by

The 507 Lives, Sort Of

I have written before about the need to reorganize the way service is operated on the Queen line, and the TTC never quite gets around to doing a detailed review.  I’m not sure what it will take to light a fire under them, but the time is long overdue for them to admit the through-routing of 501-Queen and 507-Long Branch was a disaster.

Other related issues include the problem of Humber Loop (not the most ideal location for a transfer given its isolated location) and the mix of services running downtown from Parkdale.

I received a comment from “Ed” recently that shows finally, someone has realized there are problems on Lake Shore, although the “fix” is a temporary one. Continue reading →

by

St. Clair Construction Begins / Local Unrest Continues

Chris W. sent in the following comment:

Hooray!  The St. Clair Transit website was updated today!  There is a new, very informative flyer.

Highlights:

  • Phase 2 (Westmount to McRoberts) to start October 15 and continue into the spring.
  • Vaughan Road to Westmount Avenue to start next spring.
  • Caledonia to Gun’s loop to start late next summer.
  • Shelter installation on Phase 1 to start early October 2007!
  • Later this fall streetcars will returns from Yonge to Oakwood loop, initially running straight through St. Clair West Station.
  • Streetcars will be removed in spring 2008 “With other TTC work occurring on Bathurst Street “. Could this mean the tracks from Bloor to St. Clair will be replaced next year instead of 2009?

If this all comes to pass someone should throw a party.

Yes, I believe that Bathurst from St. Clair down to Bathurst Station is supposed to be rebuilt in 2008. Continue reading →

by

Toronto Tree Portraits

Earlier this evening, I stopped by Grano up on Yonge Street for the launch of the Toronto Parks and Trees Foundation’s 2008 Calendar.  Those of you who know this calendar from past years will be surprised to see that for 2008, Vincenzo Pietropaolo’s work is in colour!

This calendar will be available at bookstores around the city, and you can see sample photos at the foundation’s website.

by

Too Much Transit Priority?

The Public Works & Infrastructure Committee will consider a report on October 3 entitled Sustainable Transportation Initiatives:  Short-term Proposals.  This report includes a discussion of bike lanes and pedestrian improvements, but the parts that caught my eye deal with transit.

There is no question that we need to improve transit’s priority on our road system, but some of the recommendations show a mixed feeling toward this task.

  1. Extend peak period parking restrictions. 
  2. Introduce or extend left turn prohibitions, or create exclusive left turn phases, in the interest of clearing traffic in front of streetcars.
  3. Revise the transit priority signals so that they would only apply to transit vehicles that are behind schedule or to maintain headways.
  4. Implement queue jump lanes and far side bus bays where feasible.
  5. Implement shoulder bus lanes on the DVP from York Mills to Lawrence.
  6. Investigate automated camera technology to enforce stopping, turning and parking prohibitions.
  7. Ensure that all new light rail vehicles (streetcars) be equipped to handle some form of Proof of Payment (POP).

The report states that downtown peak parking and stopping restrictions are generally from 7:30 to 9:30 am, and 3:30 to 6:30 pm, and suggests that these hours be extended throughout the city where practical.  A good argument can be made that, for the downtown area, these hours need further extension, but the report is silent on this topic.

The proposal for transit priority signals depends on full integration with a GPS-based scheduling system that could decide whether a transit vehicle is early or not, or whether some sort of headway regulation is needed.  While this is technically possible, I can’t help thinking this is yet another example of technology overkill — a nice project for a consulting company, but not something that will have significant benefits for transit.

The underlying assumption is that there are actually times when transit priority is not needed, and that by providing it we are robbing hapless motorists of green time they would otherwise get on cross streets.  Somehow, the basic fact — that transit vehicles will tend to be early when there is no congestion — seems to have escaped the authors of this proposal.  Moreover, the many instances now in place where so-called priority signals either do not work, or actually impede transit movements, are not addressed at all.

As for automated camera technology, I am all for better enforcement but have to ask how we will possibly read licence plates in a row of parked cars.  What is missing is any discussion of enhanced powers for ticketing and towing by TTC itself.  Cameras can easily monitor illegal turns, but these are a minor problem compared with the loss of road space through illegal parking.  Towing is far more effective in discouraging commercial vehicles than fines which are treated as a business expense.

A vital observation is buried in the report, but omitted from the recommendations.  A section on the Ridership Growth Strategy states that failure to implement RGS “will result in lost opportunities to increase transit ridership in Toronto, and to promote sustainable transportation”.   We can nibble around the edges of traffic management all we want, but unless we substantially improve service (either with more vehicles or much better utilization of those we have), everything else is small change.

by

Cherry Street: Small Beginning to a Great Project

The Community Liaison Committee (CLC) for the West Don Lands transit Environmental Assessment wound up with its last formal meeting yesterday evening (Sept 27).  To our delight [I am a member of the CLC], we learned that the recommended scheme incorporates changes in street design that many of us had wanted to see in this small, but important link in the transit system.

A Public Information Centre will be held on Thursday, October 11 at the Enoch Turner School House (behind Little Trinity Church on King St. east of Parliament) from 4 to 8 pm.  This will be a drop in centre for people to review the design before it goes to the TTC and Council for final approval.

In the early days of this study, many of us despaired that we would see an “urban” street on Cherry which was to be 35 metres wide (almost twice the width of King Street, 20 metres) and with all of the charm of a suburban arterial.  Things have changed a lot through hard work both by the community and by the technical project staff. 

Three options made the short list for final evaluation:

  • the conventional centre transit right of way as we know it from St. Clair, Spadina and Queen’s Quay West
  • transit in the curb lanes with other traffic in the middle of the street
  • a transit/pedestrian precinct on the east side of the street with cars and cyclists on the west side, separated by a generous median.

The last of these won out.  Detailed drawings are not yet available online, but they will eventually appear on the project’s public meeting page. Continue reading →

by

In Case You Have A Spare Billion or Two

The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that a maglev train would be installed linking Munich, Germany, with its airport, a distance of 37 km.  This will use a modern incarnation of the magnetic levitation technology originally proposed for a stillborn Toronto network.  Our only legacy from that fiasco is the Scarborough RT.

The line will cost a cool $2.63-billion (although this is expected to rise because the estimate is out of date), or a mere $71-million/km.  Of course, it won’t have to worry about pesky, expensive things like stations, except at the termini, and we all know that the demand to and from airports is not what anyone would call rush hour rapid transit levels.

The article also reports considerable opposition to this scheme, and this is clearly a vanity project for Germany where hopes for the Transrapid system were stuck on the drawing boards for four decades.

The whole idea is to cut the travel time in a quarter, from 40 to 10 minutes.   Hmmm … that means an average speed of 222 km/hr, very impressive and probably quicker than the average of the airborne trips it will connect with once terminal delays are factored in.

As high-speed rail networks grow, the market for fast airport links evaporates, unless, of course, the whole purpose is to sell a technology project regardless of the need.

by

A National Transit Strategy?

The Toronto Star reports that, despite bold promises from Prime Minister Harper, no money has flowed from Ottawa’s pledge to aid transit in the GTA.  Everything appears to be mired in writing the details of contracts between the federal government and the recipients of their largesse.

Alas, this continues a pattern seen in previous federal hand-outs where Ottawa wants a complex arrangement to ensure that money is spent only in a way it approves.

Ottawa just doesn’t get it:  a real national strategy needs to operate as a standing arrangement between governments with annual support flowing to provinces and cities.  Project-by-project funding adds a huge level of negotiations and legal wrangling to a vital public service. 

Imagine if every time Toronto wanted to fund a project it had to write a separate agreement with Queen’s Park.  Project costs would go through the roof on contract negotiation and management, and the public sector would rightly be accused of wasting money on bureaucracy.  Strange to see a “conservative” government entangled in this way.

If Ottawa really wants to be part of a transit strategy, it needs to decide on a general level of spending, set broad guidelines for the type of project that constitutes “transit” and then get out of the way.  Transit programs are delivered at the local level, and decisions about details and priorities belong there.  We have enough meddling from Queen’s Park without Ottawa adding another layer.