Yes, it’s been a tad quiet in here recently. We’re in the summer doldrums for transit news, and not yet into the fall which brings a rebound in activity, and in 2026, the municipal election.
A while ago I started a series “How Slow Is My Streetcar?”, and pushed out a few articles that, I must admit, were heavy on charts and thin on analysis. My intent was to leave that until most of the routes were covered, but my activity drifted elsewhere. The work on other routes is now substantially complete, and I will publish all of the charts and stats for them in one go, together with an omnibus commentary.
Sitting in the wings are the TTC’s Service Standards Review and 2027 Annual Network Plan for which public consultation might start soon. I say “might” because, with the election, it’s an odd year and TTC staff might keep their proposals under wraps until the new Council and TTC Board are in place.
2027 as a budget year will be challenging for presentation of any major changes with an uncertain political landscape. We know that Mayor Chow has pledged a reduction in the monthly fare cap from 47 to 40 effective in September 2027, but nothing specific beyond that. As for additional service, there will be the constant tug between responding to and encouraging ridership growth, and dealing with slower travel times and that old bugbear “congestion”.
Although there are route and neighbourhood-specific proposals for better transit priority, the overall effects of traffic conditions, signal priority and operating practices are network-wide issues. Red lanes on one street will do nothing for most riders on the rest of the system.
Ambition for a much higher transit share of the travel market requires a city-wide view, and goals will not be served by a few fantasy subway, LRT or BRT lines that won’t see construction, let alone operation, for a decade.
There’s lots to write about in coming weeks, but first I will get the streetcar route analyses out of the way during the August lull. Stay tuned.
PS: Over 1,500 people visit this site every day just to check if there is anything new. The count is much higher when an article appears, but there’s a base of regular visitors that lets me know someone is “out there”. Thanks for reading!
Steve – you provide a valuable service to all of us – both for your comprehensive analyses and because people trust your objectivity.
But, I sure with you’d start reports withs an abstract so folks like me to get the benefit of your thinking without commitment to reading a long piece. You might truly believe the benefits come about by reading through a piece. But the plain reality for many of us is to proportion our time.
Ben
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don’t extend any subway or LRT into the 905 unless the 905 cities are annexed into the City of Toronto first.
LikeLike
Do we have any idea how many riders sit in that 41-47 rides/month category these days? I imagine it also varies over time. In February this probably makes little difference. I wonder about the other months though.
Steve: I have not seen a recent breakdown of how many net new riders will see a cap, as opposed to those who already ride enough to get the 47 cap and will therefore get a further discount. The 2026 budget talks about the 47 fare cap in 2026 and the 40 fare cap in 2027, but revenue effects are bundled together making it impossible to figure out how many rides are projected to become free due to each cap. There is a net cost to the 47 cap in 2027 because it will be in place for 12 months rather than for four. The budget shows a 2026 cost of $14.7-million, and a 2027 cost of $17.2-million. That jump does not appear to be proportional even for a full year of the 47 cap, let alone four months at 40 fares.
LikeLike
Though I realise that the real benefit of the careful route analyses you produce lies in the fine detail, I must admit that I agree with Ben that an “executive summary” might be helpful. Having a quick overview may make the analysis – which usually shows that the problems are caused by an accumulation of relatively small things – somewhat less useful, but I think a synopsis might encourage those of us whose eyes sometimes glaze over to pay more attention and, perhaps, dig deeper.
We may not always need to be spoon-fed with a précis, but perhaps, when you have completed your current examination of all (or most) of the streetcar routes, you could produce an overview article with examples of locations or routes that illustrate the major categories of problems: too many stops, too little transit priority, too many parked vehicles, too much “competing” traffic, poorly maintained or poorly designed track, etc.
I am not trying to get you to work even harder or for any more hours, but I think that if people had access to articles highlighting the basic problems – and could then dive into the details if they wanted to know more – it might reduce the tendency of some of us to obsess over a single problem when there are many, and could increase the number of effective transit advocates.
Steve: Actually this is the reason I stopped pushing route-by-route posts out the door without an overview. I realized that readers need that summary to set the stage for all of the details.
LikeLike
Something that should be considered for the 2027 service plan: Since the 70 O’Connor bus has gotten reduced service, both routes connecting to Michael Garron Hospital(70 and 62 Mortimer) have long headways which super tanks the accessibility of that hospital. 62 always had low ridership but the northbound 70 is always crowded until Cosburn. Now that line 5 is open it should have shorter headways anyway, being a line 2 to line 5 connector. My point is the person/people in charge of bus frequency needs to improve the 70, whoever that is.
LikeLike
Even though the machinations of the TTC don’t affect my daily life anymore, I still am a regular visitor because I hope my hometown’s transit can return to an era where it truly was one of the best in North America because it chose to be, rather than barely earning that title by default (or by posting for awards…).
I still remember learning, on this site, about the idea of “choice” riders in context of (pre-Presto era) Metropass monthly pass. (Let’s see if my memory is correct.) How tweaking the token multiple had a direct impact how many riders would buy the monthly pass and use it for the >6-12 extra trips it would take to get “free” rides. How making the TTC more attractive to people who didn’t need to take it (because they had a car and could drive) but rather chose to take it (hence the “choice”) were some of the most important riders on the system, because the more of them and their revenue show up, the more funds exist to add service to help all riders, especially those for whom riding the TTC is a fundamental necessity, who live in the suburbs where school, groceries, and work are just too far away to walk (forget about biking outside of the ravine system trails).
The day that the majority of Toronto City Council accept that the fastest way to get rid of the pervasive problem of congestion in Toronto is to make the TTC attractive to those who don’t need to take it, and implementing the necessary funding sources to make that happen. Steps have been made to improve safety; Lines 5 & 6 have finally opened; and thanks to the deal with the province, there is good reason for riders who can connect to a GO train or bus to do so. But as you’ve documented repeatedly Steve, even in an era where hybrid work is still strong, if the service is more reliable and predictable, it attracts riders and smooths out capacity rather than having peaks and valleys.
I always appreciate reading your insights, so thank you for publishing them.
Steve: You’re very welcome! Thanks for reading.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Steve; and yes, slower is quite fine because there’s such a body of work given already, and there’s much to digest for anyone really keen.
Of sad note, and I missed the obit and thus funeral, transit expert Ed Levy, whose fine book on TO transit plans through a century was a real eye-opener of how we’ve gotten in to our messes, and who Steve likely conversed with often enough, he’s gone. Condolences to the family, and many thanks Ed for your works, and maybe his papers/knowledge can end up safely in an Ottawa archives vs. an Ontario bonfire, even though yes, billions are being spent in Ontario, but there’s a difference between Big Spending and wiser investments, sigh.
Yes, smell the roses, and we could have far more roses and houses if we used transit and had more transit and user pay for private cars, and one of the real costs is the sheer amount of serviced land they take up when not in usage as a mobile furnace.
(Another good book is Killed by a Traffic Engineer by Wes Marshall, many copies in library system)
LikeLike
Thanks again, Steve and readers/commenters, and I presume that the news of the Ontario Line now being up to c. $34 billion, (with high odds it ain’t the last oop$$$), is swirling around. And Steve would likely remember the overall chronology of costs, and how much it was supposed to cost us, and what was included, and what wasn’t. As we do need to have hospitals, and housing etc. in better shape, which usually takes money, these escalating costs are getting to be a ‘soar’ point, along with climate issues, which are also becoming ‘searious’.
At least for some, sigh, and we really need to think about volume of the concrete used for projects, ie. EAs. This should include existing concrete, and a good place to start would be having TO include concrete used in the City in the GHG totals, unless we don’t use any….
LikeLike
The cost of the Downtown Relief Line just tripled, you have nothing to say but you would have been up in arms if the cost of the Scarborough Subway increased even marginally.
Steve: Normally I delete comments from this troll who has been banging the drum about my hatred of the Scarborough Subway in comments you, gentle readers never see.
However, it is worth pointing out that I already published a detailed review of the growth in Metrolinx project costs back in February, and the DRL/OL was already close to 3x the original estimate. It has not “just tripled” but has grown over the years.
Metrolinx is an arrogant organization fond of portraying its critics as nay-sayers and nimbys who simply cannot accept progress. Doug Ford distrusted Metrolinx as a Liberal cesspool before he became Premier, but later adopted them as the purveyors of his transit master plan. Metrolinx survives by making itself politically useful, although their track record, now that they are actually operating, not just building, new lines leaves a lot to be desired.
LikeLike
Speaking of Ed Levy did he ever offer any opinion on the dog’s breakfast of a transit project called the Ontario line? He wrote extensively on the subject of the relief line and I’d be curious if he was a fan of the beast it morphed into.
Steve: I don’t recall a specific critique of it by Ed, but suspect he would not be impressed by the meandering route through the core which is, in part, left over from the TTC’s Queen subway plan.
LikeLike
I’m glad there’s comment about both Relief (of taxpayers), and also Mr. Levy. And yes, to Steve’s comment about ‘meandering’, a straight line would likely have saved a few billions, especially if less in the core, which is within bedrock, I suspect to avoid the snarling effect of steel wires abandoned when buildings are constructed to lot lines, as I understand it. The RoWays are thus perhaps badly contaminated at a certain depth, especially main drags, so going deep is ‘needed, and the connectivity to Ex, or more likely the devilopment potential of the Ex, plus bringing in service workers, is what brought the Relief south, vs. the straight line along Queen out to Islington of the 1957 plan, which would service Parkdale/west end, as well as making the transit much better to allow tolling of cars on QEW/Gardiner, as well as making Queen streetscar track free, and therefore more bike friendly in theory, though Bloor adjustments took about a half-century so ‘carservative’ are we, sigh.
LikeLike