A Grand Plan

by

Another Look at A Grand Plan

Warning: This post will be offensive to those with sensitive egos.

In recent months, probably thanks to the election campaign, I have acquired a few “followers” who have enough working brain cells to put together rants on a daily basis. They decry my antipathy to anyone-but-Chow, subways, SmartTrack, and various other schemes claiming that I am eminently unqualified to run this blog. One regular writer even claims that I should “resign” so that some more enlightened soul can be “elected” by the readership to mind the store.

One wonders what part of a personal domain name this person (or persons) does not understand, or the idea that the marketplace will determine whether writings here have credibility and influence.

Those with nothing better to do but criticize almost certainly have not put in the decades of watching, commenting, advocating, consulting and even occasionally getting paid (!!!) for their thoughts on transit. Early in this blog’s history, back in March 2006, that little agency called “Metrolinx” did not yet exist, and in anticipation of its creation, I wrote an article about how the region’s transit should evolve.

I gave credit to other organizations, notably the Toronto Board of Trade, as well as the army of professionals and amateurs with whom I have discussed transit over the years.

The plan included:

  • Much more extensive use of the rail network for improved GO service.
  • Much improved service on the surface bus and streetcar network including an increased bus fleet and purchase of an accessible low-floor streetcar fleet.
  • An Eglinton LRT line including an underground section from Leaside to Keele including service to Pearson Airport.
  • A Don Mills / Waterfront east line [Since 2006, I have come to think that a full subway would be better south of Eglinton as the line would be entirely grade separated anyhow. As for the waterfront, the planned development between Yonge and the Port Lands is now much more extensive and requires far more than a DRL or SmartTrack station to serve the entire site.]
  • Various other LRT lines including one in the Weston corridor using the space that has now been consumed by the UPX trackage.
  • A Yonge subway extension north to Steeles.

… and much more.

The plan isn’t perfect. My opinion of some lines has changed over the years, but the basic premise has not. Toronto must think of transit as a network with many parts, not just a bauble here and there to get someone through an election, or a showpiece for one municipality or transit operator.

Yes, I’m an advocate for LRT, a mode that other cities were building while Toronto wasted four decades on the anything-but-LRT attitude that dates back to Bill Davis. I make no apology for that, and only wish we had built more over the years rather than pursuing pipe-dreams and fighting over the selection of new routes.

By now, we could have had a network of LRT lines plus frequent GO service in two or three corridors serving Scarborough. What we got was the Toonerville Trolley to STC.

Some folks see me as a critic, a nay-sayer who denigrates new plans and opposes “progress” (a word that usually means building what they want). I have seen plans come and go, a lot of false starts, and too many cases where small-scale, short-term thinking wasted opportunities for real progress on transit. Far too many hobby-horses, far too much vote-buying, and far too much fiscal fantasy about something-for-nothing transit systems.

So the next time you feel like leaving a really snotty comment here about how I don’t care about anyone outside of downtown, how I am single-handedly responsible for the decline of civilization as we know it, take a few moments to polish off your resumé. Tell us all what you were doing for the past 40 years, and how carefully you have thought about the transit system. Then start your own website.

by

The Challenge of Improving Subway Service (Updated)

On Wednesday morning, November 5, 2014, the TTC suffered two major delays on the subway system. One was a complete shutdown of service between St. Clair West and Union Stations, and the other was a period of very slow operation approaching Broadview Station westbound.

Updated November 10, 2014 at 5:00pm: The TTC has now provided an explanation for the delay on the University subway. See the body of this article for details.

The morning commute was painfully difficult for everyone on the subway, and these incidents inevitably raise calls for “someone to do something” so that they won’t happen again. That’s an easy political call, but one requiring a deeper understanding of the underlying problems. This is not just about the physical state of the signal system, or the TTC’s ability to respond to major events, or the long-standing question of subway capacity, but a mixture of all of these. Quick fixes would be nice, but if they were available, Toronto would not be in the transportation mess it faces after years of inaction, denial and pandering for votes to the detriment of transit everywhere.

Continue reading →

by

Some Friendly Advice For The Mayor Elect

Toronto has elected a new mayor, John Tory, who will formally take office in December 2014. The ancien régime may be on its way out the door, but this is not the time for dancing in the streets with bonfires and blazing effigies.

Part of me secretly yearns for the first of many speeches in which a Tory administration bemoans the Ford legacy, just as Ford bemoaned the Miller years, but that leaves us focussed on retribution, not on progress. Toronto’s job now is to look forward and to undo the damage that four years of narrow-minded, simplistic policies brought us.

The very first question we — and I say “we” because the responsibility of citizens does not end the moment they cast a ballot — must answer is “what should Toronto be”. In this article, I will address only transit issues and their general political context and will leave other portfolios to commentators and activists in their respective fields. However, the question is the same for all.

The Importance of Listening

Throughout the campaign, Toronto heard endlessly about Tory’s plan. Right up to the last debate at CITY-TV where I was a member of the “expert panel”, Tory’s response to criticism was to cite his confidence in Toronto and belief that his plan would work. Wonderful sentiments, but one cannot dismiss alternate viewpoints with a wave of the hand and a Pollyanna-like belief in a bright future.

At some point in the campaign, Tory allowed that he must learn to “listen more”. That’s not just a question of being polite so that a speaker can make their point, but of recognizing the validity of alternate outlooks and absorbing the best of them into a broad-based policy. Tory wants a collegial atmosphere at City Hall, and that requires more than everyone singing his tunes and hanging a SmartTrack map in every office.

A vital first step lies in the creation of a new Executive and Standing Committees, and in the selection of new members for the TTC Board. Will Tory take the same route as Ford in favouring only the sycophants, the Councillors looking to share a new mayor’s power, or will the boards and committees represent the whole city geographically and politically?

The condition of transit requires serious debates about service quality, maintenance and the future role of the TTC network. These are not simple issues, and Council needs to be given honest advice and a broad menu of options, not simply a “stand pat” budget that pretends we can get by with flat-lined subsidies.

In August, the TTC Board passed a motion directing staff to include provision for various improvements as options in the 2015 budget. Does John Tory want to hear what it will cost to improve the TTC, or does he want that muzzled so his SmartTrack will stand alone as the only topic worthy of debate and funding?

Budget Committee meetings of the Ford era treated those who might ask “please, sir, we want some more” to open contempt — the sense that people who made time to come to City Hall for their paltry 3 minutes were slackers who should be out working. City Council owes Toronto a collective apology for this treatment and a commitment to do better. Yes, deputations are tedious to listen through, and a Council less dismissive of alternative voices might find a way to actually hear them.

If we begin from an attitude that people who want better services are somehow undeserving of attention, that they are special interest groups, and most importantly that they are somehow not representative of “taxpayers”, then the new administration will be no better than the old.

The Importance of Transit Service

“City Hall doesn’t listen to us” is a common complaint both downtown and in the far reaches of Etobicoke or Scarborough. When “downtowners” complain of poor transit service, they make common cause with riders all over the city. Yes, we have subways downtown, but much of the “old city” depends on surface routes for transport. There will never be a subway under Dufferin or St. Clair any more than there will ever be a subway under Lawrence or Islington.

Technology battles use up a lot of ink and web space, but regardless of who “wins”, much of the transit system remains unchanged.

Tory’s campaign was all about SmartTrack to the exclusion of almost all other transit issues. The gaping hole in his platform was any real mention of better service on the existing system, and he dismissed out of hand the TTC’s August suggestions (and rather conservative ones at that) of potential improvements. That’s a position of someone who has a blinkered view of city life and of the real needs, today, that should be addressed.

What we know so far is that Tory would look at express buses to solve some “squeaky wheel” problems like transit from Liberty Village, but duplicating existing services this way won’t make much difference for the vast majority of travellers. First off, most routes into downtown are already crowded with traffic, and an “express” bus would still make a slow, expensive journey. Second, many trips are not headed to the core area in the peak period, and these trips require better service on the grid of routes we already have.

Third, needless to say, is that the TTC claims to be unable to run more service until at best 2018-19. In other words, we might see more service just when the next election campaign heats up. That position was useful to Tory in downplaying Olivia Chow’s credibility, but it undermines his own. Any municipal agency’s job is to provide advice on what can be done and how to do it. If the city says “build me a subway”, then that’s the TTC’s job. If the city says “run better service”, it is not the TTC’s job to say “that’s impossible” especially when the statement is a flat out lie. Challenging, yes, but not impossible if the city will provide the resources.

A mayor’s job is to lead, to set goals for the city and, indeed, that’s what the whole SmartTrack campaign, flawed though it might be, is about. Tory stuck with his plan, but now is the time to see how transit overall can be made even better, how it can provide more than superficial improvements in the short term.

This will require using all of the resources the TTC has available today, and accelerating capital purchases that now languish in future years of the budget.

For more about what we can do to improve transit today, see my previous article on the subject.

The Simplistic Proposal for a Fare Freeze

Every politician, especially every new mayor, loves to give the voters something as a reward: a tax cut here, a free service there. Tory (like his two opponents) wants to freeze TTC fares. That would be a terrible decision, and could set the TTC back even further than it has been under the Ford years.

Fare freezes do nothing to improve service, and in fact they hobble service growth unless the freeze is matched by increased subsidy. Roughly speaking, such a move would cost at least $25-million, and that is revenue that is lost not just this year, but every future year because today’s fare becomes the base against which future increases grow.

It’s easy to say “people pay enough already”, but in fact many riders are quite capable of and willing to pay more if only their bus would show up with space for them to board. Yes, there are lower-income riders who deserve a break, but they should get one directly as a targeted subsidy.

An important fare change under discussion (and likely to be forced by the move to Presto) is the implementation of time-based fares as a replacement for transfers. The TTC estimates the cost of a 2-hour fare at $20m annually, but such a change will make travel cheaper for many riders who now make separate, short hop trips, but not with sufficient frequency to warrant buying a monthly pass.

Such a fare will also make regional integration much simpler because boundaries could disappear. Two hours’ riding is two hours’ worth regardless of the colour of the bus.

Why don’t we discuss this sort of forward looking fare structure but instead simply say “freeze the fares” as if it will solve everyone’s problems? The discussion and the subsidy debate will be right back on the table in 2016 and every year after that.

There is basic math in the TTC budget large and complex as some of its details may be. The cost of running service is driven by two factors:

  • Increases in the cost of labour and materials, and
  • Increases in the amount of service provided.

There are “efficiencies” here and there such as a move to larger vehicles, but these are one-time savings once they are rolled into the system. If both service and the cost of providing it go up, so must the subsidy unless the difference comes from the farebox.

For as long as I can remember, the TTC has been saying “we should have regular, small increases in fares” because experience shows that at this scale, riders stay on the system. What we do not need is an artificial freeze followed by big changes when the budget pressure at the City becomes overwhelming. Toronto has been through this before, and it worked against the larger goal of getting more people onto the transit system.

Is there a Mayor, a Council, with the backbone to argue that short-term cuts and freezes don’t benefit the city and its transit riders in the long term?

The Technology Wars

Regular readers here will know that there are long discussions about what transit technology Toronto should embrace and where various lines might be built. I am not going to repeat that debate.

However, there are three hangovers from the election campaign:

  • A decision has been made to build a subway in Scarborough, and there is strong pressure for more subways elsewhere.
  • The regional rail network, call it GO RER or SmartTrack, will feature more prominently in transit planning that it has for decades.
  • We might, maybe, someday, see progress on a Downtown Relief Line (whatever it is called).

In all three cases, major studies will be needed to finalize basic details such as alignments, engineering challenges, station locations and cost. These studies should not be short-circuited with political rhetoric, nor should they reach “directed” conclusions to support a favoured result.

Toronto needs to understand the costs, benefits and limitations of various options so that Council and our friends at Queen’s Park can see how everything might fit together. This is not a matter of nay-saying, or delay for its own sake, as Tory’s campaign would argue, but of really knowing what we might do, how much it will cost, and how well any projects will improve the network.

There is far more to planning and building a network than printing hundreds of thousands of campaign handouts with a map of one route on them.

What Is SmartTrack?

As the campaign wore on and challenges to SmartTrack grew, it became obvious that the original proposal needed work, and this was only grudgingly conceded late in the game. The line was not worked out for its engineering challenges even on a rough basis, and its designers even made the fundamental mistake of not visiting potential sites. When someone like me does this, the epithet is “armchair railfan” or “wannabe engineer” if not worse. When a campaign does it, then it’s “a professional opinion” carved on stone tablets (although sandstone may be the actual medium).

I won’t belabour that debate as the challenges in SmartTrack have been addressed elsewhere, but now is the time for many questions to be answered. Just a few:

  • Is SmartTrack really a separate service, or is this simply a rebranded version of something GO was planning to run anyhow?
  • Why the insistence on veering west on Eglinton with a difficult route under Mount Dennis when (a) SmartTrack could continue northwest on the rail corridor and (b) the Eglinton-Crosstown line could continue west as originally planned?
  • At the proposed level of service, can SmartTrack actually benefit would-be riders at the “in town” stations proposed for this line, or would trains be full (just as GO is today) when they arrive?
  • How will a Relief Line eventually fit into this mix?

Toronto is being asked to believe that one line on a map can solve almost every problem, and that is simply not credible. We need to move beyond the campaign and talk about how GO’s RER, Smart Track and other parts of the TTC will co-exist and what role each part will play.

Waterfront Transit

I cannot end this article without mentioning the waterfront. Two major transportation issues face Council on waterfront developments in the coming term:

  • On the western waterfront, what will expansion of demand at the Island Airport do to the waterfront neighbourhoods, to the road and the transit systems serving that facility?
  • On the eastern waterfront, we are about to build a small city of 50,000 residents and at least as many workers and students over the next two decades. This was supposed to be a “transit first” undertaking, but what is actually happening is that transit comes up last. We risk building on a scale that could dwarf Liberty Village but without good transit to move people in and out of the new developments.

Yes, the waterfront is “downtown”, that place so vilified in recent political discourse, but it is a signature project for Toronto, something with which we show the world how well we can build our new city. Failure here will be front and centre, part of the picture post card of Toronto. Our new mayor cannot allow this to founder.

Conclusion

After four years of cutbacks and budgets that strangle the TTC’s ability to grow, it is time for real improvement in Toronto’s transit system. Some of this will come with the usual megaprojects, but attention must be paid to the day-to-day work of providing better transit. That means more service, a commitment to maintenance and fleet expansion that will allow the TTC to attract more riders, not simply keep the minimum possible service on the streets.

John Tory has a chance to show what he can do for transit and for Toronto, to show real improvement before he stands for re-election in 2018. Please let his record be something more than cleaner stations and a pile of discarded maps.

by

SmartTrack: That Pesky Curve in Mount Dennis (Updated)

Updated October 17, 2014 at 4:15pm:  Information from Metrolinx about the revised design for the Air Rail Link spur line from the Weston subdivision to Pearson Airport has been added.

John Tory’s SmartTrack proposal has been roundly criticized by various people, including me, on a number of counts. When one looks at the scheme, it is the technical issues — the degree to which SmartTrack will crowd out the Metrolinx RER scheme (or simply take over its function), the question of capacity at Union Station, the route along Eglinton from the Weston rail corridor to the airport. But the biggest challenge is the link from the rail corridor to Eglinton itself.

Let’s get one issue out of the way up front. Writing in the Star on October 6, Eric Miller states:

And it’s interesting to note that very little criticism deals with the basic merit of the proposal as an addition to Toronto’s transit network. The design logic to address major commuting problems is self-evident; analysis to date indicates high ridership and cost-recovery potential that is expected to be confirmed by more detailed post-election studies; and it is modelled on successful international best practice.

Criticisms have, instead, focused on the line’s “constructability” where it meets Eglinton Avenue W. and on Tory’s proposed financing scheme. As already briefly discussed, however, the constructability issue is truly a tempest in a teapot. And with respect to financing I would suggest that all three mayoral candidates and most of the popular press still have this wrong.

In fact, constructability and the technical issues are precisely what could sink this proposal. Dismissing this as a “tempest in a teapot” is a neat dodge, but it is the academic equivalent of “you’re wrong because I say so”. Many who support Tory’s campaign see criticism of SmartTrack as the work of naysayers who, like so many before us, doom Toronto to inaction.

This is tantamount to saying we cannot criticize the plan because doing so is disloyal to the city’s future. Never mind whether the plan is valid, just don’t criticize it.

Miller’s comments in his op-ed piece (linked above) also don’t line up with statements in the “Four Experts” article of October 9 where he and others talk about what SmartTrack might do. Miller is much less in agreement that SmartTrack could achieve what is claimed for it. Should we dismiss his comments as being irrelevant or counterproductive? Of course not.

This article deals with the challenge of getting from the rail corridor to a point under Eglinton Avenue West at Jane Street, the first stop on the journey west to the airport. To put all of this in context, it is vital to look at the details of both the Eglinton Crosstown LRT (including amendments) and at the Metrolinx Georgetown South project in the rail corridor.

Continue reading →

by

How Can the TTC Run More Service?

In a previous article, I wrote about the crisis in system capacity across all modes – buses, streetcars and subways – and the danger that Toronto may face years without meaningful improvement in transit capacity.

This is a campaign issue, but one that is embraced only by one major candidate, Olivia Chow, and even then, not very well.

Full disclosure: Early in the campaign, I was approached by the Chow team to advise on what became her better bus service plank, but I certainly didn’t write it for reasons that will soon be obvious.

Her transit plan includes support for LRT lines, GO electrification and the first stage of a Downtown Relief subway line. It also includes this commitment regarding bus service:

A better transit plan starts investing now, with buses. Because 60% of TTC rides involve a bus and as the TTC says, the only way to expand transit now is with buses. So Olivia will invest to boost bus service right away, investing $15 million a year.

When we stack a paltry $15m up against the billions in rapid transit plans, it looks rather puny and gives the impression we are trying to get more service on the cheap. How can small change by transit budget standards stack up against the massive spending schemes of rapid transit networks?

Where did the number come from? Back when the Ford/Stintz crew started to dismantle the Miller-era service standards, the anticipated saving was only about $14m/year. However, reversing the cuts is not quite as simple.

When you cut transit service, you can reduce costs simply by letting old buses wear out and not replacing them, by reducing the operator workforce through attrition, and by cutting plans for a new bus garage (needed for a bigger fleet) out of the capital budget. That’s precisely what happened.

To undo the damage, we need more buses, more garage space and more operators. Some, but by no means all, of the cost will come out of the $15m, but there is much more involved.

McNicoll Garage has a pricetag of $181-million (of which only about $80m has been funded as of 2014), and it is required simply to handle growth in the bus fleet with no provision for better service standards. Yet another garage will be required to support better service, although in the short term one garage will do for both purposes. Also, by 2020, some bus services will have been replaced by rapid transit lines, but we don’t really know how much because the future of various schemes is uncertain.

(Some of the chaos in fleet planning dates from the cancellation of Transit City, and still more from shortsighted cutbacks of the last few years.)

New buses cost about $700k apiece. With current peak service at around 1,500 buses (not including those used for construction service), a 10% bump in fleet capacity means 150 new vehicles at a cost of $105-million.

At the very least, in the next few years, the TTC would face the following capital costs over and above what is already committed:

  • $100m to fully fund McNicoll Garage
  • $105m to purchase 150 buses

Moreover, the McNicoll project must be accelerated for completion before 2019, the current schedule. The idea that Toronto would see no additional peak service for five years is a disgusting testament to the ill-informed folly of the Ford/Stintz era.

Continue reading →

by

John Tory’s “SmartTrack”: Will That Train Ever Leave The Station?

Late in May, John Tory launched his “SmartTrack” transit line, the centrepiece of his “One Toronto” plan. Media reps gathered for a preview at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, and the launch was handled almost entirely by Tory’s staff. All of the background papers are on the One Toronto website, and little has been added since that event.

Even then, in the early days of the campaign, there was good reason to distrust Tory’s grasp of his own proposal, let alone a willingness to engage in debate, when he made the briefest of appearances for a canned statement to give the media clips for the news broadcasts, but answered few questions.

I was modestly impressed that at least a Mayoral candidate was not just thinking at the ward level for a transit proposal, but felt the plan was rather threadbare — a single line to solve almost all of Toronto’s problems.

Wearing two hats that day – as both reporter and activist – I was scrummed by the media for comments, and the Tory campaign chose to lift one phrase out of context as an “endorsement” for SmartTrack that remains online.

Steve Munro, Toronto Transit Blogger, said, “This is very much a refocusing of what transit in Toronto should be.”

What I was talking about was the need to look at the region and at trips to points other than the corner of Bay & Front and times other than the traditional commuter peaks. As to the specifics of SmartTrack, I was rather less complimentary.

In brief, SmartTrack would see electric multiple unit (EMU) trains operating primarily on GO Transit corridors between Unionville on the Stouffville line and Mount Dennis on the Weston corridor (the Kitchener-Waterloo line). At Eglinton and Weston, the line would veer west along the former Richview Expressway lands to the Airport Corporate Centre, but not to the airport itself.

The route would charge regular TTC fares with free transfers to the existing system, and with frequent all-day service at peak levels of every 15 minutes. Over its 53km it would have 22 stations, and might, according to the campaign, carry over 200,000 passengers per day.

Continue reading →

by

RER, UP(X), (D)RL, SmartTrack, W(W/E)LRT: The Frustration of Competing Plans

Updated Sept. 9, 2014 at 12:50 pm: NOW Magazine has published an article by Rob Salerno detailing the problems with the right-of-way on Eglinton West that John Tory’s SmartTrack plan assumes is available, as well as questions about the need for both a frequent service on the Stouffville GO corridor and the Scarborough Subway.

Toronto is beset by a love of drawing lines on maps. We have stacks of rapid transit studies going back to the horsecar era. We have competing views of regional and local transit. We have the pandering “I have a solution for YOU” approach tailored to whichever ballot box needs stuffing. Almost none of this gets built.

Fantasy maps abound. The difference between the scribblings of amateur transit geeks and professional/political proposals can be hard to find.

Common to both is the sense that “my plan” is not just better, it is the only plan any right-thinking person would embrace. Egos, both personal and governmental, are literally on the line. Once pen meets paper ideas acquire a permanence and commitment that are almost indelible.

If transit networks were cheap to build and operate relative to the resources we choose to spend on them, transit would be everywhere and blogs like this would be reduced to debating the colour scheme for this week’s newly-opened station. Transit is not cheap, and the debates turn on far more complex issues than which shade of red or green is appropriate for our two major networks.

Another election with competing views of what is best for Toronto brings a crop of proposals. I hesitate to say “a fresh crop” as some schemes are long past their sell-by dates. Candidates may strive to bring something new to the discussion, but these attempts can discard good ideas simply to appear innovative. Perish the thought that we might embrace something already on the table when we can wave a magic wand and – Presto! – the solution to every problem appears in a puff of smoke, a well-timed entrance and an overblown YouTube video.

Moving people with transit is not simply one problem with one solution. Nobody pretends that a single expressway could cure all the ails of Toronto and the region beyond. A single highway – say, a “401” in a Toronto that had only recently paved Sheppard Avenue – would be recognized for its limitations. But once a plan is committed to paper – even the dreaded coffee-stained napkin, let alone election literature –  resistance is futile. At least until the next election.

This article reviews several dreams for new and upgraded transit, and tries to make sense out of what all these lines might achieve.

As I was reading through all of this, I felt that some of my critique will sound rather harsh, and inevitably I would be challenged with “so what would you do”. If you want to see my answer, jump to the end of the article, remembering that my scheme is not a definitive one.

Although some of my comments touch on proposals of various Mayoral candidates, I will leave a detailed review of those for a separate article. A good regional plan is more important than any one campaign, and the debate on what we should build should not be dictated by this week’s pet project, whatever it might be.

Continue reading →

by

TTC Service Changes Effective Sunday, August 31, 2014 (Update 3)

The August 31 schedules will see a return to fall service across the system as well as several other changes.  At long last (I have been distracted with other events, and there was a lot to do this month) here is the consolidated list of service changes. The list combines all types of change because there are overlapping seasonal, construction and service improvement effects.

The table linked here has been updated to correct errors missed in its creation. Thanks to Timor Urakov for catching these.

2014.08.31_Service_Changes (Revision 2)

Major changes include:

  • Return of streetcars to 510 Spadina
  • A major change of the 504 King schedule to provide added running time
  • Return of 504 King and 505 Dundas streetcars to Broadview Station
  • Route split of 501 Queen for Gardiner Expressway construction at Humber Loop
  • Route split of 116E Morningside Express to 198 UTSC Rocket

Something I have not included here, but will add in a future update, is a list of all of the Standby Buses (and a few streetcars) that are spotted around the city for various reasons. They don’t show up in the route-by-route info, but there is a substantial chunk of the fleet used to provide this service. Due to a bus shortage, the number of standby vehicles scheduled for fall 2014 is lower than originally planned.

510 Spadina

Streetcars will return to Spadina between Bloor and Queens Quay with all service running through to the south end of the line. The route will be scheduled based on CLRV capacity, and new Flexities will take over runs one by one as cars become available. Current plans are for through service to Union and a resumption of streetcar service on 509 Harbourfront in October.

At the end of the AM Peak, 508 Lake Shore trippers operate a westbound trip as 506 Carlton to provide extra capacity to the UofT St. George campus. These trips previously operated back to Roncesvalles Carhouse, but they will be changed so that the cars switch over to 510 Spadina which has more cars during the midday than the AM peak.

Previously, this interlining was done using 503 Kingston Road cars from Russell, but with the move of 510 Spadina to Roncesvalles, trippers from that division will be used.

504 King Running Time Changes

In an attempt to reduce the need to short turn much of the service to keep operators on time, the TTC is changing the round trip times during all periods of service on this route.

King Round Trip Time Changes September 2014

                    Weekdays     Saturday     Sunday
                    Aug   Sept   Aug   Sept   Aug   Sept
AM Peak             104+8 120+8
M-F Midday          100+8 122+5
PM Peak             115+8 135+7

S-S Early Morning                85+5  105+5  78+2  95+4
S-S Late Morning                 97+7  111+6  94+5  109+5
S-S Afternoon                    97+7  111+6  94+8  109+5

Early Evening        95+7 116+6  97+4  111+4  82+8  97+3
Late Evening         85+6  99+4  83+7  100+4  76+4  95+4

In the table above, the “before” times are shown under “Aug” and are taken from the schedules in effect until Aug. 30. The “after” times are shown under “Sept” and are taken from the schedules effective Aug. 31.

The time is given as running time plus recovery time. For example, the AM peak running time of “120+8” means that cars will have 120 minutes of driving time to make a round trip plus 8 minutes of terminal recovery time. Some of the changes increase the total time by 20%, a very substantial increase.

Whether this will translate into a noticeable reduction in short turns remains to be seen. One potential problem will be the accumulation of “early” cars at terminals where it is already possible to find lineups of cars. From my own knowledge of the line, some of these changes appear to be excessive and will probably have to be rolled back.

501 Queen & 508 Lake Shore

From September through December, reconstruction of the Gardiner Expressway at Humber Loop will close off the underpass between the loop and Lake Shore Blvd. The outer end of the Queen route will once again switch to a shuttle bus connecting with the streetcar.

Subway Changes

Yonge subway operations will be changed to base more trains at Davisville Yard. This will give more time for maintenance work as the last service trains will be clear of the line sooner than on current schedules. An early morning non-revenue train that carries Station Collectors to work will be replaced with a shuttle bus.

On the Bloor subway, service will be improved weekday middays and evenings, and on Saturday afternoons to reduce crowding.

Roncesvalles Yard

In anticipation of the arrival of more Flexities, some runs will be shifted to other locations. Exhibition Loop will now be used to store some 511 Bathurst runs as well as 512 St. Clair runs already at that location.

The 510 Spadina route will operate from Roncesvalles where the Flexities will be based, and to make room, all runs on 505 Dundas will operate from Russell.

Broadview Avenue

Streetcar service will return to Broadview Station after a temporary absence in July-August.

Since the re-opening of the Broadview & Queen intersection, carhouse trips from Russell westbound have resumed using the west-to-north curve that was taken out of service for safety concerns in October 2012.

Six Points Project

The reconstruction of the Kipling-Dundas-Bloor interchange begins in September and this will trigger diversions of various routes around Kipling Station.