by

Metrolinx Meets Mostly In Private (November 2009 Edition)

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.

by

Yonge Subway Yard Study (Revised)

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:

  • Expansion of Wilson Yard
  • Storage of 6-8 trains at Davisville Yard
  • Consolidation of all non-revenue equipment (work trains) at Davisville Yard
  • Provision of online storage for additional trains at Richmond Hill
  • Sheppard Subway equipment (four 4-car T1 sets plus a spare) would be serviced at Greenwood

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 →

by

What Should We Do About Fares?

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 →

by

TTC Budget Report: Raise the Fares

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.

  • Labour costs.  The TTC is committed to wage increases at the currently contracted levels, but unless there is a major change in economic circumstances, the next round of bargaining will almost certainly result in a lower rate of increase.
  • Energy costs.  It is unclear whether all of the TTC’s energy costs (diesel fuel, electric power) will rise at greater than the rate of inflation and if so, by how much.
  • General inflation.  Since labour and energy are already out of the mix, this only affects costs such as materials.
  • Annualized service increases.  This affects only 2009.
  • Low floor bus adjustments.  By the end of 2009, high-floor buses are planned to be less than 10% of the bus fleet, and by 2013, last of them will be retired.  The capacity adjustment for changing to low-floor buses will be completely worked into the system substantially in 2010 when 58 of the remaining 100 “New Look”s are retired.
  • Construction and congestion adjustments.  Some additional construction effects can be expected as programs such as watermain replacement ramp up, but this will hit a new plateau at some point.
  • Increased vehicle and facility maintenance requirements.  I can understand better facility maintenance (although stations are covered in a separate bullet), but if anything the vehicle maintenance costs should start to drop with the implementation of large new fleets of vehicles in all modes.

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 →

by

Eglinton LRT Update (Revised)

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:

  • Another round of public meetings starting from November 23 to December 10 will present the final version of the design.
  • The scheme for handling left turns has been modified from that shown in the original plan.
  • Construction is proposed for three stages, but service will not reach the airport until 2020.  The section west from Eglinton West Station to Commerce Blvd. would open in 2016, the east section to Kennedy in 2018, and the airport link in 2020.  Promoters of the Pan Am Games might have questions about that timetable.
  • The Silver Dart alignment to the airport remains the preferred option, and the line will not serve the hotel strip on Dixon Road.
  • The station formerly located at Brentcliffe is now at Laird.

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 →

by

A Little Accuracy Would Be Nice

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:

  • The TTC staff went up 13%, while the service operated rose by only 1.3%.
  • The cost to Toronto taxpayers for the TTC went from $125 to $250.

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.

  • In 1998, the total operating subsidy was $146.3-million paid entirely by the City.
  • This rose to $299.6m by 2007, of which $208.0m came from the City with the rest from other governments. 
  • The next year, 2008, the City contribution dropped back the 1998 level even though the total subsidy continued to rise to $316.9m.
  • For 2009, the total subsidy will be about $400m thanks to the combined effects of inflation and the 2009 fare freeze.

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.

by

Those Vanishing Tokens

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.

  • What is so expensive about bringing them to the TTC?
  • Why is there no public report with details of the new, higher estimate, only a few pages buried in the capital budget (page 1,533 for dedicated readers)?
  • How much will it cost to operate and maintain the new system compared to the existing one, even allowing for the supposed reduction in fare evasion?
  • How much real enforcement will the TTC put in place?
  • What fare structure is contemplated?
  • Is the system designed with an expensive, complex back-end to aid in detailed trip tracking and billing?  What will be the marginal costs and benefits of such a system?
  • What is the role of credit/debit cards as the “smart card” medium rather than a dedicated system?
  • Who will own and maintain the system?  The TTC or Metrolinx?

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?

by

Transit Improvements for Pan Am Games? Dream On.

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.

by

A New Loop at Queen and Broadview? (Updated)

Updated November 7 at 11:35 am:

The proposed site for the new streetcar loop sits on the east side of Broadview just north of Queen, and this would make the entrance curves quite close to the Queen Street intersection.  Normally this is the sort of configuration traffic planners hate as cars would have to turn off Queen onto Broadview, slow for the northbound facing switch (with the butt end of the car still sitting in the intersection) and then proceed into the loop.  A far from ideal arrangement.

The existing parking lot’s rates are 75 cents per half hour to a $4 maximum before 6 pm, and a $3 maximum overnight.  At those rates, the atttraction is for long-term parking, not for local shopping.

The TTC has done without Parliament Loop for years and nearby around-the-block loops are quite adequate for buses.

A proposal many years back to build a new streetcar loop here for the King route was cancelled for budgetary reasons, and more recently Cherry Street Loop has been talked up as a turnback.  Other than as a possible eastern terminus for a split Queen car, the need for a new loop at Broadview is hard to understand, especially at the expense of a local parking lot.

The proposed new parking site on the west side of Broadview just north of Thompson Street appears as a vacant lot in the satellite view on Google. It is currently occupied by a temporary building which was a sales office for a proposed condo that was completely out of keeping with the neighbourhood and was rejected by Council. As I noted in the comment thread, a smaller loop could be built using this land, Thompson Street and the laneway connecting the two. This would leave the Legion’s building in the middle of the loop on the northwest corner. Why the TTC insisted on taking the larger parking lot for a proposed loop, a project that is not even in the Capital Budget, I don’t know.

Original Post:

Buried in the November 9 agenda for Toronto’s Government Management Committee is a report detailing an exchange of properties between various agencies.  One of these is the old Parliament Loop at King Street where an archeological dig has been in progress — this is part of the site of Ontario’s first Parliament Building.

In order to assemble the historic site for public use, there will be a swap of various chunks of land between private owners, the Ontario government, the Toronto Parking Authority and the TTC.

There is now a parking lot on the east side of Broadview just north of Queen, and this would become a new streetcar loop.  Although this would be a handy place to short-turn 504 King cars (rather than looping via Parliament and Dundas), it could also be an eastern terminal for a split Queen route should this be implemented on roughly the current route model.