Updated November 9, 2007: Today’s Globe and Mail contains an article by Jeff Gray describing the objections by one potential bidder, Vossloh Kiepe, to the 100% low floor specification in the soon-to-be-released Request For Proposals for new cars.
My original post and reader comments follow below.
The Rocket Riders will devote their December 4 meeting (Metro Hall, 6:30 pm) to a discussion of the Queen Car, its many problems and ways to fix them. In support of this, I will start publishing analyses of that route’s operation here based on the CIS data from December 2006.
Yes, I have let that whole project slip out of sight in past months for a variety of reasons. Mea culpa.
Here is an overview of my past writing on this issue:
Route Structure
The amalgamation of the Queen and Long Branch services was a disaster from the day it started, but the TTC has never acknowledged this problem or studied alternatives, publicly, in detail. One extremely long line is impossible to manage. The schedule includes a huge amount of padding for “recovery time” that is actually counterproductive because operators can basically run on any time they please and still have time for a lengthy break at the end of the line.
Service on the Long Branch section is very spotty with very long gaps quite common.
Service on Kingston Road is compromised by the difficulty of integrating the 502 and 503 services and by the very wide off-peak scheduled headway.
My proposed route structure is not definitive, and I am sure others will come up with various schemes. The underlying theme is to shorten routes and to provide overlaps so that short-turns will not totally devestate service.
Peak Period Operations
A major problem exists on both King and Queen with the morning peak where many cars enter service off-schedule. This plays havoc with service at the ends of the lines due to short turns and causes ragged headways at a time when there is no traffic congestion to blame for this situation.
The peak period Lake Shore trippers to downtown do not operate at predictable times even there is no possible way that “traffic congestion” can interfere with on-time operation.
Vehicle Allocation
[Note: An ALRV is the 75-foot long two-section streetcars commonly seen on King, Queen and Bathurst. A CLRV is the 50-foot long car seen on the system overall.]
The 501 operates with ALRVs on wide headways while the 504 runs with CLRVs on close headways. The TTC should reverse this arrangement so that ALRVs are used on King where their greater capacity is badly needed.
Equally important will be that we actually see ALRVs where they are scheduled. The number of times in the past year when I have seen CLRVs operating ALRV runs on Queen, overcrowded because they are carrying an ALRV headways, is quite ridiculous. In my review of the King car, I found that the peak period extra ALRVs that are supposed to build capacity inbound through Parkdale in the morning are more often operated with CLRVs.
The TTC seems to be utterly incapable of assigning larger vehicles where they are required.
Service Levels
On Queen, the change to CLRVs on closer headways would improve the frequency of service even with the inevitable short-turns.
On Lake Shore, the change to CLRVs will improve scheduled headways, and integration to a single downtown destination will avoid the problems inherent with a few rogue trippers. Combined with a shorter, easier-to-manage route, this should make service in southern Etobicoke much more attractive.
On Kingston Road, consolidation of the 502 and 503 would provide one common, frequent service during the peak period that would have some hope of reliability outbound from a single downtown location.
On King, the change to ALRVs would provide additional capacity provided that current headways are maintained.
Summary
The Ridership Growth Strategy seeks to improve service quality, but little attention has been paid to the streetcar network on the grounds that the fleet is fully committed already. This is certainly not true during off-peak periods, and the TTC needs to account for the large number of spare cars during the peak.
Proposals for transit priority must focus on “micro” changes to individual intersections and neighbourhoods with parking restrictions and signal improvements. The “macro” scheme for reserved lanes through the business district does not address major sources of congestion, and diverts attention and effort from overall improvements to route operations.
There is no question that improving service level and quality on these major crosstown routes will cost more. There should be a huge incentive for the TTC to improve line management. Sadly, they will more likely trot out their usual complaints about congestion as the source of all troubles. The cheapest service improvement comes from managing what we have properly.
On Wednesday, November 14, the City of Toronto will host an open house at Union Station to display plans for the station from 12:30 to 6:30 pm. Further information on the Union Station project is available on the City’s website.
Please note that although I am a member of the Union Station Revitalization Public Advisory Group for this project, the following comments reflect my personal opinion, not that of the USRPAG.
Today, the National Post reported GO Transit’s Gary McNeil as saying that GO should buy the station to take it out of the hands of “dithering politicians”. McNeil, along with others who mused recently about taking over the TTC, should stick to running their own businesses before they weigh in on City matters.
Union Station’s future was mired for years in a failed scheme to have it managed on a long-term contract by a private company, and there was good reason to believe both that the selection process for a private partner and the financial situation for the City were less than ideal. Much time was wasted in this exercise.
Although the detailed report is not yet public, some indication of the short-term spending requirements has already appeared in the Budget Analyst’s notes for the City’s Capital Budget. Some Council members will groan about the high cost of owning this heritage station, and McNeil’s proposal that GO would happily take the building on will have an eager audience. They should think twice.
GO has been starved for funding for well over a decade, and the last thing it needs is the expense of bringing an aging and poorly-maintained station up to first class condition. Moreover, GO’s operations will soon fall under the GTTA which may have its own spending priorities.
Meanwhile, some members of Council mused recently about shops and markets in Union Station. This is a nice idea, but why couldn’t they wait for the staff report on the station to come out?
A fish market at Union, if nothing else, will lend a distinct aroma to Gary McNeil’s trains. For those long winter nights when trains languish miles from Union Station, McNeil might add a self-serve grill to the GO concourse so hungry passengers can eat their catch-of-the-day while it’s still fresh.
Union Station needs a lot of work to handle the expected growth in demand over the coming decades. Many agencies need to work together with each other, with the politicians and with the public to make Union Station the great hub it can be for downtown’s transportation systems.
Those who take off in their own directions wanting only to read their name in the National Post as often as possible do nothing to aid this vital project.
Update November 2: The Analyst Notes for many areas of the Capital Budget are available online on the City’s website. Notable by its absence is anything about the TTC, the single largest component of the entire budget.
On Monday, October 29, the City Budget Committee had its first public look at the 2008 Capital Budget. This covers all of the programs funded by the City, of which the single largest part is the TTC Capital Budget.
We won’t know the details of what the TTC is planning for a few weeks until the Commission meeting on November 14, but we can see some outlines in the preliminary material from the City.
Toronto has a huge problem financing the TTC, and as things stand, of the $1.249-billion in new capital debt the City will raise from 2008-2012, about 80% is due to the TTC.
For 2008, the TTC’s capital funding request is in line with the City’s target, but as in past years, this is achieved partly by deferal of spending to the out-years. This is not sustainable, particularly with major capital projects coming down the pipeline. In the current estimates, the TTC’s capital requirement for 2009-2012 is about $420-million greater than the City’s budgetary target.
In addition to this shortfall, the TTC has an accumulated and growing backlog of capital projects that will grow to $363-million by 2012.
The table on page 18 of the Budget Presentation shows the anticipated funding sources from Queen’s Park and Ottawa. An important line in the Provincial section is called “Long Term Funding Requirement” — this doesn’t correspond to any announced program, but it grows especially in 2012. If you omit this line, the level of committed Provincial funding declines substantially. The Federal section contains a similar problem with assumptions about growth in future funding. (The problems and assumptions are restated in text format on page 19.)
The usual problem is that funding schemes at both levels are typically announced for a four or five year window, just long enough to get past the next election, but they are not entrenched. We have to hope that something will replace them, but if nothing comes along, we are left holding the bag for future spending.
A separate Highlights Report shows major transit projects on pages 10-11. Note that the dollar values for these projects only cover the 2008 year, not the full cost to completion. For example, the new streetcar project will only consume an estimated $55-million next year. Those who are following the reconstruction of the streetcar track will note that many of the listed projects are on the “non-revenue” trackage (Dufferin, Church, Richmond, McCaul, Parliament and Wellington). The other major projects, of course, will be completion of the St. Clair line and the remaining work on Bathurst. By late 2009, we will finally be at the end of the heroic project to bring the TTC’s streetcar network back into good condition everywhere.
One troubling aspect of the TTC’s funding needs is “scope creep” and the arrival of previously unbudgeted projects in the five year plan. The 2008-2012 budget exceeds the City’s affordable debt target by $420-million as I mentioned earlier, but this is up considerably from the $197-million shown in last year’s budget.
We don’t yet know which projects contribute to this, and there’s probably even worse lurking in the next five year period from 2013-2017 when many large projects will be in full swing.
One obvious issue is the Yonge subway resignalling project, the move to automatic train control and service increases to build capacity on the line. The subway car order with Bombardier signed earlier this year does not come close to providing enough cars for the entire YUS line, even without the York extension, nor for any improvement in service frequency. If the TTC hopes to reap the benefit of the new fleet, then they will have to add a follow-on order for more “Toronto Rockets”. The additional cars would replace the remaining “H” series fleets used on the Yonge line, and the T-1’s would all move over to Bloor-Danforth.
For the new streetcar fleet, we still do not know the price per car, and each estimate is higher than the last. Moreover, we don’t know whether wishful thinking on specifications will run headlong into technical reality regarding both the track geometry and the overhead power system. Any retrofits will add to the overall cost of rolling out the new cars.
For the bus fleet, current plans call for only modest growth, and even Mayor Miller’s long-promised 100 extra buses will be partly eaten up by added ridership before they actually hit the streets, now likely in fall 2008, a year later than planned.
The TTC has a long history of springing new projects and large-scale changes to existing ones because, somehow, the capital is always found to deal with these problems. Once we see the details in the budget papers, I will likely have more to say on this subject.
The recent federal budget announcement shows quite clearly that Toronto cannot expect relief of its funding problems from Ottawa, and it’s time that both the City and Queen’s Park stopped waiting for that solution. Yes, one or both levels will have to generate new revenue to invest in the transit system, and readers here know that my preference already lies with Queen’s Park.
Toronto’s transit system is a regional resource and it should receive solid, sustained funding from the Province.
While you are all out spending your hard-won cut in the GST, one little note:
The after-tax cost of the Metropass just went up from $84.50 to $85.00. Why, you ask?
The tax credit for passes is tied to the tax rate on the lowest income tier, and this will go back to 15% from 15.5% according to today’s announcement. This means that the rebate per $100 Metropass just went down by 50 cents, or $6 over the course of the year.
Also, of course, this has always been a non-refundable credit, and so those who have no taxable income pay full value for a pass while people like me get the subsidy.
It’s no secret to regulars here that I don’t believe in tax-based incentives and prefer that funding go directly to agencies that deliver service. If the tax rebates for all of the roughly 250,000 Metropasses sold each month came to the TTC as a subsidy, they would receive about $45-million annually from Ottawa. This would contribute to better service for everyone, whether they used a pass or not.
Later today, we can expect our friends in Ottawa to announce that indeed the GST will be reduced from six to five percent. Once the dancing in the streets winds down, we need to focus attention on Queen’s Park.
The idea that one cent of the GST should be redirected to municipalities was first raised by Mayor Miller of Toronto and gradually attracted support from other “big city” mayors across the land. Even outgoing Ontario Finance Minister Greg Sorbara endorsed the idea about a week ago. Alas, Stephen Harper’s government wants nothing to do with this scheme. That’s their prerogative.
However, if Queen’s Park were really serious about funding local governments, they would move into the space vacated by Ottawa and raise the PST by one percent. This money would be dedicated to Ontario municipalities.
Of course, Dalton McGuinty would have to actually defend this position saying that cities and towns really need the money, and if that nasty Mr. Harper won’t give it to them, our Dalton will simply do the taxing at the provincial level. It’s easy to blame Ottawa for problems, much harder to take action locally.
The marginal cost to Ontario taxpayers would be zero — one percent is one percent regardless of who collects it. The cost to Queen’s Park would be zero because this would be new revenue simply passed through to local governments.
This approach would undermine the campaign to get Ottawa at the table for transit funding. However, we will wait a very, very long time before a federal government of any stripe makes real commitments to transit that don’t come with severe time and eligibility constraints. (Even the Liberals would only fund new hybrid buses and other projects that could be construed as a contribution to the Kyoto protocol goals. Replacement and rebuilding to maintain what we already have wasn’t on the table.)
We really need to start funding transit infrastructure and operations with local provincial and municipal revenues. Transit should not be hostage to Ottawa’s hatred for the municipal sector and for Toronto in particular.
Is anyone at Queen’s Park listening?
At the GTTA Board meeting yesterday (see previous post for additional information on this), GO Transit presented an overview of its plans for additional parking on the network. I won’t go into the fine details here, but broadly this contained two important directions:
GO currenly operates 48,500 parking spaces, and the park-and-ride sector now account for 67% of ridership. Other modal shares are kiss-and-ride (15%), walking (9%), local transit (8%) and cycling (.5% to 1%).
In the long run, parking is not sustainable at its current modal share. Assuming a 20-year growth rate in the middle of GO’s cited range (1,750), this would give 35,000 more spaces. However, GO expects its riding to double over the next 20 years, and external factors such as a stepp rise in oil prices could accelerate this. Clearly, parking will handle a lower, even if still important, proportion of total ridership. A further problem is that a route such as Lakeshore with plans for large increases in capacity through electrification and extension is not necessarily where the additional parking capacity can be easily located. Rapid growth in ridership may outstrip parking growth on this line.
This puts a considerable additional demand on local transit service to the GO stations both in quantity and in hours of service. This will be a challenge for local transit operators and, by extension for the GTTA.
As the GTTA contemplates the future role of transit, it must adapt from provision of downtown-oriented, peak Monday to Friday communting service (including the local transit component) to service that makes travel by transit within and among the regions easy. After all, much of the GTA gridlock comes not from commuters to downtown, but from travel between the regions including phenomena such as the lunch-hour traffic jams.
This is one of several cases the GTTA must not adopt a “more of the same” approach to transit.
Yesterday (October 26), the GTTA Board met in Toronto and unveiled its planning and timetable for the creation of a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). There is a report outlining the work plan for the next year, and an accompanying chart on the GTTA’s site. Related to this is the Communications Framework containing a chart of the public participation process.
This is a very aggressive timetable compared with studies we have seen in the GTA, and the intent is to have a completed plan by fall 2008. Much work needs to be done producing position papers and analyses to convert the shopping list of schemes like MoveOntario 2020 into a prioritized, coherent plan. One refreshing change is that work will not stop for the summer doldrums. Indeed the final feedback and approval processes are scheduled for summer 2008.
A number of interesting comments came out during discussion of these items.
The GTTA is looking forward to the new, streamlined Class Environmental Assessment process that came into effect for most transit projects in September, but recognizes that this is only one part of a larger legislative scheme. For example, federal funding of transit will trigger the Canadian EA process, and this is comparably onerous to the old Ontario one. Other legislation triggers the need for other types of review.
The GTTA hopes to consolidate as much work of these various studies as possible into one process, and is working with the federal environmental officials to ensure that this can be done.
Mayor Miller raised the issue that the structure of the EA fights the consultative process by spending undue time on the choice of technology when the issues that most exercise the public are matters of design and neighbourhood impact. There is hope that with the new streamlined Class EA, more time can be devoted to the subjects that engage people, the “what will it do to me” question.
Funding and prioritization of projects are important parts of the GTTA’s work. On the funding side, the GTTA will co-ordinate its efforts with those of other large regional agencies in Montreal and Vancouver, as well as with the “big city mayors” caucus and its lobby for federal infrastructure funding.
As for prioritization, the short-term focus is on “quick win” projects that can get shovels in the ground and visible improvements as soon as possible (two years or less from project start). As things now stand, only $100-million has been allocated by Queen’s Park for these projects, and an important issue later this fall will be to see whether additional funds will be available in the upcoming fiscal year starting April 1, 2008.
The hard debates will come in 2008 as the project list grows with items missed by MoveOntario 2020 notably much of the day-to-day capital cost of infrastructure and fleet renewal.
Mayors Miller and McCallion made comments that show some, at least, of the GTTA board members are seeing transit on the large scale necessary.
Miller noted that the idea of consulting with “commuters” was inappropriate because these are only a subset of the total transit-using population. Indeed, many issues related to needs for extra household cars and of transit captives in the suburbs come back to transit service designs that only serve downtown-bound commuters.
McCallion noted the importance of service. Subsidies to transit riders via tax rebates have their place, but, as she said, if it’s the middle of winter, and there is no bus to get on, the subsidy is worthless.
As the GTTA Board evolves from a club of regional mayors and chairs to a group that must consider hard questions of policy, planning and finance, their workload will go up and the decisions will not come as easily. Much will depend on funding promises from Queen’s Park and how much Ottawa is prepared to contribute. If the available funds won’t pay for what is really needed, the GTTA could descend into the sort of us-versus-them debates that paralyzed transit planning at the old Metro Toronto council.
The next year will prove whether we, as a region, can address our transportation problems and rise above me-first bickering.
Postscript: The public meeting began with a declaration by Chair Rob McIsaac to Mayor Miller that he had no intention of attempting a TTC takeover. That issue surface with a Toronto Star story, quickly denied by all concerned, that Queen’s Park would like to take over the TTC.
What I think is happing here is left-over manoeuvring about the new Toronto taxes. Some Councillors feel that if the TTC were uploaded, then the new taxes wouldn’t be needed. However, Queen’s Park really doesn’t want to have to worry about the Queen Car, and leaving the TTC (and other systems) in local hands has the benefit of offloading detailed decision-making and complaints about service and fares to the local politicians. Dalton gets the photo ops when construction begins on a new line while David gets to explain why people can’t get better service.
As the Waterfront West LRT project inches its way through various studies and construction projects, it’s worthwhile to look back at how the area around Fort York, the oldest and most historical part of the route, evolved to its present condition.
Originally, the fort stood at the lakefront, but as with so much of Toronto’s waterfront, landfill has moved the lake quite a way south leaving both the fort and the nearby lighthouse somewhat inland.
For many years, streetcar service to the fort and the nearby CNE grounds has operated via Bathurst and Fleet Streets, and reconstruction of this approach is now underway to provide a dedicated right-of-way over much of its length. Less well known is a scheme to install part of the WWLRT on Fort York Boulevard, a new road skirting the southern edge of the fort’s grounds and connecting into Bremner Boulevard at Bathurst Street.
Some bright spark, I am sure, knows why Fort York Boulevard wasn’t built with the streetcar right-of-way in it from day one, but such is the nature of project planning in this town. The Friends of Fort York are, I know, concerned that widening this brand new road may encroach on the fort’s lands.
The Fife and Drum is the newsletter of the Friends of Fort York abd Garrison Common, and its October issue contains an article on the early history of streetcar service to the CNE.
Now that we’re on the verge of acquiring, or at least issuing a proposal call for a fleet of new streetcars, it’s worth looking back at the origins of the Canadian Light Rail Vehicle and its travails on the Toronto system.
This is not intended to be a comprehensive history, and some comments here are strongly coloured by my own experiences with the fights to keep a streetcar system alive in Toronto and transit technology debates in general. Bear with me. My thesis will be revealed in time.
Back in the mid 1960s, the TTC had a plan to build a network of suburban streetcar lines (what we would now call “LRT” or “Light Rapid Transit”) including, notably, a circumferential line made up of:
That was 1966. The proposed vehicle for this network was an updated version of the PCC, the streetcar which served as the backbone of the transit system until the arrival of the CLRV fleet 40 years later. Plans existed, even a brochure describing the car. And then everything stopped. Continue reading
Steve Munro 