A few items have come in recently about service on the 501 that continues to leave people waiting in the cold for ages. I have collected them here to start a new thread. Continue reading
Finance
Queen’s Park, Metrolinx & the TTC (Updated)
Late last week must have been slow for real news when both the Star and Globe devoted considerable space to musings at the Pink Palace about a Metrolinx TTC takeover. Furious backpedalling all ’round with denials from Metrolinx’ Rob MacIsacc and cries of “hands off” from Mayor Miller.
Lurking under this sort of scheme are claims that just don’t hold up to scrutiny.
First up is the oft-heard desire for “seamless integration” of transit. Boiled down to its essentials, this means I should be able to ride from anywhere to anywhere for one fare with convenient integrated service wherever a change of route or mode is needed.
Riding on the back of this is a scheme for fare-by-distance charging and smart cards. While this may keep the technology companies and those who value appearance over substance as transit policy, this is totally the wrong end of the “solution”.
If the desire were to give everyone an integrated fare between the TTC and the 905 systems, we could do it tomorrow either with the GTA pass or some area-specific version. The big problems are how to divide up the revenue, what to charge and whether there will actually be any service in the 905 with which a 416 rider can seamlessly connect.
These are organizational and financial issues. As long as each transit system is expected to keep its own books, raise its own revenue, and account for every penny (perish the thought we might needlessly run one more bus than necessary), the rules of the game create agencies that defend their revenue turf.
As long as we maintain artificial distinctions between who gets to pick up riders on which street (again partly a turf war), we will have duplicate services.
As long as we starve transit agencies for funds, the clear goal is not to improve service but to minimize costs. This is totally contrary to any claims that our public goal is to get more people riding transit.
You don’t need a quarter-billion’s worth of high technology to fix these problems which, indeed, will still remain if we don’t fix the underlying way in which revenue is allocated to operators. If the fare barrier at Steeles Avenue is eliminated, somebody is going to have to pick up the difference — the TTC and its riders, York Region or Queen’s Park. Nobody wants that debate, but we can sidestep it so long as we focus on Presto! rather than on how it will be used.
It’s ironic that many cross-border services are now operated by TTC on contract to other agencies and the only “impediment” is the fare at Steeles Avenue. Maybe York Region would opt to pay the TTC more to carry its customers. Maybe a special subsidy could be arranged just as it is for Oakville passengers connecting with GO Transit. Why is it okay to have a special fare arrangement for GO Transit feeder services, but not for 905-to-TTC riders?
The “seamless barrier” is one of those transit myths that get dragged out regularly to avoid discussing the real issues. The line between the 416 and 905 could disappear tomorrow if only someone wanted to pay for it and co-ordinate the overlapping services where they exist.
This brings me to that shining example of Ontario’s contribution to transit, the GO system. Remember that GO is not paid for entirely by Queen’s Park, but levies a tithe against the municipalities. Only last week, a tripartite agreement with Ottawa was finally settled when Toronto agreed to pony up its share of a GO Transit funding request.
Metrolinx has been churning out discussion papers (green ones to solicit comment now, white ones to set policy soon) like sausages, and they hope this will lead to a Regional Transit Plan by “Spring 2008”. Whether they mean March 21 or June 22, I am not sure, but even the later date is very optimistic. Moreover, it is troubling because we recently learned that the RTP is also to stand in for the first two steps of the already shortened Environmental Assessment process.
We risk having a regional plan rammed through with little opportunity for comment or intelligent debate that could commit us to a complex and explicitly laid-out network long before we have a chance to consider how it will all fit together. Moreover, there is no mandatory ongoing review and process for change of the plan making “getting it right” at the outset all the more critical.
While Queen’s Park muses about a TTC takeover, they should look closer to home first. GO Transit has been in the commuter rail business for decades, with small forrays into buses, but with the focus on peak period, downtown oriented services. It does not matter what the agency name might be, there is a need for long-distance capacity around the GTA that does not stop at every lamppost. Riders in Oshawa don’t want a tour of Pickering, Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke on their way to Mississauga where they might arrive just in time to go back again.
GO’s service reliability raises questions about its ability to take on a larger role. Riders are cranky about crowding and unexpected changes in schedules, and there is even an online petition demanding a fare rebate when service runs late.
GO, however, has been at least as constrained for funding as the TTC and thinks only of its core services. Expansion comes in small jumps because they have no firm commitment from any level of government to do more.
I might believe that a Provincial agency could do a passable job with the TTC if the current one were actually looking beyond a narrow mandate as a commuter service. Imagine the example Queen’s Park could show of what their bounty could bring to transit. So far, what we have is unimpressive as a replacement for the TTC.
This is not to say that the TTC couldn’t use some housecleaning. However, any “new broom” had better know what it’s doing, not just come in to sell off the furniture and declare huge but ephemeral savings.
One particularly troubling aspect to some comments in this debate is the political slant. Adam Giambrone is out-and-out NDP, and David Miller certainly is not a Tory. Toronto Council is, if not in the grip of the left wing, at least not quite as right-wing as it was in the Lastman days.
What’s the solution? Take them over? Well we tried that with amalgamation, and after a few years of flailing around, look what we have: a moderately left Council with a moderately left Mayor. The voters have spoken.
If anyone has designs on the TTC or on GTAH transit in general, let the decisions be made for legitimate reasons of management, finance, operations and community involvement, not because some politician wants to score points for a coming election. We have seen decades of Provincial interference in transit both in funding and in technology choices that had much more to do with so-called economic development and pandering to voters than with production of useful transit infrastructure.
Message to Dalton McGuinty: Leave the TTC alone. Let Metrolinx continue with its planning, and don’t force the issue of a final plan so quickly and so permanently that we regret everything and start over in ten years.
Recognize that building and running more transit, getting a bigger share of the travel market, is going to cost a lot of money, and some of that will come from the public purse. Keep your chequebook handy.
Don’t substitute the illusion of action — organization and re-organization — for the real needs of transit systems throughout the GTAH.
Major Service Improvements Start February 17, 2008 (Update 2)
On Sunday, February 17, the TTC will introduce new schedules with improved services on many, many routes throughout the city. I have boiled a long TTC document describing them in detail down to a mere 8 pages for easy reference.
Please note that I have not proof read every single line, and for definitive information, you should go to the TTC’s site.
Update: For the detailed TTC service summary, go to the February service summary.
Update 2: My consolidated table of service changes has been corrected to include the list of routes that still await added service. This was placed temporarily in a reply to a comment, but has now been moved where it belongs.
These changes are long overdue, but many of them bring routes only just within loading standards. We must hope that this trend will continue into 2009 as the bus fleet builds up with new deliveries, as riding continues to grow, and as the city’s revenues are strong enough to support more transit improvements.
A few notes about reading my chart:
- The column “vehicles added” gives the number of new vehicles on the route at the time shown. You will notice that the effect of “n” new buses varies with time of day because the relative changes are different.
- The old and new headways are shown. In some cases these are for blended services, and if you are interested in one branch, please refer to the TTC’s details.
- The load factors shown are for recent riding counts “old” and projected loads after the change. The values are for the peak hour within the period, and loads on individual vehicles will vary.
- The loading standards are shown for peak and offpeak services. Due to the variations between capacities on different types of vehicles, the standards are not identical for all routes. The off-peak standard is based on a seated load.
The last page of my summary shows those service improvements which have still not been implemented due to budget constraints. In effect, we’ve got what we’re getting for now, and for the rest, come back later. This shows that the TTC is still constrained in its ability to handle growing riding by the money it is given from Council to subsidize operations.
I fervently hope that this list will drop to and stay at “Nil” over 2008, and that we won’t be back worrying about service shortfalls in two years’ time.
Some points are particularly worth noting.
Bloor 300 and Yonge 320 Night Buses
Service improvements on these routes will reduce overcrowding especially on the popular 320 where the recorded average load is 82 passengers per bus! The headway on Yonge south of York Mills will be more than halved from 7’30” to 3’30” on the weekday schedule (which operates Tuesday through Saturday mornings). Sunday morning service is also improved, although not as dramatically.
At this rate, we may need to put streetcars back on Yonge to handle the demand on the night service!
Finch East 39
Service on this busy route will improve during most operating periods. The AM Peak headway will drop from 90 seconds to 79, with half of this service running express, and half local. Finch Station has severe bus congestion problems, and it will be interesting to see how the TTC fares with even more service on the 39.
Midday, early evening and Saturday services will now include express operation on half of the trips. The arrangement of express stops will change considerably. Fourteen little-used stops between Brimley and Warden will be dropped from express service, and they will be replaced by twelve busy stops from Warden to Bayview
Longer term, obviously, something will have to be done to increase capacity without flooding the street with buses. Artics might be nice in the short term, but an easterly extension of the Finch LRT is really what this street needs. (I’m getting carried away with myself, and will stop these fantasies immediately!)
Other Miscellaneous Changes
54 Lawrence East is now officially an accessible route.
139 Finch East is renamed Finch — Don Mills to clarify where it goes.
53 Steeles East will include mixed express and local operation on weekday evenings.
GO Transit’s 15-Cent Solution
Sean Marshall wrote in with the following comment in another thread. I’m putting it in its own post so that replies can be kept in the appropriate area.
… at GO Transit, they’re planning to increase fares again by the flat $0.15 rate. Of course, this is a disproportionate fare increase for those who make shorter trips (say within the 416 or from, for example, Georgetown to Brampton) yet almost insignificant for someone coming in from Barrie. And GO also has to fix the problems with its fare structure, where, for example, a bus trip from Square One to York U is the same price as from Bramalea to York U, about half the distance.
Anyway, my sense is that GO will always take the easiest route (requiring the least thought) to fix a “problem”. Service crowded? Tack on more cars. Issues with parking? Build more spaces. Crowding at platforms? Remove the escalators. Raise fare revenue? Make it a flat fare increase so we don’t have to work out what the new fares should really be.
This is not the first time GO has done this, and I can’t help worrying just a bit in anticipation of a smart card system that can do everything but make passengers’ breakfast, lunch and dinner, but might wind up supporting a fare structure more appropriate for conductors and ticket agents. Will GO continue to penalize short-haul riders with disproportionate fare increases?
TTC’s Revisionist History — Where Have The Queen Car Riders Gone
Today’s Star contains a pair of articles by Tess Kalinowski and Christopher Hume on the joys of the Queen car. Recently, National Geographic listed the 501 as one of the world’s ten top streetcar rides in Journeys of a Lifetime. Some riders may feel that’s an apt description of their typical journey.
A few nuggets from the TTC in the article show that this organization still refuses to understand and accept its own role in the destruction of riding on this line. Marilyn Bolton, speaking for the TTC, is quoted:
Much of the 501’s ridership decline coincided with the expansion of the Bloor-Danforth subway and the Scarborough RT in the 1980s, according to the TTC.
“Riders moved up (north) to take advantage of the new subway lines and moved away from the Queen streetcar,” said Bolton.
A look at the statistics [discussed here on December 11] shows that ridership on the Queen Street corridor fell during a period long after the Bloor Subway opened in 1966 (extended to Islington and Warden in 1968, then to Kipling and Kennedy in 1980).
That old chestnut about congestion shows up again:
The sheer length of the route is also a problem. When a car blocks a streetcar by making an illegal left turn or someone parks on the tracks or some other delay occurs on the line, the reverberations travel a long way.
As my analyses of operations on streetcar routes have shown quite clearly, major blockages of service are rare and the disarray in operations can be traced substantially to poor line management and dubious on-time performance even when there is no external source of delays. Without question, the length of the route magnifies any event, but minor delays are a fact of life for transit operations.
The article also includes a claim that it takes up to five hours to make a trip on Queen. That’s for a round trip, not a one-way, and even then, this is a rare situation belonging to major storms and regional traffic snarls.
If riders migrated north to the BD subway, they were driven away by poor, unreliable service on Queen. After the Fix the 501 Forum, the TTC claims it will change its operations and address reliability issues. Inventing new excuses for driving away riding at a rate unmatched elsewhere on the system is no way to tackle the problem.
A Visit to the City Archives
Now and then, I spend my time browsing through the photograph collections at the City Archives, and this activity can be rather addictive. The main page includes a link to a search page where you can start your travels. Note that the indexing is spotty, and if you find items in a series that you really like, it is often worthwhile drilling down into the linked pages for the specific collections and looking for a “browse” link that will bring up the entire content. I can’t put links to such pages here as they are built on the fly.
After looking at photos of my old neighbourhood in North Toronto, I stumbled on paintings of the Yonge Subway by the artist, Sigmund Serafin, whose paintings of Bloor and University subway stations are posted at Transit Toronto. I have recently learned more about Serafin’s history, and that post will be updated in the new year.
I will leave the joy of finding intriguing bits and pieces to you, but there are a number of items I thought worthwhile to whet your appetite. Continue reading
Where Have All The Riders Gone? (Update 2)
[Updated December 14: A chart of the top 30 bus routes has been added in response to requests from readers. Comments on this chart are at the end of the post.]
[Updated December 12: Charts of ridership and vehicle mileage for most of the system from 1976 to 2005 have been added. Comments on these appear at the end of this post.]
My title may seem an odd choice, but my evening spent foraging in TTC statistics was quite sobering.
Some have commented here that I spend an undue amount of time on the streetcar system, and so for a moment, I will turn to the buses. The TTC likes to believe that its system is growing, and in some very limited places, yes, that is true. However, the service cuts of the 1990s decimated service and ridership on the entire system, not just downtown.
The count of boardings (one person on one bus regardless of whether they pay a fare or transfer) hit a peak of about 1.42-million in 1989. This went into long decline and by 2005, the number was 1.17-million.
Service, measured in vehicle miles, took a hit, although not as deep, through the 1990s, and by 2005 was growing back to almost the same level. However, this masks what was really happening. Routes in the handful of growing areas were getting more service, but the TTC was not recapturing riders it had lost. Major routes now carry only a fraction of what they handled in 1989. Continue reading
Ridership and Service Since 1976 (Updated)
At the 501 Queen Forum last week, I and others talked about the declining service and ridership in the Queen Street corridor. This post reviews the published statistics from 1976 to 2005, the latest information available so far.
Streetcar Ridership and Mileage 1976 to 2005
These data are taken from the annual Service Plan and related documents. The most recent counts are on the TTC’s website.
Updated December 11: A consolidated count has been added for the Queen services (501, 502 and 503) to show the ridership and mileage in the three routes serving this corridor.
Before We All Say “Presto!”
Over at spacing.ca, there’s a post about the difference between Montreal and Toronto transfers, and comments arguing whether Toronto is hopelessly archaic, merely quaint, or actually a system that encourages friendly contact with the operators.
In the midst of this, I thought it would be worth looking back at older forms of transfers in Toronto, and this post links to two of them.
Toronto Railway Company September 1892
Souvenir Toronto Transit Commission 1953
The TRC transfers (shown slightly larger than actual size) are printed on very flimsy paper, and were intended to be given out by a conductor. Note that the corner fold/cut indicates the direction of travel, and there is provision for the conductor to write in the time after which the holder had ten minutes to make their connection. Obviously, these were intended to be issued as someone left the car. This format didn’t last long. (Note also the evolution of the printing of the date with the larger numerals for September 14.)
The souvenir transfers are from the display of the first two subway cars at the CNE in 1953. I have shown both the back (left) and front (right) here. The two that I have are printed on different coloured stock, but I don’t know if a wider selection was used. At the top, you can see the area reserved for a station and time imprint from a machine. Passengers picked up a blank transfer (yes, there were new ones printed for each date) and they manually validated it .
These transfers include one howler of an error: one station is missing from the map! This missing station almost had a different name from the one by which we know it today. Rosedale is called “Crescent” on many early maps of the Yonge line.
“Alternative Financing” and the GTTA
At its November meeting, the GTTA approved a report on “Alternative Financing and Procurement” together with a list of projects that will be studied for this approach. For those who seek to understand Queen’s Park’s schemes for transit infrastructure funding, their report provides interesting reading.
In brief, Ontario seeks to have private sector partners undertake financing and possibly construction of new infrastructure up to the point that they go into service. At that point, the accumulated cost becomes, in effect, a mortgage on the infrastructure to be paid off over an extended period. This gives the private sector partner (ironically, possibly a large public sector pension plan) a guaranteed long-term return while nothing appears as a charge on the Province’s books.
In the short term, this keeps the budget looking rosy, but as any reputable accountant will tell you, future commitments must appear in your long-term budget plans. Someone has to pay for all that infrastructure eventually. In the past, the cost of transit infrastructure (i.e. the interest on capital debt) was buried in the municipal and provincial budgets rather than appearing as a line item in the transit operating budgets.
Long term, we risk having a future government whose support for transit is, at best, tenuous who might point to all the debt servicing costs and say “don’t ask us for operating subsidies, we’re already paying a bundle for your capital debt”. This sort of remark has already shown up in some budget papers in past years at the municipal level in Toronto. It’s the invisible part of the iceberg of transit financing.
The projects to be studied for alternative financing fall into two groups diagrammed on maps on the GTTA site. As I mentioned in my accompanying post on the “Quick Wins, Phase 2”, the concept of “regional” transit has become rather expansive. Projects are included that might, in the past, have been treated as “local” and outside of the GTTA’s purview. This comes partly from a recognition that transit anywhere helps the region as a whole, and partly from the desire to move as many projects off of local budgets as possible.
The projects that will be evaluated for AFP include:
- SuperGo electrification of the Lake Shore corridor.
- GO rail expansions include using the CPR North Toronto subdivision and, possibly, the station at Summerhill to serve new routes on CPR branch lines.
- LRT expansions include the Transit City lines as well as the Hurontario and Dundas lines proposed for Mississauga.
- Converting the SRT to use Mark II RT cars and extending it north to Malvern.
- Richmond Hill subway extension
- VIVA extensions in various corridors and conversion to exclusive lane operation.
- Circumferential GO/GTTA BRT network
This is a very large bundle of projects. As usual, Ontario plans to call on Ottawa for 1/3 funding. Whether they would provide anything, either directly or through their own AFP scheme, remains to be seen. The problem remains that any current spending creates a future debt service charge, and Ottawa has always been loathe to fund what are, in effect, ongoing operating costs.
None of these facilities will begin operations, and therefore become charges on various operating budgets, until after the next provincial election in 2011. In the short term, the creative accounting allows us to launch into a rosy transit future, but this must be sustained with solid, ongoing funding for operations. A problem for politicians still in their infancy, but a serious concern for those observers who, like me, take the long view of transit’s financing and growth as a major part of the GTTA.