Author: Steve

by

Subway Fleet Planning(?)

The TTC’s ongoing inability to correctly provide for its fleet requirements gets embarrassing at times.  A big one comes during consideration of capital budgets when there always seem to be brand new projects that appear out of thin air even though they should have been foreseen.

The questions of subway capacity and fleet size are not small change, something to be fixed up with the underspending in a few minor accounts.  If you get it wrong in one direction, nobody can fit on the trains, and the lead time to fix this condemns riders to horrendous service.  If you get it wrong in the other direction, you have a bloated fleet, an investment in trains and yard space that might have gone to more deserving projects, and a padding factor that works against efficiency in maintenance because there’s always another spare train in the yard. 

The TTC’s surrent subway fleet plans do not include cars for the subway extensions beyond Steeles Avenue, nor for the allegedly closer headways we require to accommodate all of the riding growth the Richmond Hill line will bring.  Cynics might be tempted to say that the whole question of subway capacity has been manipulated to the TTC’s budgetary advantage, but I have always taken the view that much that appears to be Machiavellian can be explained by bad planning.

This post and the much longer paper attached to it will examine TTC fleet planning and the degree to which we are not seeing the full story of options for future subway services. Continue reading →

by

Many Meetings on the Waterfront (Updated)

The week of December 8 brings a series of meetings on various aspects of the waterfront redesign and transit services.

Monday December 8:  Queen’s Quay Revitalization EA Public Meeting #2  Harbourfront Community Centre, 627 Queen’s Quay West at Bathurst.  Open house at 6:00 pm, presentation and discussion at 7:00 pm.

Also of interest is the presentation from the Stakeholders’ Meeting held on November 27 (erroneously dated December on its cover page).  The Study Area now extends from Parliament Street to Bathurst Street, and there are signs that the many overlapping projects are being treated as a unified set rather than a few blocks at a time.

A great deal of time was spent in 2008 sorting out the competing requirements of various agancies and their plans, but the dust is settling now.  Queen’s Quay itself will generally stay at its existing width with selective widenings.  The streetcar tracks will remain in the “middle” of the street where they are now, but their relationship to auto, pedestrian and cycling traffic will likely change.

There are many design demands for the street summarized in text and photos from page 13 to 26.  Various options for street layout are discussed starting on page 35.  Three of five alternatives survive the screening process.  The two that are rejected are “do nothing” (the existing layout) as well as a scheme with the Martin Goodman trail taking over what is now the curb lane of Queen’s Quay eastbound.

Of the remaining three, the one that stands out (Alternative 5) is the conversion of Queen’s Quay for auto traffic to one-way westbound using the existing lanes, more or less, with the entire south side taken over for pedestrians and cycling.  This scheme simplifies intersection layouts and provides a generous landscaped area adjacent to the transit right-of-way.  At the east end of Queen’s Quay, it will also blend directly into the proposed design for Cherry Street north of the railway.

Wednesday December 10:  Lower Don Lands Infrastructure EA Public Meeting #2, St. Lawrence Hall (Great Hall), King & Jarvis.  Open house at 6:00 pm, presentation and discussion at 7:00 pm.

This meeting will address many issues such as water supply and sewage, street layout, and transit routes.  The presentation at the first public meeting held in July 2008 gives a good overview of the scope.  In particular, page 17 shows the proposed alternative road configurations, and this affects the design of the new LRT lines in this area.

Two alternatives are shown for Cherry Street.  The easternmost one is the existing street, and the alternative is slightly to the west as far south as Commissioners Street.  The alternative helps to sort out the Cherry, Lake Shore, Queen’s Quay intersection by shifting it to the west.  This would also require a new portal under the railway, but would eliminate problems with available right-of-way for roads, cyclists and transit within the existing portal, and would avoid any conflict with the Cherry Street Tower, and historic building within the railway lands. 

Tuesday December 9:  Western Waterfront Master Plan

St. Joseph’s Health Centre, 30 The Queensway, 7:00 to 9:00 pm.

Tuesday and Thursday December 9 and 11:  Waterfront West LRT Parklawn to Long Branch

Tuesday, December 9, 2008
James S. Bell School
90 Thirty-First Street (Gym, southeast entrance)
6:30pm – 9:00pm Open House

December 11, 2008
John English School (Cafeteria)
95 Mimico Avenue (east of Royal York Rd)
Parking and entrance from George Street lot
6:30pm – 9:00pm Open House

At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon, I can’t help wondering whether we might see vastly improved service on the 501/507/508 well in advance of any LRT to “build ridership”, rather like the 190 Rocket from Don Mills Station to STC.  The good folk of Etobicoke might be forgiven some skepticism that a beautiful new right-of-way will be conspicuously empty most of the time.

by

Streetcar Track Replacement Plans 2009-2013

Last week, I said that I would publish the current version of the five-year track reconstruction program, and although this is a bit later than I claimed I would get to it, here it is.

Note that this info may appear to be for the serious railfans among us, but this also affects things like the overall condition of the streetcar infrastructure and future service disruptions.  Nerdy yes.  Trivial, no.

I will spare the more delicate among my readers the gory details by placing them after the break.

Continue reading →

by

TTC Adjusts 2009 Budget For Slightly Harder Times

At the recent TTC Board meeting, staff presented an update on 2008 ridership and on projections for 2009.

This review began with a look back to the recession of the early 1990s when the system lost 90-million rides from 1990 to 1996, a full 40-million of them in one year, 1991.  That year saw a combination of falling employment (6.3%), a fare increase (7.3%), service cuts (7.4%) and a 7-day strike.

Before I continue, one important point about service cuts.  The TTC always talks about vehicle mileage, but they mix subway together with surface operations, and the subway acts as a buffer in the statistics.  Most of the cuts actually come on the surface, but the real impact is masked in the totals.

For 2009, the TTC is taking a much different approach.  Although employment may fall, the TTC is not expecting this to be a major factor.  No fare increase is contemplated, and service is actually expanding, not contracting.  Labour unrest is unlikely.  A telling comment in the presentation says just about everything that needs saying about transit “budgeting” in the 1990s.

Lesson learned in terms of forecasting ridership:  Employment, fare increases/subsidy level and service are all interrelated in terms of ridership impacts.  Treatment of one element cannot be considered in isolation or results can be disastrous in terms of significant ridership declines.

Tell that to past Chief General Managers, Commissioners, Councillors and Premiers.  One might think that it did not take us until late 2008 to understand this basic fact of transit planning.

Meanwhile, the TTC has removed the “economic growth” factor in its ridership estimates for 2009.  Riding is now projected to grow from 467-million (probable actual for 2008) to 473-million, with revenue growing from $837-million to $851-million.

The increase for 2009 comprises various factors:

  • 3-million for riding growth due to expanded service
  • 2-million for the absence of a strike
  • 2-million for savings in fraud on adult tickets
  • 1-million from expansion of the U-Pass program

Less:

  • 1-million from riding lost through charges for parking lots
  • 1-million due to calendar adjustment

The real question will be what will happen if the economic impact on riding is greater than expected.  How will discretionary trips by locals and riding brought by tourists be affected?  There is some padding available in the service budget with provisions such as the next round of Ridership Growth Strategy rollout (the 20-minute maximum headway).  If push comes to shove, this could be deferred, just as RGS has been pushed back so many times in the past.

by

Metrolinx Benefits Cases: VIVA First Out

Metrolinx has started the publication of its Benefits Case Analyses with the York VIVA system.  The SRT replacement study is also completed, and I expect to see it online soon.

These papers will appear in a section of the Projects Page on the Metrolinx site.

There is nothing too surprising in the VIVA study.  The map, excerpted from the full report, shows the staging options for the construction of exclusive bus lanes, here called “Rapidways”.

The core of the system radiating out from Richmond Hill Centre north to 19th, east to Unionville and west to Vaughan Corporate Centre would be finished by 2013.  In Option 1, the remainder of the network would be completed by 2018, or if Option 2 is chosen, by 2026.

A quite fascinating part of the BCA comes in the ridership estimates.  In the “Base Case” (just leave VIVA as it is with provision for modest fleet expansion), the projected 2021 ridership is 28.0-million per year.  This rises to only 30.3-million for either of the options studied.  Similarly, 2031 ridership is projected at 31.3-million for the Base Case, or 34.0-million for either of the optional networks.

Various factors are at work here.

The core of the demand falls on the first stage network that is common to both options, and the impact of the extensions is so small that it doesn’t make a difference (Before anyone accuses me of VIVA-bashing, that is a direct paraphrase from the report.)  Although the implementation of the Rapidways will give existing users a better riding experience, the comparatively small jump in riding suggests that most of the potential market is already using the system.

Updated:  In a comment posted following this post, “Dave R in the Beach” notes that the big jump in ridership is from current ridership of 6.8-million to the Base Case value of 28.0-million, and this is largely due to the subway extension.  In my response, I observed that the marginal gain from either BRT network is small and may reflect the comparatively small contribution the reserved bus lanes make to overall trip times when the much longer subway segment of the journey is included. [End of update]

An unknown acknowledged in the BCA is the question of land use planning.  Will York Region redevelop along the Rapidways, and how much will this contribute to future demand?

In the end, the BCA does not specifically recommend one option over the other, but the message about getting most of the benefit for 60% of the capital cost is quite clear.  We will see how this fares when Metrolinx puts together its detailed plan for project staging.

by

TTC Service Planning Reports Online, Finally, Sort Of

The TTC now has a Transit Planning page linked from “About The TTC” on its website.

The detailed service summary for the current schedule period is available on this page and, therefore, I will no longer have to host it here.

Missing from the new TTC site are many of the historical reports — operating statistics, Annual Reports, etc., going back to past years.  With a bit of sleuthing, you can find some of these on the City of Toronto website by using its search engine to access cached copies of the reports and pages.

A cached copy of the old “Documents” page is still available.

by

Where Will Fido Sleep?

Those who ride the Danforth subway might be forgiven for thinking that we did not fit into the “One Stop” universe as so few of “our” stations had video screens.  Not enough eyeballs, obviously, to make it worth their while.

Just last week, however, things started to change with the disappearance of the electronics from the old “Metron” displays and the installation of new “One Stops”.

Gone is the full working set of Metrons at Donlands Station which faithfully displayed ads for a travellers’ kennel near Pearson Airport for all those years.  Now dogs on the Danforth will have to put up with what passes for news and the occasional, if erratic, notice about service blockages.

At least the time will be correct.

by

Metrolinx Agenda and Regional Transportation Plan

The agenda for this week’s Metrolinx Board meeting has been online for about a day.  From this, you can link to the final version of the Regional Transportation Plan and to other reports.

I am not going to comment in detail on this material until after the Board meeting so that I can incorporate any information about discussions there as well as last-minute changes, if any.

There is some interesting reading in the covering report concerning feedback from the public consultation process, and the changes made to the draft plan flowing from those meetings.  The public appears to be ahead of Metrolinx on some things especially on the need to move projects that will relieve demand in the Yonge Street corridor forward from the 25-year to the 15-year plan.  I will be writing about this in much more detail in coming days.

Another important evolution in the RTP is that Union Station is now one of the “Big Moves”, a major goal in its own right.  How much Metrolinx has actually thought about the implications of all of the service they plan to concentrate on that site is quite another matter.  This too will be the subject of a future post.

An important change in tone came in later versions of the RTP as it evolved — this is a “conceptual plan”, not a prescriptive, carved-in-stone map of what will be.  That change, had it come earlier in the Metrolinx process, could have avoided many spats about proposals that were touted long before anyone even knew what was required.  Moreover, Metrolinx could have concentrated on the larger picture — where are the demands, how would people flow through various optional networks — rather than trying to nail everything down in one definitive map.  We still don’t know enough about alternative approaches to the transportation problems, and probably won’t until Metrolinx gets around to its detailed studies.

Those studies (the “Benefits Case Analyses” or “BCAs”) have not yet appeared on the public agenda although we know when they are supposed to be available.  The BCA for York Viva was presented in private session at the November board meeting, and the BCA for the Scarborough RT is up this week.  Metrolinx needs to stop hiding vital reports in private session and bring this most important step in project and alternatives evaluation out into public view.

Finally, the eternal question of money remains unanswered, and there is almost a three-year built-in hiatus between the completion of projects paid for by the MoveOntario seed money, and the point where new funding might actually flow to Metrolinx.  This is an unacceptable delay whose only purpose is to buy political time for the options of tolls or some other form of additional tax to be massaged into public acceptance.

We are supposed to be planning a sustainable transit network, not an election campaign, and the sooner Metrolinx and Queen’s Park get on with figuring how to pay for everything we need, the better.

by

Humber Bay Gets Its Express Bus

Today, the TTC, in the best tradition of oiling the squeaky wheel, agreed to a one-year trial operation of a premium fare express bus from eastern Mimico to Union Station.  This ran contrary to the staff recommendation that the route would not meet the criteria for a financially viable operation.

During the debate, Commissioner Hall suggested that, as a condition of this trial, the Humber Bay condo owners should stop operating their own private bus service over the same route.  However, this idea was withdrawn.  Chair Adam Giambrone supported the scheme with reservations, but expected that the ridership numbers would bear out what staff predicted and the route would not survive its one-year review.  We shall see.

This service will require 3 additional peak buses to provide 5 inbound morning and 4 outbound afternoon trips.

I cannot help observing that this situation (the demand for a special bus) mirrors the situation in the Beach.  The TTC is reaping the effect of two decades of ignoring the poor quality of service offered on Lake Shore.  Despite all the claims of better operation on the 501, the efforts at managing operators to avoid short turns only takes place in the east, and has yet to be implemented westbound at Roncesvalles.  Moreover, the 3 morning trips on the 508 Lake Shore, trips that should run like clockwork, are not predictable or worth waiting for.

It will be amusing to see whether the TTC manages to get the buses to their stops on schedule, and how long it takes for the would-be riders to complain about infrequent, unreliable service.

It’s always interesting to listen to people talking about how fast they can drive downtown, and therefore how good the bus would be.  They ignore the need to walk to a stop, to wait for a bus and to get through downtown traffic to their stop.

Meanwhile, all of you whose routes are still crowded will wait a little longer for service meeting the TTC’s own standards.  Even with recent increases, there remains a considerable number of routes that are overcrowded and for which the TTC has no spare equipment.

Sometime late in 2009, we may see the 501 Queen service extended from Humber to Park Lawn, provided that the forty-two municipal agencies that appear to be incapable of co-ordinating any transit-related construction can get their acts together.  It will be intriguing to see what effect this has on demand for the premium fare bus service and what the comparable running times, including waits, really are.

by

Better Batteries for Hybrid Buses

The TTC’s supplementary agenda for this week includes a report on the settlement of negotiations with Daimler for the problems with the hybrid bus fleet.  Parts of this report are confidential, but the main items of interest for system users are in the public report.

  • The existing fleet of hybrid buses will be converted from lead acid to Lithium-Ion batteries.  This is expected to greatly improve reliability and to reduce fuel consumption by about five percent due to the much lower weight (4,100 vs 1,000 pounds) of the batteries.  (The TTC quotes the weight in pounds.)
  • The 2009 bus order for 130 hybrids will remain in place.
  • The optional 2010 bus order for 120 diesels will proceed.  It should be noted that supplementary Federal funding for “green” bus technology is not guaranteed into 2010.
  • Due to the larger than expected number of vehicles required both for construction projects (e.g. St. Clair) and to compensate for poor hybrid reliability, 52 “retirement-eligible” GM buses will undergo a life extension.  This is expected to add 2 to 3 years to their life.  Buses now out of service will be the first to go through this rebuild so that the active fleet is not further depleted.  This project will cost $3.5-million or about $65K per bus. 

From a budgetary point of view, the total spending remains below the original Capital Budget mainly due to the savings on diesel versus hybrids on the 2010 bus order.