LRT Projects

by

TTC Service Changes Effective May 11, 2014 (Update 4)

The May 2014 schedules will bring major changes across the system mainly in response to construction projects.  Extra running time will be provided on many routes in response to construction delays.  At some times, the current headway will be maintained, while at others the headway will be stretched.  In two cases (46 Martin Grove and 94 Wellesley), no buses are available to improve PM peak service to compensate for extra running time.

The budget for construction-related service is considerably less than what will actually be required.  Although the total hours operated will be greater than the budget for May, “regular” service will be below budget while “construction” more than compensates.  Some changes in the fleet and in service levels have been deferred until later in 2014.

2014.05.11_Service_Changes

This table is broken into four sections listing miscellaneous minor changes, construction-related changes, one route restructuring and seasonal changes.

Updated May 17, 2014:

Effective Tuesday, May 20, the diversions for the Queen & Victoria track project will be changed.

  • All westbound 501 Queen cars will divert via Church-King-York.
  • 501/502/503 shuttle bus services will terminate at Church Street.

The details are on the TTC service advisory page (scroll down to see the portion effective May 20).

Continue reading →

by

Neptis Reviews Metrolinx: A Critique (I)

In December 2013, the Neptis Foundation published a review of the Metrolinx Big Move plan authored by Michael Schabas. This review received prominent attention in the Toronto Star and is regularly cited in their coverage of transportation issues. Some elements also appear in recent comments by Transportation Minister Glen Murray, and it is reasonable to assume that his view of Metrolinx priorities has been influenced by the Neptis paper.

Since its publication, I have resisted writing a detailed critique in part because of the sheer size of the document and my disappointment with many claims made in it, and a hope that it would quietly fade from view. Recent Ministerial musings suggest that this will not happen.

The stated goals of the report arose from four basic questions posed shortly after The Big Move was released in 2008:

  • What evidence suggests that the projects in the Big Move will double the number of transit riders and significantly reduce congestion in the region, as promised by Metrolinx?
  • Does each project offer good value for money?
  • Do all the projects add up to a substantial regional transit network or is the Big Move just an amalgam of projects put forward by diverse sponsors?
  • How do the projects in the Big Move relate to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, its land use equivalent? [Page 2]

The report itself addresses a somewhat different set of questions and notably omits the land use component.

  • Will the Big Move projects achieve the Metrolinx objective of doubling transit ridership?
  • Are these projects consistent with Metrolinx’s own “guiding principles”?
  • Are they well-designed, consistent with international best practice, and integrated with other transport infrastructure?
  • Will they support a shift of inter-regional travel onto transit?
  • Are there alternative, more effective schemes that should be considered?
  • What changes would help Metrolinx produce better results? [Page 14]

Schabas’ work is frustrating because on some points he is cogent, right on the mark.

Metrolinx has bumbled through its existence protected from significant criticism, swaddled in a cocoon of “good news” and the presumed excellence of its work. To be fair, the agency operates in a political environment where independent thought, especially in public, is rare, and years of planning can be overturned by governmental whim and the need to win votes.

That said, Metrolinx is a frustrating, secretive organization conducting much of its business in private, and tightly scripting public events. Schabas rightly exposes inconsistencies in Metrolinx work, although his own analysis and alternatives are, in places, flawed and blinkered.

Continue reading →

by

Neptis Reviews Metrolinx: A Critique (III)

This article is the third section of my critique of the December 2013 review of the Metrolinx Big Move Plan written by Michael Schabas for the Neptis Foundation. It should be read in conjunction with Part I and Part II.

Continue reading →

by

TTC Board Meeting: March 26, 2014

The Toronto Transit Commission Board will meet on March 26, 2014 at 1:00 pm in Council Chambers at City Hall.  The Agenda contains a number of items of interest.

  • An update on the Union Station project (Revised to add info from Metrolinx)
  • The March 2014 CEO’s report
  • Purchase of 10 additional “TR” subway trains for future demand growth
  • A report on Community Bus services
  • A proposed design for Kennedy Station’s interface to the Eglinton LRT line
  • A report on a temporary bus terminal at Islington Station

Continue reading →

by

Streetcar System News: March 2014

On March 11, 2014, photos of car 4401 on training runs appeared in at least two locations:

  • St. Clair & Yonge on Torontoist
  • Spadina south of Adelaide on Twitter (Photo by Kyle Baptista @kylebap)

Delivery of the first production car, 4403, has been delayed until late April according to the TTC’s Brad Ross, but the rate of production can be ramped up by Bombardier.  In any event, 510 Spadina will operate with new cars effective August 31, 2014.

Meanwhile on Queens Quay, construction of the new streetcar right-of-way and the permanent north roadway is expected to begin later in March depending on the weather.  Work will begin west from Lower Simcoe to Rees, a section where utility work is completed and traffic can be shifted to the south side of the road.  West of Rees, installation of sewers is still underway.

Preliminary overhead work has been done at the exit from Queens Quay Loop, and work is also underway at the King/Spadina intersection.  During brief spells of warm weather, track within the loop was set in concrete.

by

TTC Board Meeting Followup: February 24, 2014

The TTC Board met on Monday, February 24.  In an earlier article, I gave a preview of issues from the agenda.  This post reports on some of the debate and follow-up information from the meeting.

This was the first meeting under new Chair Maria Augimeri, and it was noteworth for the amount of actual discussion that took place.  The four citizen members, who at one point were a majority of Commissioners actually present, participated at some length with pointed questions.  One can only guess the degree to with former Chair, now mayoral hopeful Karen Stintz, ran tightly scripted meetings that were all about good news with little or no dissent or disruption.

Continue reading →

by

Queens Quay Update: February 2014

The completion date for restoration of streetcar service on southern Spadina and Queens Quay has been pushed back due to winter weather delays to, probably, the end of August 2014.  Today, I spoke with Waterfront Toronto to find out how various parts of the project fit together.

Work at Spadina Loop cannot proceed into the intersection (the south half of the loop) until traffic can shift to the south side of the street, but that is currently prevented by utility work still in progress on that side from Rees Street west.  Pole installation at Spadina for the new overhead is also a limiting factor and this has to work around the traffic moves.

Waterfront Toronto now expects that Spadina Loop will be completed, except for the overhead, by late May.

Meanwhile, on the portion of Queens Quay east of Rees, work will begin on the streetcar right-of-way and the new north side roadway in March (depending on weather) with the westbound auto traffic shifted to the south side of the street.  The tangent track is expected to be completed by late June.

This opens up the possibility that if the TTC could get the overhead done quickly enough, the 509 Harbourfront car could return for August, but that is far from certain.

Meanwhile on Spadina, although the loop trackage be finished by mid May, service will not be extended south from King to Queens Quay until the overhead is in place.  The work schedule may be too tight for a having the loop available for July, and in any event streetcars will not operate on Spadina during August while the intersection at Dundas is replaced and modifications are underway at Spadina Loop.

I checked with the TTC to find out their position on the situation because it was the February 2014 CEO’s report that alerted me to the change.  Brad Ross replied:

To be clear, and I/we have been consistently clear on this with you and anyone who asks, the schedule is entirely Waterfront Toronto’s. We publish dates based on their schedule. No one wants to resume streetcar service on QQ more than us. To add further clarity, as you requested, criticism of the TTC on the delays on QQ would be wholly unjustified and unfounded. As I have said before, you need to speak with WT for an answer as to why the delays and shifting schedule.

Union Station, the portal and loop down there are not affected and are not delaying work. We need to install the overhead along QQ and at the loop at QQ and Spadina, but require the track to be in first. WT have committed to a schedule to ensure this work is finished on time for the new streetcar to at least operate on Spadina to QQ. WT are well aware of this need and we have been quite clear with them on it.

Meanwhile, the Spadina and Dundas intersection is being redone this summer … and work … is happening on the platform at Spadina station simultaneously to better accommodate the new cars.

I will continue to monitor the TTC and Waterfront Toronto for updates to the project plans.

by

Metrolinx Contemplates Relief (2)

This article is a continuation of a previous commentary on the Metrolinx Yonge Network Relief Strategy.

On February 14, 2014, the Metrolinx Board considered the presentation on the Yonge Network Relief Study, but little information was added in the debate.  One question, from Chair Robert Prichard, went roughly “shouldn’t this have been started two years ago”, but it was left hanging in the air without a response.  Two years, of course, has brought us a new Provincial Premier and a recognition that her predecessor’s timidity on the transit file wasted a great deal of time.

Moreover, there is a long overdue acknowledgement that Metrolinx cannot simply plan one line at a time without understanding network effects including those beyond its own services.

Originally, I planned to leave the next installment in this discussion until public consultation sessions began, but I have now decided to make some brief comments on the various options that will be on the table.  (See Yonge Network Relief Study, page 11.)

Continue reading →

by

Metrolinx Contemplates Relief

At its meeting on February 14, 2014, the Metrolinx Board will receive a presentation on the Yonge Network Relief Study. Despite the need for better regional transit links (and by that I mean links that do not take people to downtown Toronto), the elephant in the room has always been the unstoppable demand for more capacity into the core area. Planning for and debates about catching up with the backlog of transit infrastructure cannot avoid this issue, and it skews the entire discussion because the scale and cost of serving downtown is greater than any other single location in the GTHA.

Conflicting political and professional attitudes across the region colour the view of downtown.  Toronto suburbs, never mind the regions beyond the city boundary, are jealous of downtown’s growth, and for decades have wanted some of the shiny new buildings and jobs for themselves. But the development, such as it was, skipped over the “old” suburbs to new areas in the 905 that could offer lower taxes possible through booming development and the low short-term cost of “new” cities.

Strangling downtown is not a new idea, and politicians decades ago foretold of gleaming suburban centres to redirect growth together with its travel demand. The transit network would force-feed the new centres, and downtown would magically be constrained by not building any new transit capacity to the core.

Someone forgot to tell GO Transit where service and ridership grew over the decades. Downtown Toronto continued to build, and that is now compounded by the shift of residential construction into the older central city.

Thanks to the early 1990s recession, the subway capacity crisis that had built through the 1980s evaporated, and the TTC could talk as if more downtown capacity was unneeded. To the degree it might be required, the marvels of new technology would allow them to stuff more riders on existing lines. A less obvious motive was that this would avoid competition for funding and political support between new downtown capacity with a much-favoured suburban extension into York Region. Whenever they did talk about “downtown relief”, the TTC did so with disdain.

Times have changed. Long commutes are now a burden, not a fast escape to suburban paradise. Every debate starts with “congestion” and the vain hope that there is a simple, take-two-pills-and-call-me-in-the-morning solution. Top that off with an aversion for any taxes that might actually pay for improvements, or sacrifices in convenience until that blissful day when transit arrives at everyone’s doorstep.

Continue reading →