Thoughts on phasing
My most recent post, "
Thoughts on Priorities", tries to argue that there is no reason why a small, lower-priority project cannot be implemented before a priority project as long as:
- The small project doesn't affect the speed of the design and implementation phases of the priority project.
- The small project doesn't prevent the priority project from being funded.
- The small project doesn't build something that precludes the priority project from being built.
This post aims to look at the issues from a different angle - is it better to implement a complex project in phases, or to wait until the full build can be completed in one operation?
Read more »Labels: GTTA plan
Semantics are fun!
A friend of mine who supports Transit City sent an email to Karen Stintz, and got a response from which I will now quote:
"As you may know, Transit City was not fully funded by the Province of Ontario or the Federal Government. The transit plan that has been funded is the Metrolinx Plan and that plan includes transit investment on Sheppard, Eglinton, the Scarborough RT and Finch. Stopping Transit City does not jeopardize the Metrolinx Plan."
While I do have the utmost respect for Karen Stintz, and have considered living in her ward, it must be said that the above quote is either factually mistaken or inadvertently misleading. The Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan identifies numerous policies for improving transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, and building physical infrastructure is a part of the RTP. Transit City is the marketing name for a subset of projects within the RTP, and those projects include the half tunnel, half surface Eglinton-Crosstown LRT; the fully grade-separated Scarborough RT upgrade; and surface LRT lines on Finch, Jane, Sheppard, Don Mills and Eglinton/Kingston/Morningside. The first phase of some of these projects have been funded, but others are unfunded at this time.
Transit City is a part of the Metrolinx plan. In my opinion, it's an integral part. As such, cancelling it is cancelling part of the Metrolinx plan. If cancelling part of something places the rest of it in jeopardy, then cancelling Transit City jeopardizes the Metrolinx Plan.
My position on this issue was made quite clear
several posts ago, so I'm not going to repeat it. However, if we are going to have a discussion on these issues of the day, then we need to make sure that we're debating with facts - not with lies, hearsay and misinformation.
Labels: GTTA plan, light rail, municipal sillyness, politics, ttc
Thoughts on priorities
Once upon a time, most of the employment lands were located downtown and most of the residential lands were located uptown. It was fairly easy to plan the transportation network, because travel would always be downtown in the morning and uptown in the afternoon. Whichever line was the most crowded deserved an upgrade. Today, we live in a very complex region with travel patterns that resemble a spider web. There are plenty of jobs downtown, but a large number of office parks and factories are now located in the 905. There are plenty of houses in the suburbs, but more and more people are now living downtown. This has made prioritizing the lines much more difficult.
Under the old paradigm, the people in Markham would benefit from more GO Transit service because they would be going downtown. In today's world, however, is it better to invest in more GO service towards Toronto, or to invest in better VIVA service within the town?
This blog post isn't about which transit line should be our top priority - I don't think we will ever receive consensus on that topic. This is, however, a post about where small projects should fit in the capital budgets of the various transit providers.
Read more »Labels: GO Transit, GTTA plan, politics
Can subways build a transit city?
Rob Ford, Toronto's incoming mayor, was elected on a platform that called for subway construction instead of light rail construction. From the people I have spoken to, many are concerned about the future of Transit City, David Miller's initiative to build a series of light rail lines across Toronto. While there are many good reasons to forge ahead with Miller’s plan, what if we could build these proposed lines as subways. Are we still building Transit City?
Transit City became synonymous with light rail transit, but in many ways, the modal choice was the means to an ends. For transit city, the end goal was to add capacity and reliability to locally-oriented transit and to support constant strings of mid-rise development along Toronto's avenues. In essence, the true goal of Transit City was to transform suburban arteries into more vibrant, successful streets where people can live, work, play and shop. It was a project to urbanize the suburbs and attract investment by making these lands just as attractive for development as the downtown core. If subways can build a transit city, then these are the standards by which a subway plan must be measured.
Read more »Labels: GTTA plan, light rail, politics, streetcars, subways, ttc
Thoughts on Google Transit
As you may have heard, the TTC has joined York Region Transit, GO Transit, Hamilton Street Railway, Burlington Transit, Brampton Transit (it's a secret!), Grand River Transit and Guelph Transit by sharing its data with Google (Guelph Transit is currently offline because the city is one giant construction zone right now). If you want to plan a trip using transit in areas served by these services, just use the same Google Maps interface you would use to plan other trips, but be sure to select the transit option.
I've been a long-time fan of Google Transit (much to the chagrin of a certain someone who, despite leaving negative comments and not responding to rebuttal, is still a cool person), but the benefit of this system over the in-house travel planners that many agencies have developed is two-fold. Google Maps is available to most mobile device users allowing you to plan trips while on the move, whereas the in-house planners often use web code not supported by all mobile browsers. Secondly, Google's trips plans span multiple agencies, so a trip between two random points within the coverage area is just as easy to plan as a trip between two other random points within the coverage area.
Now, Google has a few limitations which users should keep in mind before using.
Read more »Labels: brampton transit, burlington transit, durham region transit, GO Transit, GTTA plan, guelph transit, hsr, mississauga transit, oakville transit, ttc, york region transit
Visions for the GTTA: Local Transit
The signature of any transit or transportation vision is, in the mind of the general public, the rapid transit lines. They may have the most visible impact on the commute, but in order to build a rapid transit network we must accept two truths:
First, we must accept that the facilities necessary to build rapid transit lines are expensive. We can save money but shifting or paradigm towards light rail and bus rapid transit instead of subways and by re-organizing the rail corridors into "Overground" lines instead of building subways, but we must realize that the pool of money available for transit investment is limited. As such, we may never be able to deliver "true" rapid transit to every corridor.
Second, we must accept that decreasing travel times will require stops to be placed further apart. While we should strive for a balance between speed and walkability to the nearest stop, some addresses will be too far from the nearest rapid transit station to reasonably walk to.
These two truths show that, after the full build-out of the a rapid transit plan, we will still need a strong local transit system to serve the areas between rapid transit stations and to deliver us to the front doors of our destinations in safety and comfort. In order to do this, we have to strengthen the system we have now.
[More after the jump...]
Read more »Labels: GTTA plan
Just sayin'...
Whereas it has been
said that:
"Transit City never intended to address travel to the core area as that function has been left primarily to GO Transit, but to provide higher capacity and somewhat higher speed service to the growing suburban 416 areas. It is totally inappropriate to criticize a plan for omitting something for which it was never intended."
Is it truly appropriate to go on to apply the same level of criticism to a regional transit plan that was intended to direct the provision of regionally-significant rapid transit, rather than fund and/or direct the provision of transit at the locally-oriented level.
My utmost respect, but I'm just saying...
Labels: GTTA plan, politics
Visions for the GTTA: Rapid Transit, Part II
This post is a continuation of
this post.
Recommendation #3 - Quickly introduce Rocket service to major corridors
Within recent memory, several bus-based rapid transit projects have been implemented to improve transit service in the GTHA. Notables among them include iXpress, which snakes through Waterloo Region; A-Line and B-Line, forming a north-south network in Hamilton; and VIVA, York Region Transit's celebrated rapid transit network. In the fall of 2010, Zum in Brampton will come online and provide express service along the Queen Street corridor. While there is no question that these routes have been successful, they all run primarily in mixed traffic and they all experienced long implementation times. Zum, for example, can be traced back to 2004 - a six year lead time for only 1/3rd of the first phase.
[More after the jump...]
Read more »Labels: bus rapid transit, GTTA plan, light rail, streetcars
Visions for the GTTA: Rapid Transit, Part I
When it comes to rapid transit, one thing is clear: Torontonians want subways. If anything less than a subway is constructed then the system is somehow inadequate - too slow and too crowded. But, a transportation planner once told me that congestion can be defined as the result of a justified rationing of a scarce resource. Many years ago, society decided that our forests were a scarce resource and that it was not acceptable to cut down all the trees in the world to make paper. As a result, we began rationing new trees and encouraging the use of recycled materials. The transportation network is similar. Capacity is a limited resource, and constructing enough capacity to match all demand may placing our society in an unwanted position.
Imagine if we added enough capacity to Highway 401 through Toronto to ensure that every car could travel at the speed limit at all times of the day. In order to provide this level of capacity the highway would have to be at least 50 lanes wide. To accomplish this, we would have to bulldoze the communities adjacent to the highway and displace all of the residents and businesses. This would cost billions of dollars that could not be spent on other things that could benefit our society. Such a highway would be grossly underused at all times other than the peak hour and leave us with wasted capacity. In short, constructing enough capacity to provide the highest quality of service imaginable is not a good idea. I am not saying that we should never build another subway line in the GTHA, as some that feel light rail advocates believe. What I am saying is that the transit technology choice is a complex decision and needs to involve demand, expected development, and cost. Not every line can or should get a subway, but here is where I think we should upgrade our transit facilities to deliver a higher quality transit service.
[More after the jump...]
Read more »Labels: bus rapid transit, GTTA plan, subways
Visions for the GTTA: Regional Rail
As the price of gasoline climbs ever higher, the citizens of every community in Ontario will be affected. Businesses will begin to relocate closer to their markets to reduce shipping costs, which means that many one-industry town in the province may lose their only employer. As the businesses move, employees will follow. Since they will be unable to afford the commute, employees will likely move with the companies and settle in the cities where sustainable transit is available. While intensification is a good thing, cities like Windsor, Kitchener, Kingston, Ottawa or even Toronto could not possibly accommodate every single citizen from the hinterland. Something will have to be done to prevent the wholesale dismantling of rural Ontario.
Once upon a time, railways crisscrossed Ontario and moved freight and passengers between almost every city, village and town. But, as roads were improved and automobiles and trucks became more popular, passengers and shippers migrated to other means of travel. Railways were gradually abandoned and quickly torn up. Today, passenger rail service in Ontario is limited to the GO Transit regional services in the Toronto area, Ontario Northland's services in the far north, and VIA Rail Canada inter-city service, rural and transcontinental service.. The freight railway network isn't much bigger, limiting the potential to construct new railway routes. But, what if we hadn't abandoned those lines? What if we could undo the past?
Read more »Labels: GO Transit, GTTA plan, railways
Visions for the GTTA: Fares and Passes, Part II
This post is a continuation of this post.
Recommendation #2 - Integrated Fares
Currently, the TTC does not accept transfers from 905 transit agencies, and this is a policy decision that we cannot fault them for making. This decision increases fare revenue, and since very few Toronto residents use the TTC to travel to the 905, there has been no political drive to change it. We often argue that our politicians do not make decisions in our best interest, but this is one of the clearest examples of Toronto politicians making decisions in the best interest of Torontonians. However, there are several unintended consequences of this policy. Residents of York and Peel Regions, even if they have access to transit a short walk from their homes, often opt to drive to Park and Ride lots at the subway to avoid paying a double fare. This contributes to congestion in North York and western Etobicoke when these riders could be using local transit to reach the subway. At the same time, GO Transit uses a completely separate fare system from local transit, and transfer privileges are limited. A trip from Rouge Hill GO Station takes 90 minutes on the TTC, and 35 minutes on GO Transit. However, the latter carries a $2.00 premium, plus the cost to use the TTC to finish the trip if necessary. Increasing GO train capacity will be covered in another post, but modifying the fare system will give Toronto residents much more choice in how they speed across the city.
[More after the jump...]
Read more »Labels: fares, GTTA plan
Visions for the GTTA: Fares and Passes, Part I
Most experts agree that service, not fares, is what leads to high transit ridership. For the most part, this is true. Even if service were free, very few people will use a bus route if frequencies are hourly. But, fare policies can still have an influence on how people use transit in a city.
Now, people always complain whenever fares go up, but transit in Toronto is a bargain. $3.00 allows you to travel from far Scarborough to the Mississauga border, guarantees you a bus every 30 minutes, and ensures that a bus stop isn't too far away. In my opinion, price isn't the issue - the particular fare policies in use today have a negative influence on transit usage. These policy decisions were made in the best interest of the agency that made them, so we cannot fault them. However, we have to realize that there have been consequences. People are often confused as to what fare is due and what tickets and passes are valid. People often drive to park-and-ride lots in adjacent communities to avoid double fares, and people often choose the cheaper route over the faster route. In order to make transit in the GTA, we need to address these shortcomings.
[More after the jump...]
Read more »Labels: fares, GTTA plan
Visions For The GTTA
The Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan was approved in 2008, and, when fully implemented we will finally have a regional transportation system that responds to our needs. We will have a fast, frequent and expanded regional rapid transit network that brings rapid transit to within 2 kilometres of 90% of the population, and higher-order transit connectivity to the Pearson Airport district from all directions, including Downtown Toronto, Midtown Toronto, North York and Mississauga City Centre. We will have an expanded Union Station to handle the crowds of the expanded rail service, and a complete walking and cycling networks with bikesharing programs to eliminate the need to drive short distances. We will have an information system for travellers to eliminate the "I don't know when the bus runs" excuse, and we will have a region-wide integrated transit fare system that breaks down actual and perceived barriers between transit systems. We will have a system of connected mobility hubs where people can live, work and play in sustainable communities, and we will have a comprehensive strategy for goods movement to ensure that our economy doesn't choke in congestion. Finally, we will have an Investment Strategy to provide immediate, stable and predictable funding to ensure that all this comes to fruition.
The transportation network is a limited resource, much like timber or petroleum or fresh water. Rather than cut down all of the forests in the country to satisfy our need for paper, we made a decision decades ago to recycle our old paper into new. The transit network needs to be treated similarly. We cannot continue widen our local roads until we have a freeway in every community. We have to "recycle" our transportation network by making more efficient use of it. This will mean disruption to local businesses during the construction phase and it will mean taking lanes away from car drivers. When the alternative is excessively long commutes, an economy that can't ship goods to market, and an environment that we only talk about in stories to our children, we have no choice.
The Metrolinx RTP will reduce congestion, but it cannot solve it. As long as the region continues to grow, the demand on the transportation network will grow with it. As a result, we have to ensure that capacity grows with it. We do this by implementing the plan, extending and upgrade the projects we've built, then build other projects. Just as the plan says, we commit to continuous improvement. That's where the new Visions for the GTTA plan comes in. While the RTP will be transformative, the Visions plan seeks to extend that the other corridors across the Greater Golden Horseshoe region and the Province of Ontario. The coming days will bring a series of blog posts going into detail on each of my recommendations and "revolutionary actions". But for now, please visit
www.gttavisions.com; demand that your municipal, provincial and federal representative support Metrolinx and transit in the GTHA; and encourage our leaders to go beyond what is already planned in order to make our communities better places to live.
Labels: admin, GTTA plan
Georgetown South Service Expansion Approved
As you may have heard, the Georgetown South Service Expansion project has received environmental assessment approval, subject to conditions that are strict but reasonable. I've made my position on this controversial project quite clear in the past so I won't repeat it, but I do believe that moving forward on this project will improve transit for much of the west end of the GTA. Love it or hate it, it will give us multiple local trains every hour, express trains serving the highest ridership stations, a doubling of VIA rail service to London via Kitchener, a much-needed rail link to the airport, and it will get some of those services moving sooner rather than later. The bottom line is that, in the opinion of this transit user and resident of the corridor, getting people out of their cars and onto trains is a good thing.
Labels: GO Transit, GTTA plan, railways
Metrolectric
Today, Metrolinx
announced that they will be studying the costs and benefits of electrifying the GO Transit rail network, a move which could allow for faster and more frequent regional trains, as well as addressing the concerns of many people who live near rail lines which are expected to receive service expansions in the coming years. While most modern diesel electric locomotives max out at around 4000 horsepower, the most modern north american electric locomotives are pushing between 7000 and 8000 horsepower, allowing them to accelerate faster. This means faster trips or more stops in the same amount of time. In addition, electric locomotives have fewer moving parts and can last upwards of 75 years in service. The lowered local emissions are obvious.
When it comes to electrifying rail lines, my stance has always been to view tracks and wires as two separate projects that should not depend on each other. Of course I would prefer wires to be strung up sooner rather than later, but if there is an opportunity to expand service sooner using modern diesel equipment then we should seize that opportunity. Transport for London, one of the agencies everyone aspires for the TTC or Metrolinx to become, for example, will introduce new Bombardier Class 172 Turbostar diesel multiple unit (DMU) trains on the Gospel Oak - Barking Line (GOBLIN) next year. If they are doing it then I don't think it's a step backwards if we do so here. That being said, the start of this study is welcomed and the first step in better service across the region. You can't build a house without blueprints, just as you can't embark on a capital project without knowing the costs and benefits.
Since electrification and electric locomotives or electric multiple unit trains isn't exactly cheap in the initial investment, I anticipate that this study will set out the minimum number of trains per hour required to justify the cost. At the frequencies planned in the next 15 years I can only see the Georgetown and Lakeshore lines meeting this bar, but if there's no reason not to continue to add service to justify it on lines that don't quite make the cut. If four trains per hour is found to be the minimum but the Bradford line only warrants three then I doubt anyone will complain if the fourth train magically appears.
Labels: GO Transit, GTTA plan, railways
Does cynicism trump?
I've been having a debate recently over the commitment to electrify the Georgetown corridor, and I think it boils down to this question:
Is "I don't believe they can pull it off on time/on budget/at all" a valid criticism of the Metrolinx RTP?
I don't think it is a reasonable criticism, because such a statement could be used to argue against anything at any time. I am curious to see what others feel about this line of reasoning. Please comment.
Labels: GTTA plan, politics, railways
Truthiness
I like Steve Munro because he uses facts to back up his arguments. Unfortunatly, every once in a while, the line between pure fact and baseless rhetoric is crossed.
Case in point,
from his latest post:
"Metrolinx professes a love of public participation, but their planning process is quite secretive and controlled. Even the “public advisory committee” is subject to a gag agreement, and this group is expected to provide support for the RTP. The last time I looked, “public advice” was public, and members of advisory bodies are free to dissent. If Metrolinx wants trained seals, just hire more consultants."
The issue I take with the above is that it is factually wrong:
There was no gag order.I know because I didn't sign one.
We weren't expected to support the RTP. We support it because we all believed that it the best plan to move forward upon. Could it be better? Of course it could, but the most transformative improvements would require changes in the enabling legislation to give the agency the power to control more locally-oriented services. Given the tools and recognizing that it shouldn't wade into the technology debate, is it the best plan to move forward upon? Yes.
We were free to dissent.We convinced the board to look at new funding tools immediately, rather than in 2013 as they originally planned. This will ensure the long term viability of the plan instead of leaving it chance 5 years from now. We also initiated the discussion on placing non-political experts on the board of directors. If that isn't dissenting from the establishment then I'm not to sure what is.
We are not trained seals.This disappoints me.
Steve, my respect for you remains. You've earned my respect over your years of service to the community. But please don't drag me into this one. I'm not the evidence you should be using. From what I've tried to illustrate, I'm quite the opposite.
Labels: GTTA plan, metrolinx ac, politics
Maybe it's me that doesn't get it...
John Barber talks about the fare integration issue
in his column today, and while he points out that the agency seems to have failed in achieving seamless transit that the RTP promised, he seems to ignores the number key issue.
Isn't the real question if we should have fare integration at all?
Maybe I'm biased towards Metrolinx, or maybe I don't understand John Barber's style because I don't read his column very often, but I think it's easy to pick on Metrolinx because acting against the status quo will mean missteps. We can always sit on our laurels, but what good will that bring us? If we want to make progress towards a transit-oriented culture then we're going to have to take chances. Sometimes we'll fail and sometimes we'll succeed. Sometimes it will be a quick win and sometimes it will be sent back to the drawing board. Sometimes it will be consensus and sometimes it will be a political mess. But, in the end, all of it will be worth it.
Labels: GTTA plan, politics
Fair Integration?
Update:
Apparently the report I've cited for this post has been removed from the agenda of this friday's Metrolinx board meeting. As a result, I hereby base my comments on the popular opinion of the TTC held by many pro-regional transit advocates and not on the report. That's my story and I'm sticking to it...
I have long believed that an integrated fare system will be a great tool to increase transit ridership across the 905 and help alleviate congestion. Eliminating the Steeles penalty will help people like my good friend who walks to Steeles despite a YRT stop being much closer to her door. Many in this situation drive to parking lots at Finch Station to avoid this second fare. Eliminating the "too far" penalty will benefit those who are bound for locations just beyond walking distance of the GO stations within the 416. It will also allow people to use GO for inter-416 trips, reducing the peak hour demand on the subways.
2.0 PURPOSE & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the January 25, 2008 Board meeting, a resolution was referred to staff for consideration, which directed staff to develop opportunities for fare integration and service coordination (referred to as “FISC”) on cross boundary routes operating between the 905 area and the City of Toronto. Subsequent to this direction, an earlier progress report was made to the Board, which can be summarized as follows:
• A review of the cross boundary travel market between the 905 municipalities and the City of Toronto indicates that, between 1996 and 2006, transit trips to downtown Toronto increased and auto trips decreased.• There are several successful existing fare integration agreements among 905 transit systems that operate “open doors” across municipal boundaries without transit customers having to pay an additional fare through the acceptance of transfers between transit systems. “Open door” operation means that the out-of-jurisdiction carrier is free to pick up and drop off passengers as required. Waiting customers can board the first bus that comes along and no one is by-passed.
• Two key opportunities to improve transit service and reduce duplication are being considered. These are in the Burnhamthorpe Road corridor (refer to Appendix A, Figure 1), in Toronto, through having Mississauga Transit buses operate “open doors” in Toronto to Islington Subway Station and for VIVA (York Region Transit) Orange Route buses to operate “open doors” in Toronto between the Downsview Subway Station and York University (refer to Appendix A, Figure 2).
• The project study participants, comprised of two working groups, identified operational issues associated with fare validation, cost sharing agreements between the TTC and Mississauga Transit and York Region Transit and labour issues. Further work was required to evaluate and address these issues which would be part of a further Board report in the Fall of 2008.
It was not possible to make meaningful progress on these initiatives and report back to the Board in the Fall of 2008 because of labour relations issues which had to be resolved over the past few months.
With regard to the Burnhamthorpe corridor, an internal “discussion paper” has been prepared in close consultation with staff from Mississauga Transit and the TTC. It outlines the opportunity in much greater detail, such as, the potential benefits and costs, the proposed fare collection process and other operational issues to be addressed (summarized later in this report). For the Downsview Subway Station -York University corridor, most operational issues have been addressed by the TTC and York Region Transit staff. A cost sharing agreement between both of the latter parties was being discussed, but has yet to be finalized.
However, in December 2008, Metrolinx staff was advised that TTC senior management is not in favour of progressing any further, with the proposals related to “open door” service integration with Mississauga Transit and the YRT/VIVA Orange Route. This has essentially stopped any progress that can be made towards changing the current “closed door” policy (i.e. preventing transit vehicles from one municipality, from operating “open door” within a neighbouring “cross-boundary” municipality).
From the beginning of our discussions almost one year ago, Metrolinx has emphasized to working group participants that a basic principle to achieve integrated services is to design, schedule and operate transit services based on the needs of the customers regardless of municipal boundaries. During the current economic slowdown it becomes even more important to rationalize services and avoid duplication in the interest of the universal taxpayer.
Metrolinx staff was directed to develop opportunities for specific cross-boundary operations between Toronto and the 905, and the research, analysis and due diligence has resulted in recommendations that address system-wide barriers to improved cross boundary operations to the benefit of the traveller. In this report, Metrolinx staff are making several recommendations to the Metrolinx Board, to advance the objectives outlined in Big Move #6 (“region-wide integrated transit fare system”.) These proposals, “Implement a Metrolinx Integrated-Fares Pass for Cross-Boundary Services” and “Obtaining Provincial Legislative and Regulatory Authority,” outlined in section 6 of this report, are the preferred directions towards achieving fare integration and service coordination across the GTHA.
I have always believed that if the various transit agencies could cooperate and move towards regional goals then we would not need to address the governance issue. What did it matter if we had a dozen transit providers if the customer saw it and used it as one system? I have always believed that the economy, the environment and our society does not end at Steeles and that we need a regionally integrated system to ensure that the massive population increase we are expecting over the next 25 years can move around the region with relative ease. When one provider is not willing to hold a meaningful discussion about achieving these aims then perhaps it is time to address the governance issue.
Labels: GO Transit, GTTA plan, mississauga transit, municipal sillyness, politics, ttc, york region transit
