by

MoveOntario 2020 [Updated]

The Ontario government is announcing a huge program of transit improvements and funding.  Details are available on the Premier’s website.

Note to those who come to this item after about 10:30 on June 15:  Many comments were posted earlier today before I had added my own review of the announcement.  They reflect the developing level of information (there are still some gaps) as well as some gentle urging that I get on with writing about this.

Whether it’s just an election promise or a real plan for transit improvements in southern Ontario, Queen’s Park’s announcement today raises the bar very high.  Not only will Ontario fund 2/3 of the cost of transit capital works, the sheer number of lines and services, including several nobody ever thought to see in print, sets this apart from all previous announcements.

There have been a few.  Continue reading →

by

The Fiscal Realities of Ridership Growth

During the TTC board meeting on June 13, two of the fiscal conservatives on the Commission ran aground on the cost of running a successful transit system.

As I reported earlier, the TTC has an embarrassment of additional riding and will begin increasing service in September and through the fall to bring crowding within the Commission’s service standards.  More service, of course, costs more money and it is very unlikely that this will be made up from added revenues.  We are, after all, trying to give all current riders better service rather than forcing them to ride on the roof, and we are trying to attract new riders to the system within the constraints of the fleet size and available operating staff.

With Metropasses now a highly attractive fare medium, more people are buying them and more rides are taken on each pass.  This dilutes the revenue per ride as ticket, token and cash fare riders migrate to the cheaper, fixed-price pass.  Riding is going up, but revenue is not. 

Commissioners Michael Thompson and Peter Milczyn wondered openly about changing the fare structure to recover some of the additional cost including schemes such as zone fares or charging for transfers.  They should talk to their constituents in Scarborough and Etobicoke respectively.

Suburban riders take longer trips to get to work, and a transfer between routes is almost inevitable for most of them.  Downtown riders might organize themselves to stay within one route, either the subway or a streetcar line.  Charging for transfers or imposing a zone system penalizes those for whom the transit system is already less attactive — the long distance traveller — and is likely to disproportionately affect those who can least afford it.

My rationale for that statement is that long, tedious trips including transfers are likely to have a larger proportion of “captive” riders who cannot afford to trade up to an automobile as an alternative even though it would be very attractive in comfort and travel time. 

Do these Commissioners/Councillors really understand the impact of their proposals?

During the same debate, Commissioner Thompson spoke of a “crisis” facing the TTC, and indeed he planned to launch a “strategic planning” process for the system.  Yes, we need a strategic plan, but the real “crisis” is that everyone hopes that somehow the problem of transit funding will solve itself for both the capital and operating budgets.

There is no magic here.  If you want better transit, then you must spend more money.  This may come from fares or taxes or transfers from other governments, but it must come from somewhere. 

Anyone who talks about charging for transfers or imposing a zone fare system, but  never breathes the words “fare increase” is not being honest with the TTC’s riders.  The irony here is that the amount of money needed to operate better service is between $6- and $7-million on an annual basis.  This is less than one percent of the total operating budget and could be funded by a miniscule fare increase.

Any change to bring in zones or charge for transfers would be complex to implement, and unless the base fare were lowered substantially, would bring in far more revenue than is needed for the service improvements.

In another context, Toronto Council seems willing to increase the subsidy to passengers by about $13-million to operate the York University subway extension.  Why do we happily go forward with such schemes but nickel-and-dime plans for better bus and streetcar service?  The real reason, no doubt, is that York U won’t see its first passenger until at least two further terms of Council while better bus and streetcar service is something for today, for this year’s budget.

Support future spending for a dubious subway project and you are a visionary investing in the future of our city.

Support better transit for riders today and you are a wasting precious taxpayer dollars on riders who should be paying more for their service.

I look forward to seeing Commissioners Thompson and Milczyn with coffee-pot fareboxes on buses in Scarborough and streetcars in Long Branch defending the public purse from marauding, oversubsidized riders.  It will be a great photo op for their re-election literature.

by

TTC Plans More Service to Handle Unexpected Riders

In a report on the supplementary agenda for June 13, the TTC proposes to increase service in response to unexpected growth in riding.  This will not actually happen until November, mainly to allow hiring of new operators to catch up with requirements, and the intent is that these changes will remain into the base budget for 2008.

The 2007 service budget includes provision for increasing the weekly operation of 142,000 service hours by an additional 2,400 in the fall, but this will not be enough to handle all of the crowding.  This report proposes 1,900 more hours of service.

The improvements will come mainly in the off-peak because that is where demand is growing, and they can be implemented without any new fleet.  The list of candidate routes and time periods is not included in the report, but I will publish the information whenever it comes my way. 

by

Preliminary Transit City Planning

The supplementary agenda for the TTC meeting on June 13 contains a report on the current status of Transit City and field observations from a review of the Finch West and Sheppard East lines.  You can read the details, but in both cases the assumption is that a centre pair of lanes would be taken within the existing right-of-way with some widening as needed.

At this point, there are no details of possible connections between the subway stations (Finch, Finch West or Don Mills) and the LRT lines. 

[To my regular commentators:  Please do not start the debate about how to build the Don Mills interchange all over again.  I think we have more or less exhausted that subject.]

An intriguing observation is the need for a connection between these two lines so that they could be served by a common carhouse.  Maybe we will get a Finch East LRT after all, but let’s not get too greedy.

The report makes clear that the TTC is awaiting approval of the new simplified Environmental Assessment process before starting these projects formally (they will save about a year with the new protocol), but they are continuing with preliminary work in anticipation.

Note to Dalton McGuinty:  Something really important you can do for transit is to get moving on this approval well before the election rather than making us all wait for months.  It won’t cost you anything and will actually save money by simplifying the EA process.

The TTC hopes to begin construction in 2010.

by

Working for Better Service in San Francisco

Mike Olivier sent in a note about San Francisco’s pilot project to improve service quality on the J-Church line, the least reliable of their streetcar services.

“What’s needed for King & Queen is a comprehensive evaluation of the route, much like what San Francisco Muni is doing with the J-Church Pilot Program:”

Today, Monday, March 5, we began a new on-time performance pilot project on the J-Church light rail line. The pilot will be conducted during peak service times over a 120-day period. The J-Church study will conclude on Friday, July 13, 2007. Working together we successfully completed the 1-California pilot, which resulted in an increase in on-time performance from 81% to 88% over the three-month pilot period. I am confident that through our continued collaboration and hard work we can expand this success to the J-Church.

As part of the Transit Effectiveness Project’s (TEP) Early Action Plan, we will apply the findings from the 1-California pilot to a rail line. These projects will help us cultivate our understanding and develop our plans for improving on-time performance system wide.
Our recent on-time performance (OTP) reports reflect that the J has the lowest OTP of the rail lines. I know that working in concert, all divisions will contribute to improving the J-Church.

The pilot will include on-going analysis to compare the pilot performance to the initial data, including collecting weekly data on OTP, vehicle loads, and overall performance of operations and enforcement.
A detailed description of the pilot follows. It includes the project objective, description, and improvement strategies. Thank you for your contributions to the success of the 1-California pilot, and for your daily commitment to keep San Francisco moving.

Pilot Description

Objective: Continue to implement the Transit Effectiveness Project’s Early Action Plan by applying the findings from the 1-California to a rail line to strengthen our understanding of how to achieve improved on-time performance system wide

Project description: Multidisciplinary effort to improve the J-Church peak periods service over a 120-day period

Test route: J-Church (average weekday ridership – 18,700; beginning OTP 61.9%)

Pilot begins March 5, 2007 and will conclude July 13, 2007

For the remainder of this text, follow the link above.

The program has been extended by 60 days according to more recent updates on SFMTA’s site.  For interesting reading, have a look at the Community Advisory Committee meetings especially April 2007.  Comments from the members indicate that many of the problems we have in Toronto can also be found in San Francisco including concerns that poor service management is a culprit in service quality. 

What I find most striking about this plan is the clear commitment to make the service work.  This involves many aspects of the organization and the city, and a recognition that things actually can be improved.  It is not a catalogue of whines about what cannot be done, about how we are too busy, about how department “x” won’t co-operate.

Such an approach is long overdue at the TTC, although I fear we will need the combined pressure of politicians on the Commission and a new Chief General Manager to make it happen. 

This exercise should not be used as an excuse to tighten the funding screws in a “see, we told you, then can do better with what they have” fit of self-righteousness.  Some improvements may cost money:  making sure that there are operators and vehicles available to run all of the scheduled service all of the time means that on some days you will have more than you need, and the bean counters will not be happy. 

Keeping service well-spaced will require active intervention and, where necessary, dealing with the minority of operators who abuse the schedules for their own convenience.

Real transit priority will mean taking green time away from cars at some key intersections, and making sure that the priority signals are actually working all of the time.

None of this is particularly difficult provided there is a will to make the system and the service better.

by

Tory Plan: Fire the Managers

According to today’s Toronto Star, PC leader John Tory’s solution to GO Transit’s on-time performance problems is to fire managers if they cannot meet the targets.  Although this is a refreshing change from the usual right-wing habit of blaming everything on the unions, it is no more realistic or responsible a platform.

GO Transit operates in the unenviable position where much of the physical plant is not under its control.  If CNR doesn’t have enough switch heaters, or decides that their freight train is more important than GO’s service, there is very little GO can do about it.

Yes, operating contracts could contain penalty clauses for poor performance, but I doubt that CN would ever sign anything with draconian penalties that would actually affect their profits.  Indeed, performance management of “private partners” is a big problem and there is a balancing act between holding the private sector’s feet to the fire and reaching a point where they don’t bother trying to meet their obligations.

We need a much better public accounting and explanation of the reasons why trains don’t run on time so that everyone can discuss what areas (a) provide lots of opportunity for improvement and (b) why some problems will always be with us.

How often is GO service blocked by freight activities?  How often does a train not run because there is no working equipment?  How often does the crew show up late for work?  How often is there a problem with the track or signals?  How often is there a cow on the tracks?

Each of these problems needs its own approach, and there will be different issues on each line. 

John Tory’s simplistic “solution” shifts the blame from where it really belongs — at Queen’s Park and the decades of underfunding — to the managers who try to run an organization under difficult times. 

Tory needs to own up to his own party’s legacy, to changes in funding and downloading of costs to municipalities, and say what he would change.  The Liberals may have left some Harris policies in place for their own convenience, but if there are things Tory would change, he should say so.  He should acknowledge the damage that was done the last time his party ran Ontario and set himself clearly apart from that regime.

by

Some Thoughts on Accessibility

Renee Knight sent in two comments that deserve their own thread:

Accessibility is an issue, that I don’t see a space for on the site. I’d really like to address issues of accesibility on the site.

It’s an area that the TTC is working on, but nowhere near fast enough, especially in the subway stations.
I understand that there are agreements with neighbouring realesate/businesses for elevators/escalators in lieu of space on TTC property for such, and also realize that in those situations the elevators/escalators are frequently out of service where they exist.

Try accessing Osgoode Station, St. Patrick, Union, Wellesley or Sherbourne Stations with a baby carriage, large suitcase, walker, or wheelchair. Some of these stations have their own escalators/elevators, but only have them going one way, others they are out of service so frequently, they might as well not even promote it being there.

We have a long way to go before our city is accessible to those with even mild disabilities, and mothers with strollers, let alone those with serious physical limitations.

Blessings,
Renee

And …

How many people can fit on a bus safely?

Far fewer on the new models supposedly designed to be more friendly for those with disabilities!

Also, these new accessible models are about as easy to stand on as an oversized skateboard with wonky wheels. Ever try to stand on one and keep your balance? Try doing that if you have a spinal disease, ribs wired together, or hip injury like I have! Try doing that if you are blind, walk with a cane or walker, have groceries to get home, or are simply frail or elderly and are getting knocked about by other riders trying to stay on their feet…

Did anyone at TTC test these vehicles out? I heard that the TTC was forced to buy these vehicles or get nothing new for the bus fleet. I am not sure if this is true, but I do know that ultimatums are never a good idea for purchasing anything, especially on the taxpayers coin!

While these accessible buses are designed to take wheelchairs, scooters…the majority of people who are not ambulatory take Wheel Trans, as when they get to the subway most of the stations cannot get them down to subway level or back to ground level. I know the TTC is working on this, but it’s going too slow to keep up with the population that is aging, having babies using stollers, even those travelling with suitcases down to Union Station will find the hoops one has to jump through to get from one station to the next, and finally into Union Station to be less than amusing entertaining…

Just for fun, go downtown and buy something large, that you cannot pick up and carry. Then put it in a cart, and see if you can get home on transit with it. Are there enough elevators, escalators…so that you don’t have to lug things up two flights of stairs to get down into the subway, and then between line transfers within subway system, and then bet back up to street level to take a bus or streetcar home. Now imagine doing that every day, like those of us with disabilities have to do! Not fun anymore, is it?

Like I have said before “the service is only as good as it’s weakest link!” If the link is weak to serve those who are ambulatory, and living with a disability, then other transportation options are chosen, purely from a safety perspective to prevent further injuries, though the options may be more expensive. If you find an alternative for part of the route, how likely is it that you’ll get on the TTC, and pay a fare for another leg of your trip.

Ridership loss! Exactly!

Steve:  I have not been impressed by the low-floor buses we have seen in Toronto.  They are an odd match of a fairly roomy, but small front half and a passenger-hostile upper gallery behind the centre doors.  I have trouble sitting for any length of time where I cannot stretch my legs and those upper seats just don’t work except for short hops.

The TTC has proposed an alternative seating layout in the next batch of buses with seats facing each other across the aisle, but this will further reduce the capacity in this area and remove many of the forward-facing seats.  I have written elsewhere about seating orientation, and it’s amusing to find the “solution” for the buses is to introduce even more perimeter seating.  Maybe the TTC figures that those whose backs don’t work well on such seating also won’t want to climb the stairs, and so the riders can hope to get one of the handful of forward facing seats “downstairs”.

As for escalators and elevators: 

The TTC tries to negotiate an accessible path to the surface through new developments at station sites, but in most cases has to retrofit elevators within their own stations.  Where the escalators or elevators in, say, an office tower are out of service, the TTC really doesn’t have much leverage to get them fixed.   

For a time here last year, I was tracking the frequency with which I encountered escalators that didn’t work, but I dropped that thread because, to the TTC’s credit, this was not happening anywhere nearly as often as a few years ago.  Elevators, however, are a problem because the people who need them really don’t have an alternative.

Imagine if stairways were closed as often the chaos that would ensue and the complaints the TTC would get.

If the TTC is going to be serious about accessibility, if they are going to all the trouble and expense of putting elevators in the stations to save on Wheel Trans costs, then these elevators have to work reliably.  As more and more stations have elevators, people will count on them working wherever they need them, not to be inexplicably out of service for days at a time.

by

TTC Riding Continues to Climb

The TTC monthly report of ridership and budget performance tells us that riding is up 3.8% over last year and 2% over budget.  Total riding for 2007 is now projected at 462-million.

However, much of this growth has come through increased Metropass usage, and the average fare has actually fallen by 3.6 cents as the “free” additional Metropass trips dilute the overall revenue.  As a result, there is no change in the projected total revenue for the year.

This year, we passed an important point in the evolution of fares on the TTC — over half of the adult fares are now paid by Metropass rather than by tickets, tokens or cash.  This has strong implications for ridership because the “free” extra rides a pass offers cement a rider’s choice of the TTC for their travel.  Moreover, proposals to implement any new fare system must meet the Metropass test for simplicity and cost.

The TTC plans service improvements and better loading standards for fall 2007, and details of this will probably appear soon given the lead time for implementing schedule changes.  With better service will come more riding.  Let’s hope that Council is prepared to pay for more improvements in years to come.

by

A TTC Business Case for Smart Cards?

The TTC has published a lengthy report on the subject of Smart Cards.  I am not going to attempt to precis the material here, but the “bottom line” is that, yes, Smart Cards will work, but are we willing to pay the price for what they will give us?

The conclusion observes:

The business case demonstrates that a smartcard system will have definite benefits for customers (convenience), decision-makers (flexibility in policy and pricing), and employees (safety and security). The analysis estimates that the cost for a TTC owned and operated smartcard system is between $250M to $260M in capital, and $11M to $12M in additional operating expenses annually. The business case analysis further shows that while the current TTC fare system does have limitations, it is simple to understand and operate, and is relatively cost efficient and reliable. From a state-of-good repair perspective, the current fare system does not need to be replaced.

There is an interesting table in Appendix H showing the capital cost of various new Smart Card systems on large transit properties expressed per weekday boarding.  The cost cited for Toronto is cheap compared with Boston, Chicago or New York.  Whether this indicates we will do things better and at less cost, or that there is more headroom for overruns, only time will tell.  The time to implement a system on the TTC is projected at six years.

There are without question benefits that would come with Smart Cards.  However, we must decide whether they are worth the investment.  Recent comments at the TTC minimize costs with a shrug “it’s only about $40-million a year”.

As I have said so often, remember this the next time the TTC says that they cannot afford more bus service, or Council balks at the rising cost of transit subsidies.

Amazing, isn’t it, how we have money for the toys, but not for the things we really need.

by

New Light Rail Vehicle Update

The TTC agenda for next week includes a report on the status of the new LRV project.

Seven companies expressed interest in bidding, although one dropped out.  They are:

  • AnsaldoBreda
  • Bombardier
  • Kinkisharyo (No longer participating)
  • Mytram
  • Siemens
  • Skoda
  • Vossioh-Kiepe

The TTC plans to include public participation in the evaluation of possible new cars.  This will include a website (presumably not designed by the wizards responsible for the existing one), and would-be vendors will be asked to provide a car for viewing.  I suspect that this will cull a few more from the list as the expense of bringing a car to Toronto is substantial, and only someone with deep pockets and a fair hope of winning the bid would undertake this.

The current plan is to award a contract in June 2008 with the prototype cars delivered in 2010.  Cynics among us will point out that this corresponds with the next municipal election cycle.

The nub of this issue is funding.  Council is pursuing a tri-partite arrangement with Queen’s Park and Ottawa, a scheme that could very well see this in limbo for years. 

We don’t have years.  The cars proposed here will only cover replacement of the existing fleet let alone expansion into new routes.  Maybe with our “new revenue tools”, Council will shoulder more of the cost locally and we will stop holding the transit system hostage to three-way political haggling.