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 →

by

Service Changes for May, 2009

Effective May 10, 2009, several service changes, mostly seasonal, will occur.

In addition to these:

Subject to vehicle and operator availability, a PCC will operate as an extra on 509 Harbourfront on Sundays from May 10 to September 6 between 11:30 am and 7:30 pm.

Fare collection eastbound on Queen’s Quay for the 509 and 510 Spadina routes will be handled at Union Station, not onboard vehicles, as in previous years to reduce loading times on weekends after 3 pm.

Continue reading →

by

WWLRT Public Meetings: Park Lawn to Long Branch

There will be two public meetings to discuss the design for this section of the WWLRT, essentially an upgrade of the Long Branch streetcar.

Monday, May 11, 2009
2:00pm-4:00pm 6:30pm to 9:00pm
Mimico Adult Learning Centre
255 Royal York Road

Tuesday, May 12, 2009
2:00pm to 4:00pm 6:30pm to 9:00pm
The Assembly Hall
1 Colonel Samuel Smith Park Drive

For further information, including the display panels from the previous open houses, please see the project’s website.

After the first round in December 2008 where many felt that the available information and proposal left much to be desired, this is described as a “re-start” of a “new consultation process”.

by

Analysis of 501 Queen Service 2008/09: Part I — Comparative Short Turn Data

A few months ago, I received the TTC’s vehicle monitoring data (a.k.a. “CIS” data for “Communications & Information System”) for 501 Queen and related routes for the months of December 2008 and January 2009.  I have been whittling away at it for the past few months as time permitted, and now it’s in shape to begin publishing commentaries.

Of particular interest are the effects, such as they may be, of the new line management strategies implemented by the TTC.  Operations in the two months differ because of a change in the schedule.

  • December 2008:  Drop back crewing was used at Connaught so that operators would leave westbound on their time while relief operators drove the vehicles to and from Neville.  The intent is to allow the operators to get on time without affecting the through service.
  • January 2009:  A new schedule was implemented in which run numbers remained assigned either to the Humber or the Long Branch service.  The intent is to avoid short turns whose entire purpose is to sort out the relative order and location of each branch’s runs to make sure that they are in the proper sequence westbound.

For reasons best known to the TTC, relief crews were available during Christmas Week, but there was no extra line management.  Therefore, that week is in a way an example of a “do nothing” approach, although under less than the most strenuous circumstances.

Anyone who was in Toronto this past winter knows it was much worse than the previous few years and we had a particularly bad December.  This shows up in the service quality, but generally for the period needed to get the roads back in proper shape.

Because I now have data for December 2006, December 2007, January 2008, December 2008 and January 2009, we can review operations over three winters, a variety of weather conditions and different management strategies. Continue reading →

by

Bombardier Recommended for Low Floor Streetcar Order (Updated)

Updated April 25, 9:30 am.  I have added material from the media briefing and the staff report that I did not have time to incorporate in the original article.  The additional material is appended below after the break. 

On April 24, the TTC announced that Bombardier has won the competition for an order for 204 new low floor streetcars for Toronto.  The staff recommendation will go to the Commission itself for approval on Monday, April 27.

Both Bombardier and Siemens bid on this tender, and the proposals from both vendors were considered to be compliant both on technical and financial grounds.  Therefore the question came down to cost and with Siemens’ bid over 50% higher than Bombardier’s, there was no question about the winner.

The vehicles will be a modified version of the Flexity car with three powered two-axle trucks and five car sections.  Bombardier has not yet updated their site with information about the vehicles (as of 2:00 pm EDT April 24).  An illustration of the proposed car is in the Toronto Star’s article posted earlier today.

Although not guaranteed, this contract places Bombardier at the front of the line for supplying cars to the much larger Transit City system, especially if that builds out to anything near its full extent.  The contract includes provision for add-on orders, but the TTC will be negotiating their price separately as the Transit City cars will have significant differences affecting their cost:

  • Transit City will be built to specifications that allow off-the-shelf cars to operate on it — no tight curves or steep grades.
  • The TC cars will be double-ended and double-sided.
  • The TC cars will likely have only two powered trucks rather than three.

Subject to funding, a process still under negotiation with the Federal and Provincial governments, the first prototypes would arrive in Toronto in mid-to-late 2011 for non-revenue testing.  Production deliveries would start in 2012 and stretch out to 2018 by which time the last of the existing CLRV and ALRV fleets would have been retired.  A new carhouse, likely in the Port Lands, will be required to house this fleet while the older cars would run from Russell and Roncesvalles.

Postscript:  I cannot help mentioning that the illustration of the new car shows a vehicle facing westbound on Queen at Bay signed “Neville”. Continue reading →

by

High Speed Rail Symposium

Updated:  The start time for this event is now 1:00 pm, not noon as previously announced.

There will be a symposium on high speed rail on Saturday, April 25 from 1:00 pm to 4:30 pm at the University of Toronto, Bahen Centre for Technology, 40 St. George Street (just north of College), room 1130.

Pre-registration is required via the sponsor’s website and the cost for the event is $10.

Please note that this announcement does not constitute an endorsement of high speed rail as a priority for rail passenger service.  It may be an appropriate technology, but it needs to be part of a much larger view of rail and of intercity passenger services generally.

by

The Freedom of the City — A spacing erratum

The Spring-Summer issue of spacing is out, and with it my latest column on transit matters.  Some gremlins in the editorial office got hold of the piece and mangled the opening a bit.  Here’s what should have been there.

The item begins with a quote from the Paris transit system’s website:

Se déplacer et circuler où l’on veut quand on veut, est un gage de liberté pour le citoyen.

This is rather badly translated in spacing to:

To move itself, circulate where one wants when one wants, is a liberty pledge for the citizen.

That’s the most literal of translations (I didn’t do it), and it should have read, more freely, something like:

To travel, to move about, where one wants, when one wants, is a badge of freedom for the citizen.

The original title of the article was The Freedom of the City, not For the love of Toronto as it appears in the magazine.  You can understand how the title flows directly from the quotation, but of course in French, there is the subtle echo of the importance of “liberté” as an essential part of national history and pride.

The next sentence on that web page is:

Le développement des Transports Publics répond à ce besoin.

The RATP sees its role in fulfilling that goal, of making the citizenry free to move about the Paris region at all times and to all places.  We’re a long way from doing that in Toronto, but haltingly and far too slowly, things are changing.

My apologies to spacing readers who are probably wondering why such a fractured translation appeared in print.  Such are the joys of being edited by others.

The main thread of this issue is “Grey Spaces”, those not quite public, not quite private spaces in our city we all pass through, or might want to visit, but which are not, strictly speaking, “open” for our use.

Buy the magazine (available in better bookstores).  Read all of the articles!  And thanks!

by

The Shape of the Suburbs

John Sewell’s new book The Shape of the Suburbs: Understanding Toronto’s Sprawl provides the jumping off point for a panel discussion on how the suburbs developed as they did and where we might go from here.

Where:  The Gladstone Hotel (Queen & Gladstone, accessed via 501 Queen and 29 Dufferin or whatever your favourite form of transport might be).

When:  Tuesday, April 21.  Doors open at 7, panel discussion begins at 7:30.

Cost:  $5, or free if you buy the book.

Who:  John Sewell (moderator), Mayor Rob Burton (Oakville), Deputy Mayor Jack Heath (Markham), Mayor Steve Parrish (Ajax), Kim Storey (architect, urban designer, partner in Brown & Storey Architects)

This event is part of Pages Books’ This Is Not A Reading Series.

by

Staging the Electrification of GO Transit

For a good part of today, April 18, a conversation has flown back and forth via email between me, Karl Junkin of TRAC, Mike Sullivan and Rick Ciccarelli of the Weston Coalition, and Robert Wightman (a frequent contributor to comments here and a member of the original Streetcars for Toronto Committee).  I will not attempt to précis all of the threads, but thought it worthwhile to bring the discussion out into a broader context in this blog.

The problem, in brief, is to ensure that the electrification of the Weston/Georgetown corridor happens sooner rather than later and that the number of diesel trains operated on that corridor is kept to a minimum as service builds up to projected levels.

We had quite a discussion about dual mode locomotives with the major points pro and con boiling down to:

  • Bombardier produces a dual mode locomotive which is operating or on order in a few cities.
  • This locomotive could handle a 10-car GO train, but not a 12-car consist.
  • Dual mode would allow electrification to proceed in smaller increments with diesel operation beyond the end of the electrified territory.
  • These locomotives are very expensive, and the added capital spent on them must be weighed against the cost of electrification.
  • They need both diesel power and the power conversion equipment to convert the 25KV distribution voltage for use by the train.  Because there are, in effect, equipment for two power plants, you are always towing around one that isn’t doing anything, but both have to be maintained.

The idea lurking behind this is to maximize the amount of electric operation in the Weston corridor at least as far as the airport in keeping with the desire of communities along the corridor to minimize diesel operation, noise and fumes.

Various links of interest:

Railway Age article (quoted on another site).

Bombardier specification sheets for existing New Jersey and on-order Montreal equipment.

Specification sheets for GO’s current equipment (here and here, similar content).

Recently, I threw a new variation into the discussion by suggesting that there could be two separate fleets of locomotives.  Purely electric locomotives would be used to hall the service on the all-day section of the Lakeshore and Georgetown lines, and diesels would be used for peak period express trips running on the extended routes.

This arrangement would mean that all off-peak service would be electric, and diesel operations would remain only for peak extensions and for lines that had not been converted for electric operation.

There are downsides to this, notably that more infrastructure would be needed to get to the point where electric service could start, but it would achieve much of the goal of reduced diesel operation in the major corridors without requiring electrification to the end of service territory.  It would also eliminate the need for dual mode locomotives — whether this is a “benefit” depends a lot on where you stand on this type of operation.

Finally, all of this assumes that “Blue 22” would be electrified from day 1.  This seems highly unlikely given current arrangements with the proponent, SNC Lavalin, who are not even providing new equipment for their service.  Whether the proposed structures for the airport access tracks can even accommodate future electrification is unknown, and I would not be surprised to hear how we couldn’t possibly force SNC Lavalin to include this in the initial build.

Metrolinx is showing its usual colours on this whole issue saying that the project to get new service on the Weston corridor is far to important to delay, and that electrification is something for the future.  They are not making a lot of friends along the line on this count as well as on other structural issues involving neighbourhood impacts.  I will explore those in a separate post.