by

Ed Drass Wants to Organize Meetings

The following comment was left by Ed Drass in the Metrolinx thread, and I have moved it to its own post so that replies are kept together for easy review.

Steve, if I may, I am wondering whether there is any interest among readers of your site in attending a series of meetings to discuss the RTP over then next few months.

The meetings can be informal or I could attempt to promote them as an unofficial complement to the Metrolinx/Metronauts consultation process.

Either way, the plan would be to discuss in depth the research and planning that has gone into the RTP, as well as the possible impact of the recommendations.

It would important, for me at least, to hear comments not only from knowledgeable people who are following the process ‘from the outside’ but also to invite the professional planners and consultants who have actually helped develop the plan.

We could work out how to deal with any attribution issues since I (and possibly other media) would attend.

If anyone wishes to assist or advise, you can contact me via transit (at) eddrass.com or 416-922-0077. Thanks for the space, Steve.

Steve: Don’t forget that the time is very constrained and a final version of the RTP has to go to the Premier by late November. Effectively, this limits everyone to the month of October for feedback if it will have any hope of making it into the plan.

by

Where Should Metrolinx Be Going? (Part 3)

Events of the past 24 hours have overtaken me with the leak of a draft of the Draft Regional Transportation Plan to the Globe and Mail.  I had intended to hold off talking about that for a few days on the assumption it would leak out of this weekend’s retreat by the Metrolinx Board, but there it was, at least a few tastes, on the front page no less.

All the same, I want to pursue my original plan which was to trace the evolution of plans to what is likely going to show up in the Draft RTP.

In the previous post, I talked about the IBI studies done for the GTTA/Metrolinx startup in January 2007.  The Green and White Papers, and now the draft plan are direct descendents of those original studies, but with important differences along the way.

All of the reports I am discussing (except the draft plan which is not yet published) are available on the Metrolinx website.

Continue reading →

by

Where Should Metrolinx Be Going? (Part 2)

In the first part of this article, I wrote about many of the ancilliary aspects of the transit system and ways to move people around the GTAH.  Active Transportation.  Mobility Hubs.  Transportation Demand Management.  Now it’s time to look at the transportation networks.

When we review the various proposals, it is important to remember that right up to and including the White Paper, the networks were only samples intended as fodder for the demand assignment model.  “Let’s see what happens if we put a line here” is the basis for these exercises, although some knowledge of the overall behaviour of the GTA informs where one draws lines on the trial maps in the first place.

The test cases originated with a group of reports written by IBI as part of the startup of the GTTA, later Metrolinx, called Transportation Trends and Outlook for the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton, and the Strategic Transit Directions report within this.

Next came the Metrolinx Green Paper #7 on Transit, followed by White Paper #2.

All of these reports are available on the Metrolinx website.

Strategic Transit Directions

Going back to this report (dated January 29, 2007), I was fascinated by some of the material it contains and how this has, or has not, been reflected in Metrolinx work over the past 18 months.  At the risk of being accused of “cherry picking”, there are important findings in this document.

Continue reading →

by

Where Should Metrolinx Be Going? (Part 1)

With the Draft Regional Transportation Plan due out in September and a brief consultation period thereafter, I’ve decided to stake out some basic positions in advance.  Will Metrolinx give us a plan, or merely a warmed-over rehash of MoveOntario 2020?  Will they propose realistic financing both for capital projects and the increased scope of transit operations, or will they assume money will somehow be made available in budgets they don’t control?  Will the plan recognize the importance of local services, or fixate on regional, commuter-oriented lines?  Will the plan meaningfully address issues of congestion and the environment?

These questions and more should provide yardsticks to measure the draft RTP and the associated financing strategy.

What Is the Metrolinx Mandate?

Metrolinx operates under a legislative requirement to produce a Regional Transportation Plan including:

  • all modes of transportation,
  • intelligent transportation systems and other innovative technologies,
  • compliance with provincial and local policies, strategies and Official Plans,
  • the integration of local transit systems with each other and with GO Transit,
  • reduced congestion, commute times, and emissions,
  • development that supports transit and optimization of transit infrastructure,
  • a rolling five-year capital plan and associated investment strategy.

[Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Act, 2006, Section 6 (2)]

Notably, sections of the legislation involving the takeover of GO Transit by Metrolinx (43 to 45) and the creation of a consolidated fare card (7) have not yet been proclaimed.

The question of compliance with local plans is quite intriguing.  Many of the strategies for handling transportation demand will require changes in the way the GTA is developed.  Densities and land use patterns in place for decades will not achieve transit supportive development, and yet the imposition of new rules will almost certainly require that local plans be brought into line with Metrolinx goals. 

I hesitate to say “provincial goals” because we never quite know how serious Queen’s Park is about changing the built form of the GTAH.  A further problem is that the provincial goals change with the political weather, and all we need is one term of a laissez-faire, pro-development government, and all the controls will vanish in an instant.  Once the rules give developers the right to build, taking away that right is contentious and expensive.  We’ve seen this strategy in Toronto itself (complain when the left wing is in power, grab all you can when the right wing takes command), and there’s no reason to believe Queen’s Park would be any different.

Continue reading →

by

TTC 2009-2013 Capital Program (Part 2)

In this section, we will see the complete mess that Toronto’s transit funding is in.  Years of putting off a proper funding arrangement coupled with a naïve hope that Ottawa will fund 1/3 of capital projects leaves us with a huge menu of projects and expectations, but no money to pay for them.

As before, the material is the TTC’s presentation, reformatted to simplify it in this medium, with my comments appearing in italics.

Continue reading →

by

TTC 2009-2013 Capital Program (Part 1)

The TTC presented its Capital Budget at last Wednesday’s Commission Meeting, and included a few surprises.  Before I go into the details, a few general observations:

  • Through judicious project deferals, the TTC has managed to keep its annual funding request down to a level within the City’s spending target, but this is getting harder and harder to sustain.  There is only so much work we can push off into future years and it’s all starting to pile up.
  • The budget assumes a considerable contribution from other levels of government who may not be predisposed to meeting the TTC’s request.
  • The scale of the TTC’s budget is quite large and its impact on the need for Provincial funding is substantial over and above whatever might be done under the MoveOntario2020 program.
  • Detailed costs for projects are shown over a five-year span, but many of these extend well beyond 2013.

In the material that follows, I have converted some of the presentation to plain text and left other parts as scanned images to keep the total size down.  My own comments are interspersed with the TTC presentation and they are in italics.

Continue reading →

by

This Law’s An Ass

Buried in the marathon TTC meeting last week (a new record: 7 hours, 43 minutes from the announced start time of the public session) was a proposal to update Bylaw No. 1.  This scintillating piece of legal literature adorns every TTC vehicle in a shortened form, and it’s rather out of date.

Never fear!  The TTC Legal folks bring us the new, revised version.  It’s a lot longer.  I think the TTC will need to install station domination advertising just to fit all the text in, or they will need a scrolling video in every car.  Thrilling reading.  Not including the definitions or the table of fines, it is 8 single-spaced pages long.

You would think that an organization that trumpets its ability to manage billion dollar projects, to write complex requests for proposals, to operate the largest single part of the municipal infrastructure, could manage something as basic as telling people what they can’t do on the TTC.  But no.  This bylaw reads in places as if it were drafted by someone who never actually used the system and who has little idea of the implications of its content.

Before the report came up for discussion, I flagged it as problematic and gave an annotated copy to the Chair for information.  To my surprise, rather than holding the report down, Chairman Giambrone suggested that it be approved with an amendment to come back to a future meeting.  Fortunately, to come into force, the bylaw needs to be submitted to the Chief Justice for approval, and if the TTC has an ounce of sense, they will hold off until they fix the problems.

Some of what follows may seem legally pedantic, but it’s this sort of poor drafting that gets TTC customers hassled by security staff who have nothing better to do with their time than to enforce badly written rules.

The full bylaw is available on the TTC website.

Continue reading →

by

Service Changes for September 2008

Fall 2008 brings service back to its standard levels on the TTC network after some summer cutbacks.  I have consolidated the service changes, most due to increased riding, in a two-page summary.

I have omitted a lot of information on school trips and other seasonal changes, but if you want the gory details, you can either visit the TTC’s website or read the summary on Transit Toronto.

A few notable points in this round:

  • Off-peak service on the Yonge and Bloor subway lines is increasing to meet rising demand.  Even with the added service, the lines will be only slightly below the service standards threshold at which more trains have to be added.  The off-peak standard is 500 passengers per train, or 83 per car (a small number of standees at the peak point).
  • For everyone who dreads off-peak visits to the Distillery District, the Cherry Street Union Station service will now run every 15 minutes on Saturdays, and every 30 minutes in the evening.  This is far from spectacular, but it’s an improvement for those who prefer not to walk to the King car.
  • Better service comes to the Harbourfront car recognizing that people on the waterfront actually exist, and they stay up late.  The Spadina car will now run to Union Station until the subway closes.
  • Service improvements on Eglinton West, Jane and Morningside address growing demand in these corridors (all of which happen to be part of Transit City).

Further improvements are expected later this fall including the next round of the Ridership Growth Strategy with full service on all routes during subway operating hours.  Coming in 2009, budget permitting, is a move to 20 minute maximum headways.

by

The Psychology of Free Parking

Over the past week, since the TTC proposed, then approved, the elimination of free parking for Metropass holders, I have been amazed by the volume of comments on this blog, other sites and in feedback in the mainstream media on this subject.

Parking is something dear to the hearts of motorists, and taking away free parking seems to be on a par with kidnapping a firstborn child.

Several people commenting on my site have claimed that getting rid of free parking at TTC or at GO lots will drive people (sorry about that) into commuting all the way downtown even if they have to pay for parking. There is a long comment by Andrew currently at the end of the thread comparing the costs and time required for various types of trip (all car, part transit, paid and unpaid parking). The viewpoint embedded in his calculations mirrors that of many who write about the need for free parking. Continue reading →

by

TTC To Discuss New Streetcars with Three Builders (Update 1)

Updated August 29:

At the Commission meeting on August 27, various deputations spoke to the issue of the streetcar contract.  I am not going to attempt to reproduce their presentations and, in some cases, the extensive Q&A sessions that followed, but will give an overview.

The TTC has not yet posted the staff presentation on their website.  If it has not appeared by this evening, I will scan and post my copy along with comments in a second update.

Mario Péloquin spoke for Siemens Canada with a brief presentation.  Siemens, for internal reasons related to their corporate reorganization, had chosen not to bid but is now interested in the streetcar contract.  Péloquin was slightly apologetic for Siemens’ not having emphasized their long-standing presence in Canada and Ontario.  Obviously this is not as a rail car builder, but in the many other aspects of Siemens operations.

An Alstom representative, who did not expect to be called on, and who has only about half a year’s experience with the company, spoke briefly indicating his company’s interest in the contract.  It would be useful if Alstom can find someone with more depth and credibility the next time they show up.

Skoda was not present, and TTC CGM Gary Webster said that because they chose not to respond after the RFP cancellation, they are no longer at the table.   Whether Skoda accepts this situation remains to be seen.

Representatives of the Toronto Labour Council and of the Canadian Auto Workers (who represent the Bombardier Thunder Bay plant) spoke of the importance of Canadian content in any contract.  This is a difficult issue because so many subsystems for rapid transit cars are built offshore, and even the carbodies would likely be fabricated in existing foreign plants and shipped to Canada for final assembly.

The TTC and Ontario already have a 25% Canadian content rule, and the Commission passed a motion indicating that they would like prospective builders to work toward a higher goal of 50% if this contract progresses to include the 350 cars needed for Transit City.  A proposal to ask for sliding scale bids based on various levels of Canadian content was not adopted.

Bombardier’s representative, Mike Hardt, spoke about his company’s unhappiness with the process.  Bombardier feels that their bid was disqualified on a technical ground that was not justified, and they are concerned about now being placed in a different, unstructured bidding situation.  Bombardier claims that the mismatch between their cars and the TTC’s existing track system can be remedied by $10.4-million worth of work, but it is unclear of the time period this would cover nor the validity of the estimate. 

The work would involve grinding and filling track mainly at intersections to fit the Bombardier equipment’s wheel profile.  The TTC disputes this scheme and is concerned, legitimately I believe, that this would impose an ongoing requirement to maintain all track to a special standard to avoid safety problems with the new cars.  Ironically, Hardt also stated a few times during the Q&A that Bombardier could meet the TTC spec if they had to, but disputes the requirement.  The positions are contradictory:  either Bombardier could bid a car that met the spec, or they have strong objections to doing so and prefer that the TTC adapt their infrastructure.

Hardt said that if Bombardier’s cars wouldn’t work on the TTC system after delivery, they would be repaired at the vendor’s cost.  Commissioner Perruzza told Hardt to put that in writing.  However, we already know that Bombardier’s idea of “working” includes having the TTC make track changes, and there would doubtless be endless wrangling over whether a derailment was the TTC’s or Bombardier’s fault.  It’s easy to claim you will pay to fix something when you have an escape clause of blaming the client.

Most striking about Hardt’s deputation was the arrogance he displayed toward the TTC.  I was fascinated to watch the faces as one Commissioner after another could not believe the way they were being treated.  If I had presented a deputation half as contemptuous of staff, I would have been at best given my five minutes and at worst told to shut up and sit down.  Even Commissioners of a left-wing bent who support the Thunder Bay workers were driven to far more aggressive questioning than Hardt might otherwise have received.  He did Bombardier and its workers no favours and has likely alienated the very “friends at court” Bombardier might need if the debate comes down to a close decision between proponents.

Continue reading →