Transit

by

Fare By Distance: How Much Would We Pay?

In the thread about new streetcars, part of the discussion turned on the question of fare collection.  I’ve been thinking about this for a while and planned to write about this topic, but when I actually started, realized that there’s more here than will fit in one article.

One major topic in all discussions is the question of flat fares versus fare-by-distance, and this inevitably gets pulled into questions about “equality” in the way that we price transit so that riders are not penalized by things like zone boundaries and operator service territories.  However, any fare system brings its own benefits and problems.  We may solve problems for one group of riders, and create a new set of problems for others.

This article considers fare-by-distance by analogy to the existing TTC system.  It is intended as a “back of the envelope” calculation to give readers a general sense of the numbers and is not intended to be a prescription for any particular implementation.  What is important is that anyone talking about fare structures cannot simply wish away problems of any system by saying “everything will be fixed with Presto!” or similar, simplistic bilge. Continue reading →

by

Sheppard East LRT Funding Announced (Updated)

Updated May 19:

The question of turnback points and storage tracks on the Sheppard East LRT has come up in the comment thread on this post, and I have now received some details from the TTC.

There will be a crossover at “regular intervals” along the line for turnbacks.  As for storage tracks, there are two potential locations that were shown in the preliminary designs at public meetings.  Neither of these is confirmed yet, and their inclusion will be subject to detailed design and costing.

  • Don Mills Station (third track)
  • Malvern Garage (spur)

No three-track section on Sheppard itself is planned.

Details of the Don Mills Station configuration will be included in a report on the TTC agenda for May 28. Continue reading →

by

SRT Extension Open House

The City of Toronto and the TTC will hold an open house for the proposed extension of the SRT:

  • Tuesday, June 2, 2009
  • 6:30 to 9:00 pm
  • Sts. Peter & Paul Banquet Hall, 231 Milner Avenue

This open house is described as part of the preliminary planning for an EA for this project.  One important outstanding issue is the question of vehicle technology, and this is far from settled.  For example, the current proposal included in the meeting notice (not yet available on the City’s website) shows a new yard east of Bellamy and Progress.  This yard would not be required if the line is built as LRT because it would share the proposed carhouse for the Sheppard East line.

Also, the station connection at Sheppard will be affected if both routes are LRT because a track connection for carhouse moves will be needed.

Whether these issues are addressed in the presentation materials on June 2 remains to be seen.

by

Another GO Transit Grade Separation Project (Updated)

Updated May 14:  The display panels from the April 22 open house are available on GO Transit’s website.

Original post from April 15:

Construction is already underway for the grade separation project at the West Toronto diamond, and the residents are mightly upset about the noise from pile driving.  This project will continue disrupting the neighbourhood until late this year.

GO Transit has announced a public meeting on April 22, 2009 that will kick off another project in the same area, this time to remove the diamond where the Newmarket Subdivision (Barrie GO line) crosses the CPR North Toronto Subdivision.

(Thanks to Vic Gedris for passing along a copy of the notice.)

by

My Ride on the King Car

A few days ago, my travels took me to Parkdale for a presentation near Jameson Avenue in the early afternoon.  The obvious route for someone like me living near Broadview Station was the King car.  That journey gave several examples of how service can be delayed that have nothing to do with traffic congestion, and illustrate the changes that will be possible when the TTC moves to low-floor cars and all-door loading.

Just south of Danforth, we picked up a load of students from Moncrest School on their way to Thomson Hall.  They filled up the back half of the car.  Just loading them all took a while, and I wondered to myself how the TTC will handle fare collection for this type of group when they move to self-service.  Now we were slightly late.

By the time we were westbound on King, the car was filling up.  A man had boarded with a shopping buggy, and he took a single seat just ahead of the rear vestibule on the left side of the car.  This started a plug in the aisle that worsened when a group of five boarded.  There were not enough seats for all of them, and they wound up partly seated and partly standing right across the aisle from the shopping buggy.  Needless to say they were not going to “move to the rear”.

At Sherbourne, we passed up the first group of would-be customers even though there was still room in the rear vestibule.  This continued at Jarvis, Church and Victoria.

At Yonge, the crowd turned over, but the car was now quite late and we still didn’t manage to fully use the capacity.  By University we were again leaving people at the stops.  The students piled off the car at Simcoe, and by Spadina the car had cleared out reasonably.  All the same, we left an unhappy customer running for the car at Bathurst because getting back on time was more important than waiting, and the next car was only a block behind us.

While this may have been a particularly bad example of how service can be screwed up by loading delays, it’s not uncommon.  The combined effect of many factors interferes with the travel time of TTC vehicles, and this has nothing to do with whether they are in a private right-of-way.

Loading delays caused by inadequate service can cause a downward spiral where line capacity drops even as ridership grows because cars spend longer at stops and onboard crowding slows or blocks movement of passengers.  We hear far too much about traffic congestion as the root of all evil.  Yes, it exists, but it’s not the only problem.

by

The Agenda on TVO: Sharing the Road (Updated)

Updated:  To watch this program, please go to the TVO website.  The tab “Fred Hansen” contains the interview with Portland’s Transportation Manager, while the tab “Sharing The Road” contains the discussion between Steve Paikin and the five guests.

Tonight (May 7), TVO’s The Agenda presents a discussion of the use of road space.  Is there a war on cars?  Are cyclists and pedestrians asking for more than they deserve?  What should streets be for?

The program begins with an interview with Fred Hansen, Portland’s Transportation Manager, on what Toronto should be doing, and continues with a panel discussion between:

  • Yvonne Bambrick of the Toronto Cyclists’ Union
  • David Booth who writes for the weekly Driving section of the National Post
  • Jeff Casello, an assistant professor in the School of Planning at the University of Waterloo
  • Dylan Reid of Spacing magazine and co-chair of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee
  • A certain bearded transit activist you all know and many love

The program airs at 8 pm with a repeat broadcast at 11 pm.  When an online version is available, I will post a link here.

James Bow, your host on the Transit Toronto website, has blogged some of his own comments for TVO.

by

Goodbye Metrolinx, Hello Metrolinx

Earlier today I learned that Bill 163, the act to amalgamate GO Transit with Metrolinx and dump the politicians from the new Board, is expected to pass third reading imminently with proclamation shortly thereafter.

This means that the planned Board meeting on May 15 will be the new, wet behind the ears, but ever so non-political board.  Whether they will choose to meet in public much less discuss anything of consequence remains to be seen.  The date is still on the Metrolinx events calendar, but a week is a long time in politics.

by

A Few Details About New Streetcars

Based on some of the comments here as well as a few of my own interests, I recently posed three questions to the TTC about the new Bombardier cars.

1. What are the “specified options” mentioned in the report, and when will we know which of these, if any, will actually be included in the order?

Specified options include security camera system, wheel flange lubrication, pantograph current collector, cab training simulator etc. 

Timing for ordering optional equipment depends on:

  • better definition of scope of work and system offered (e.g. camera system);
  • technical and noise necessity (e.g. flange lubricator);
  • system compatibility (e.g. pantograph); and,
  • completion of negotiation of the design and scope of work (e.g. cab simulator).

 2. When will a plan showing the interior layout be available which accurately reflects the dimensions of the Toronto car? Will there be an opportunity to fine tune this, or will that be done as part of the prototype operation when there’s a real car for people to walk around in? I have to assume this must already be available for discussions with ACAT.

While the exterior dimensions are fairly well set, the interior layout can be an evolving process. As noted at the April 27, 2009 Commission Meeting, there are four cost-neutral layouts that would afford flexibility in the final configuration. The current schedule calls for completion of the Conceptual Design Phase four (4) months after Notice of Award (NOA); Preliminary Design Phase twelve (12) months after NOA.

There will be opportunities to review the design through computer modeling and presentations during the design phases. A full-scale, half-car mock-up is scheduled for delivery in 18 months NOA. This would offer a “real car” feel for stake holders including ACAT to critique. The actual Prototype Car No. 1 is scheduled for delivery 26 months [after] NOA.

3. For the transit city network, will this be built to TTC gauge or to standard gauge? In other words, will the two systems and fleets be physically able to interoperate (assuming the TC cars stay away from “tricky” parts of the legacy network) or will the two systems remain disjoint?

This has a specific application to the St. Clair line because there has been talk of connecting it to Jane and operating it out of a TC carhouse. This would require that the 512’s trackage be made compatible with the TC fleet. This has obvious and immediate implications if the specs for the TC fleet have to be nailed down within the next year.

The Transit City network will be built to TTC gauge. Note that once the carbody structure, bogies, articulations etc. of the legacy system vehicles are proven through design, Finite Element Analyses, testing and validation, there will be savings in “proven” equipment and configuration for the TC vehicles, as well as savings through common tooling, manufacturing and quality control processes, if negotiation with the base vehicle carbuilder is successful.

TTC’s wider gauge also offers a wider aisle width and roomier interior, with little incremental construction cost, compared with a “standard gauge” vehicle.

Interoperability obviously involves more than track gauge. If Jane cars are required to operate on St. Clair, a whole host of challenges will have to be addressed, including tight radius curves and steep grades at St. Clair West station and short turn loops en route.

 Thanks to Brad Ross, Director, Corporate Communications at the TTC for this information.

After receiving Brad’s reply, it occurs to me that if St. Clair cars are to be based at a TC carhouse via Jane Street, this would be done by keeping some “city” cars at the new Eglinton West carhouse and running them over the TC network down to St. Clair.  This assumes, of course, that the Jane line is on the surface and makes a physical connection with an extended 512.  All of that is many years in the future, and St. Clair cars will be based at downtown carhouses for many years to come.

by

Who Will Pay for New Streetcars?

A great deal of bilge was pumped out by Ottawa and Queen’s Park over the past few days about the TTC’s proposed order of new streetcars from Bombardier.

In today’s Globe & Mail, John Barber did a particularly nice job of eviscerating George Smitherman, the Minister of Infrastructure, for his apparent total ignorance of the TTC’s funding needs and requests.

It’s no secret that the TTC is looking for new streetcars.  The original bid process had to be halted when no vendor came up with a technically and commercially compliant proposal, and more recently the whole process of getting a second set of bids has been well covered in the media.

Many of us will remember walking through Bombardier’s mockup display at Dundas Square which happens to be in Smitherman’s riding.  Maybe he was out of town at the time and missed it.

Smitherman claims that the City can’t make up its mind what its priorities are.  Strange that in a letter to Dalton McGuinty, copied to Smitherman, dated December 16, 2008, Mayor Miller wrote of upcoming meetings of Finance and First Ministers:

Toronto’s first priority for infrastructure is to build Transit City, the 21st century modern public transit network that our city needs.  The Government of Ontario has demonstrated foresight and leadership in its support for Transit City.  Toronto City Council has unanimously agreed to request the Government of Canada to provide:

  • $368 million toward the streetcar fleet’s replacement and expansion; and
  • the federal $6 billion share of Ontario’s $17.5 billion Move Ontario 2020 commitment for the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan.

The streetcar fleet replacement also shows up in the list of funding requests under the stimulus program by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

Other related letters to both Queen’s Park and Ottawa can be found on the City’s website.

Meanwhile, Smitherman’s comment that the TTC shouldn’t be awarding a contract without knowing funding is in place shows that he is badly out of touch.  First off, the TTC has not signed the contract, and its execution is dependent on funding being in place.

Second, there is a long history of agencies such as Metrolinx (a provincial body) announcing plans for which they have no funding, and for which even discussion of proper funding won’t happen for years into the future.  There are two subway extensions (Spadina/Vaughan and Richmond Hill) of which the first was not fully funded until long after the project was announced, and the second still does not have full commitments.

That’s how projects like this work.

The streetcar purchase will run over a 10-year period, and funding it can hardly be called a short-term stimulus.  Funding would likely come from some other program, but the funding should come.  Toronto is asking, in effect, for $40-million a year from Ottawa and from Queen’s Park to re-equip the core of central Toronto’s transit system and to anchor the expansion of LRT in our city.

by

Analysis of 501 Queen Service Winter 2008/2009: Part II Long Branch to Parkside

In the previous installment, I reviewed the headway patterns for the 501 Queen route outbound to terminals at Neville, Humber and Long Branch.  Now I will turn to the operation of the west end of the route between Long Branch and Parkside Drive.  I used Parkside (the east side of High Park, and the continuation of Keele Street south of Bloor) as the eastern end of the measurement because it is at the end of the private right-of-way and because this avoids problems with variations caused by operations at Roncesvalles.

The charts presented here show headways (the frequency and regularity of service) as well as link times (the time needed to traverse part of the route).  Headways are important to riders because they show how predictable service will be, and they also bear on riding comfort because crowding is directly affected by regularity of service.  Link times are important for service planning because they show where and when congestion occurs, and how predictable (or not) the running time between locations will be. Continue reading →