TTC Board Meeting Wrap-up: February 8, 2022

The TTC Board met on February 8, 2022. Several hours were spent in private session on items that reported only by name in the agenda. They primarily relate to litigation (one item involves an as-yet unsettled claim regarding a contract for the Spadina Subway extension to Vaughan) and Labour Relations.

This article includes comments on:

CEO’s Report

The CEO’s Report contained the same collection of charts tracking various aspects of system performance, but submerging key details by averaging and by capping of reported values.

I have already reported on current ridership trends in TTC 2022 Service Plan Update.

One item of note did pop out: declining bus service reliability. This is attributed cancelled trips which grew as the year wore on due to staff shortages and the TTC’s selective cancellation of some crews.

Source: February 2022 CEO’s Report, p. 19

Another observation is not explained by the report: service on weekends is worse than the system average and pulls scores down, and there are problems with two groups of routes: those that have the fewest trips, and the largest routes in the network.

Weekend performance continued to bring down the period’s overall score, with the network experiencing a 75.4% performance for the period during Saturdays and Sundays.

When segmenting the bus network based on total number of scheduled trips, the bottom tier of routes, consisting of the 64 routes that are the smallest by number of trips, was the lowest performing tier of the period (74.9%). The top tier of routes, made up of the 13 largest routes, was the second lowest performing group of the period at 76.1% OTP.

Source: February 2022 CEO’s Report, p. 19

Problems with long routes are understandable because they are likely to be disrupted somewhere and have limited opportunities for schedule recovery. Short routes and routes with infrequent service, as I have demonstrated in a series of articles, are prone to disruption through a combination of missed trips and a lack of service supervision. I will return to this problem in future articles.

The TTC plans schedule adjustments in March-April to address some of these problems, but schedules alone do not explain the erratic nature of some services.

What is still missing is regular reporting at a route-by-route and time-of-day level so that problems can be seen from a rider’s point of view, not from the generalized, high-level system averages. Obviously the TTC has this data because they report (above) on the distribution of problems.

Years ago, before Rick Leary became CEO, the TTC committed to publish regular information about service reliability in its Customer Charter. These reports were not updated for many years, and have disappeared along with the Charter from the TTC’s new website. All that remains is the daily Customer Service Report which gives average information for the system, not for routes other than the rapid transit lines.

5-Year Fare Policy

This item was covered in detail in a previous article: TTC Heads Toward Fare Capping, Flat Fares, No Zones

During the discussion on Advancing the 5-Year Fare Policy, Commissioner Carroll asked for better modelling of the effect if the break-even points for fare capping were changed.

Chair Robinson moved that recommendation 2 (below) be referred back “for further due diligence and detailed financial analysis to inform the final fare policy” that will come to the Board for approval in May 2022.

2. Endorse in principle the opportunities related to fare capping and aligning concessions across Fair Pass, Seniors and Youth as detailed in the Comments section of this report to inform the final fare policy recommendations that will be presented to the Board for approval in May 2022;

Original recommendation 2 from Advancing the 5-Year Fare Policy

There are many pending or possible changes including:

  • alternative levels for capped fares,
  • cross-boundary fare and service integration,
  • expanded access to Fair Pass pricing,
  • expanded access to Post-Secondary fares for students who are not full time, and
  • whether modified fares should form part of the ridership recovery strategy.

With the TTC and City still wondering whether they will receive all of the request funding for Covid-related support, there is little chance that we will see a major change in the fare structure for a few years. However, the options need to be well-understood so that change, if it comes, can be implemented without another year or two of study. This should be a “shovel ready” set of policy options.

Fare Collection Modernization

In the report Fare Collection Modernization, published about a week before the meeting, a table shows the types of fares available with the Presto system.

By the time this table appeared in the presentation deck at the Board meeting, it had been reformatted and included reference to “Phase 2 – 2024” in which the missing open payment portions of the tariff would be addressed. The essential difference is that a central account-based system must be able to associate a credit/debit card (or equivalently an app functioning as one) with the type of fare to which a rider is entitled.

One major unanswered question is the future of Presto and the TTC’s relationship to it. The current contract expires in 2027, and meanwhile the TTC is trying to get the functionality it expected out of Metrolinx.

The current PRESTO system was implemented based on existing fare structures and limitations of the PRESTO technology. As part of the 10-Year Fare Collection Outlook, an important element is to ensure that the fare collection system can accommodate existing and potential new fare policies.

[…]

Open Payments has been a priority deliverable of the Master E-Fare Agreement1 (“the Agreement”) since its signing in 2012.

The TTC and Metrolinx have discussed the modernization of PRESTO for several years to bring Open Payments to TTC customers. Through negotiations, Open Payments was made a priority deliverable and was slated to be implemented at the end of 2024. In late 2021, Metrolinx approached the TTC with a plan to deliver of Open Payments in 2022.

Fare Collection Modernization, pp 5-6

Although most of the costs of the Presto system are covered through the TTC/Metrolinx contract, the fare gates are owned by the TTC and they are responsible for any upgrades. The report recommends that purchase and installation of new card readers for the fare gates be approved at a cost of $4.0 million net of GST rebate. The equipment will come from the manufacturers, Schiedt & Bachmann.

Any added functionality within the Presto contract is subject to an important caveat:

Maintenance of the TTC’s commission rate of 5.25% for all new payment products and ensure that no additional fees will be incurred by the TTC or passed onto TTC customers;

Fare Collection Modernization, p 17

An important consideration in the implementation of any new fare system is accessibility. This is a much broader term than physical usability, and it includes barriers to people who are unbanked, have low income and cannot conduct their financial business in the manner to which many of us (including too many designers of smart apps) are accustomed. This includes groups who rely on cash for most or all of their purchases.

The availability of PRESTO Tickets will ensure continued access for social and community agencies that distribute fares to numerous groups, such as newcomers, those experiencing homelessness and clients with low incomes. These products will be improved by the introduction of account-based functionality and will be supported by an expanded cash-accepting network of retail locations and in-station self-serve devices.

Finally, as the future of cash collection in the context of modernization is considered, careful evaluation of the impacts to equity-seeking groups will need to be examined given that they are generally more reliant on cash.

Fare Collection Modernization, p. 3

A common complaint about in-person card reloads is that Metrolinx set up an exclusive deal with Shoppers Drug Mart (part of the Loblaws empire, and a favoured partner of the Ford government) to provide this service. However, Shoppers changed their store practices to reduce in-person service and this works against those who must reload their cards via this path. Moreover, there are far fewer Shoppers Drug Marts than the former network of corner stores distributing TTC fare media, and they tend to be in affluent areas where their higher mark-up cosmetics business find customers.

Among the TTC’s requirements for a new system:

Pre-authorization fees if required to implement the two-hour transfer, cannot exceed the total cost of the trip and cannot cause undue burden to the customer

Fare Collection Modernization, p. 17

One major problem with fare payment via debit and credit cards is that they incur fees for both the vendor and the buyer. The problem of “micro transaction” fees has been around at least as long as Presto, and a common way to avoid them is to bulk load value onto a stored value card like Presto. If fare readers accept credit and debit cards directly, any economy of scale in the transaction is lost. For example, bank fees levied at a transaction level can add substantially to the price of a fare, as opposed to a single fee for a monthly bill (e.g. pass or capped fare).

The TTC organized a vendor briefing from many would-be providers of fare systems. Six were short-listed and presented to TTC and YRT in late July 2021.

There were three key observations [text adapted and condensed from the report]:

  1. Vendor experience and success varied in delivery of large-scale projects.
    • Vendor experience varied from large scale projects in many countries to a single regional project.
    • Vendors have strengths and weaknesses in their systems.
    • A vendor choice must take account of risks, benefits and past performance.
  2. Nearly all vendors have technical shortcomings, and “clear and deliberate contract requirements will help to mitigate” these.
  3. A successful project will require “a unique tender process and contract structure”.

A key observation speaks to the gap between salesmanship and delivery:

As expected, vendors made no mention of their shortcomings, but no vendor has a complete product that will meet all agency needs, nor can the vendor’s engineers implement a project without active dialogue, a well-documented scope and design, and decision-making from the transit authority. No matter the vendor, there will still be a need for the TTC’s intimate involvement in its fare collection system.

Fare Collection Modernization, p. 8

There is also the important issue of project management and the unhappy tendency to think that a vendor will magically handle everything:

Given the current state and challenges to date of fare collection at the TTC, the prospect of a new vendor may be seen as an attractive option, where project schedules and budgets operate as clockwork. On the other hand, vendor project management is universally poor and has major impacts on project schedule, system design and project budget.

Even capable vendors are stretched very thin due to being awarded multiple simultaneous projects, and therefore provide scant project and engineering resources onsite, irrespective of the size or visibility of the project. Most fare system projects end up one or more years behind schedule and over budget. Some agencies ask for an “off-the-shelf” solution, while others focus on pushing financial risk to the vendor, but all usually realize later that the lack of clear contract requirements is a primary driver of schedule and cost overruns.

Fare Collection Modernization, p. 8

Oh to be a fly on the wall and know what the TTC thinks of Metrolinx/Presto’s inability to deliver on promises and their arrogance, until recently, in addressing contract disputes.

The Discriminatory Effect of Zones and Fare By Distance

The staff position on fare schemes based on zones or distance travelled is quite clear: they work against the purpose of transit and are discriminatory.

This argument tends to be made in the abstract, but it was driven home by a presentation from the Social Planning Council of Toronto. They have studied the relationship between home-to-work travel patterns and demographics with the findings summarized in Distance-based transit fares don’t measure up: A picture of inequity in five maps.

The first two maps below show very clearly that long commute trips by transit are concentrated in the outer part of the city. This reflects both the geography of the city as well as the lack of work locations close to where people live.

Another view shows the average public transit trip length. The lower values are concentrated in the older parts of the city where destinations tend to be much closer to origins and therefore trips to reach them are shorter. Note that this maps all trips, not just commutes.

The outer parts of the city have much higher concentrations of racialized and immigrant residents.

The combined effect of these charts shows that distance or zone-based fares would disproportionately affect these groups.

These charts do not map socioeconomic status, although it is well-documented in other studies that the same outer corners of the city also have lower average incomes.

Status Update – Cross-Boundary Service Integration

The Board received a report and presentation on the status of talks with neighbouring transit agencies on the question of service integration. Several routes now operate across the 905/416 boundary, but the rules governing them differ for historical reasons.

Some TTC routes extend into the 905 because they provided service over many years to areas outside of the “old” City of Toronto. Notable examples are the “radial” streetcar routes to locations like Richmond Hill and Woodbridge, and routes within what is now Toronto to former Scarborough, York, Weston, North York and southern Etobicoke towns. In some cases, it was convenient for a TTC route to be extended beyond Steeles Avenue under contract to York Region, and some of these operations still exist as the map below shows.

TTC routes operate outside of Toronto, but the buses operate as part of the Toronto network within the city borders. By contrast, buses from 905 municipalities are allowed to deliver passengers to TTC subway stations, but not to carry local traffic within the 416.

The TTC proposes an initial trial on two routes:

There are three stages to the proposed transition:

• Phase 1: MiWay and YRT will pilot “open door” service on the Burnhamthorpe and Dufferin North corridors. The TTC continues service on these corridors.
• Phase 2: MiWay and YRT will continue an “open door” pilot on the Burnhamthorpe and Dufferin North corridors. MiWay and YRT to increase service levels to serve all customers, and the TTC to reallocate service to other areas within Toronto.
• Phase 3: Full rollout of “open door” service on all 24 cross-boundary routes operated by BT, DRT, MiWay and YRT. The TTC to adjust service levels to match capacity with demand and reallocate service to other areas within Toronto.

Status Update: Cross-Boundary Service Integration p. 2

Current legislation restricts other agencies from operating local service within Toronto and this will require amendment of the City of Toronto Act. Also, Presto does not currently support the fare collection and revenue sharing model contemplated for these services. There is also an issue of jurisdiction for service operation and whether replacing TTC buses with vehicles and operators from another service triggers “contracting out” provisions in the TTC’s contract with ATU Local 113.

According to TTC Collective Bargaining and Non-Union Salary Updates, also on this meeting’s agenda, this matter is still in arbitration, but is expected to emerge in the next few months.

Several important issues were remitted to the parties for negotiation within 90 days. Should the parties not be able to agree these items will return to the arbitrator for decision. These include such issues as cross boundary service integration …

Collective Bargaining Updates, p. 7

A further problem lies in the recommendation that the province take on incremental capital and operating costs as well as Presto development costs. This is a roundabout way for the TTC to get the province to buy them more buses when they already have far more vehicles than they need for service plus maintenance spares.

The problem lies in the lower level of service provided by agencies in the 905 than the TTC operates today on “their” portion of the route. A agency like YRT will have to run more buses to replace the capacity now provided by the TTC. However, that replaced service represents spare buses for the TTC while the province buys more buses for the 905 operator. The total fleet size goes up, but Toronto does not have to pay for it.

The report claims that:

Customers who take bus routes on cross-boundary corridors will have more frequent service because they can now access 905 transit agency buses within Toronto for local travel.

Status Update: Cross-Boundary Service Integration p. 1

The details are shown in this table:

Status Update: Cross-Boundary Service Integration, p. 10

This is true only during the period when both the TTC and the 905 operator provide service on the common corridor, or if the 905 operator increases their service to replace what the TTC removes. Once the TTC quits the scene, riders will be at the mercy of whatever service YRT, or MiWay or whoever provides.

Moreover, even if the province does provide transitional funding to cover new costs, there is no guarantee this will not simply be rolled into whatever standard funding each agency receives. The cost will be small for a few routes, but as the practice grows, so will the subsidy call.

The TTC fundamentally misrepresents the shift, and in particular is silent on how Toronto service and crowding standard would be enforced on routes that the TTC does not operate.

One might equally ask why the TTC does not extend its routes into the 905, but that option does not appear to be on the table in the rush to appear “cooperative” on the regional integration front.

The Board approved the report with an amendment from Commissioner Carroll asking for details of revenue sharing, reinvestment and ensuring consistent service before the TTC moves to phase 2 of the proposal.

Transit Network Expansion Update

The Network Expansion Update’s recommendations deal with various agreements with Metrolinx regarding the Ontario Line, but the report itself contains background on many other projects.

One of these is Line 5 Eglinton Crosstown for which a summary of operating expenses was published as part of the TTC’s budget. A more detailed breakdown is in the network expansion report.

Key projects have inter-dependencies and must come on stream in the correct order. The table below summarizes information in the report. (Interested readers can peruse the report for more details of specific projects.)

ProjectStatusIn-Service Date
New Transit Control CentrePreliminary Design2028
Bloor-Yonge Capacity ImprovementsStage Gate 32030 **
Line 5 CrosstownConstruction2022 *
Eglinton West ExtensionWest tunnel contract: awarded
East tunnel contract: procurement
Stations & systems: planning
2030-2031 *
Eglinton East ExtensionPlanningTBD
Line 6 FinchConstruction2023 *
Yonge North ExtensionPlanning/Procurement2029-2030 *
Scarborough ExtensionTunnel contract: awarded
Stations & systems: planning
Kennedy enabling works: design
2029-2030 *
Ontario LinePlanning/procurement2030 *
Sheppard East ExtensionConcept definition (?)TBD
Waterfront East LRTPreliminary design & engineering2030-2031
Waterfront West – Exhibition to DufferinOn hold pending evaluation of Ontario Line impactTBD
Durham-Scarborough BRTPreliminary designTBD
Dundas BRTConcept definitionTBD
Adapted from Transit Network Expansion Update pp 6-8

Notes:

  • * Metrolinx schedule
  • ** In-service date for new Line 2 platform. Project continues beyond 2030.

The detailed terms for the operating agreement between the TTC and Metrolinx for Line 5 are still being finalized, but are expected to come to the TTC Board and Council in April and May, 2022, respectively.

On the Yonge North project, the provincially announced scope does not include a station at Cummer. The TTC and City are negotiating with Metrolinx about this station and whether it would be included in the base project, or simply left as a future provision much as the option for Park Home Station (now known as North York Centre) was in the original North Yonge subway.

Joint TTC-City-Metrolinx work continues on terminal station designs. Notably, Steeles Station is now seen as possibly including centre median platforms on Steeles Avenue for a future BRT service.

As previously reported, construction of the Ontario Line streetcar diversion for the Queen Street will begin in Spring 2022 and will be complete in time for the May 2023 closure.

The Waterfront East LRT is at 30% design, and work is underway to find cost reduction options, as well as to decide on phasing for the project. An update on this and other projects, notably a comparison of BRT and LRT for Eglinton East, will come to Executive Committee on March 30, 2022.

Commissioner Carroll moved that the TTC ask Metrolinx to clarify the scope and high level timeline for the Line 4 Sheppard East extension.

This report does not address key fleet and facility projects such as the acquisition of new subway trains and the provision of space to store and maintain them. Current plans call for the delivery of two prototype trains in 2025 with production deliveries starting in 2026 and ramping up to a peak of 20 trains/year. The intent is to replace the existing T1 fleet with 80 new trains by 2030 (SSE opening), and with an option for 32 additional trains for capacity growth in 2030-2032.

The timing is also related to the need for Automatic Train Control capability for the YNSE and SSE projects and trains required for these extensions.

Net Zero 2040

Right at the end of the meeting, the Board briefly dealt with a staff report on the Council-approved Net Zero 2040 plan. See my previous article Toronto Contemplates Net Zero Plan for details.

The discussion, if one can call it that, was very self-congratulatory about how the TTC’s plans already align with Council’s policy. Where the problem lies is that there is a more aggressive plan that includes very substantial increases in transit service. TTC plans do not address this at all.

There is only one recommendation in the covering report:

Request that staff identify opportunities to accelerate the Green Bus Program and report back in the second quarter of 2022 on these opportunities.

However, there were two recommendations appoved by Council at its December 15, 2021 meeting, not one, and the second one read:

City Council request the City Manager, in consultation with the General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission, to outline in the 2022 Budget proposal options to increase spending on surface vehicles and hiring additional operators aimed at increasing ridership to get us on the path to achieving the TransformTO goals.

The agenda for the February 17, 2022, budget meeting of City Council has not yet been published [as of 10:30 pm on February 13], and so we do not yet know if this report will materialize.

A Budget Briefing Note to Council addresses the full effects and requirements of the Net Zero 2020 plan. One aspect of that plan is a very substantial increase in the level of transit service. The Briefing Note includes the following:

TTC’s 5-Year Service Plan & 10-Year Outlook, approved by the TTC Board in December 2019, included increases in transit service levels commensurate with increases in customer demand based on population and employment growth projections. The TTC 2022 Operating Budget proposes operating 100% of pre-pandemic service levels with further increases in service levels to be included in future operating budgets. The TTC 2022-2031 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) includes funding requirements to acquire new vehicle and electric charging systems to meet the service level needs outlined in the 5-Year Service Plan and to transition the TTC’s fleet to zero-emissions by the 2040 target.

[…]

The TransformTO Net Zero Framework Technical Report includes additional modelling scenarios which may be required to achieve net zero by 2040. While analysis and consultation with TTC is required to validate the assumptions of these models, these scenarios currently identify the need for additional investments to support a greater modal shift toward transit vehicles than currently identified through the TransformTO Critical Next Steps Staff Report and therefore, the TTC’s 5-Year Service Plan and Capital Investment Plan.

The modelling used to derive the recommendations in the Net Zero Strategy will need to undergo more precise analysis in consultation with TTC staff to confirm what (if any) net increase in service is required beyond the identified targets under the TransformTO Net Zero Strategy Staff Report.

[…]

This work will be undertaken as a priority in order to have any resulting modal shift scenarios presented through the TTC’s 2023 budget process.

Budget Briefing Note, pp 5-6

The TTC should not be patting itself on the back too strenuously yet. There is much funding still to be found to address their own plans for fleet replacement and electrification, let alone a substantial growth in fleet size, garaging and operating costs.

23 thoughts on “TTC Board Meeting Wrap-up: February 8, 2022

  1. Do all these plans actually address the likelihood of significantly less downtown oriented traffic post pandemic?

    Andy Biemiller

    Steve: No. And I am not convinced that the downtown oriented traffic is lost forever. It may take a while to return, but the core area is still a strong attraction for business and entertainment.

    Like

  2. Why does the TTC want so many buses?

    Steve: Not to put it too delicately, if they have too many relative to industry standards, they can afford to have clunkers that never leave the garage. Of course, if buses became clunkers because of inadequate maintenance, … you can see where I’m going with that.

    Like

  3. Also, what does “planning” mean for the EELRT? It seems like they haven’t said anything on the progress of it in a year…

    Steve: There has been preliminary engineering, plus work to figure out the redesign at Kennedy Station triggered by the route of the Scarborough Subway extension. There will be a report to Council at the end of March with more details.

    Like

  4. Steve writes: “The intent is to replace the existing TR fleet with 80 new trains by 2030 (SSE opening), and with an option for 32 additional trains for capacity growth in 2030-2032.”

    TR or T1 fleet?

    Steve: Ooops! The T1 fleet of course! I will fix the text in the article. Thanks.

    Like

  5. back two year ago january 2020 planning new train on line 1 targeted starting delivery 2026 2027 18 new train growth total 80 new train design train subway cars tr will move on line 2

    planning add four new station yonge north subway extension finch station richmond hill metrolinx planning two more station cummer station royal orchard station have six station york region steeles avenue bridge station highway 7 closer high tech station storage facility 16th avenue overnight new 15 subway train on line 1 construction start 2023 complate serve 2030

    Steve: I have not edited these comments (submitted separately by the same person) other than to correct a few spelling errors.

    Yes, the intent has been for some time for the existing fleet on Line 1 to shift to Line 2, and Line 1 to get new trains. However, it’s not quite that simple because the Line 1 fleet is about 50 percent larger than Line 2’s requirement which, in January 2020, was 46 peak trains plus spares bringing the total to the range of 54-56 trains. Line 1 at peak was 65 trains plus 11 spares for total of 76 trains. (The remaining 24 T1s exist as four-car sets running on Line 4 Sheppard.) The difference is more than is needed to handle the Scarborough extension.

    I have not seen a current TTC fleet plan that shows how all this will be worked out, nor a facilities plan explaining where all the trains will be stored and maintained. I await publication of the detailed capital budget (the so-called “blue books”) later this winter to delve into those questions.

    Like

  6. One of the problems with the TTC and Metrolinx boards is that they do not represent the communities that they allege to serve. We need more diversity on the TTC and Metrolinx boards because the only way to improve transit is if we have governance boards who truly represent the communities that they are supposed to serve. We also need more diversity on management.

    Like

  7. Jason wrote: “One of the problems with the TTC and Metrolinx boards is that they do not represent the communities that they allege to serve. We need more diversity on the TTC and Metrolinx boards because the only way to improve transit is if we have governance boards who truly represent the communities that they are supposed to serve. We also need more diversity on management.”

    What exactly do you mean when you say “more diversity in management” is needed? I find that the term “diversity” is very broad and can mean very different things to different people and depending on meaning may not be all that beneficial in this specific case.

    Like

  8. Somewhat random question, I’ve been hearing talks online about Rick Leary’s contract being up Feb 2022, is this true? Most CEO/GM tend to last 5 years based on previous roles, and was under the assumption we have another year with Rick, but when I heard rumblings about it being this month I started to get excited. I haven’t seen any job posting regarding the CEO position. Are you able to confirm when Rick Leary contract is up Steve?

    Steve: I am not sure what the start date of his current contract was. He was acting CEO from December 2017 when Andy Byford left for NYC, and then was confirmed as permanent in July 2018. Even from the earlier date, five years would take us to December 2022. If from the permanent date, even longer.

    Also I do not sense any move by the current board to displace him, and he has the advantage of being hated by the union who openly call for his dismissal. That generally works in favour of job security for a CEO.

    Like

  9. Steve comments, “The remaining 24 T1s exist as four-car sets running on Line 4 Sheppard.”

    Haven’t those been replaced by dedicated 4-car TR trains? Which means the married T1 pairs can go back to making up 6-car trains.

    Steve: Sorry, I managed to splice together two fleets in that comment. You are correct. I will fix my remarks.

    There has been a problem for years that the TTC had more T1s than they needed because they originally assumed they would be used on the extended line to Vaughan, plus on Sheppard.

    Like

  10. ttc planning back to two year ago bombardier want contacts q2 new train on line 1 name target design subway cars full open gangway full rollout starting delivery 2026 2027 additional 18 newt rain meet growth on line 1 total 80 new train yonge north subway extension to richmond hill and TR will move to line 2 by 2030 scarborough subway extension to sheppard east

    Steve: This is nothing new. Bombardier was always wanting contracts to build anything just to keep the Thunder Bay plant alive. For a time, Rick Leary was pushing for a rebuild to stretch the T1 lifespan out to 40 years, but reconsidered and now we’re to get new trains. When the TRs move to Line 2, there will be plenty to handle service to Sheppard and likely some service expansion. The problem remains where to put all of the trains during the changeover and the limitations of Greenwood Yard to service six-car sets. I noticed that the spec for the new trains requires that each pair be able to operate independently, but if Line 2 (and hence Greenwood) gets the TRs there will be problems. The status of a new MSF at Kipling/Obico is unknown, although I suspect it would be bundled with a western extension to that the carhouse project does not have to “eat” the cost of an underpass to get to the south side of the CPR.

    Like

  11. I was always under the impression and I could have sworn TTC said Line 2 BD will get brand new trains because the TRs can’t be accommodated at Greenwood yard and shops. Makes me wonder if they can just make each pair open gangway per pair. Similar concept as the the Mark II trains in Vancouver, one open gangway for a pair of cars, and a fixed end on either side of the pair. That way each pair can still fit inside Greenwood yard as paired units without an expensive retrofit of the shops?

    Steve: The TTC has been inconsistent on this point. Originally, they said that the TR’s could not use Greenwood except for supplementary storage (that would simply park trainsets in the yard, but not in the shops), and that the new MSF at Kipling would be the primary site for a new fleet. That of course assumes that the new fleet would run on BD. Another variation would be to build and use Kipling initially as an acceptance site for new trains but to swap them out to Wilson for revenue service as the TRs gradually migrated to Line 2.

    Now with the expectation of more storage (but not heavy repair facilities) in Richmond Hill, this gives a bit of breathing space, but only once the new yard is actually connected to the rest of the network, something that won’t happen until 2029-2030.

    A recent TTC report noted that the issue of how to manage their fleet during the transition is a matter for a future report. That is a delicate way of acknowledging that they scored an “own goal” by deferral of Kipling yard and MSF, a decision taken in part to push the big capital expense off into the future where it would not burden the city’s 10-year plan.

    This has been a dangerous tactic in TTC/City capital planning for many years because projects are artificially pushed beyond the 10-year line, then suddenly appear as needed “today” and crowd funding requirements. This allowed the budget to appear “funded”, but now the overhang is just too big, and the number of deferred projects cannot be ignored.

    The province might be spending billions on boring tunnels, but basics like fleet renewal are still begging.

    Like

  12. Quoting Steve:

    The status of a new MSF at Kipling/Obico is unknown, although I suspect it would be bundled with a western extension to that the carhouse project does not have to “eat” the cost of an underpass to get to the south side of the CPR.

    Out of curiosity, is there a likely destination for an extension? Or would it end up being wherever a redevelopment has been proposed?

    Steve: Sherway, initially, where there is major development in the works.

    Like

  13. Since the area beyond Kipling Station to the southwest is entirely industrial/commercial all the way to Sherway would it be practical to bring the subway above ground?

    Alternatively, build above ground as LRT?

    Alternative 2; LRT Kipling to Square One?

    Steve: They also have to go under 427 as well as the CPR so there’s a fair amount of tunnel just to get to Sherway. Dundas is getting a BRT corridor to Kipling. I wouldn’t hold my breath for an LRT.

    Like

  14. Steve said:

    They also have to go under 427 as well as the CPR so there’s a fair amount of tunnel just to get to Sherway. Dundas is getting a BRT corridor to Kipling. I wouldn’t hold my breath for an LRT.

    If I recall Steve, was there not a plan for an LRT out of Kipling when it was constructed? There was originally to be an Etobicoke equivalent of the SRT to Sherway if I am not mistaken.

    The glassed off platform at Bus Bay level still exists however disused it may be.

    Steve: No, that was for an LRT northward, the western part of a circumferential line with a branch to the airport.

    Like

  15. ttc required t1 train will replace TR train will move line 2 by 2030 scarborough subway extension sheppard east get new train targeted on line 1 starting delivery 2026 yonge univerisity spadina wilson yard 18 new train meet growth on line 1 2026 2027 on line 1 wilson yard davisville yard total 80 new train design new open gangway subway cars yonge north subway extension to richmond hill 2030

    Steve: Yes, this is a familiar plan. I noticed that the spec for the new trains includes the ability to run as four or six car sets so that they don’t have to make a special order for the Sheppard replacement trains. However, this will leave the TTC with 6 4-car TR trains that will have to be converted for six-car train operation on line 2.

    Like

  16. ttc want reqiured TR train will move to line 2 2030 scarbourogh subway extension new train on line 1 targeted design subway cars open starting delivery 2026 2027 yonge university spandina line 18 new train meet growth on line 1 total 80 new train required 2030 subway cars open gangway peak service wilson yard davisville yard new yard high tech road

    Steve: The following comment was submitted separately and I have consolidated it here.

    ttc bombardier rick leary thunder bay prototype new train arrive 2024 design starting delivery 2026 yonge university line wilson yard and davisville yard delivery 2027 additional 18 new train meet growth on line 1 total last delivery 2030 80 new train on line 1 and 2 required complate T1 train will replacement on line 2 TR train will move to line 2 scarborough subway extension 2030 sheppard east yonge north subway to richmond hill

    Steve: Yes, much of this is already clear from various published plans and from the RFP for new subway trains. You don’t need to keep repeating the info here.

    Like

  17. Is it possible that the TTC could function effectively by only performing “heavy” (trucks, wheels, mechanical) maintenance at Wilson on TR trainsets and use all the other yards as “light” (garbage, cleaning, wash) maintenance and or storage?
    If this is possible, how long could they do this?
    Could they survive until Obico gets built?

    If they scrap the T1’s as they max out existing storage would they have enough space?
    Is there any possibility of selling the T1’s to recover costs?

    Steve: The appear to be hunting for space anywhere they can find it to avoid building Obico/Kipling yard. An issue with Wilson is that it was not designed to be the only heavy maintenance facility and shares that duty with Greenwood.

    Yes, they can start getting rid of some T1s to make space, but they need a facility that can handle six-car sets to do acceptance testing on the new trains. The original idea for Kipling Yard was that it would be purpose built to support a new fleet.

    Like

  18. I seem to notice a flaw with the T1 subway cars, sometimes when the train begins to brake and especially when there’s a lot of people on the train with not much space for you to stand, you have to lean on the doors. The doors seem to be so weak that it opens a little bit and you can see the outside/tunnel and feel the air rushing in, sometimes the issue becomes so severe that the operators noticed that the doors is open and stops the train. I only seem to notice this issue on the T1’s and not on the TR’s. Has this always been an issue with the T1 subway cars, and is there a way that the TTC can rectify this type of issue? Is that why they have to “do not lean on the door” decals on each door.

    Steve: Throwing this question out to readers. I do know that there is always a trade off between the strength of the spring on the door mechanism and the desire to ensure doors can be pried open if someone is caught by them.

    Like

  19. Mike: What exactly do you mean when you say “more diversity in management” is needed?

    I would like to see unrepresented and underrepresented groups such as Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, LGBTQ persons, Chinese persons, Indians, black persons, indigenous persons, women, etc in management as well as in governing boards. More diversity is needed for a fair and equitable society.

    Steve: FWIW the TTC has a policy of increasing diversity. The Deputy CEO and the CFO are women. Six of the ten TTC board members are women, including the Chair and Vice-Chair. The board includes women and men who are not from a classic white Canadian/European background.

    Some members of senior management who were women have now retired or moved to other organizations. Some people of colour have moved to other systems, and one of them is now interim General Manager/CEO of the Atlanta, Georgia transit system. Whether they were pushed or left for greener pastures is a matter of concern given the combative reputation of the current CEO.

    Some people don’t go around wearing a flag saying “I am xxx”, and that’s certainly the case for many LGBTQ folks. A now-retired CEO is gay, and I know of others now or formerly in senior positions who are.

    It’s really easy to look at the most recent Annual Report for 2020 for photos of the Board and Senior Management. There have been a few changes but not to the overall balance.

    You really should do a bit of research.

    Like

  20. Jason: I would like to see unrepresented and underrepresented groups such as Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, LGBTQ persons, Chinese persons, Indians, black persons, indigenous persons, women, etc in management as well as in governing boards. More diversity is needed for a fair and equitable society.

    How does having those groups (or any other not listed) represented in management of TTC improve quality of service provided by the TTC? As a passenger, I am more concerned with service levels than diversity make up of management with whom I would never interact – as far as operators are concerned I would say that they are very diverse. TTC has to be managed/operated by people who are competent and best suited to their positions regardless of group to which they belong. Having diversity for the sake of diversity is counter productive as it may mean that you hire people for certain positions just because they belong to an underrepresented group and not because they are the best candidates for the job.

    For the TTC board there is a limited number of “seats” so you can’t possibly represent the whole city and its make up fully – you may be able to get gender equity but you will always have a group of people who will not see a “fair” representation of their background on the board. I suspect that one wouldn’t want to increase the board to an unruly number just to have everyone represented fairly.

    Steve: There is an assumption that any one person, no matter which group or groups they might “represent”, can reflect the desires of everyone in that group. It is no guarantee that, for example, a board member or executive will value better service as a priority over saving taxpayer dollars. Someone could be a fiscally conservative, car driving right-winger and still be a member of any number of groups. That said, visible representation is important, but don’t assume that the people who will be appointed by a Council that is, after all, itself right of centre, will broadly represent the political aspirations of every group, even assuming that this could be expressed as a single position. You might see one or two token lefties who can always be guaranteed to be outvoted.

    There is a deeper procedural issue at the TTC Board: it does not want to have serious public debates about policies, especially any that might challenge the Mayor’s view of what the transit system should do. Attempts by some members, current and past, to have special meetings or committees to accomplish this have always been thwarted. That had nothing to do with gender, race or any other characteristic, but with a systemic blocking of open debate.

    Like

  21. I disagree with Steve’s perspective on diversity. Yes, there have been some women and people of colour on the TTC Board over the years but the TTC celebrated 100 years last year and 101 years this year and in 101 years, has there ever been a single Somali or Sikh or Muslim or Hindu or Filipino or Turk or Vietnamese person on the TTC Board? I could name many other groups but I have named just some of the large minorities of Toronto. I am not saying that every minority group has to be represented on every board all the time but we should give completely unrepresented minorities at least some chance sometimes. Anyway, change will only be possible if we elect more minorities as councillors, mayors, MPPs, and MPs.

    Steve: This is a very fraught area, the “counting” of minorities, because you have mixed both national and religious groups in your list, but I am not going to get mired in that debate. There is no guarantee that a Muslim, any more than a Jew or a Catholic, will or can “represent” all who share that particular background. There is a huge variation, as in the population as a whole, of political outlooks by people from many Asian background. No one person can possible represent this breadth of society.

    I certainly agree that first we need a more diverse political class as they control the selection and appointment of members to boards like the TTC. But if you expect enlightenment to suddenly shine like a beacon from 1900 Yonge Street with a change in the Board, you will be disappointed. It is the political leanings of appointees, much more so that whichever demographic groups they might belong to, that determines what the transit system values and fights for.

    Like

  22. ttc plans wanting thunder bay bombardier contact order funding new subway train design april 2022 march 2023 goverement back january 2020 new vehicles future to replace T1 existing on line 2 80 subway train to replace on the existing on line 1 ttc decides to changes
    TR train move on line 2 used future scarborough subway extension 2030 get new train on line 1 new targeted open gangway heat full air conditioning until subway cars train hot summer like rocket train delivery prototype train new on line 1 2025 $494 million toward procurement 18 new train to meet growth in ridership on demand on line 1 required for delivery in 2026 2027 last delivery 80 new train fitting wilson yard or davisville yard
    in 2030 complate required peak service yonge north subway extension to end high tech station south in richmond hill

    Steve: The only reason I am posting your comment is to say that you have said all of this before several times, and there is nothing new in this info. I will delete all future comments from you.

    Like

  23. Hey Steve,

    Not sure why or how my previous question got deleted but I just needed to know what your source was for the statement that TTC was possibly considering extending the Post-Secondary fare to part-time students? I’m a regular viewer of all TTC Commission meetings and I don’t recall this ever being said. And it doesn’t seem to appear in any PDF. If you could please answer that one question!

    Thanks in advance.

    Steve: First off, no comments appear until I edit (if necessary) and approve them. Your original comment was not “deleted”.

    When I listed issues I included proposals that have come forward from other groups like transit and student activists. The introductory text does not say that the TTC is necessarily considering it. Remember that the idea of fare capping has been floating around for years, but TTC brass always downplayed it. Presto has been able to do this for years. It just wasn’t enable for TTC trips. Sometimes the advocates have to bash away at an issue for a while before it gets accepted as a worthwhile policy.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s