Finance

by

What Would Fare By Distance Mean For Toronto? (Updated)

The Metrolinx Regional Fare Integration Study studiously avoids one of the most important questions any new fare scheme must face: what is the effect for various types of riders?

As a starting point in examining what might happen, this article looks at some of the basics of travel patterns and fares to see what various Metrolinx schemes might imply. Note that this is not a definitive, accurate-to-the-nth-degree exercise, but a general discussion. The detailed work should already have been done by Metrolinx, but if it has, they are not publishing the results.

My apologies to readers in advance as this is an article more technical than political. Some of the calculations are unapologetically “back of the envelope”, and are intended as estimates, illustrations, not definitive results.

Updated Feb. 14, 2016 at 2:00pm: Comparative information about GO Transit fares has been added at the end of the article.

Updated Feb. 14, 2016 at 4:45pm: A further observation on the relatively low fare by distance paid by GO riders has been added at the end.

Continue reading →

by

Metrolinx Fare Integration Background Study: February 2016 Update

Recently, I reported on a staff presentation to the February 10, 2016, Metrolinx Board meeting in which it was quite clear that the provincial agency is moving inexorably toward some form of fare-by-distance not just for its GO Trains, but for all rail modes that operate on their own right-of-way including subways and LRT. Bus Rapid Transit, although a common part of The Big Move as a “solution” in the 905, is not included as “rapid transit” in their proposals.

Metrolinx has now published the background technical paper to this presentation. This is the second installment in the fare integration review. Part 1 came out in September 2015.

For background information, see:

In previous articles, I noted a strong inclination by Metrolinx toward distance or zone-based fares, and this continues into the most recent paper. What is also troubling, however, is the difference between the backgrounders which have some detail about the workings and effects of a new fare structure, and the staff summary reports where this is all treated as a complex issue to be reported on at some future date. “Have patience”, the Board is told by staff, even though answers to some of their questions can be found in the detailed reports.

A chart from the September 2015 report is worth looking at again.

201509_GTHA_Fare_BCE_QA

It is self-evident that any tests of fare effects, of the various sub-markets which might see higher or lower fares, and of revenue distribution models, could not possibly be conducted without an actual model with real numbers of riders and real fares attached to each type of trip they would make. However, even by February 2016, the staff presentation studiously avoids specifics and gives no hint of the degree by which fares might rise or fall. A related issue is that the tests used a “revenue neutral scenario”, one in which any reduction in one part if the revenue pie must be counterbalanced by an increase somewhere else.

This is the “we don’t want to pay more subsidy” view of fare integration where the “winners” are those who now face multiple fares, typically to use the TTC plus any other GTHA system, while those who now pay single fares within a system will be the “losers”. This fact has been hidden from public view throughout the exercise. We hear a lot about “fair” fares, but absent specifics, there is no way to decide which elements of “fairness” are included in the new formula.

An element that emerged from the 2015 study and now forms an important part of the 2016 update is the concept of “service class”. This is a simplistic division of all transit services into three groups and three trip lengths. The groups such as “local” and “rapid” transit are defined by mode (bus or rail), not by the actual quality of service they provide. Indeed one might argue that the higher speed of “rapid” transit can be offset by the severe overcrowding and unreliability of the service. For the purpose of the fare model, only the nominal speed and presumed comfort of rail services counts. This is very much a GO-centric view of transit service.

Even GO is having its problems with comfort and crowding. For some time, the goals for service quality included the idea that 80% of peak period riders would get a seat. GO never attained this and the metric sat at 66% the last time it was reported, September 2015. This goal appears to have quietly fallen off the service targets GO seeks to hit for the obvious reason that it is not attainable without massive expansion of service beyond the point where latent demand always backfills any new capacity GO provides.

The overall fare integration study is expected to stretch into late 2016 according to the chart below. It is hard to ignore the absence of “rider effects” in the topics listed here.

201601_FareStudyStaging

However, a more detailed chart (Fig. 1.4) clearly shows that a “Preferred Option” would be recommended by Spring/Summer with the implication that any chance to debate and influence the choice has a limited window of the next few months. The Metrolinx Board is not scheduled to meet again until June 2016. Will they be faced with a fait accompli where staff have made all the decisions and the Board’s role is merely to nod in agreement? When will local Councils and transit agency boards have their chance to be heard? In the rush to get a new fare structure, will Metrolinx management do an end run around meaningful consultation at both the general public and political levels?

Continue reading →

by

TTC Replies to Fare Zone and Subway Premium Proposals

An obvious question about the Metrolinx Fare Integration Strategy update is whether the TTC has quietly adopted a new fare policy to suit Metrolinx.

I asked:

The Metrolinx Regional Fare Integration report on their board’s agenda for Wednesday clearly leads the way for fare zones at least on the subway within the TTC system.

There have been rumblings of this from management comments at TTC, but nothing definitive. However, the installation of fare gates with tap out capability is a clear preparation for such a change. While this might be part of the TYSSE roll out, the wider application of zoned fares (or some equivalent) within the TTC has never been a matter for public debate or decision as far as I know.

Has this matter been presented to the Commission for discussion, or are there plans to do so in the near future?

What is the TTC’s position on the Metrolinx fare integration proposals?

The TTC’s Deputy CEO, Chris Upfold, replied:

The TTC[s] sit on the various Steering Working groups for regional fare integration and I feel our voice is well heard there.

As per our report to the Board on Fare Policy TTC staff are not undertaking any more work on fare by distance or by zone within the boundaries of Toronto on service operated by the TTC. We do not feel it is an appropriate or useful policy direction in those circumstances but are working with Metrolinx on how it could work from a regional basis.

Our board has passed a number of motions, over just the few years I’ve been here, that any regional integration must not come at the expense of the TTC or our customers.

Faregates are being rolled out at subway stations for a number of reasons but primarily:

  1. The integration with a legacy turnstile with a new reader wasn’t the best technical solution and caused lots of other potential problems.
  2. The legacy turnstile (especially high gates) are nearing the end of their life and we were likely to need a wholesale replacement in the next 10 years or so.
  3. Overall the whole life cost (over 20 years) was much lower for installing new faregates.
  4. New faregates are higher capacity (and far more flexible) and do things like real time fault reporting etc.

Tap in and out functionality is necessary for the TYSSE in order to manage regional integration on how fare policy sits today. Faregates (with readers on both sides) would help to enable any zonal/distance based system.

Now it is up to Metrolinx to explain how their proposal meshes with the TTC’s stated position.

by

Metrolinx Fare Integration: Get Ready to Pay More For Subway Trips

One of the great mysteries surrounding the roll out of Presto on the TTC has been the whole debate about “Regional Fare Integration”. Now and then, discussion papers surface at Metrolinx, but folks at the TTC, especially the politicians, are strangely silent on the subject. “Wait and see” is the order of the day.

Well, folks, we have waited and now we are beginning to see the direction Metrolinx is heading in for a consolidated GTHA-wide fare structure. The results will not please folks in suburban Toronto or the inner 905 for whom long subway trips are a routine part of their commutes.

The Metrolinx Board will consider an update on this subject at its meeting on February 10.

The presentation is in a sadly familiar Metrolinx format: lots of wonderful talk about consultation and fairness, and philosophical musings about what a fare system should look like. One big omission is any evaluation of the relative numbers of riders who would be affected by various schemes, and even worse of any sense of calibration of the fares to produce different results.

This comes at a time when we know from SmartTrack demand studies the importance of fare levels in attracting ridership. It is important here to remember that we are not talking the relatively small differences between types of TTC fares, or year-by-year increments, but the much larger deltas between TTC fares and those on GO Transit.

The problem begins with the arbitrary segmentation of the travel market into “local”, “rapid transit” and “regional transit”.

201602_DefiningServiceTypes

This is a wonderful theoretical view of the world that might find a home in a sophomoric academic paper, but it ignores the very real world in which (a) “rapid transit” today only exists within Toronto and (b) Toronto decided over 40 years ago that “local” trips paid one fare regardless of the mode they used. The entire system is designed on this principle, one that has consistently evaded Metrolinx planners.

If only the world were so simple. Why is Bus Rapid Transit omitted from this list? Why is a streetcar (aka LRT) on right of way “rapid transit”, but not a bus? How close must subway or LRT stops be to each other for the service to drop back to a lower tier? Conversely, if someone slaps a “19x” route number on a bus, should it become “rapid transit”?

The basic problem with this world view is that transit modes, especially bus and streetcar/LRT, have a wide range of overlapping implementations.

Continue reading →

by

TTC’s 2016 Customer Charter Reviewed

The TTC has released the 2016 version of its Customer Charter listing a number of areas in which they promise improvements through the year.

First Quarter:

  • Ensure that 510 Spadina is served by fully accessible streetcars: Mostly done already with a few of the high-floor ALRVs still in service but the majority of runs operated with low-floor Flexitys.
  • Apple Pay at collectors’ booths: In progress.
  • Reduce streetcar short-turns by a further 20% over Q1 2015: New schedules on 501 Queen effective January 3 make a big contribution to this coupled with the milder winter weather.
  • Start subway service at 8:00am on Sunday: Done effective January 3.
  • Add service to Line 1 (YUS) during off-peak: Not done yet, but the schedules going into effect at the end of March have not yet been announced. (Note 1)
  • Establish a Local Working Group for Donlands Station second exit project: Done.
  • Add five new express bus services: Planned for late March.

Second Quarter:

  • Wifi at 22 new stations (Note 2).
  • Roll-out of new fare gates with Main Station as a pilot: Work at Main in progress.
  • Improve bike parking at 5 stations.
  • Add 20 bike repair stops at subway stations: Subject to outcome of a pilot.
  • Install notice boards in 12 busy stations to inform passengers about planned/unplanned closures.

Third Quarter:

  • Ensure 509 Harbourfront and 511 Bathurst are served by low-floor streetcars: With delivery of new cars, Harbourfront is already planned to ramp up beyond two assigned Flexitys in mid-February. Delivery rates for new cars are supposed to be up to 1/week by the end of March and this should make conversion of 511 Bathurst an easy task provided Bombardier manages to stay on track.
  • Pilot high capacity bike parking at one station.
  • Replace T1 trains on Line 4 (Sheppard) with 4-car TR sets: The order for these cars is in progress at Bombardier with delivery expected later this year.
  • Improve 28 Bayview South and 101 Downsview Park routes to be part of all-day, every day service. This will bring services to two park-based areas. The Bayview South bus serves the Brick Works from the west (Davisville Station), but service from the east (Broadview Station) will still be operated by a free shuttle bus.
  • Add 3 trains to Line 1 (YUS) to improve AM peak service. It is unclear whether these will be “gap” trains used to supplement service when things go wrong, or an attempt to slightly shorten the average headway over the entire line. Gap trains generally make a bigger difference for situations where holes in service at peak times and direction need to be filled because the extra train is used specifically where it is most needed.
  • Add peak service to 25 busy bus routes.
  • New streetcar service on Cherry Street: (Note 1) This service could most easily be implemented by converting the 504 buses now scheduled from Dufferin to Parliament back to streetcars as a Dufferin to Cherry operation. Peak vehicle requirements would probably go down, but the off peak service on Cherry would be a net addition. This change is related to whatever modifications the TTC will make to the 72 Pape and 172 Cherry bus routes.
  • Begin revamping the east parking lot at Finch Station.

Fourth Quarter:

  • Widen 25 bus stop pads to improve accessibility: Locations TBA
  • Install external route announcement system on all vehicles: Work in progress.
  • Add two new elevators at Ossington Station: Work in progress.
  • Install customer info screens at Union Station mezzanine and platform levels: An overdue follow-up. This work should have been an integral part of the station renovation.
  • Install customer info screens at Dufferin, York Mills and Lawrence stations.
  • Install transit signal priority at 15 intersections: Locations TBA
  • Complete PRESTO roll out to the entire system: Bus fleet conversion in progress; new fare gates will finish PRESTO subway access as they are installed.
  • 10 additional WiFi stations: Locations TBA (Note 2)
  • Lengthen 10 bus pads for compatibility with articulated buses: Locations TBA
  • Start construction on a bus queue jump lane: Location TBA
  • Introduce a new Wheel-Trans qualification process: Details TBA
  • Install new, “more informative” stop markers at over 3,000 surface stops.
  • Review schedules on 32 bus and streetcar routes to improve reliability and travel times.
  • Reduce subway delays by 10% (counted as both incidents and minutes of delay). See What Causes Subway Delays?
  • Consult with riders and other stakeholders to revise service in three neighbourhoods around routes 40 Junction, 54 Lawrence East and 116 Morningside.

Note 1: Some items in the Charter are not yet funded in the City’s budget. Whether they will actually operate depends on the TTC’s ability and desire to squeeze money out of other parts of their operation.

Note 2: The WiFi rollout in the subway is limited to internet access only because the major telcos – Bell, Rogers, Telus – will not provide service over the incumbent provider’s network. Even the internet access has its problems due to login requirements recently introduced that require signon to a sponsoring site such as Twitter. This state of affairs can be traced to a bad system and contract design by the TTC who appear not to have contemplated the difficulties of the “big” players refusing to come onto, and thereby financially support, the network.

I cannot help feeling that a lot of this “Charter” is a shopping list of the low hanging fruit, things the TTC planned to do anyhow, but repackaged in a “look at us” format where green tick marks will gradually fill up the boxes. What is missing, and this is as much a political discussion as a managerial one, is a “what could we be” dimension and aspirational goals that might not be achieved, certainly not in a one-year timeframe.

Of course, when there are members of Council and the TTC Board who would rather count paperclips than address fundamental issues of just what  “good transit” really is, this situation is almost inevitable. Good news, but as cheaply as possible, and so we aim low.

by

What Causes Subway Delays?

The TTC’s Andy Byford recently committed to a major reduction in subway delays by 2019 thanks in large measure to the introduction of a new signal system on Line 1 Yonge-University-Spadina.

Can this level of reduction actually be achieved? To get a sense of this, we must look at the actual delay reports from the TTC to see the location and type of service interruption. If a problem only account for one quarter of all delays, then a three-quarter reduction in delays cannot possibly be achieved simply by eliminating this class of problem. Similarly, if half of the delays are on one line, and a new technology is implemented on another, then nothing has been done to address delays on the untouched part of the system.

The TTC reports overall reliability statistics in the CEO’s report, but these are (a) not subdivided by cause and (b) use a measure of service “reliability” that would give a perfect score even if a large proportion of the service were missing. As long as trains are close enough to each other, even if there is one gap leading the pack or all of the trains crawl along the line, they do not count against the metric the TTC used for years to report service quality.

The counts below were calculated by reviewing all of the TTC eAlerts for service interruptions on the four rapid transit lines for January 2016. Anyone who reads these alerts and rides the system regularly knows that some delays never make it to an alert, but this is the best we have for published information.

Type of Delay                    Line 1    Line 2    Line 3    Line 4

Passenger Alarm                   6  16%   14  23%    2  18%
Signals                          11  30%   11  18%              3  60%
Mechanical                        1   3%    4   7%    8  73%    1  20%
Track                                       3   5%
Switching                                   1   2%
Security                          5  14%    6  10%              1  20%
Police Investigation              3   8%    4   7%
Fire Investigation                3   8%    8  13%    1   9%
Medical                           3   8%    4   7%
Power Off                         4  11%    3   5%
Unauthorized at Track Level                 1   2%
Late Clearing Work Zone           1   3%    1   2%
Unspecified                       0         1   2%

Total                            37        61        11         5

The details of the incidents are in the following table.

201601_SubwayDelayStats

This is only a one month sample, and there are bound to be somewhat different numbers for other periods, but this gives the flavour of the situation.

Signal problems, annoying though they may be, account for only 30% of the delay incidents on the Yonge line, and 18% on the Bloor line for January 2016. That said, these tend to be the most long-lasting incidents and so their effect is greatly out of proportion to their number. Moreover, the incident count is higher on the Bloor-Danforth line by a wide margin. The new signals on Yonge-University will certainly improve conditions on that route, but delays overall will not be a thing of the past.

If the TTC is going to shoot for improvements, then they must start reporting their delay statistics at a more granular level so the a link will be visible between the type of “fix” undertaken and the location and type of delay whose stats go up or down. This would be a much more useful measure both of service quality and of the effects of management programs to improve the quality of transit service.

by

Memo to John Tory: Where’s The $50 Million? (Updated)

The Mayor and other worthies showed up for a press conference and photo op today at Davisville Shops to trumpet all the new money the TTC will be getting in 2016.

Quoting the TTC’s Media Release:

In 2015, the TTC received an unprecedented $95 million increase to its budget and is set to receive over $50 million in new, annualized funding in 2016 to improve service on buses, streetcars and subways that serve the 555 million riders who use the TTC each year.

…

“Through two budget cycles, we have made significant service enhancements and continue to improve the experience for our customers” said TTC Chair Josh Colle, “As TTC Chair, I will continue to push for further investments to enhance service, and make the TTC less crowded and more reliable for our customers.”

Those are stirring words, but let’s have a look under the covers. Here is the TTC Budget as presented by the City Budget Analyst going into debates at Budget Committee.

PrelimANotes_OpsBudgetByCategory

The important line here is “Total Net Expenditures” which is another way to say “subsidy from the City of Toronto”. The actual increase from 2014 actual to 2015 projected is only about $77 million ($393m to $470m). The projected bump to 2016 is a further $25.6m, and that looks good only because it is relative to the 2015 actual, not budget.

On a budget to budget basis, the change is only about $21.5m ($473.7m to $495.2m). Even that may overstate the real increase because the “change from 2015 approved” budget shows growth of only $11.1m. This is probably due to in-year amendments to the 2015 budget.

(The inconsistencies in budget reporting at the City and TTC are an ongoing challenge, and there is usually just enough information missing to cloud any analysis.)

Note that these numbers include the effect of the fare increase, but do not include the TTC Board’s proposed enhancements.

There was a lot of fine tuning at the Budget Committee, but at the end of the day only the following changes were approved:

  • POP Inspectors: $1.7m
  • Streetcar service reliability: $1.2m
  • Early Sunday surface (surface routes): $0.6m
  • Discretionary spending : $5m reduction

That’s right – the cut in discretionary spending (paperclips, conferences, and other accounts the TTC has already pillaged to find “efficiencies”) is bigger than the approved additions to the budget. This is in a budget where there is already an across the board $10m reduction to reflect savings based on actual spending patterns vs budget in 2015.

The key phrase in the release above is “new, annualized funding” which is takes the improvements approved for 2015 and operates them for the full year. No real “new” investment for 2016. Worth remembering are the items that were not approved by the TTC Board and/or the Budget Committee:

  • Reliability Centred Maintenance (Pro-active vs Re-active): $7.7m
  • Track Safety (Flag Persons): $1.8m
  • Training: $1.8m
  • Bus Service Reliability: $2.0m
  • Express Bus Services: $1.6m
  • Subway Service Reliability: $0.6m
  • Line 1 3-minute service: $2.8m
  • Cherry Street streetcar service: $0.8m

When the TTC turns into a publicity machine for the Mayor, and so much that was touted as part of the 2016 Budget doesn’t make it past the sharp knives at Budget Committee, press conferences about “improvement” and “investment” ring rather hollow.

So, please Mayor Tory, stop using our subway trains as publicity props, and start being straight with Toronto about what you are really spending on transit service. As anyone who reads the budget can tell, the big increase in TTC “funding” comes from the paying customer, the riders who pay higher fares, not from the penny-pinching City Council and a Mayor who cares more about looking like he is pro-transit than actually paying for the honour.

Updated:

The TTC’s Brad Ross explains the $50m figure thus:

There’s $20M in additional subsidy over 2015. The balance of $30M is annualized for the new and enhanced services begun, primarily, in the fall that now apply to all of 2016. That’s in addition to POP, early Sunday service, streetcar reliability and the 5 express routes that start in March.

I hate to point this out, but the basic numbers show that the City has very little on the table in this game, and the riders are paying the freight for a lot of the new services carried into 2016 from 2015. As for new services in 2016, don’t hold your breath.

The Lord Mayor’s new transit clothes are rather tattered.

Updated:

The section about year-to-year budget comparisons has been clarified.

by

Relief Line, SmartTrack, GO/RER, Scarborough Subway Consultations

Toronto City Planning has released a draft list of upcoming public consultations on various transit plans including:

  • The Relief Line
  • The Scarborough Transit Plan (Subway, SmartTrack, Crosstown East LRT)
  • The Western SmartTrack Plan (SmartTrack, Crosstown West LRT)

2016_ConsultationCalendar

Additional meetings and information about Metrolinx plans (GO Regional Express Rail) will be organized by that agency.

Even more information will be available in March 2016 when the City releases a compendium report on all transit initiatives currently under study. These will include items listed above as well as the “Waterfront Reset” study, TTC Fare Integration proposals and a review of how (or if) Tax Increment Financing can contribute to the many transit projects under review. The intent is that this report will form the basis for public consultation and debate leading to recommendations at Council in June 2016. This is a very aggressive schedule, and there is no indication how consensus will actually be achieved in so short a time, especially with the usually-secretive Metrolinx as an essential player. At least the discussion will be at a network level, not ward-by-ward with a “relief” line for every member of Council, and there will be some filtering of various schemes based on engineering and operational realities.

What is sadly missing from all of this is a discussion of day-to-day transit operations and the backlog in the state-of-good-repair budget. We can blithely discuss billions worth of subway building to Scarborough and a Relief line, but Council won’t fund the basics of running a transit system.

by

TTC Service Changes Effective Sunday February 14, 2016

The TTC will implement several service changes for its February-March schedules primarily to improve peak service on some overcrowded bus routes. This is a sign that the available bus fleet is expanding and more peak service can be offered.

A few routes have new schedules to reflect actual operating conditions.

The 66 Prince Edward bus will be revised so that the same level of service is provided to Lake Shore (Humber Bay) and Humber Loop at all times.

2016.02.14_Service_Changes

by

TTC Board Meeting January 21, 2016

The TTC Board will meet on January 21, 2016. Unlike most meetings, the public session will begin at 10:00 am, although they may go into camera to discuss details of item 3 on the agenda, the cost overrun on the Spadina subway extension.

Items of note include:

This article has been updated with details on these subjects.

Continue reading →