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
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
Thoughts on a tweet
@mfac19 tweeted:
@mayormiller prevent the TTC from wasting the precious $$ on studies for payment systems when the province is handing it to you on a platter
@mayormiller tweeted:
@mfac19 Disagree. TTC wants to let you use your credit card and other systems; Province wants one system, and TTC to pay$300 million for it.
From my perspective, we need to keep in mind the greater policy objective. The narrow policy objective is to minimize costs and maximize output for yourself and those you care about. You can't really fault anyone for having this mentality. However, the greater policy objective of region-wide transit integration is what matters here. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the environment, the economy and our quality of life doesn't care about Steeles. One region, one system should be the goal. Anything above and beyond that greater policy objective is fine by me. Anything below that greater policy objective is a recipe for disaster.
Labels: fares, politics, ttc
Open Payment, Part II
Mr. Giambrone's Facebook posts and tweets today make it quite clear to me that this has become a debate about municipal governance:
Presto was state of the art when it was first proposed seven years ago but is already obsolete. Adopting Presto because it already exists would just be throwing good money after bad. Mayoral candidates need to decide if they will stand up for Toronto or if they just want to impose the Province's will on the City.
If we're going to have the debate about municipal governance and municipal autonomy then let us have it. But, let's be open about the fact that this has ceased to be about Presto vs Open Payment.
The Councillor also said:
The McGuinty government has signed a $250 million contract with Accenture for the Presto card and the public does not know what is in it. The TTC has to spend its money very carefully and cannot enter into expensive contracts without a very clear understanding of it.
To this I respond, for the third time, will the agreement with the open payment firm be opened to public scrutiny to the public?
Labels: municipal sillyness, politics, ttc
New ways out
If you've been following the news lately, you have probably heard that the TTC is planning to build second exits at Greenwood and Donlands stations. This will require property acquisition, as the exit has to go somewhere within the station box. I won't comment on the selection of the site, but I do feel the need to weigh in on some of the issues.
First of all, this project is meant to meet the fire code. Stations need to have more than one exit in case of a fire, as they could potentially have to evacuate two fully loaded trains at the same time - something that would take ages with only one exit. There have been fires in TTC stations before, so this isn't planning for an unlikely hypothetical. Arguing that the money would be better spent on service expansion is a red herring.
Secondly, I get the sense that the process by which property is acquired is being distorted. Governments do not take your property - they buy it at market rates, and they generally offer you an allowance for moving expenses. Only if you refuse to voluntarily sell can they get a court to force a sale (this is know as expropriation) - but you still get market rate plus a moving allowance. When was the last time a buyer said "I'll give you asking plus moving costs"? To say that the community will be bulldozed is not helpful.
Ultimately the situation on Danforth will work itself out, but I tend to find that facts lead to a better outcome than half-truths and hearsay.
Labels: ttc
Suicide barriers a waste of TTC money - Toronto Star
I don't know why, but I find myself mostly disagreeing with most of the posts in the Toronto Star's Your City, My City series. The
most recent post is about the plan to install suicide barriers at selected subway stations, and the writer feels that the money is better spent lowering the fares or hiring observers to watch for distressed individuals on the platform. The first part is nowhere near true, as a one-time $30 million injection (the value of this project) would only lower fares a few cents for a few months. The second part has merit, but we have to consider all of the benefits of suicide barriers:
- They prevent suicides and accidental death by physically preventing people from jumping in front of the train.
- They improve the subway's people-moving capacity. Generally, automated train control is necessary to ensure the train's doors line up with the barrier's doors. This automated control system will allow the trains to operate much closer together than would be safe with humans in control, and higher frequencies (not higher speeds!) means higher capacity.
- They almost eliminate the delays caused by trash blowing onto the electrified rail and igniting, triggering the trackside smoke detectors. Unless there is a fire in a nearby building, this is the likely cause of the near daily 10-15 minute delays on the subway.
Suicide barriers don't seem like a good investment on face, but when one considers all the benefits it begins to seem like a pretty good value.
Labels: politics, subways, ttc
Service change statistics
The TTC's next round of service changes come March 29, and you can
read all about them at their website. But, here are some interesting (or not) statistics I've pulled out of the data:
- There are 23 instances where service will increase
- The highest increase sees your wait drop by 15 minutes
- The lowest increase sees your wait drop by 15 seconds
- On average the wait for a bus will decrease by 4 minutes, 32 seconds
- There are 68 instances where service will decrease
- The highest decrease sees your wait increase by 10 minutes
- The lowest decrease sees your wait increase by 11 seconds
- On average, the wait for a bus will increase by 1 minute, 36 seconds
- Overall, waits for a bus will increase by 3.5 seconds on average
An instance is defined as a change made to service during a particular time of the day (AM peak, for example). If service is changing during the AM Peak and late evenings, for example, this would be two instances.
While service decreases are never good, I wonder if the average rider will even notice. Even so, here's hoping that the fall brings better service to all transit agencies across the region.
Labels: service changes, ttc
I miss those crazy things called maps
Both
Spacing and
Torontoist are reporting that the TTC's long awaited trip planner will launch within the next two weeks. According to Torontoist, here are some of the features we can expect:
- Calculating the best route, step-by-step instructions, maps, distances and departure arrival time based on two points.
- Trip times will be based on schedules, rather than real-time data.
- The planner should recognize addresses, intersections, and landmarks.
- Selecting the best route based on maximum walking distance, accessibility needs or certain kinds modes.
- Better accuracy over MyTTC.ca.
Trip planners don't put more buses on the road, but they do make getting around the city easier by literally pointing us in the right direction. They also make transit more attractive by eliminating the "I don't know when the buses run / don't know which bus to take" argument. But, I do have two concerns over the TTC's plans.
First of all, I think that the ability to remove certain modes (buses, streetcars or subways) from a trip request is a very bad idea. It really irks me when people would rather drive all the way downtown to avoid spending 20 minutes on a bus to the train station (sorry JTS!) and I feel that allowing riders to deselect buses or streetcars (and we all know that this is what will happen) encourages (or fails to discourage) this kind of behaviour. Secondly, I feel that a mobile version is absolutely necessary, as mobile web browsers do not handle these kind of trip planners very well. Google Transit is my personal favourite, as it can use a phone's GPS chip.
Joe Clark and I have sparred over this issue in the past, but, good sir, there is no reason why you cannot have yours and I cannot have mine concurrently.
FYI,
MyTTC.ca's written directions work with mobile devices.
Labels: municipal sillyness, ttc
Transit City measures up to international standard - Toronto Star
Metrolinx, which will be responsible for constructing and owning (they will likely contract day-to-day operation to the local transit agency) all new rapid transit lines built in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area,
has announced [Toronto Star] that the Transit City light rail lines to be built in Toronto will use standard track gauge. Most railways around the world run on rails spaced 4 feet, 8-1/2 inches apart. The TTC uses rails separated 4 feet, 10-7/8 inches apart. Some say that it was to prevent freight trains from using city streets, while other say it was to allow private wagons to use the ruts between the rails. This was Muddy York, afterall, and I remember reading something about a by-law that allowed for citizens to use the rails provided they did not delay streetcars... but I digress.
What does this mean for transit it Toronto? Some feel that moving to standard gauge will allow more companies to bid on the supply of vehicles, and more choice will result in more competitive prices. Others contend that it is the steep hills and sharp curves that keep many bidders away, and that modifying to TTC gauge does not have a noticeable effect on the price of a light rail vehicle. Some rebut that Transit City lines will not have the sharp curves and steep hills of downtown, so breaking down all - not some - barriers to using "off the self" equipment is appropriate. Others counter-rebut that this move will prevent connecting new lines to old lines to share storage yards and offer customers a one-seat ride into the downtown core.
From my perspective, there is no need to make an issue here. Downtown cars would never be able to travel on the Transit City network because they aren't double-ended, and Transit City cars would never be able to handle the curves of the downtown core. The systems have to be separated. Besides, what Metrolinx has said is that the Transit City lines will use standard gauge. But,, Transit City is merely a marketing name applied to the Mayor's vision. Routes like proposals Sheppard, Finch West and Eglinton can continue to be called Transit City lines, but what is stopping these agencies from rebranding projects like the St. Clair streetcar extension, the Waterfront West line, or any other line that requires a connection to the downtown network? They could be called "Toronto Streetcar Expansions", rather than Transit City, and constructing them to TTC gauge would not contradict what was announced today.
If the above is not possible, then there are
international precedents of trams using dual gauge tracks for running in the same right-of-way as incompatible systems. If that is not possible, then there are even wheelsets that automatically vary the width of the wheels to match a changing rail width.
They are used successfully in Spain, where high speed lines use standard gauge and traditional lines use a broad gauge.
Semantics are important, but we can't get bogged down in them!
Labels: light rail, ttc
Presto update
As an update to yesterday's post, TTC staff are now recommending that the commission approve the system-wide implementation of the Presto smart card. While there is no funding and there are conditions this is more of an approval-in-principle, but it's a very promising sign that the largest stumbling block is moving out of the way.
Labels: fares, politics, ttc
TTC steps up fight against fake passes and tokens
According to the Toronto Star, the TTC is installing new fraud detection devices in all its vehicle fare boxes and station turnstiles later next year to weed out fake passes and tokens. The new system will cost $1.5 million and will require metropass users to swipe their card when they board, but will apparently pay for themselves in less than a year due to the decrease in fare evasion.
This is all fine and good, but my fear is that they will declare "problem solved" and not commit to any other fare improvements. I have always been a big supporter of the Presto smart card currently being deployed on all of the 905 transit systems and GO Transit, and my experiences with SmarTrip in D.C. only solidified that. I believe in cutting down fare evasion, but incremental steps should not be an excuse against the move towards an integrated fare card which will have many of these anti-fraud systems already built in.
Labels: fares, GO Transit, municipal sillyness, ttc
Sunken treasures - or, why it has to be Google Transit
There are two main reasons why municipalities resist policy direction from upper levels of government. The first is something that I call the Fiefdom Theory - that municipal leaders know what is best for their communities and others should butt out. In many areas they do know best, but issues like development and transportation need to be addressed from a regional perspective. We are all going to have to intensify and build sustainable transportation to accommodate future growth, so there are many cases where we will need provincial policy to override a desire to stay low-density or to "do their own thing."
The other theory is an economic one - that municipal policy is expensive to develop and, in an era where most municipalities don't have a lot of money, to override carefully drafted plans is an exercise in flushing municipal cash down the drain. But again, there are times when we have to look at the bigger picture. Case in point, there are rumours that Brampton is opposed to a light rail line on Hurontario (which Mississauga seems to support) because they have sunk so much into their Acceleride rapid bus initiative. While most insiders agree that LRT is justified south of Square One, it is true that ridership begins to drop off the further north one travels. A case could be made to creep the LRT north - first to Square One, then to the new 407 park-and-ride station, then to Shoppers World - but stopping it there because of the sunken costs of an alternate proposal is not good planning.
Perhaps real reason for this post has become lost, but it's actually about trip planners. There's no question that an inability to comprehend complex schedules and transfers is a barrier to transit use, and a computerized trip planner is a good way of putting schedule information in the hands of riders. Some agencies have chosen to built their own trip planner, others have registered with Google Transit (an application inside Google Maps), and others have done both. But, there is a very good reason why we should exclusively recommend with the upmost strength the use Google Transit - the rise of the mobile internet.
Many of the in-house trip planners make heavy use of javascript and other advanced web programming languages, and these are often incompatible with the mobile browsers on Blackberry, iPhone and Android devices. With smartphones finding their way into the hands of more and more consumers, a compatible trip planner could give riders on-demand schedules and give them the confidence to leave their cars at home and explore the city. Riding from Oakville to Hamilton yesterday (and having no idea where I ended up), I used Google Transit to find transit directions from Eastgate Square back to the GO station - all while standing at a random corner in Stoney Creek. Had the Hamilton Street Railway used a in-house planner (as they once did) then this might not have been possible.
With Metrolinx and the TTC working on their own trip planners, we have an opportunity to make them more convenient for the users. Regardless of how much has been sunken into in-house planners, exporting the data in a Google-friendly format will do just what a trip planner is supposed to do - make finding schedules more convenient for users everywhere.
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
Labels: hsr, municipal sillyness, politics, ttc
Question of the Day - Late Night Parking Window
Living in 905 and being a student is very difficult, especially if you like to enjoy a night on the town every once in a while. The last GO buses of the night generally leave around 1:30, but this can be too early for many revelers. Driving to a TTC lot and taking the subway downtown gives you access to the blue night bus network for an extended evening, but what happens if you decide at the last minute to have a few drinks because your friend has a sofa for you to crash on?
According to GO Transit's by-laws, it is unlawful to leave a car parked at a GO station for more than 48 hours. Staying overnight and catching a morning departure back to your vehicle wouldn't put you anywhere near the limit, but what about on the TTC? The signs at commuter lots are very clear - no overnight parking is permitted at any lot between 2:00 am and 5:00 am. So, say I park at the Finch lot at 8 pm to meet my friends downtown for 9:00. If I stay at the bars until last call it would be approaching 3:00 before I returned to my vehicle. Am I parked illegally? What if I have had a bit too much to drink (and, knowing my body, fatigue alone may be "a bit too much") and decide to stay downtown for the evening? Will I get a ticket or be towed for trying to do the right thing?
No, I'm not planning to go on a bender in the future... I'm just looking for ways that we can encourage people to use transit during the times when the congestion deterrent turns in for the night.
Labels: GO Transit, ttc
Error of omission
A Royson James column in today's star brings to light the reflections of Howard Levine, retired planner, city councillor and transit buff, on the St. Clair West streetcar project. Suffice to say, he is not very happy with the direction the city has gone with the project.
While many of his concerns are about design elements (which are inherently subjective), one point did catch my attention. When the line is done, travellers will save one minute on a complete trip from Jane to Yonge. While this is true, it ignores one fact - that the one minute saving is over the scheduled time. Since the delays due to traffic are habitual for any mixed traffic-streetcar, the community will benefit from reliable and predictable service. Also, since there is a limit to the level of practical service that mixed-traffic operation can provide, the right-of-way will allow for more frequent service.
$100 million for a minute saved is not a good investment, but such a conclusion can only be reached if one ignores most of the other benefits of the project. $100 million for reliable, higher capacity transit, streetscape improvements, jobs and general community investment is a pretty good investment if you ask me.
Labels: light rail, streetcars, ttc
Quality of service
Adam Giambrone's Facebook profile is always interesting to read. Like a great blog, it generates dozens of comments on almost every post. I'm not ashamed to say that I'm jealous. But, this post isn't about his profile - it's about one particular comment posted a while back.
When the TTC chair posted that he was working on a note to explain why the subway cannot run 24 hours per day (due to necessary maintenance being conducted overnight), someone commented saying "One train an hour during off hours doesn't sound unreasonable... no? Or at least a train right after the bars let out!" Likely this would not fly as the power to the tunnels has to be cut entirely to ensure worker safety, but it got me thinking:
What is better from the perspective of the quality of service provided to the rider - a single subway train once an hour or a frequent night bus service every 10 minutes or better? Subways are viewed as a higher quality transit service than buses and would probably encourage people to stay out and enjoy the city later - in theory - but an hour is a very long time to wait for a train at 3am. If the choice is between waiting for up to an hour to get home and getting home immediately then I suspect that most people would choose the latter and take a cap or slug it out on the night bus. People will be willing to wait longer for a subway train than they will for a bus, but there is a limit. People will not use a service if it doesn't provide convenient departure times, and an hour between trains is really pushing it.
The same line of thinking can be applied to the off-peak train service on the Georgetown line. Currently there is an inbound train departure every two hours or so between 9 am and 2 pm and until recently, a departure every three hours after that. While the GO train is much more attractive than a GO bus, a departure every two hours has caused me to choose between arriving an hour-and-a-half early or a half-hour late to my appointments. From a quality of service perspective, buses running every half hour would be more convenient for the average user of the service.
But, what do you think? If our objective is to provide high quality transit service that is convenient for people to use then is it better to provide an infrequent train service or a very frequent bus service? Our aim should be very frequent train service, but as an interim measure should we invest our money in creature comforts or in frequency?
Labels: GO Transit, service changes, subways, ttc
(Paraphrased) Overheard on the Street
"I drove downtown today because it would have been like $12 to take the TTC with all the trips I have to do today... 'Cause it's $2.75 each way..."
With tokens it would be $2.25 each way, or a day pass would have been $9.00 flat. What disappoints me is that the decision this person made was as a result of not having the right information.
Labels: fares, ttc
Buy Canadian - If it works
Yesterday, Alstom decided to leave the bidding process, leaving Bombardier and Siemens as the remaining firms vying for the next generation streetcar contract. These vehicles will be longer to carry more passengers, will be accessible to those with mobility devices, and will have all-door boarding to reduce the time at stops and help keep service on schedule.
In these trying economic times it makes sense to me to award the contract to Bombardier (lets face it, either way there will be a significant minority of work done off-shore. But, Bombardier at least has their global headquarters in Canada), and
A Toronto Star article today reports on Bombardier plant workers begging for more work. In the first round of bidding, Bombardier's product was disqualified because they were not able to handle the tight curves of the system, primary at intersections. It is completely impractical to broaden these curves, as this could result in streetcars running onto the sidewalk or even requiring building demolitions. Awarding the contract to them would be irresponsible unless the vehicle they are proposing now is more capable.
A recommendation is expected to go to council on April 27th, and while I hope that we can use this contract to stimulate the economy within the province, it's pointless if the product we'll be receiving has a limited use.
In other news, the TTC is moving forward with their plan to eliminate free parking for metropass users at certain commuter parking lots. It's slightly unclear how people will respond to this measure, but I see it as being a factor of location. Drivers from the 416 will likely switch to feeder bus services, which are fairly frequent and will result in no additional cost. Those who must drive will have to make a cost-benefit analysis between parking at their workplace or parking at a commuter parking lot. In the 905, that same cost-benefit analysis will take place, but the feeder bus options are very limited due to poor coverage and poor frequencies on many routes compared to the 905. GO might become the preferred mode for some, but unless we improve bus service coverage in the 905, this move will be a net loss for our transit network.
Labels: GO Transit, politics, service changes, streetcars, ttc
Apples & Oranges
There's been a fair bit of debate in the forums lately about the best way to move people from the future growth centre at Richmond Hill Centre / Langstaff Gateway into the downtown core. The Yonge subway will be extended serve this new growth centre, essentially replacing VIVA Blue below Highway 7, but the Richmond Hill GO line will also be improved with 15 minute, high speed service. The issues I've had, however, is that the comparison between these two lines has been between apples and oranges - mainly comparing the future subway to the present day GO service. Doing this skews the results and is generally a poor way to decide which projects to advocate for. So, let's look at the future conditions of both lines:
Subway:In the future, it will be 22.5 kilometres straight down Yonge Street from Richmond Hill Centre to Union Station. Subways have an average speed of about 40 kilometres per hour, so this trip will take between 30 and 35 minutes. Since service on opening day is expected to be a train every 15 minutes (every 3rd train), a person who wants to go from Richmond Hill Centre to Union Station will spend between 30 minutes traveling (best case) and 50 minutes traveling (just missed the train case).
Train:The GO line between Langstaff station and Union station is 29.5 kilometres long, and since upgraded regional express trains are expected to average 80 kilometres per hour, the trip will take between 20 and 25 minutes. Since service is expected to run every 15 minutes, travel times could range between 20 and 40 minutes. If the train is rerouted along the CP Belleville subdivision through Leaside, we cut 2 kilometres from the route length, cut travel times to 20 minutes exactly and reduce the curves on the line that could slow the train down. Of course, this would put the line closer to houses and could be a more contentious proposal.
In order to come to these projections I've had to assume that the numbers forecasted by the RTP can be achieved. There will always be some uncertainty and cynicism here, but this has to be ignored because a) as-built conditions are beyond my technical expertise to forecast, and b) one can use the uncertainty argument to disprove anything. I believe it undermines the discussion almost as much as the "you don't live here so you don't understand" argument. I'm also making the assumption that a fare integration model is used which does not discriminate between taking the GO and taking the subway.
So what does this mean? On the surface, it means that the GO train will be 10 minutes faster than the subway from end to end. While the end-to-end trip only applies to a small percentage of subway riders, it means that it may be advantageous for someone coming from the terminus to take the GO and backtrack. From union station, this could potentially put the entire financial district within reach. Based on this, we can use the Richmond Hill GO line as one more tool to address the anticipated overcrowding on the subway extension, in addition to a DRL, higher capacity trains and automatic train control systems.
I guess what I've been trying to show here is that we have to remember to compare apples to apples when we're looking at alternatives to projects. It makes no sense to compare the future subway with the present-day GO train, especially when the same package that funds the subway improvements also funds the GO improvements. Secondly, we can't count out the Richmond Hill GO train as a tool for improving capacity in the Yonge Street corridor - possibly the most important transit corridor in the GTHA.
Labels: GO Transit, railways, subways, ttc, york region transit
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
