Today’s Metrolinx Board Meeting was notable both for the update, in public session, of the project status for five major lines as well as for supplementary information that came out in a press scrum after the public session.
Five projects now have funding and are at various stages in their approval/construction process.
The November Metrolinx Board meeting takes place Monday the 16th starting at 1 pm. As usual, the agenda has a small public session including remarks by Transportation Minister Bradley and reports from Rob Prichard, the CEO, Gary McNeil, the Managing Director, and a progress report on the “Big 5” projects. These are the Eglinton, Finch, Sheppard and SRT projects in Toronto, as well as the Viva Next project in York Region.
The board then goes into private session where it will discuss the same things all over again, presumably with the interesting, important bits included. There will also be updates on Presto (the smart card project), the Investment Strategy (how we will pay for everything), and various standing committees including the Customer Service Committee, so appropriate an issue for a private session.
At its meeting on November 17, the TTC will consider a report on the yard needs for the Yonge-University-Spadina subway.
Updated November 15 at 6:10 pm:
A reference to the replacement dates for the BD signal system and the T1 fleet has been corrected. This triggers a discussion of whether the TTC will concoct an excuse to retire the T1’s early on the grounds that it is not worth installing ATO on them.
Updated November 15 at 4:30 pm:
The Subway Rail Yard Needs Study (aka SRYNS) proposes that future operations of the Yonge-University-Spadina line through 2030 be provided through a combination of various facilities:
However, looking beyond 2030, staff foresee a need for additional storage and are asking the Commission for perimission to protect for a new yard on the Yonge line with purchase of property, should it become available. This is a rather oddly worded request to which I will return.
The SRYNS was funded by York Region in recognition of the storage and servicing issues that a Richmond Hill subway extension would create for the YUS line. The study explicitly does not look at requirements for the Bloor-Danforth line, but the report recognizes that this too must be examined. The restructuring of the fleet and storage requirements for YUS trigger a move of all T1 subway cars to Greenwood, but that yard is not large enough to hold all of them. In the short term, the TTC owns more T1s than would be required to operate both the BD and Sheppard subways, but this fleet will reach 30 years in 2026 and replacement with newer cars will occur within the timeframe of any projected yard requirements. Continue reading
In my previous article, I reviewed the TTC staff report about the proposed fare increase, but didn’t say much (except in the comment thread) about my overall view on the situation.
The most important fact about Tuesday’s TTC decision, whatever it will be, is that it will not set, once and for all, either the fare and service levels for 2010, nor general fare policy for the future. Any attempt to do so runs directly into the limitations of the TTC’s mandate and the simple truth that neither the City nor Queen’s Park have clearly stated how much the TTC might get in operating subsidies for 2010.
For next Tuesday, as I have said many times, I support the proposed 25-cent token fare increase with all other fares rising proportionately. The attempt to grab $5 extra a month from Metropass holders is an unfair, precipitous action brought forward by TTC staff who have always fought against making the pass “the better way” to travel. That the scheme was announced by a press release rather than by a formal proposal from the Commission itself raises serious questions about who is setting policy at the TTC.
If the Commission adopts this fare scheme, the TTC will still be about $50-million in the hole going into the 2010 budget process. At this point we have no idea what sort of tradeoffs this might entail, and the Commission is asked to implement a fare change without all the facts on the table.
As I mentioned in my previous article, TTC staff claim that the system’s costs will rise by 7% per annum for the foreseeable future, but they do not quantify the source of this magnitude of change. Some factors listed in the staff report are non-recurring or have a limited effect on future budgets.
Next Tuesday, as we always see when fare increases are on the table, there will be many groups calling for various changes in fare structures ranging from a complete freeze to new discounts for certain groups of riders. I believe that the Commission, and by extension the City, should not be making fare policy on the fly. We are all badly served by “debate” that is inevitably presented as a decision that must be taken today lest the sky fall tomorrow. Continue reading
The TTC staff report recommending a fare increase is now available on the TTC’s website. This will be formally considered at the Commission meeting on November 17, but of course this subject has already been discussed at length in the media and on blogs.
The new price for adult tokens will be $2.50, up 25 cents, with all other fares increased roughly pro-rata. The one exception is the Metropass for which the proposed fare multiple (the ratio between the pass price and the token price) would be bumped by the equivalent of two fares. This places the burden of the fare increase disproportionately on the Metropass users.
The TTC projects essentially flat ridership and service for 2010 relative to 2009. Projected riding is 473-million, up only 2-million over the likely 2009 level. Other than the full-year effect of service changes added during 2009, no major service improvements are planned for 2010.
A particularly striking comment in the report is that TTC costs are expected to rise next year by 7% and to continue rising at that rate for the foreseeable future. A number of factors are cited, but they don’t all make sense over an extended period.
If we are looking at a sustained 7% growth in the TTC’s operating budget, even without service improvements, the underlying reasons must be clearly understood. This has very serious implications for transit funding, service and fares in the coming decade. Continue reading
At its meeting on November 17, the TTC will consider a report on the Eglinton LRT Transit Project Assessment. A few items have caught my eye already:
Revised November 13, 10:15 am:
The process for handling Commission approval of the Transit Project Assessment is rather odd because only the Executive Summary is available at this time. Full details of the proposal have not been provided, and yet the Commission is being asked to sign off on the TPA.
This begs the question of how the TTC can “approve” an assessment when the document is not before them and may not yet exist in final form. Continue reading
At its meeting on November 17, the TTC will consider a report on the implementation of the Presto smart card system.
I will comment further on this matter after the meeting and whatever material is presented there.
The National Post reported comments by former City budget chief David Soknacki at the Board of Trade in which he claims that in the past decade:
This sort of statement gets red-blooded, tax-chopping politicians, not to mention the Board of Trade, hopping mad. If only the information were accurate and in context.
First let’s look at service levels.
In 1998, the TTC operated 106.6-million km on its surface network, and by 2008, this was up to 126.3-million. That 18.5% more, and even allowing for the fact that 2008 was a leap year (and had one more day’s operations in it), that’s a lot better than 1.3%. The surface fleet rose from 1,744 buses and streetcars to 1,985, or 13.8%.
On the rapid transit network, service rose from 71.7m to 78.2m km, or 9.1%. Most of the increase came from restoration of mid-90s off-peak service cuts and a small bump from the Sheppard Subway opening.
During this period, the TTC was subject to changes in labour laws restricting hours of work in the transit industry, and this triggered a requirement for more operators to perform the same work.
We can have long debates about the merits of Local 113, not to mention the non-union staff at TTC, but the simple fact is that over the past decade the TTC ran more service and hired more people operate the system.
Second, the “transit tax” per capita.
During the mid 1990s, funding for transit and other municipal services was butchered by Queen’s Park, and the City of Toronto (among others) is still digging its way out of that hole. Transit services were scaled back, ridership dropped, and the farebox recovery rate went above 80%.
Over the next decade, City policy favoured a return to better service quality (the Ridership Growth Strategy) and to a farebox recovery at the so-called historic level of 68%. There is nothing magic about this figure. It just happened to be the level when Toronto and Queen’s Park came to an agreement about the amounts of subsidy each would provide, locking in at the then-current level.
In 1998, an adult token cost $1.60 (and had done so since 1996), while the Metropass cost $83 and was not transferrable. Today, the token costs $2.25 and the Metropass $109 (leaving aside various discounts available). That’s an increase of 41% on tokens and 31% on passes.
Better service and a higher proportionate subsidy for service combined to drive up the subsidy required by the TTC.
Over the 1998-2008 period, it is roughly correct to say that taxpayers somewhere (local, provincial, federal) roughly doubled their contribution to the TTC, but that increase was paid back to riders in better service and lower fares, relative to the total cost of operation.
Many politicians pay lip service to the need for better public transportation, and if anything, spending is far behind where it should be, especially for system expansion. None of that will come without higher subsidies. We can debate whether those the TTC and other transit agencies get today are spent wisely or effectively, but the need for more transit is inescapable. Talk about efficiency plays well to the mythical taxpayer, but more often this is code for “no more transit money” at a time when that’s the worst possible choice.
For a detailed look at TTC fares and operating statistics, please visit Bob Brent’s website.
Today the TTC announced that token purchases, originally limited to 10-per-customer in the face of a coming fare hike, would now be limited to 5-per person. If a station collector has run out of tokens, you will pay the cash fare of $2.75.
This has to rank among the more bone-headed moves the TTC has made.
The TTC has a fetish for collecting money, and the more it can get, the better. In the name of eliminating bogus tickets, the TTC got rid of them for adults. Ooops! That was the fallback medium everyone used in the period when tokens vanished before a fare increase, but now it’s gone.
Some people may try to switch to a Metropass rather than taking a chance on token availability during December. Indeed, some regular pass users who switch to tokens for that “short” month (from a commuter’s point of view) may stay with the Metropass. Will the TTC have enough? Don’t count on it, and it’s far too late for them to order more. If you’re planning to buy a pass, don’t wait until November 30th.
Paying that cash fare doesn’t just hit riders for one direction on their trip. Someone commuting home via the subway with a bus or streetcar at the end of their trip may try, but fail, to get tokens on their outward trip. The next morning, they still won’t have tokens and will have to pay cash again for the inbound journey.
If the TTC had wanted to be the tiniest bit generous, it would have lowered the cash fare to $2.50 for the period leading up to the fare hike, at least trying to meet riders half way. But, no. The problem the TTC itself created will cost riders 50 cents more per trip for the next seven weeks.
Behind all this lurks the question of smart cards on the TTC. Once fare collection is automated, the amount of fare can be changed on a whim, with no lead time, and no possibility of hoarding. However, a lot comes along for the ride with the technology.
The original estimate for implementing Presto! on the TTC was $140-million, and the TTC got Federal funding (CSIF) to pay for it. There was a small problem. The estimate ballooned by another $277-million with no money in sight. (This is one of those many “below the line” projects in the Capital Budget, hidden, but lurking.)
There are many unanswered questions about Smart Cards for Toronto.
The world-wide embrace of smart technology shows us that this is hardly something new, something Ontario and Toronto have to develop from scratch. What’s the problem?
A huge, hidden issue has nothing to do with technology, but with subsidies. Everyone talks about getting rid of fare boundaries, and there are many ways to slice that pie. (Please, readers, don’t send in your proposals yet again, I will delete them.) But switching the fare revenue around inevitably means that some will pay more so that others pay less.
“Paying more” can be achieved by raising some of the fares, but it can also be achieved with increased subsidies. These are tradeoffs nobody wants to talk about.
To both TTC and Metrolinx: Stop hiding this debate behind closed doors and start talking about how fares might be collected in a unified system. How will fares be used to attract both the long-haul commuter and the casual, short-trip rider? How will boundaries between systems, including those with GO Transit, be eliminated? When will fares and service be treated as tools to encourage people out of their cars, to support local and regional planning ambitions, not just nuisances to be debated every year at budget time?
Toronto will host the 2015 Pan-Am Games thanks to an overwhelming vote in favour of Toronto’s bid on November 6. No sooner was the announcement out, but we started to hear what a boon this would be for transit pending in Toronto.
Let’s take a serious look at what will actually happen.
Don Lands
The Athletes’ Village will be built in the West Don Lands with the intention that it be converted to assisted housing after the games. This will no doubt spur construction of the Cherry Street branch off of the King route so that residents will have transit once the games complete.
However, there are no competition venues in this part of Toronto, and no reason to build new infrastructure to serve them. We will get the Waterfront East leg, but like the Cheery Street branch, this project was already on the books and, I believe, funded by Waterfront Toronto.
The missing piece is the connection under the rail corridor where the existing Cherry Street underpass must be twinned to provide enough room for the LRT, the road lanes, cycling and pedestrians. This underpass is shown as a “secure” area in the Bid Book, and there is no sign of the second span on the map.
Also missing from the Bid Book is any description of the as-yet unfunded reconfiguration of the mouth of the Don River and associated street changes in the neighbourhood. These are vital to knitting together various parts of the new community, but they are nowhere to be found in the Bid Book, nor is there any need to build them as part of the games infrastructure.
Scarborough-Malvern LRT
The Scarborough Campus of UofT will gain a new aquatics centre to host some events, but attendees will likely arrive from many parts of the GTA of which only some would be served by the LRT line. One might even argue for service via the north end of this route (south from the Sheppard LRT).
George Smitherman, Minister of Infrastructure and possible mayoral candidate for Toronto, has already said that Toronto shouldn’t be too hasty to look for spending on this type of improvement.
The Airport
The Air-Rail link will be in place by 2015. The Bid Book says it will. What the Bid Book does not say is that this will be a premium fare service that is not integrated with the local transit system, nor that its capacity will be limited by the size and frequency of trains for which the route is designed.
Meanwhile, the TTC should be pushing to get the western part of the Eglinton LRT completed for 2015, at least from the Airport to Eglinton West Station. Is this asking too much, or will the TTC bumble along and stay with the current plan for the Eglinton line and a 2016 “phase one” opening?
Everything Else
The games generally take place well outside of Toronto. The logistics of placing the Athletes’ Village so far away from the venues only makes sense because it is right beside the Gardiner and DVP, and these can be closed or restricted to provide bus shuttles as needed for participants, press and poo-bahs from the games organization. New public transit infrastructure, beyond what is already in the pipeline, will have little to do with it.
Steve Munro 