In a previous article, I gave a grand tour of the Ontario line showing the general layout of stations and the alignment of the route. However, Metrolinx has yet to publish anything beyond station footprints – the areas stations will occupy, and by extension the buildings that will be removed or altered to accommodate them.
Infrastructure Ontario (IO) has a parallel process for the design of Transit Oriented Communities (TOCs) which are intended to focus development at stations and, in part, to recoup the cost of construction. To date they have conducted public consultations for four locations: Corktown, Exhibition, King-Bathurst, and Queen-Spadina.
Within each site’s page there are links to the videos, presentation decks and to the detailed building plans as submitted to the City of Toronto.
The illustrations in this article are taken from these presentation decks:
The online sessions have a format familiar to those who have watched or participated in Ontario Line sessions: a lengthy presentation followed by a short, moderated Q&A. For those interested in details of specific sites, to the extent that IO revealed them, I recommend watching the videos of the consultation sessions.
The proposals shown are conceptual, and there is no guarantee that what is eventually built will include key details worked out with communities and city planners. The provincial record on transit projects and consultation is far from trustworthy.
These developments are quite large compared to what is there today. Affected communities have pushed back about the scale and density. IO has made some changes, but mainly by rearranging the physical volume of buildings while leaving their overall size intact.
A common point IO makes, just as any other developer would do, is that the neighbourhoods around stations should be judged not on their current form, but on what they will become with developments already in the pipeline. This sort of catch-22 plays out all over the city. Once a very tall building is approved, often by force of provincial decisions, not by local planning, this sets a precedent for everything that will follow.
Land nearby a transit station (defined as within 800m or a 10 minute walk) puts a great deal of the city under its umbrella. Provincially-mandated growth is a blanket excuse for larger buildings even if the resulting density greatly exceeds provincial targets.
There is a more general issue about TOCs in that they are primary residential. Transit demand is easier to concentrate with commercial buildings such as in the core because of the many-to-one commuting pattern. Residential buildings tend to generate trips outward in whatever direction there is a convenient path such as a nearby highway or transit line provided to a destination. A related issue with new residential development is the amount of parking included and, therefore, the relative attractiveness of longer road trips vs transit trips.
If a so-called transit community features parking for all of its residents, this does not give transit a “leg up”. These sites, as planned, do have a preponderance of bicycle parking over auto spaces, and many buildings have no auto parking at all. Whether this ratio survives to actual construction remains to be seen.
Another key point is timing. Occupancy of the proposed buildings is aimed at the early 2030s because they will sit on top of future stations. Even at Exhibition where the TOC development is north of the joint GO/OL corridor, construction is not slated to start until 2029.
The upside is that transit will already be there when residents move in. This is totally unlike what happened on Queens Quay where development has preceded good transit service.
To jump to a specific station, click the links below:
This article continues the series on service reliability on short routes. The common theme is that the routes in question have short trips, and recovery to scheduled times should be simply achieved. Most of them also have little traffic congestion, and that cannot be cited as the root of all problems.
On some occasions, particularly later in the year when staffing shortages hit the TTC, some buses might be missing. However, this does not explain irregular headways when all of the scheduled vehicles are in service.
When one bus is missing on a short route, this can have a big effect on the service level especially when there were only two or three to begin with.
The TTC claims that some of the gaps are actually filled by “Run as Directed” (RAD) buses, but there are problems with that explanation:
There are far too few RADs in service at any time to fill the missing service seen on many routes across the system.
If a RAD operator takes over an open, scheduled crew, then the bus should run with the proper route identification and show up in the tracking logs. “Route 600” RAD buses only make selected trips on routes and do not appear in route-specific tracking logs.
If all of the scheduled buses are in service, but they are running erratically, notably with two or more buses running together, this is an issue line management and service spacing.
In this mini-series, I will review the following routes:
64 Main
92 Woodbine South
121 Esplanade-River (formerly Front-Esplanade)
124 Sunnybrook
(For those who are wondering, the next group on my radar will be many of the major routes in Scarborough.)
Note that due to the cyber-attack on the TTC and the recover efforts that followed, there are no data for the following periods:
Friday, October 29 to Saturday, November 6
Sunday, November 7 data begin after 10am
Friday, November 12 through Monday, November 15
Saturday-Sunday, November 20-21.
There are also no data for:
Friday, October 15 to Sunday, October 17 at about 2pm.
Saturday, October 23 from about 10pm to 11pm.
Despite these gaps, plenty of data remains to show how the route behaves.
The short version:
Scheduled running times were too tight on 64 Main until mid-November. This was “fixed” by buses dropping trips to get back on time, and less service was provided than advertised.
Ongoing problems with missing buses and bunching compounded the schedule issue, and persisted into December.
Weekend service was particularly bad when only one bus was operating.
With very rare exceptions, there are no problems with traffic congestion as a stock excuse for irregularity in service.
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.
Updated April 7, 2022 at 9:45 am: Metrolinx has responded to a query about possible errors and inconsistencies in the EA. See the Errata section at the end of this article.
In this article, I will primarily review the alignment drawings provided in the EA and some of the information about station form and construction, to the extent that Metrolinx has provided this.
Notable by their absence from these documents are drawings of the actual structures above or below ground. This makes it almost impossible to assess, for example, the on street presence of the elevated structure between the north end of the Leaside Bridge and Science Centre Station, nor of new station buildings wherever the line is above ground. Underground structures, essential to an understanding of how the stations will connect to neighbouring buildings and to other transit lines, are also not shown.
I wrote to Metrolinx asking about this, and they initially referred me to the Neighbourhood Updates segment of their engagement website. There is less information there, in most cases, than in the EA or other already-public presentations (which could be out of date). I wrote again, and they replied:
Hi Steve – those additional images will be posted as soon as they are available.
We know folks are anxious to see those images and we are working to get that information available.
It is baffling how people are supposed to assess information in the EA if they cannot see what Metrolinx proposes to build.
On a similar note, there is a general problem along the line in that significant incursions on green space have yet to be detailed, and by the time the plans are actually published, it will be impossible to adjust the design. Metrolinx misled communities giving the impression that tree inventories and replacement plans would be available during the consultation period, but it is now clear that this was never going to be the case.
For additional background, please see my recent article An Ontario Line Tour and the associated webinar.
In future articles I will turn in more detail to issues such as Natural Environment, Noise & Vibration and the effects on buildings and structures along the route.
To avoid duplication, I will only discuss here items which are new in this version.
The big system-wide change coming later in 2022 will be the opening of Line 5 Crosstown and the restructuring of the surface network. The proposals are the same as in the draft version of the plan, and I will not discuss them here.
[Page numbers cited in this article refer to those within the “glossy” version of the Service Plan which follows the covering report at p. 18 of the linked pdf.]
What Riders Want
One page from the plan is really a vital part of the whole discussion. Some riders want better connectivity, but a good chunk of this is about service quality and quantity. Sadly, there is little in the TTC’s plans that will address this issue beyond restoring service more-or-less to pre-pandemic levels.
Those of us who remember the “before times” will know that simply putting back bus, streetcar and subway hours is not enough. There were problems with service before covid, and the pandemic shuffled what had been a growing debate off the table.
Ridership recovery, let alone growth, will require that transit be as good as it can be, not merely good enough to get by.
At its meeting of February 10, 2022, the TTC board will consider a report on the future transit fare structure in Toronto.
In May 2022, TTC management will present a final recommendation for the Board’s endorsement, but this month’s update takes us a considerable way along the road to a new structure transit fares. For the past two years, TTC staff have consulted with interested members of the public while following an overall policy framework approved by the Board.
Source: Advancing the 5-Year Fare Policy, p 15
The evaluation found, to no surprise, that no fare scheme can achieve all of these goals, and in particular “financial sustainability” (for which read “no increase in subsidy”) and any change to make fares more attractive will work at cross-purposes. The idea that somehow new riders can be attracted in sufficient numbers to offset costs is a convenient fiction spouted by those whose real agenda is to cap spending, not to improve transit.
Many fare schemes were considered, and many were discarded for various reasons.
Those that survived to the final round of evaluation were:
Free fares
Full cost recovery
Fare capping
Aligning concession fares
Removal of the cross-boundary YRT-TTC extra fare
Peak/Off-peak pricing
Group Travel Discount
Reduce the TTC children-ride-free age limit to 5 from 12
Set the Senior concession fare to 20% of the Adult fare
Remove the Senior concession
Notable by its absence in this list is any form of fare-by-distance or fare zones. These options were dropped because of the inequity they would pose for riders whose trips tend to be long, but whose incomes are not high (residents of the outer part of Toronto).
It is no secret to readers of this blog that I have always supported the flat fare concept not just for its value to long-haul riders, but for its simplicity. Schemes that purport to make riders pay proportionately for their riding tend to increase the complexity and cost without a comparable or better return in making transit attractive. Indeed, the higher fares this would bring drive away the very trips, long journeys, that we do not want shifting to autos while giving a bonus to riders who make shorter hops typically “downtown”.
The fare policy report recommends that the TTC:
1. Continue to support the TTC’s existing fare structure, which includes the flat fare, free two-hour transfer across all modes and the Fair Pass and age-based discounts as the hallmarks of the TTC’s fare policy;
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; and
3. Direct staff to forward a copy of this report to the Ministry of Transportation to restart discussions on reintroducing the Discount Double Fare (DDF), the TTC-GO Transit co-fare to offset Line 3 closures.
Updated February 2, 2022 at 6:30am: The section on Science Centre Station at Don Mills and Eglinton has been updated with an illustration of the CreateTO proposal for the southwest and southeast corners.
This article combines the speaking notes and presentation deck for my webinarAn Ontario Line Tour that streamed on February 1, 2022 under the sponsorship of Smart Density, an Architecture and Planning firm in downtown Toronto. The image below was taken from the announcement of the webinar. It shows the stations on the Ontario Line with their zones of influence drawn as 500m circles around each of them.
Image credit: Smart Density
Intro:
Thanks for coming today!
To set the stage for what will follow, here is a brief outline.
Origins of the Ontario Line
A station-by-station tour from Exhibition to Science Centre
Planning issues for rapid transit
Illustrations in this presentation come from many sources, but are preliminary in many cases, because the final EA is not yet published with what might be “definitive” (for now) designs.
Here we are on January 30, 2022, the sixteenth birthday of this blog. We’re getting all grown up and respectable these days, at least in some quarters. I was recently referred to as “an elder” in the best sense of someone whose age and knowledge inform those who come after. This is, I think, a promotion from “guru”, or even worse, an “expert”, a common description/epithet that comes my way.
This site is not just me and my opinions, but the contributions of many to the discussions over the years. As I write this, there are over 2,500 articles and almost 56,000 comments. You have all been busy!
Back in 2005, I received the Jane Jacobs Prize as an “unsung hero” of transit advocacy, and not long afterward this blog, swans and all, was born. Many of you have been with me on that journey, and I have no plans to put down my quill.
These are not easy times. Looking back on last year’s article, I cannot help quoting its optimistic conclusion:
With luck, we will all be back here a year from now still recovering from a wild New Year’s Bacchanal. There will be real optimism, the sense of a better future after a dark past.
Things didn’t quite work out that way, although there is hope that the imminent re-opening in Ontario will not drive us back into another dark age huddled around our electronic hearths.
I must continue that closing message from last year, one that still applies ever so strongly in an age of political opportunists for whom a world-wide disaster is nothing more than a chance to score cheap political points at the cost of thousands of lives.
We will get there through the efforts of many people in the front lines who keep the wheels turning in so many aspects of our city, people we often take for granted. We will get there thanks to a combination of technological near-miracles, belief in facts and science, and the dedication of thousands whose lives we depend on.
I remember when modern genetics began with the discovery of DNA, and later RNA, as well as more recent advances in understanding of the immune system. The thought that many of us remain in good health thanks to technology based on that knowledge is breathtaking. Anyone who downplays or naysays the accomplishment is at best a fool, at worst a menace.
In the political arena, I will be quite blunt. I have reached the point where the so-called conservatives, the neo-Trumpists, the anti-vaxxers are collectively a group for whom I have utter contempt. No quarter should be given, none, to those who in the name of “personal liberty” would imperil their neighbours. Those who yearn for political power by exploiting their support have never represented a majority in Canada and gain office only thanks to a divided opposition.
In Ontario, there is hope that opposition will coalesce to drive the Premier and his band of incompetent fools from office. Whether we will get a new band of fools remains to be seen, but a Toronto, an Ontario in which nobody named “Ford” has any power is long overdue. Simplistic, populist slogans and dogma are no replacement for competent, dare I say, inspiring government.
This year I really do want to look forward, even with some misgivings on the social and political landscape.
At a most basic level of creature comforts, it will be good to return to eating food someone else cooks in restaurants filled with equally happy visitors. Sitting in a theatre with real musicians and actors is a treat we have lost, with only a too brief respite. I long to be part of a live audience laughing, crying, applauding, even cheering (through a mask) for people I have seen only online for far too long.
Delectable though an online recipe might be, you cannot eat a picture of brunch. Like the theatre, take out is not the same, and the experience is shared only briefly with staff, not with fellow diners.
Online performances have been a blessing through these two years. They have been a way to support some of my favourite artists, but there is a siren song calling, a voice from darkened theatres where only the ghost light shines.
Everyone will have their own yearned-for experience, and I wish you all joy in getting back to favoured haunts.
The transit portfolio is only one of many that face a long, hard climb out of the economic and social chasm the pandemic created. To many it is not even a top tier issue because transit is something other people use, that only “city” or “downtown” folk care about. Even without that cultural problem, there are desperate issues in Health and Long Term Care, not to mention Education, that have a society-wide call on resources.
Within the transit realm, there is the short term problem of paying to keep service attractive while ridership recovers. The longer term challenge is to both rebuild that ridership and grow well beyond pre-pandemic demand levels. The typical “solution” involves spending lots of capital on new facilities and vehicles while ignoring the need to actually operate them to provide service.
What happens if the flow of capital dollars is reduced or redirected to other areas? Are we politically capable of talking about transit in terms that do not involve billions in new builds? Will we ever try to make what we have today work better on a large scale, not just a priority signal here and a red lane there?
What is the TTC’s plan for growth? Modest. Small scale. No plan for substantial service improvements beyond just getting back to pre-pandemic levels. This is echoed in the City’s transit budget where the goal of more service in the environmental plan is not reflected in provisions to fund the changes.
I cannot avoid talking about a key part of TTC operations: the quality of service. There have always been excuses for ragged service, and the pandemic has brought its own additions to the TTC’s repertoire including buses that nobody can see or track, and claims of reliability that are completely at odds with actual data.
Of course there are interruptions from traffic accidents, sick passengers and breakdowns, but these do not explain nor excuse rampant problems with uneven service. The TTC has standards that are not achieved, or which give an overly rosy picture at odds with daily rider experiences. Metrics descend from a scheme that basically entrenched “how we’ve always done things”, and even then the TTC does not routinely hit the mark.
We have a transit board that is loathe to meddle in operational matters, and does little to ensure that management is making the best use of system resources to provide reliable service. For that most basic function of a board, budget review and planning, there is no budget committee. The board seems happy to have new budgets drop out of the air with no policy input until the last minute when nothing can be changed until, maybe, “next year”.
This is an abdication of responsibility. If we are to take “ridership recovery” seriously, it will have to start with some real goals, clear policies about budget direction and hands-on measurements that the governance level of the TTC can trust and enforce.
Meanwhile, on the provincial level, we have Metrolinx, an agency whose arrogance has only grown under a government that wants results, now, and without debate. We are building major projects of dubious worth that will pre-empt work and funding on many other deserving undertakings for years to come. The Metrolinx board meets rarely in public, and when it does, the sessions do little more than cheer on the great works of management. Any substantive debate occurs in private.
All of our transit planning will be coloured by the work-from-home shift and the degree to which transit travel changes permanently both in place and in time. I do not subscribe to the idea that “downtown is dead”, and we really have not yet had a chance to see what its work-day population will be once people are no longer afraid to travel and to work together.
There may be a less floor space per worker with a move to hotelling, but if anything that is more of a threat to the demand for net new office space as vacancies beget move-ins. The effect will vary from place to place, but whatever the result, there will still be a demand for transit to get workers to and from jobs.
Less than half of TTC’s pre-pandemic ridership came from work trips with the rest split broadly between education, shopping, entertainment and other personal travel. As each aspect of our community reopens, those trips will re-appear even if the conventional home to King-and-Bay office trips take longer to return. Anyone who rides the TTC today can see the effect of school re-openings. Locations with concentrations of jobs that cannot be worked from home already produce regular reports of overcrowded buses.
The problem is that too much of that travel is not concentrated on a few subway lines, but is hidden away on routes where riders have little choice but to await the next convoy of buses. Politicians and especially management who downplay this problem do not deserve to be in charge of a transit system.
Many people and communities have worked as advocates for better transit among a wide variety of portfolios where the long, hard slog becomes tiring. There are little victories separated by periods of despair that real change will come.
Something critical to citizen participation has been lost over the two pandemic years: in person contact between communities and those who govern them. Tightly managed Zoom calls with pre-scripted presentations and filtered questions are no replacement for in person meetings where there is a communal sense and strength in numbers. It is easy to dismiss critics one at a time, not so easy when they come by the room full.
I end this year’s greetings in a feisty mood. Yes, we should celebrate the return of some vaguely “normal” day-to-day life to the extent it is possible, but the time for muddling through, for making do with half measures is over.
Without advocacy, nothing happens, and the fight must go on.
A happy 2022 to all my readers whether you comment profusely (sometimes at greater length than I will publish) or just lurk in the shadows watching the debate.
On Tuesday, February 1 at 11:00 am, I will be giving a webinar about the Ontario Line for Smart Density, a planning firm in downtown Toronto.
The intent is to give a tour of the line and a general overview of how it fits, or does not, into the City along with a bit of the history of its predecessor, the Relief Line. Given the focus of Smart Density’s other webinars, I will touch on planned developments around stations on the line some of which are products of the “Transit Oriented Communities” program of Infrastructure Ontario.
Toronto Council’s Budget Committee has been working through budget proposals from all departments and agencies in recent days. On January 19, it was the TTC’s turn.
Normally this step in the slow march to Council approval is simply a rehash of material presented at the TTC Board. However, in light of the return to greater restrictions on public gatherings, there has been a drop in ridership significant enough that the operating budget has been updated. This article reviews the changes.
Ridership, measured as a percentage of pre-pandemic levels, has been trending up through the fall, but has dropped off again since the move to close or restrict many activities.
The fall also shows up in average bus occupancy numbers.
When the TTC set its 2022 operating budget, the drops shown above were not yet reflected in the stats.
Their projection for 2022 ridership fell in a band based on the experience to date with system recovery, but this has now been modified. The TTC now aims to be back to the low end of its projected demand by Q3 2022. This will create a shortfall in revenue compared to budget of about $100 million.
The revised and original operating budget proposals are shown below.
The original version is in a somewhat different format from the TTC’s budget presentation at their Board.
The columns of interest are the “2022 Budget” in the revised version, and the “2022 Recommended Budget” in the original.
(In $millions)
Original
Revised
Change
Revenues
922
817
-105
Gross Expenditures
2234
2229
-5
Net Expenditures
1312
1412
100
COVID Impact
461
561
100
Total City Funding excluding COVID
851
851
0
The additional $100 million has been added to the City’s list of items for which it seeks provincial and federal assistance.
Provincial Gas Tax
In normal years, the City divides the provincial gas tax share it receives from Ontario between the operating and capital budgets, with $90 million going to operating and the rest to capital. In 2020, because of the extraordinary strain on operating revenues, all of the provincial gas tax went to operations. The City plans to return to the standard practice of splitting this revenue between the two budgets in 2022.
The province recently announced that the total gas tax funding for municipal transit would be $375.6 million. Of this, $120.4 million is a “top up” to the share that would have flowed to municipalities under the usual formula of two cents/litre, but for reduced fuel consumption during the pandemic.
Toronto will receive $185.1 million.
Without the one-time top-up, this is a revenue stream that can fluctuate with the economy and with changes in the mix of fuel efficient and electric vehicles across the province.
Covid vs non-Covid Budgets
An intriguing issue in the City and TTC’s reported year-end projection is a conflict between the financial situation each of them reports:
The TTC will post an unexpected surplus of about $36 million (revenue including subsidies in excess of actual expenses). This will go into a City reserve fund for transit.
The City reports a shortfall of $75 million for transit-related Covid costs that has not yet been paid by either the provincial or federal government.
I asked the City to explain this, and they replied that, in effect, there are separate budget lines for “normal” operations and costs related to Covid.
The 2021 Operating Budget for the TTC was developed with $796 million in anticipated COVID-19 impacts. COVID-19 related financial impacts across the City were identified and included in Agency and Divisional budgets, while COVID-19 support funding from the Government of Canada and Province of Ontario were consolidated between the various Safe Restart Agreement (SRA) streams and budgeted for corporately by the City. While the TTC has experienced 2021 COVID-19 financial impacts in the form of lost revenue and added costs that has been consistent with the $796 million budgeted estimate, there is $75 million in outstanding funding support to address these COVID-19 transit impacts experienced in 2021, reflected as a revenue/COVID-19 funding shortfall in the City’s budget.
City and TTC staff continue to dialog with our Federal and Provincial counterparts and consistent with commitments in the provincial Fall Economic Statement, expect to receive full SRA funding support for 2021 COVID-19 financial impacts.
Stephen Conforti, Executive Director, Financial Planning Division, City of Toronto by email, January 18, 2022
I asked for a clarification of this, and the City replied:
While there is only one budget for the TTC, COVID-19 support funding for Transit, Shelters, Public Health, Long-term Care, etc. was budgeted separately within the City’s corporate revenue budget. As a result, the net budget for the TTC increased by $796 million in 2021 to account for COVID-19 impacts (lost revenues and added costs), with the offset in the form of expected COVID-19 support funding residing in the City’s corporate revenue budget.
Given that the COVID-19 funding shortfall of $75 million specific to transit costs resides in the City’s corporate revenue budget, the deficit created by this funding shortfall is reflected and reported in the City’s accounts and referenced in TTC variance reporting.
Stephen Conforti, Executive Director, Financial Planning Division, City of Toronto by email, January 21, 2022
What has happened, rather oddly, is that thanks to the downturn in service levels due to both the vaccination mandate and TTC’s service trimming, the TTC’s costs dropped, but ridership stayed strong almost to the end of the year. This predates the effect of the restrictions on ridership seen in the charts above.
The result was that the TTC will not need all of the subsidy draw originally budgeted, and the “surplus” will go into the transit reserve following City policy. Also, a planned draw on that reserve in the 2021 budget will not be needed. The final amount of that “surplus” will depend on the effects of ridership and revenue drops in late December 2021.
For 2022, a draw of $20.7 million is planned on the transit reserve.