The newly reconstituted Toronto Transit Commission will meet on Friday, March 30. This article reviews major items on the agenda.
Finance
The Sheppard LRT Report (Part IV)
Now we come to what I must call “The Chong Dissent”, the reports prepared under the company “Toronto Transit Infrastructure Limited” (TTIL), a dormant TTC corporation resurrected for the purpose because it had $160k sitting in its bank account. All this and more was spent to argue the case for a Sheppard Subway.
Council has already opted for an LRT line on Sheppard, but arguments originating from the TTIL reports continue to haunt the debate. It’s time to expose their threadbare, self-serving nature.
The Sheppard LRT Report (Part III)
Many background presentations informed the Expert Panel’s review of options for the Sheppard corridor. This article is the first of two summarizing and commenting on this information.
There are six groups of documents:
- Professor Eric Miller’s comments
- Metrolinx presentations and reports
- TTC presentations and reports
- Toronto Transit Infrsatructure Ltd. (TTIL) presentations and reports
- City of Toronto presentations and reports
- Third Party reports
TTIL is the TTC subsidiary through which Dr. Chong’s pro-subway work reported. Given the amount of material, I will deal with reports from TTIL, the City and Third Parties in the fourth and final article in this series.
The Sheppard LRT Report (Part II)
In the previous article, I reviewed the three main options under study for Sheppard East as well as the comments of the City Planning and Finance departments on various related issues.
In this article, I turn to the Expert Panel’s evaluation of the options, their scoring system, and the question of bias in the process.
The analysis and scoring begins on page 39 of the Expert Panel Report. The panel chose three broad areas for analysis, and subdivided each of these into three subcategories.
- Funding & Economic Development
- Transit Service
- Sustainability and Social Impact
In each of the 9 subcategories, the highest possible score is 5 points for an overall raw total of 45. However, the weights assigned to each group are different with Funding & Economic Development getting a weight of 3x, Transit Service 2x, and Sustainability and Social Impact 1.5x. Once the weights are applied, the total potential score is 95 points. These values are normalized up to a “perfect” score of 100.
Table 15 on page 41 summarizes these scores. In order that readers can see how the weights affect the outcome, I have recast these data to show the buildup of the weighted scores to a 100-scale. Continue reading
The Sheppard LRT Report (Part I)
On Wednesday, March 21, Toronto Council will consider a report recommending that the Sheppard rapid transit line be built as an LRT from Don Mills Station east, initially, to Morningside. This is the same scheme that was on the table in the Metrolinx 5-in-10 plan, and approval of this recommendation will more or less put Transit City back on track where it was before the election of Mayor Ford.
There is a main report and many background documents, including an alternative subway proposal, what might be called the “Chong Dissent” from the otherwise pro-LRT conclusions of the panel. This article provides a summary of material from many sources. For the definitive word, please refer to the originals as I am not going to attempt to cover every detail here.
As a general observation, the materials present a review of the situation in considerably more detail than we see for many transit planning decisions, notably those surrounding recent budget debates. With luck, and with a less transit-hostile TTC board, we might see the same level of interest turned to basic questions like “where’s my bus and why can’t I get on when it shows up”.
The pro-subway folks claim that the report is biased, that it is hogwash, and advance their own dissent purporting to show the superiority of a subway option. The misinformation and factual errors in this dissent are disconcerting, putting it mildly, considering that billions in provincial spending and the future development of our transit network might have depended on such twaddle. I will turn to this in detail later in a future article.
Where Should We Go From Here?
Toronto Council’s vote to reconstitute the Toronto Transit Commission may give the new board a better political balance and break Mayor Ford’s stranglehold on transit policy, but that is only the beginning of the work facing our city.
First up will be the March 21 vote on the Sheppard East subway-vs-LRT issue. Already, the Ford camp claims that it almost has the votes needed to spike the LRT scheme and forge ahead with subway plans. Even if LRT prevails, a close margin could provide incentive for attempts to derail the project. The “new” TTC will be in a tenuous position if the momentum of the governance vote does not continue through to the choice of technology.
The future of the TTC, its board and of transit in Toronto is much bigger than the Sheppard decision. We have a “new” board, and later in 2012 it will grow by the addition of four “citizen” members. What should this board be doing?
TTC Meeting Review February 29, 2012
The February 29th meeting of the Toronto Transit Commission was one of the shortest in my long memory of these events. The agenda was trivial with an utter absence of meaty issues for debate, and the real action would follow in press scrums.
Accessible Transit Services Plan: 2011 Status Report
This generally upbeat report was approved without debate.
Notable by its absence is any mention of the operating budget challenges faced thanks to cutbacks in funding by the City of Toronto. Recently, the Commission diverted $5-million intended to support regular bus service quality into the Wheel Trans budget. For the long term, Council must address the fact that cutbacks to the Wheel Trans subsidy have much more severe effects, proportionately, than cuts to the regular system.
The TTC may be improving its accessibility, slowly, but basic questions about whether the service is adequate to meet demand receive little public debate. This is not just a question of Wheel Trans for those who cannot use the conventional system, but of recognition that mobility affects many who are ambulatory, but whose neighbourhoods and destinations may not be well served by surface routes.
What’s In A Name? Stations on the Spadina Extension in Vaughan
The Commission adopted “Highway 407” and “Vaughan Metropolitan Centre” as the names for the two stations north of Steeles on the Spadina subway extension on a 5-2 vote.
For some time, staff and some Commissioners have pressed for the simpler “Vaughan Centre”, but the City of Vaughan Council prefers the longer (and somewhat more pretentious) name. Sadly, the opposition to the long version came from Commissioners whose credibility leaves much to be desired, although their comments might in other circumstances be cogent.
Norm Kelly mentioned the “conceit” of former cities within Metropolitan Toronto which created “town centres” such as in Scarborough, Kelly’s home turf. This is deeply ironic considering that it is the failure of Scarborough Town Centre to attract employment that is part of the argument against the Sheppard Subway extension which Kelly supports. Frank Di Giorgio worried that everyone will make a case for special consideration on station names. Di Giorgio, it should be remembered, is the advocate for total obedience to Mayoral fiats by city staff, and if Rob Ford had a position on station names, it would take precedence over everything.
Meanwhile Maria Augimeri had hopes her “Black Creek” would get equal consideration when it comes to formally naming “Steeles West” station.
After the meeting, a group of my colleages agreed that one of my local stations, Chester, should be renamed as “Riverdale Metropolitan Centre”, although I might add the word “Organic” in deference to the neighbourhood.
It is unclear how the TTC will handle placing the long version of “VMC Station” on its maps and other signage.
St. Clair at Keele/Weston
Commissioner Palacio asked for a report on improving traffic conditions at the St. Clair and Keele intersection where, because of the rail underpass just to the east, traffic is constrained to a single lane by the streetcar right-of-way.
Restructuring the Commission
In a scrum after the meeting, Chair Karen Stintz announced that she had reached a compromise for the proposed change in the makeup of the TTC. A report coming to Council on March 5 (whose origin lies in the machinations of the Ford camp to enhance control of all agencies by the Mayor) recommends a nine-member Commission (as at present) with five citizen members and four Councillors. The Chair and Vice-Chair would be a Councillor and Citizen member respectively.
The new proposal would see an 11-member Commission with six Councillors.
After the firing of Gary Webster by Ford’s Gang of Five, many Councillors have talked about restructuring the Commission to be more representative of Council as soon as possible, including at the March 5 meeting. Stintz feels that she has the votes for the compromise arrangement, and that a major shuffle of the Commission would not occur until June when the citizen appointments are confirmed by Council.
The next move is up to Council itself on March 5.
While the TTC was meeting, across on the other side of City Hall Mayor Ford was hosting a bevy of developers for a luncheon discussion of subway funding. After the TTC meeting completed, there was a scrum outside of the Mayor’s office (with Chair Stintz nowhere in sight) in which the Mayor and his circle claimed that there was broad support in the development industry for subways. When pressed about funding, Mayor Ford didn’t want to get into the details beyond pointing to the Chong report, but claimed that the development community was totally onside. Onside maybe, but the developers all slipped out the side door and avoided the media lest they have to go on record supporting or, worse, opposing the Mayor.
Of course developers love subways because they offer an opportunity to squeeze higher densities out of the city than they would get otherwise. We have been down this path before with the Sheppard Subway. However, don’t ask the developers to pay for subways, certainly not through development levies that would make their brand new condos uncompetitive with buildings downtown, the really hot part of the condo market.
See Robyn Doolittle and Royson James in the Star (the photo suggests Ford is less than engaged in the event), and Elizabeth Church and Kelly Grant in the Globe.
The strangest part of the whole scheme is that funding the subway depends on new revenue sources many of which Ford is on record as hating, and one (the vehicle registration tax) which he killed early in his term as a swipe at Toronto’s alleged appetite for higher revenues rather than reduced expenses. Even the normally supportive Toronto Sun cannot believe what their hero is up to.
All of this leads up to a March 15 21 special Council meeting where the “expert panel” convened to look at Sheppard options will report that LRT is the preferred option. Will Mayor Ford have a credible financing scheme in place, or will this be more smoke and mirrors, more claims that the money is there without any commitment to actually raising the levies needed to build the project?
Service Changes Effective March 25, 2012 (Corrected)
The TTC will implement several service changes on March 25, 2012. These are mostly in response to growing demand on the bus network, although this also includes slightly better service on the Bloor-Danforth subway at weekday midday and early evening.
Actual average loads for current service and the projected values following the changes are no longer included in the memoranda issued by TTC Service Planning. This means that we cannot see how close to the line ridership is, or to what degree it already exceeds service standards.
Correction: The average load information has been moved to a completely separate section of the service change memorandum, and I did not catch this.
Updated: The table of service changes linked here has been updated with the loading information.
Although many services will improve, the amount of service to be operated falls within the currently-approved budget. Looking further out, the budget includes the usual summer reduction in service levels, but there is provision for increases in the fall. By November, the TTC will be back at a service level slightly better than in January, just before the most recent round of cutbacks. That is on an overall basis with cuts in some services and loading standards going to pay for improvements elsewhere.
Metrolinx Meeting for February 2012 (Updated)
Updated February 17, 2012 at noon: The original article from February 13 has been updated to include additional information and comment at the Board Meeting.
The Metrolinx Board will meet on Thursday, February 16. Among items on the agenda is a “Toronto Update”, but there is no published report. Given recent events, I suspect this report won’t get beyond the draft stage much before the meeting.
Updated: The Toronto report and discussion on it are covered in a separate article.
Other items include:
This report begins with a review of 2011 operations and updates on ridership to the end of November.
- On the rail system, weekday riding is up by almost 6%.
- On the bus system, weekday riding is up by over 6%, and weekend riding is up by 18%.
- Total weekday ridership is now 243,600, up 13,600 from November 2010.
Looking ahead, GO expects rail ridership to grow by 22% over the next five years while bus riding will go up by 30%.
Although the presentation does not say this explicitly, one constraint on rail growth is the limit on peak capacity GO can provide. This shows up in GO’s continuing inability to meet its target for passenger comfort with 80% or more of rush hour passengers getting seats on trains. The number today is 64%, and there is little hope of this improving with demand growing faster than GO can provide capacity.
Updated: Director Lee Parsons asked where there were capacity constraints in the network. GO President Gary McNeil replied that demand was high on all corridors, but that Barrie has the strongest growth. Milton is running at 110-120% of capacity. GO will put additional trains wherever there is an opening in network schedules because there is strong demand everywhere.
Director Richard Koroscil asked what problems are at the top of GO’s “worry list”. McNeil replied that the greatest need is for Federal and Provincial support for infrastructure. Demand for GO service is there whether governments provide funding or not. Planning where to spend is complicated by the need to keep activity going in many areas at the same time lest riders feel that their part of the network is being ignored.
Director Rahul Bhardwaj worried that people might feel that transit growth has stalled, and asked how GO could get more positive stories out. McNeil replied that the magnitude of the Toronto debate has overshadowed GO even though they have good news in the 905. Chair Rob Prichard noted that Metrolinx has to make the same progress in Toronto as they do elsewhere in the GTHA.
I could not help thinking back to the departing remarks of just-retired Director Paul Bedford who, among other parting comments, noted the relative size of the TTC and GO’s operations. What is big news in the 905 and for GO itself would be small change on the scale of the TTC because GO is, comparatively, such a small operation. Simply publishing sunny press releases (something GO is very good at) will not make up for the lower presence and mode share that transit generally has in the 905 compared to the 416.
Changes to Ticket Cancelling on the GO System
The title of this report is somewhat misleading as this is actually a report on the phase-out of paper 10-ride and 2-ride tickets and completion of the system’s conversion to Presto.
After May 31, 2012, the 10-ride and 2-ride tickets will no longer be sold. Those remaining in circulation will be valid up to July 31, 2012 after which they will be refunded or converted to Presto.
Monthly, daily and group passes are not affected by this change.
Presto continues to gain users with a 22% growth in the number of cards issued over the November-December 2011 period. About $14.4-million in fares were paid using the fare cards during the same period. What has not been reported is how this lines up against overall fare revenue on GO and on participating regional transit systems.
A major new market for Presto will arrive in June 2012 with the rollout in Ottawa with the “Presto Next Generation” (or “PNG”) card. PNG will become available in the GTHA in late fall 2012.
Concurrent with the rollout of PNG, the Presto website will be revised with added functionality and an improved layout, according to the report.
Meanwhile on the TTC, Metrolinx expects the Commission to grant authority for a contract with Presto at its March meeting. Notable among the features to be included will be “Open Payments” allowing cards other than Presto and mobile devices to be used. However, the exact details are not explained and it is unclear whether this will simply provide the ability to pay a fare with a credit card, or whether that card can be used as an alternative to Presto and receive discounts such as multi-trip incentives or equivalent-to-pass functionality.
A long section originally this article related to questions about Presto arising from the January Board Meeting. This has been moved to a separate article.
Updated: Director Rahul Bhardwaj asked how many “free rides” are taken thanks to the discounting system of Presto. Staff pointed out that there are “free” rides on passes by design, but they are not counted or reported as there is no mechanism to capture pass use comparable to the Presto readers.
Director Lee Parsons noted that a commuter line in New York City saw a jump in counterpeak and weekend demand when it moved to all day service, and a fare tariff that allows for extra trips at little or no cost helps drive this demand.
A view of transit riding as “free” and somehow undesirable is troubling because it implies that encouraging use through lower “frequent flyer” fares may not be a good idea. This is the basic philosophical problem of fare structures: do we purport to charge people for what they use, or do we encourage higher utilization through fares that reward frequent travel. Is transit a service we wish to make as attractive as possible through the perception that it has a low marginal cost just as autos are thought to be “cheap” until one pulls into a gas station or receives an insurance bill.
After the meeting, I sent questions to Metrolinx asking how the two generations of Presto cards and supporting systems will interoperate. For example, what will happen if an Ottawa user with a “PNG” card comes to Toronto and attempts to ride GO Transit? I await answers to my questions.
A Few Questions About Presto
This article has been broken off from the February 2012 Metrolinx Meeting report given its size and the fact that much information here does not actually come from that meeting. Comments related to Presto have been shifted to this thread.
In the original article, I reported a series of questions posed to Metrolinx about its Presto card and fare structure. I have now received responses, and these have been interpolated into the text.
Steve Munro 