Finance

by

When Is a GO Train not a GO Train? When It’s UPX!

Among the mysteries of the internal organization at Metrolinx is the presence of separate “divisions” for GO Transit (the commuter rail service), Presto (the fare card service) and UP Express (the premium fare airport shuttle service).  Rather than using the GO brand for the airport service and integrating its operation and fares, Metrolinx treats UPX as a completely separate entity, no doubt so that it could isolate the operation as a profit centre on the books. We now know that “profit” is the furthest thing from a UPX future where just finding riders now takes precedence.

Soon, fares on UPX will be much lower and this might encourage some to incorporate the UPX into their journeys. However, there are two glaring holes in the new arrangement.

UPX, being a separate operation, does not have fares integrated with connecting GO services at Union. Riders transferring between these services will pay separate fares for each leg of their journey. Presuming that UPX fares stay low, this should be corrected, at the latest, in the next annual review of GO’s tariff.

But the really bone-headed decision (or lack of decision) lies with the TTC. Although GO fares discourage “local” travel within the 416, there is a legal transfer move a rider can use called TTC Times Two. A trip can start on the TTC, transfer to GO, and then back onto the TTC again using the original TTC transfer.

With UPX moving to lower fares and the likelihood that it will attract commuter trade within the city, the question becomes “is TTC Times Two valid for UPX”? I asked the TTC’s Brad Ross and Chris Upfold this question at the recent TTC Board meeting. Their answer? “No” because (a) UPX is not a GO train and (b) a TTC policy change would be required.

The irony, of course, is that GO operates in the same corridor as UPX, and it would be impossible to distinguish whether a traveller with a transfer from the Lawrence 52 bus arrived at Union Station via GO or via UPX, except of course that GO service only runs in the peak period.

During the March 1 subway shutdown thanks to a power vault fire, TTC riders travelled on GO and UPX for no extra charge. The reverse courtesy has been extended to GO riders on occasion. This did not require a formal meeting and policy decision, simply the recognition that there is one transit network regardless of the logo on the train.

How riders get from one connection point to another should not matter. Between now and March 9 when the new UPX fares take effect, can someone at the TTC show a small spark of initiative and decide that a traveller on either a GO or UPX train can use TTC Times Two? Or will we continue to have an artificial distinction between two services provided on the same track by the same agency?

by

TTC Board Meeting Review: February 25, 2016

The TTC Board met on February 25, 2016. This article is a review of some of the reports and discussions at that meeting. For the full list, please refer to the agenda.

In this article:

As part of an update on cycling initiatives, the Board passed a motion asking staff to work together with the City on improved parking facilities for bicycles at subway stations. An article on this appeared on Torontoist’s website.

Continue reading →

by

TTC Service Changes Effective Sunday, March 27, 2016

The major changes for the new schedules effective March 27 involve routes where new express services will be added.

25 Don Mills

A new service, the 185 Don Mills Rocket, will operate weekdays until mid-evening, and weekend daytime. The combined service at express stops will improve over current schedules, while service at local stops will decrease.

The stopping pattern for the 185 Don Mills Rocket will be:

  • Northbound: Buses stop only at Cosburn Avenue, Thorncliffe Park Drive (west leg), Thorncliffe Park Drive (east leg), Don Mills Road/Gateway Boulevard (south leg, north side), St. Dennis Drive (Ontario Science Centre), Eglinton Avenue East, Green Belt Drive, Lawrence Avenue East, York Mills Road, Graydon Hall Drive, Parkway Forest Drive, Don Mills Station, Van Horne Avenue, Finch Avenue East, McNicoll Avenue, Steeles Avenue East, Freshmeadow Drive/Don Mills Road.
  • Southbound: Buses stop only at McNicoll Avenue, Finch Avenue East, Van Horne Avenue, Don Mills Station, Havenbrook Boulevard, Duncan Mill Road, York Mills Road, Lawrence Avenue East, Barber Greene Road, Eglinton Avenue East, St. Dennis Drive (Ontario Science Centre), Overlea Boulevard/Don Mills Road (west side), Thorncliffe Park Drive (east leg), Thorncliffe Park Drive (west leg), Cosburn Avenue, Pape Station.

39 Finch East

Services on Finch East will be reorganized:

  • Route 139 Finch-Don Mills will be discontinued.
  • Route 199 Finch Rocket will be extended west to York University weekdays during the daytime and early evening, and east to Morningside Heights during peak periods.
  • The 39C Seneca College branch will be extended east to Gordon Baker Road.

The stopping pattern for the 199B Finch Rocket to York University will be:

  • Eastbound: Buses stop only at Murray Ross Parkway & Busway, Dufferin & Finch, Bathurst Street, Finch Station, Bayview Avenue, Leslie Street, Don Mills Road (farside stop), Seneca Hill Drive, Victoria Park Avenue, Pharmacy Avenue, Warden Avenue, Birchmount Road, Kennedy Road, Midland Avenue, Brimley Road, Finch & McCowan, McCowan & Sheppard, and Scarborough Centre Station.
  • Southbound: Buses stop only at McCowan & Sheppard, Finch & McCowan, Brimley Road, Midland Avenue, Kennedy Road, Birchmount Road, Warden Avenue, Pharmacy Avenue, Victoria Park Avenue, Seneca College, Don Mills Road (farside stop), Leslie Street, Bayview Avenue, Finch Station, Bathurst Street, Dufferin & Finch, Murray Ross Parkway & Busway, and The Common.

The stopping pattern for the 199C Finch Rocket to Morningside Heights will be:

  • Eastbound: Buses stop only at Bayview Avenue, Leslie Street, Don Mills Road (farside stop), Seneca Hill Drive, Victoria Park Avenue, Pharmacy Avenue, Warden Avenue, Birchmount Road, Kennedy Road, Midland Avenue, Brimley Road, McCowan Road, then all local stops east of McCowan Road.
  • Southbound: Buses stop at all local stops to McCowan Road, then stop only at Brimley Road, Midland Avenue, Kennedy Road, Birchmount Road, Warden Avenue, Pharmacy Avenue, Victoria Park Avenue, Seneca College, Don Mills Road (farside stop), Leslie Street, Bayview Avenue, and Finch Station.

44 Kipling South

A new service, the 188 Kipling South Rocket, will provide an express service to Humber College Lake Shore Campus weekdays during peak and midday periods.

The stopping pattern for the 188 Kipling South Rocket will be:

  • Northbound: Colonel Samuel Smith Park Loop, Colonel Samuel at Humber College Building M, Colonel Samuel at Lake Shore Boulevard, Kipling at Birmingham, Kipling at Evans, Kipling at The Queensway (farside stop) and Kipling Station.
  • Southbound: Kipling Station, Kipling at The Queensway (far side stop), Kipling at Evans, Kipling at Birmingham, Kipling at Lake Shore Boulevard, Colonel Samuel at Humber College Building M, Colonel Samuel Smith Park Loop.

24 Victoria Park

A new peak period express service will be added.

The stopping pattern for the 24E Victoria Park Express will be:

  • Northbound: Buses stop only at St. Clair Avenue, Eglinton Square, Eglinton Avenue (farside), Lawrence Avenue, Rowena Avenue, Ellesmere Road, Pachino Avenue, Sheppard Avenue, Finch Avenue, McNicoll Avenue, and Steeles Avenue.
  • Southbound: Buses stop only at Steeles Avenue, McNicoll Avenue, Finch Avenue, Sheppard Avenue, York Mills Road, Parkwoods Village Drive, Rowena Avenue, Lawrence Avenue, Eglinton Avenue, O’Connor Drive, St. Clair Avenue, and Victoria Park Station.

96 Wilson

The Wilson route will be broken into four separate designations to simplify scheduling (eliminating interlining between some branches).

  • The 96E Wilson Express to Humber College will be replaced by the new 186 Wilson Rocket. This route will operate during the peak periods and weekday middays (the 96E is peak only).
  • Route 118 Thistle Down replaces the 96C service.
  • Route 119 Torbarrie replaces the 96G service.
  • Both routes 118 and 119 operate from Wilson Station during all periods. The 96 services they replace operated from York Mills Station during peak periods.

The stopping pattern for the 186 Wilson Rocket will be:

  • 186 eastbound: Buses will stop at Humber College Bus Terminal, Westmore Drive, Martin Grove Road and John Garland Boulevard, Kipling Avenue and Brookmere Road, Islington Avenue and Elmhurst Drive, Armel Court, Albion Road and Weston Road, Walsh Avenue and Weston Road, Clayson Road, Jane Street, Julian Road, Keele Street, Dubray Avenue, Dufferin Street, Wilson Station, Bathurst Street, Avenue Road, and York Mills Station.
  • 186 westbound: Buses will stop at York Mills Station, Avenue Road, Bathurst Street (far side), Wilson Station, Dufferin Street, Dubray Avenue, Keele Street, Julian Road, Jane Street, Clayson Road, Walsh Avenue and Weston Road, Albion Road and Weston Road, Armel Court, Islington Avenue and Elmhurst Drive, Kipling Avenue and Brookmere Road, Martin Grove Road and John Garland Boulevard, Westmore Drive, and Humber College Bus Terminal.

Roncesvalles Carhouse Track Reconstruction

Reconstruction of the north ladder tracks will require that cars back out of the yard onto The Queensway, loop west through Sunnyside Loop, and enter service eastbound from that point. Schedules for all routes based at Roncesvalles will be adjusted with extra running time for their departure trips.

Charlotte Street Track Reconstruction

Track on Charlotte from Adelaide to King will be replaced. During this work, the 510 Spadina service that normally short turns there will be extended south to Queens Quay.

Service arrangements for 504 King during the reconstuction of the King-Charlotte intersection have not yet been announced.

Harbourfront Route

This route will now be designated as a 100% low floor route. In the event that Flexitys are not available, ALRVs will be used in their place. Schedules will be adjusted to remove some of the extra running time that had been added for Queens Quay construction.

2016.03.27 Service Changes Rev1

by

There’s A New Subway On The Way (6)

From time to time, the question of just what constitutes “subway demand” comes up in various threads on this site. As a matter of comparison, here is the TTC Scheduled Service Summary for April 7, 1964.

Headways on the Bloor-Danforth service itself were quite impressive. Two-car trains of PCCs, roughly the equivalent of the new Flexity cars, ran throughout the day until mid-evening, and the peak headways shown below are for trains.

                          AM Peak         PM Peak
                          Hdwy   Veh      Hdwy   Veh
Bloor route                      100             110
  Jane to Luttrell        2'30"           2'30"
  Jane to Bedford                         4'00"
Danforth route                    30              48
  Bedford to Hillingdon   3'20"
  Bedford to Luttrell                     3'00"
Combined                         130             158
  Bedford to Hillingdon   1'26"
  Jane to Bedford                         1'32"
  Bedford to Luttrell                     1'22"

Jane Loop was at Bloor & Jane.
Luttrell Loop was on Danforth between Main and Victoria Park at the old city boundary.
Bedford Loop was at St. George Station.
Hillingdon Loop was at the east side of Danforth Carhouse east of Coxwell.

The Bloor-Danforth streetcars could not carry all of the demand into downtown, and that work was shared with many parallel routes.

  • 2’00” Bathurst car from Vaughan Loop (at St. Clair) to Church & Adelaide
  • 1’30” Carlton car
  • 1’40” Dundas car from Runnymede & Dundas to City Hall
  • 2’30” Harbord car from Lansdowne & Davenport to Pape & Danforth via Dundas & Yonge
  • 1’20” King car
  • 2’00” Kingston Road car (now “Downtowner”)
  • 5’00” Kingston Road Tripper car (Victoria Park to Roncesvalles & Queen)

The streetcar system required 640 cars in the am peak, 684 in the pm peak.

by

A Rainbow of Rapid Transit

In Toronto’s never-ending fascination with new transit maps, the City Planning department has released a vision for our rapid transit network as it will be in 15 years.

201602_15YrPlan

Despite much talk of “evidence-based” planning, this is a very political map, and I cannot help remembering then-Premier David Peterson’s announcement of 1990 (not long before he lost an election and Bob Rae wound up as his much-surprised replacement) that amounted to a chicken-in-every-pot map.

There is nothing wrong with network-based planning, and indeed I have been beating a well-worn drum on that subject for years. But let us also remember that the Scarborough Subway exists because of the political clout of Brad Duguid, a former City Councillor, now Ontario’s Minister of Economic Development. Mayor John Tory, in Toronto Life, cites Duguid as saying that “if anyone tries to cancel the [Scarborough] subway, they’ll do it over his dead body”. “Evidence” apparently includes having a large cudgel to keep wandering pols in line.

The map also includes the Mayor’s pet project, SmartTrack, and it’s no wonder that he steers clear of the Minister’s position given the need for a provincial agency, Metrolinx, to accommodate SmartTrack on their network.

All of this is part of the “Motherlode” of public consultation sessions now running in various places around the City, and through Metrolinx in the wider GTHA. Background information and links to related material are available at Toronto’s TransitTO web site.

Continue reading →

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.