on fleet not required for quite some time. How many buses would this buy? How much of the streetcar increase would this cover?
Especially when there is the notion that another large order will be forthcoming, that it could be tied to anyway.
LikeLike
MTA in New York is still running buses from the late 90s and early part of this century. They seem to scrap some buses after 10 to 12 years and rebuild others for a life extension. I am not sure of all the details.
Chicago is apparently doing a major rehab on a 1000 buses to keep them running for their full 12 year life cycle here.
Most operators in the US seem to retire buses by their 12 year of operation. New York and Toronto seem to be in the minority but then they do operate a much heavier service and cannot probably afford the capital costs for new buses every 12 years.
LikeLike
I suspect that the days of the TTC managing subway construction projects are finished. The TTC needs to isolate itself from criticism levelled at it for all the screwed up construction problems even though many of them are caused by outside agencies. It may not solve the problems, see Metrolinx and the parking garage problems, but it will hopefully let the TTC do what it was designed for and that is run a transit service (hopefully well.)
LikeLike
Nor should it be. Weather wasn’t that bad in January. The snow came mostly in February. It was cold, that affected streetcars, however the replacement of 502/503 with buses made those routes run much better than normal. I wouldn’t be surprised if the monthly stats for those routes were better than average, with the others worse.
There were likely some quirks because of the weather, but the long-term trending decline for streetcar performance isn’t really a weather issue. For once TTC didn’t try and make an excuse.
Steve: Buses were used on the 503 starting on January 8 because of problems with the streetcar fleet.
LikeLike
Express buses… what isn’t clear is whether these are to be similar to the E branches (stops on the outer portion of the route, then non-stop to the subway), or limited-stop along all/most of the route (BRT-very-lite, if you will). I’d like to see the latter in Toronto.
Steve: I think one topic the study needs to look at is “just what is an express bus”. There may be different types depending on the nature of each route. One size does not fit all.
It is particularly important that “BRT” projects not morph into road widenings disguised as “transit” projects.
LikeLike
Montreal had a huge fleet of GM/MCI/Nova Classics from the 80s and 90s that were starting to dwindle off when I left in ’09. As a kid in the 90s I looked forward to getting the odd fishbowl on the 48 because I thought they were ‘cooler’ than the classics. (Opinions start early) I bet the Nova low floors from the early 2000s are still in service. They have pretty much the same design as the TTC’s new artics. I was surprised to see fishbowls in downtown Toronto when I moved here. But I haven’t seen them in a while.
Steve: The last of the fishbowls have been retired for a while now.
LikeLike
Steve the KPI measurement, was mentioned in the Agenda and referred to in the memo attachment regarding TTC modernization. I will be interested to know what is presented in terms of KPIs as mentioned in the memo.
I cannot help but think a really good set of metrics would really make a very substantial difference. This particular meeting, and the outcome of adopted service measurement should be a very important to the future approach of the TTC. I hope it is a set of measurements, that allows a real understanding of service on the street, that represents peoples real experience, and allows management to understand both when and where service is falling down, and where it is truly succeeding. Having a real count of when service is piling up or gaping out, or overloaded, is a real start to fixing it. Knowing how long it really takes to make a trip (from when someone arrives at the stop, not when they board the bus) is also huge.
LikeLike
P.S. Steve, in my ideal set of performance standards, they would also be publishing within the city, and to those interested, average speed of travel numbers over each segment of every route. This might be a helpful for traffic management as well, and highlight where there is the most urgent traffic management issues in need of addressing.
Steve: FYI this is info the TTC already has from a new system to digest vehicle tracking data. Their methodology differs from mine somewhat, but segment-level tracking of routes is something they can produce today, at least for the routes that have been configured in their new system so far.
LikeLike
I think that express buses can also help partially relieve shortage of the bus fleet. The shortage of bus fleet in Scarborough won’t be completely relieved until the subway is built.
LikeLike
And how do other cities manage to operate completely driverless trains? Why is TTC stuck in the Stone Age? I am not saying that TTC should switch to driverless trains (which it should) but that at least the door operation can be completely human free. Metrolinx is already building driverless trains for the wealthier (i.e. underground) parts of the Eglinton LRT and so I imagine that the doors will be operated human free. Why not make TTC a division of Metrolinx? GO seems to be doing pretty well under Metrolinx and perhaps TTC can improve under Metrolinx. Having Metrolinx take over all transit in the region is one of the ideas with overwhelming support in Toronto (according to a Toronto Star poll from last year) and so what are we waiting for?
Steve: The trains on Eglinton will be capable of automatic operation, but will have an operator. And enough already of references to “wealthier” central Eglinton. The line is underground because there is no room on the surface.
LikeLike
I have serious doubts that this would in fact help things. If anything the biggest issue with the TTC in terms of making things work, is that it is too large and has too many layers. It has also not yet started living with service metrics that make real sense for the environment within which it operates.
I think that making TTC part of Metrolinx would pull Metrolinx down, and makes its operation far too complex. I think fixing the TTC starts with better service metrics, a tight focus on delivering transit. It should not have to deal with the project management aspects of construction, or for that matter new signals, other than having to set requirements. The TTC needs to be streamlined, and get to an agreement on a headway based services with its workers (and add more buses, streetcars, and a DRL).
It is more a question of redefining what is success, and what is required to meet demand, than stuffing under some other agency. Toronto needs to create a system to allow real dispatching to headway, real active headway management and exception reporting (so the monitoring system throws a flag) and a little accountability, not 5 years of chaos from another merger. New metrics are a substantial step, you cannot get a great report while delivering lousy service.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Sheppard train drivers already walk end to end at the terminals, how would anything change here? The guard doesn’t move, but the driver does…
LikeLike
Actually, neither of them move any more. The guard is now in the last car on the Sheppard Line, similar to the Yonge-University Line.
Steve: I was going to say this, but wanted to pay a visit to the line just to make sure nothing has changed.
LikeLike
So do they now switch roles at the end of the line? And is it the same when TR trains turn back?
Steve: Yes. Drive one way, guard the other.
LikeLike
The ATC report is quite intriguing. Couple issues immediately jump out. The independent expert reviewer noted in the report works for Parsons. Parsons is also the same company that was awarded the Consulting contract for the design and procurement of the signal system with close to at least $2m in fees which makes you wonder how independent this report really is. The end of the report also indicates that a discount of about $5m will be given by Alstom if the contract is sole sourced before March 31 and that they cannot offer any assurances on schedule after March 31. This gives the board less than a week to deliberate and decide on such a vital project. Surely all of this should have been known earlier, it is very strange to have all of this come out to the board just now. Also what assurances are we getting from the Contractor that this will be done on time? This has all the hallmarks of a TYSSE project. Maybe a Toronto Star reporter needs to do some digging.
LikeLike
There was just a surprise motion today (Wed.) at Exec Cttee through Colle and Tory to get things more towards outside agents etc., this was #4.17, The important text is “Council direct the City Manager to report to the next meeting of Exec. Cttee on options for improved project delivery, including procurement and project management, for the Scarborough Subway Extension, such options to include the sprectrum of procurement strategies known as Alternative Financing and Procurement and/or Public-Private Partnerships and the role that Infrastructure Ontario can play in the delivery of such projects.
But if they really really wanted to give good value to the taxpayer and good transit, they’d kill off that supremely stupid and costly subway extension to go back to the funded etc. LRT. Are there any experts at all who support this Suspect Subway Extension??
LikeLike
On the other hand, if they are planning to widen any roads I’d like to see some of these as a condition to the widening.
Actually I’d like to see them on existing roads too. Why so few diamond lanes in Toronto anyhow?
Steve: Simple — we talk a good line about transit priority, but don’t want to give up road capacity. The argument against LRT is full of this sort of attitude, but masquerading as anti-LRT, not anti-transit.
LikeLike
Steve said: “The line (Eglinton) is underground because there is no room on the surface.”
This would be a lot more believable if Eglinton Connects did not come along and say that there is room to reduce the number of lanes by 2. If they were going to reduce lanes on Eglinton anyway, why not just keep the LRT on-street and save $3B in tunnelling.
Steve: More than two lanes are needed for a surface right-of-way. At stops, a third lane is needed for the platform. The two lane removal comes from parking lanes and only applies to the central section of Eglinton where buildings are less dependent on street parking for their customers.
LikeLike
I think the question needs be asked, is it really anti-transit or LRT, or just a knee jerk reaction from a car perspective. Do people really understand that in most areas with 6 lanes we are really only using something like 28 meters of the 40 available in the road allowance for 6 lanes a sidewalk and a small median. Do they really appreciate that road capacity would be retained, while removing many of the buses (even if we maintain parallel service there would be fewer), or that there would be a high probability of fewer cars competing for the same space?
I really think it is a fear based knee jerk, that was partially fed by misinformation, and a lack of appreciation of the fact that many of the issues in the core and near core come from road allowances that are quite literally half the size of those beyond the old city. Downtown, and the center part of Eglinton having no space for above ground LRT. The road allowance is about 20 meters each lane about 3.7 meters which leaves 5 meters for a periodic turn lane and sidewalks. Beyond the old city they are mostly 40 meters which means even with 6 lanes you have 18 meters left for sidewalks, turn lanes and LRT, without interfering with traffic – but by and large people do not seem to know this, and how it relates to planning for transit through the varying neighborhoods. That is – no above ground LRT for DRL because only have 20 meter road allowances to work with, same issue with Eglinton west of Laird.
People are reacting before they are informed, and some politicians have been playing to that.
LikeLike
I kind of thought it should be information they could generate, the question I have now, is are they actually planning on providing this to the city (and other interested parties) as part of a regular reporting cycle? This type of really fine information, especially if you could break out the time at and away from stops could really help in terms of additional information for traffic management. If it was information that was being provided real time it could help in how to construct a viable transit priority and traffic management system that actually adapting to conditions on the ground.
LikeLike
RE: Transit Signal Priority
I was fortunate that my Traffic Opz Mgmt class was given a set of lengthy presentations at the Toronto Traffic Control Centre (Don Mills & Overlea) yesterday followed by a tour.
There were a few major items that stuck out of this conversation and impacts TTC opz.
1) with respect to having a formal hierarchy and policy of road users like other cities of Ped, Cycling, Transit, Mixed Other users (cars/trucks etc.). Basically while the management and senior staff within the unit wanted this, they have been overruled by Senior Management, in formally establishing that. The rationale is that the official plan accounts for this. Reading between the lines, it was buried in the lengthy official plan document, and calling it out explicitly would lend itself to the “war on the car” BS we frequently hear.
2) City staff merely supervise a large number of contractors who both install, tweak, and operate the traffic signals in the city.
3) (and the most glaring/important). Some questions came up around TSP. What was super interesting is that Traffic Control feels that it is the TTC that is making this difficult and it is Traffic Control/ITS that would like to do a lot more in this space but they’re limited by the TTC’s stubbornness in this regard and have been overruled multiple times (higher ups siding with the TTC). I am not an expert in this realm, nor do I have a detailed understanding of the history, but I’ll attempt to summarize below what was communicated to us:
a) TTC installed [at the time] state of the art vehicle tracking and TSP system in 1990’ish with help of the Federal government and they do not want to let go of this legacy technology
b) The way it [apparently] works is that TTC vehicles when approaching a signal, temporarily “take-over” and disengage the traffic signal from the network
c) Traffic Control would like TTC to upgrade to the latest tech (like York Region), which would allow them to do network based TSP and not just local.
So Steve, I would love to hear how this jives with your understanding. I stayed away from asking specifics of Spadina/Harbourfront for now, but they did say in passing that Spadina still wasn’t to the best it could be (so many years later), again referencing the dated technology.
Steve: The TTC is in the process of replacing its antique vehicle monitoring system over the next few years, although that is really not the heart of the problem.
There is a philosophical difference about how TSP should work, and this is related to questions of line management. The model advanced by City Transportation is that a traffic signal would not merely detect the presence of a transit vehicle, but would also query the central monitoring system to learn whether this vehicle should get undue priority treatment. As currently described, the status of interest is on time performance, but we know from extensive discussions here that OTP is a meaningless figure as compared to regularity of vehicle spacing. There are also issues with vehicles making unscheduled movements including short turns and diversions. These vehicles may deserve particular attention, especially for assistance with turns. (This problem showed up regularly in the study of King Street I did for the TTC and City Transportation last year.) There can also be situations where a vehicle is “on time” or even “early at location “n”, but there is a known source of delay at location “n+3” where being a bit early will be useful. If real time allowance for all of these factors isn’t included, then TSP will be good at running service when the sun is shining, but won’t do as much good as it could otherwise.
My gut feeling is that the people proposing and designing systems don’t really understand the dynamics of a complex route like King or Queen, and this has not been helped by the TTC’s own self-serving attitudes regarding service management. These are finally changing (somewhat), but I don’t think this will have percolated down to the staff level at the Traffic Ops Centre yet.
Re Queens Quay, I have noticed in recent WFT status updates that new traffic signal controller boxes and associated conduit are being installed along the street. The current system was a very dumb, ad hoc installation that includes no detection and, initially, didn’t even have a reasonable amount of green time for the streetcars. We won’t see any change until the final version is switched on for bidirectional traffic ops on Queens Quay much closer to project completion in June.
LikeLike
Steve, what are some of the reasons that the GO-TTC fare integration has failed to become popular with riders? In order to make it successful, I think that riders with a sticker should be allowed to ride from any Toronto GO station to any Toronto GO station and also Milton trains should stop at Bloor GO station and ALL Stoufville trains should stop at Danforth GO station. I also think that there should be fare integration for people who use tokens. Also the $60 sticker cost for one month on top of $141.50 for the monthly metropass is too much. TTC should consider paying GO a subsidy to allow TTC fares on the GO system within Toronto with transfers between GO and TTC at no additional cost (i.e one TTC fare for travel within Toronto even if you use both GO and TTC). These ideas can help reduce crowding on many heavily crowded TTC routes (including but not limited to the subway).
Steve: A TTC-wide implementation of the $60 sticker would have been a much better trial than the Exhibition/Danforth trial now underway. GO fares have always been high within the 416 to discourage riders there from using up space that is intended for folks from the 905. The $60 would represent a premium of $3/day for a standard commuting month, or only an extra $1.50 per trip, something that would be quite attractive. However, I don’t think that Metrolinx wanted to launch into a trial that could have a major effect on their budget, let alone on demand, and this was more of a sop to local politicians trying to “do something” for constituents living near the stations.
Until Queen’s Park stops treating GO+TTC fares as something that should really stick it to riders, we won’t see this problem resolved. One of the most important factors in “regional transit integration” is simply not on the table.
LikeLike
The anti-LRT campaign comes from the government (but masqueraded as if from car drivers) which does not want to spend money. Look at Hamilton, Mississauga, Brampton etc – all have massive public support for the LRT and the Liberals promised LRT in the election campaign but are now backing out. Vote NDP in the next election if you want better transit.
Steve: Actually I am a long time supporter of the NDP and was livid about their so-called support of transit in the past two elections. Some of my distaste is specifically aimed at Andrea Horwath who really gives no sense of connection with Toronto’s transit needs.
The amount of money earmarked by the NDP for transit two elections back was trivial, and it was contingent on a fare freeze. Most of the funding would go not to better service, but to frozen fares, and even that would run out in a few years because there was no indexation. They talked about the money available from corporate tax loopholes, but announced the same money as the funding source for every promise, and their draft budget showed that they could not actually stretch the new revenue to cover all of their proposed spending.
Even in the recent election, there was no sense of buy-in especially to the LRT projects you mention. You may remember that in the Scarborough by-election, even candidate Adam Giambrone could not bring himself to speak against the Scarborough Subway. Some of Horwath’s policies were quite clearly aimed at car drivers outside of Toronto, and I have no sense she would spend much to improve transit even in her home town, Hamilton.
I will continue to vote NDP because I am in an NDP riding and have known my MPP since his days on City Council. But if an NDP vote would really go to help a Tory, I would vote Liberal to keep those (insert epithet of choice here) Tories where they belong, as far away from government as possible.
LikeLike
One other issue on the Agenda today is access to College Station. There is talk of using the “fire ventilation” budget to purchase the property for the current south-east entrance from the private landowner. Supposedly the TTC does not have a lease to the property, and the owner wants the property back unless the TTC pays for it.
I have no problem with the TTC purchasing this property, as long as they stop talking about selling other pieces of property around their stations to developers. If we are going to investigate giving private developers the right to build and connect to other stations (Spadina Extension, Eglinton LRT, etc.), then we ought not to later decide to repurchase the property at (very likely) higher costs. The TTC has a legal ability to expropriate, but they should not be using it 20+ years after development occurs.
Where I do have a problem is purchasing the property out of funds from the “fire ventilation” budget. This is not a fire ventilation item, and using the funds for purposes other than what was originally intended will lead to a lack of available funds for the real project. Scope creep is a problem at the TTC, and the TTC ought to learn from their mismanagement of the Spadina Extension and ATC budgets that scope creep is dangerous. If they knew about this years ago, why didn’t they put it in the budget as a separate line item?
LikeLike
Yes, amen, please do not just expand an existing project to fill out the rest of the wish list. If ATC was not in the original plan, it should ideally be seen as an entirely different project. Define the project initially, and have a very clear plan.
Define each project very tightly, and do not allow additional items to be added, unless the are directly related and a part of the original project, and just missed, in which case there needs to be an admission that it was an omission. The omissions should be listed and tracked, and looked at for both credibility and question of management. If you forgot a couple of stations and km of tracks, or major art for stations, or large bus terminals – give me a break this is scope creep and write a whole new project, and go back to the council and people to discuss it. If you forgot the paint in the washrooms well I guess, but do a better project review next time. We can tie projects together if it will save money, but they need to have a clear definition and clear costing and then tracked for impact at every step. We should now know what the original extension would have cost without the Vaughan extension.
PS That is if the extension had been left at York U only.
Steve: This is a double edged sword. A fond trick in TTC and City budgets is to have project “A” on time and on budget, but having something actually useful requires projects “B”, “C”, “D” etc. When the Scarborough RT was built, there were add-ons galore, and the TTC spend several million each and every year fixing something that was faulty in the original design.
And it does not matter how you do the accounting, if there isn’t good, reliable, regular project status and cost reporting, and the interest at the Board level to ensure that management does its job in flagging problems well in advance, well things will get out of hand because nobody’s paying attention.
LikeLike
Pay a man enough and he’ll walk barefoot into hell.
Steve: That’s not an expert, but a somewhat older calling.
LikeLike
Yes, but as you have said before, when you reach a certain point it is just lots of money. Scope creep that materially changes the project, should require a real approval process, and its due attention. If you keep adding to a project it becomes less clear that there was a real failure, and what it was.
LikeLike
Steve – I believe that is what we would normally call a cross-discipline practice. I believe some people practice more than one skill at a time. You need to be an expert in order to do the other well enough to pass. Just because you practice an older discipline, does not mean you cannot be an engineer or whatever else at the same time (it also makes it easier to hide what you are really being paid for).
LikeLike
Well, there are experts in that field as well. It’s just that they are not experts with regards to transit planning.
LikeLike
You see that’s the problem with the proposed LRT in Scarborough. Many (including Malcolm N and more famous people) have repeatedly suggested that the amount of money that it would take to build the Scarborough subway can be used to build a whole network of LRT lines in Scarborough but the problem is not that this LRT network in Scarborough can’t be built with the Scarborough subway money but that it WON’T be and all we will get is one short line with cold weather exposed stations and an unnecessary killer of a transfer at Kennedy and instead the money saved will go to Downtown Relief Line (as many people including Olivia Chow openly suggested which made her drop from first place to third place) or Queens Quay East streetcar line in Downtown East (as Ken Greenberg and many others have suggested).
I as a Scarborough resident would more than happily have accepted the so called LRT network proposed for Scarborough (instead of the subway) if construction would begin on all lines at the same time (and NOT the SRT replacement LRT line first as if the SRT replacement LRT line were built first, then none other would ever get built in Scarborough and the money for the rest of the Scarborough LRT lines would go to Downtown projects). Let us NOT be seduced by this so called LRT network for Scarborough in exchange for cancelling the subway as other than the SRT replacement LRT line, it would NEVER get built and the money saved by cancelling the other Scarborough lines would go to Downtown projects. What does Malcolm N have to say about his proposed LRT network for Scarborough in exchange for cancelling the Scarborough subway?
LikeLike
I would suggest that a couple of things be done. Realistically, if you could get access, I would do a BRT in the Gatineau, before I approached the SRT replacement, I would also do the LRT from the foot of Morningside and something in Kingston Road as well, ideally running the Crosstown through Kennedy to past the gates of Guildwood. The buses required to replace the RT during shutdown could then have a direct trip, out of traffic to Kennedy.
I would want to be able to start to take up the current ridership of the SRT on other routes, prior to having to convert, and would say that a large number of Artic buses be running in the Gatineau BRT before the SRT was simply shut down. The issue of transfer design is important, as is service frequency. I would hope that the LRTs would start with short trains running at higher frequency. I would rather see a 2 car train every 3 minutes than a 4 car train every 6.
I certainly understand the Scarborough fear. I think that the way transit is funded in general needs to be approached, as money should really be transferred into trusts to fund the project rather than being pulled from current year budget. The process of it being part of this year’s budget exposes projects far too many changes of heart and direction.
Rapid transit needs to be brought close to people’s front door, not a long bus ride away. Scarborough ideally should be looking to massively increase the modal split, and that means serving well many more destinations within Scarborough and beyond. This can be done with about the same money as subway — the barrier really is politics and artificial choices, when we are asked questions about mode instead of service.
LikeLike
PS That Morningside line being connect to a Sheppard Line that ran through to the existing subway.
LikeLike
Bill W nailed it.
I’m tired of hearing of this great grand LRT plan that get thrown around here. It’s BS. The subway extension is far more convenient for those that will use it than the Scarborough LRT transfer line through industrial lands.
A sales pitch of transfers, poor alignment, partial routes, poor integration, non-access to attractions & key areas is not going to work on a massive area of Toronto that has seen major neglect & social decline this past 50 years is never going to fly. Sorry.
We’ll just take the subway extension since no fair funded plans are being tabled. If Politicians still feel the need to pick LRT/Smarttrack winners in select areas of Scarborough bonus for that area. Although horrible for City building & cohesiveness.
Steve: You may get nothing, or not the line you want. Don’t be so certain yet.
LikeLike
Before they get too happy about the small increase, they should have an honest discussion about how they have in effect created indirect subsidies for the car and congestion, that are not really discussed. It is not just the fact that roads are paid for, but just as importantly is the requirements of the bylaws for the amount of parking required for the various types of buildings around the city. The requirement to have parking, means that builders are in effect charging occupants (owners or renters) for the parking space, and increasing the cost accordingly.
This means not only a sea of vehicles that a pedestrian must walk across, but also effectively an increase in rental cost, and thus prices to accommodate the car. The requirement of builders to provide parking, is in effect an indirect subsidy, as it mandates parking be available at a level high enough that away from the core and shoulder areas (mostly built prior to the requirement) it becomes impossible to charge for parking, and hence recover the cost of the provision. This also means that people are more likely to drive, as they know the can park, and fill roads largely provided for by city taxes.
When we talk about subsidy to transit, we need to talk about all the ways that autos are also subsidised through bylaws as well as roads themselves. Build more transit, and for malls, and destinations that create excellent connections to transit or locate near it even in the outer planning areas, reduce the amount of parking required. Gradually the city should be clear, that requiring high levels of parking in the outer areas, makes high density harder, and discourages transit, and represents a subsidy (by mandating a cost to the builders) to cars in those areas.
LikeLike
Malcolm N, Thank you for your response. All that sounds good but as I said it will NEVER be built because they want to build as little as possible in Scarborough and save money that can be spent in richer areas. As an example, just consider this: we have had so many libraries and community centres closed in Scarborough since amalgamation whereas Downtown has not only had newer branches constructed but the huge Yonge-Bloor library underwent a completely unnecessary $35 million renovation. Our libraries close at 5PM on Fridays and are not open on Sundays and libraries in richer areas like Downtown open until 8:30PM on Fridays and are also open on Sundays. But much lower than average per capita spending in Scarborough (and much higher than average per capita spending in Downtown) is not just limited to transit, libraries, and community centres but affects every public service you can imagine. From the Toronto Star, “Majority of schools on TDSB hit list in poorer neighbourhoods”.
Malcolm, your LRT and BRT plans for Scarborough are wonderful and I would gladly take them and drop the Scarborough subway project but the thing is that they can only ever be falsely promised to us and will NEVER be built and for that reason I would say NO, THANK YOU and just build a 3 or 4 stop subway in Scarborough and we will be happy with that (I understand that it’s not the best choice but it’s the best that Downtown will ever allow and so we will just take that).
Steve: I am really tired of this “downtown won’t allow it” attitude to the whole debate. We would rather waste billions on an inferior subway “solution” that will leave much of Scarborough without better transit?
Re school closures: it is worth noting that the map in the Star’s article shows that there are poor areas all over the city, not just in Scarborough. We cannot afford and are extremely unlikely to build subways to all of them. This debate has to move off of the broken record of “poor Scarborough”.
LikeLike
It seems to me that SSE supporters are probably shooting themselves in the foot.
They complain that the full LRT system proposed in Transit City will not be built at this time and exaggerate the minor downsides to LRT (“unnecessary killer of a transfer at Kennedy”) to promote the subway. They complain about the Relief Line, which would do more to help Scarborough commuters than the change from LRT to subway.
Joe M was honest enough to state at one time that the subway was not going to be sufficient but that the rest of the LRT system would have to be built as well. Yet, in my opinion, the choosing the Subway will most likely prevent any further higher level transit in Scarborough for ages.
The cost of LRT is much less than the cost of subways and it has the advantage that it can be extended easily even is shorter section; something that cannot be done with a subway. Since the LRT is using double-ended cars no expensive loop is needed at a terminus; a simple crossover is all that is required. Once the first part is created, it can be placed in service, and an extension built that is only as long as can be done for the money that can be found or in a single season. It is much easier to find a few millions than half a billion to a billion.
But let’s assume that the SSE does get built. What will happen when Scarborough requests that LRT be built to provide proper service to more of the area? I expect that people in the rest of Toronto will start complaining that Scarborough insisted on spending a billion (or 2) of Toronto’s taxes for an unnecessary subway, and that they should not get any more taxpayer money until that has all been paid off – “Look at your tax bill, you will see the amount you are still paying” – and that no councillor outside Scarborough will dare to vote to spend such money. On the other hand, if Scarborough reverted to the LRT, then a couple of years after the system is up and running, they could say that they saved Toronto a lot of money by accepting the less costly LRT and now deserve extensions so the whole area can be properly served. While there will obviously be some people who will be against anything that does not directly serve them, I think the rest of Toronto will be more sympathetic and that their councillors will not be afraid that they are committing political suicide by supporting such improvements.
LikeLike