Update 1: July 28, 2010 at 4:00 pm: Comments and clarifications by Ernie Wallace at Presto have been added to this article.
On July 26, I visited the folks at Presto and talked with Ernie Wallace, Executive Project Director, about the system and its plans. Subsequently, I did some digging of my own, primarily on the Ontario government website. The information below is organized to keep topics and the logical flow intact rather than to represent the sequence of the conversation.
Jarrett Walker has a few good articles on his website, humantransit.org, that should be required reading for our friends at Metrolinx, among other places.
In What Does Transit Do About Traffic Congestion, he argues that the last claim that should be made for transit is that it will reduce congestion. Instead, the benefits of a transit-oriented city show up in economic activity, mobility and other benefits.
There is, however, a caveat lurking here. Dense cities with good transit (or even cities with a good potential for better transit) don’t appear out of thin air. Once we build sprawl, then the benefits and effects of transit seen in the older, denser cities will not appear overnight even if we run the most intensive BRT, LRT or subway network through auto-oriented suburbs. Transit can make things better, but it will not reverse the damage and inevitable congestion of decades of bad planning.
By the way, be sure to read the comments. If you think the threads on this site get out of hand, just try Walker’s blog. You will see some very intelligent point-counterpoint discussion in some threads.
In If On-Time Performance is 96%, Why Am I Always Late?, Walker discusses the conundrum that transit agencies talk a great line for being on time, but the actual experience of users is much, much, much worse. Both GO Transit and TTC have a love for patting themselves on the back (although rarely each other’s), and talking about their improvements in on-time performance.
So much of this is relative to the metrics used (how late can a train or streetcar be and still be “on time”) and the lack of weighting of the results to reflect the number of passengers affected by on time (or not) service. Even in the off-peak, gaps of two scheduled headways or more are common on downtown routes and this drives riders away. At least with NextBus, it is now possible to know with certainty that there is no car just around the bend out of sight, and if there is, it’s going in the opposite direction.
GO Transit now has schedules that reflect the real world in which they operate, but persists in reporting all-day on-time figures rather than breaking these out to show service quality when most people ride the system.
Finally, in Strasbourg: You Can’t Take It Home With You, we get a loving overview of both the city and its tram system, part of the renaissance of LRT in France. The real issues come at the end where we learn about the major changes in street space usage and restrictions on cars that accompanied the installation of tram lines in this very old city. The moral, applicable to anyone comparing transit systems, is to look beyond just the technology and the scenery, and understand how and why the city streets work (or don’t) as they do.
Any moves to improve “congestion” in Toronto must start with a fundamental debate about what the streets are for, and which existing uses must be reduced (and how) in order to make room for what’s left over. Ironically, we focus these debates on the heart of downtown, a comparatively small area, when the real problems of transit’s competitiveness and congestion lie out in the suburbs.
Correction added July 24 at 10:45pm:
Mark Dowling, in a comment later in this thread, has pointed out that a TTC report last November cited a provincial requirement for participation in Presto as a condition for funding through various programs. (See 4th paragraph on page 7)
This report must be read in the context of the amended recommendations approved by the Commission as reported in the Minutes:
Chair Giambrone moved that recommendation no. 1 contained in the report, be amended as follows:
“It is recommended that the commission:
1. Conditionally approve the adoption of the Presto Fare Collection System subject to satisfactory resolution of the issues outlined in attachment a, subject to:
* TTC and City staff discussions with representatives of the Federal Government, Provincial Government, Metrolinx and the City of Toronto to develop operating and financial agreements necessary to resolve the issues outlined in attachment a;
* TTC staff reporting back to the commission for approval of the operating and financial agreements that have been developed;
* TTC staff developing detailed business requirements for adopting the Presto System at the TTC to the satisfaction of the commission;
* TTC staff undertaking the engineering and design work necessary for future subway infrastructure modifications to provide power and communications to support smartcards”.
The motion by Chair Giambrone carried.
Chair Giambrone moved that the final bullet in attachment ‘a’, be amended as follows:
* “TTC and the City must not be bound to fare payment exclusivity that would preclude implementation of advances in fare payment approaches and technologies, such as and including open payments, mobile phone media, etc”.
The motion by Chair Giambrone carried.
Commissioner Milczyn moved that attachment ‘a’ be amended to include the following:
* “TTC and the City expect the presto system to be designed to support open architecture;
* TTC and the city remain cognizant of our own fare policies and the system must be designed with flexibility to allow for different fare policies”.
The motion by Commissioner Milczyn carried.
Chair Giambrone moved that the commission approve the report, as amended.
The motion by chair Giambrone carried.
Therefore, when I originally reported that the link between Presto and programs other than Transit City had never been brought to the Commission, I erred. The main article below has been updated accordingly.
In turn, this begs the question of why this issue was not raised when the Commission approved a study of a separate system from Presto, and the degree to which the conditions for acceptance of Presto, as set out in the November 2009 motion, have or have not been met.
I have also corrected the expiry date of the current Presto contract to 2016. The original date cited, 2011, appeared in another report that I was using as reference material.
The original post from July 23, with amendments, follows below.
With the election upon us, some candidates have decided that transit Smart Cards are an issue they can use to say “I’m the best candidate” by hitching their star to Ontario’s Presto card program.
The Star reports that the TTC will proceed with a tender for an Open Payment system later this year with the intent of a 2011 rollout. Mayoral hopeful Rocco Rossi has his own scheme called “Presto Plus”. Can the TTC actually commit to a new system with the current regime still in office? Rossi’s campaign confirms that he would cancel the TTC’s scheme if he were to become mayor.
Metrolinx would love to see the TTC sign on to Presto, but many questions remain about just what Presto can do for a truly integrated transit system.
Smart Cards are yet another example of the way that transit technology wars in the GTA get in the way of solving fundamental transit problems. The technology choice becomes more important than the service it provides. Here are a few questions anyone with “the answer” should consider.
On July 12, the Toronto City Summit Alliance (TCSA) held a round table at Wychwood Barns to discuss their recently published paper on transit funding. Please refer to my first article on this topic for details.
The round table added nothing to what we already know on this subject, but did provide insight into public policy debate here in the GTA. Although this was officially a TCSA event, it was clearly at the service of Metrolinx who had a strong presence. Rob Prichard, Metrolinx CEO, gave opening remarks. As I have already noted, John Brodhead, Metrolinx VP of Strategy & Communications, co-chaired the working group behind the TCSA paper. Other Metrolinx staff were scattered through the crowd, some as facilitators at tables.
Invited participants included activists of varied backgrounds, a few politicians, professionals from government and industry, representatives from various business groups, a few from the media, and others from the collection of “usual suspects” one sees at this type of gathering. The idea, the hope, was that the collected wisdom of this group might inform future debate and recommendations about how to proceed.
Many service changes come into effect for September 2010. These will include both the reversal of the normal summer cuts as well as improvements to deal with growth in demand.
Please refer to my article on the June 2010 schedule changes for a list of the summer service cuts that will end in September.
The display panels from the Front Street Redesign Project Open House are now available online at the project website. Here is an overview together with my comments.
The introduction at page 4 shows the overall process and also reveals a major flaw. We have reached the point of selecting a “preferred alternative” on which all future detailed design and discussion will be based, but I am not convinced that only a single option should be carried forward. I am quite certain that feedback from many regular users of this area — pedestrians, businesses, transportation service operators, cyclists, even a few motorists — will suggest that more than one option has its advantages. At this point, we don’t have enough information to pick one, and doing so risks compromising the project’s credibility when it comes before the new, 2011 Council for further approvals.
The objectives listed on page 6 include:
However, as we will see later, much analysis reflects the need to accommodate auto traffic even though pedestrian volumes will more than double in coming decades. The premise should be turned on its head — what design is needed to handle the pedestrians, and what, if anything, is left over for other uses. Some quite attractive pedestrian areas from other cities are shown on page 7, but these are notably devoid of traffic on anywhere near the level now on Front Street.
The Toronto Transit Commission held a long Board meeting on July 14, 2010, that, as reported elsewhere, spent much of its time on the Greenwood/Donlands second exit proposals. This article is a compendium report on other agenda items of interest.
The full agenda is available on the TTC website.
Continue readingUpdated July 15, 2010 at 11:00 am:
With luck, this will be the last update in this thread.
At the TTC meeting on July 14, there was a long presentation and discussion of the issues at Donlands and Greenwood Stations. The presentation materials are not yet online as the project pages are being updated by the TTC to reflect recent changes.
Greenwood Station
TTC staff recommended and the Commission approved that the community’s alternative proposed second exit route be used. This route passes through the back yards of numbers 11 and 15 Linsmore rather than through a site now occupied by any house.
The first version of this scheme included the expropriation of the house now under renovation at 9 Linsmore. A newspaper report of the affected landowner gives some idea of the background and suggests that his 7-year renovation project is a long-standing annoyance to at least some in the neighbourhood.
In any event, it appears that other owners on Linsmore may be willing to sell, and one way or another, that’s where the exit will go. The only remaining issue for the TTC is to determine the location of a sewer that may interfere with the proposed route to the exit, and the feasibility of diverting this sewer to suit the new construction.
Donlands Station
The situation at Donlands is more complex than at Greenwood. TTC staff did a much more thorough job at the Commission meeting, compared with the public meeting a few days earlier, of explaining the standards and calculations used in evaluating the alternatives. Their target for the path length from the point where an exit stair meets the platform to the surface is two minutes. This keeps the total exit time, including getting to the exit on the platform, within the overall code targets.
The original group of exit proposals by the community fails to meet the exit time criterion. However, a new alternative came to light at the Commission meeting. This would link into the east, rather than the west, end of Donlands Station. The exit passages would all lie under roads rather than houses, and the exit building would be on the north-east corner of Donlands & Strathmore where there is now a school parking lot and a vent shaft to the subway. TTC staff will report back on this option once they have a chance to review it.
The most contentious part of the discussion turned on whether the TTC would give approval to any plans on July 14, or would wait until their August 23 meeting to finalize their choice. The community, understandably, does not trust the TTC, and a deferral would have been a sign of good faith from the Commission. Such an action would not have slowed work because the Council meeting at which expropriation will be considered is not until August 25. A TTC recommendation could be taken to Council as supplementary information, a routine process.
On a split vote of 6-3, the Commission decided not to delay approval, and decided to give staff the authority to proceed with the three proposals now on the table: (a) Donlands & Strathmore, (b) the new TTC alternative with a building in the Dewhurst road allowance and (c) the original scheme using property now occupied by 1 & 3 Strathmore.
Staff assured the Commission that they will report back in August with the outcome of their review. More generally, there is a recognition at TTC that a public consultation process is needed for “small” projects that don’t trigger formal Environmental or Transit Project Assessments.
The WordPress Mobile Pack and WPtouch theme have been added to this site.
To users of Mobile devices: Please let me know if you encounter problems with this support by leaving a comment here.
Steve Munro 