Toronto LRT Information Blog

Update: the interview mentioned here is available on Newstalk 1010’s website by downloading the February 2 Jerry Agar show. To save you going through the whole show, I have a copy of just the interview by clicking here (this is 5.2 MB).

This morning, Councillor Norm Kelly was on the Jerry Agar show on Newstalk 1010 speaking on why the Eglinton-Crosstown line should be underground for the entire route. He outlined five factors that are looked at to decide whether something should be underground or at grade. For a councillor who is in his second term on the TTC commission, he quite clearly doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground, but what do you expect from the city’s number one flip-flopper?

Allow me to go through he points he made:

1. Speed. He claimed that the underground option is 70% faster.I don’t know where he gets this figure from, none of our other subway lines have an average speed that is 70% faster than the expected average speed of the original plan for the LRT on Eglinton. Perhaps he is comparing the average speed of the original plan with the top speed the vehicles are capable of doing. Top speed means nothing if you have to stop to pick up passengers, something that is rather important for a mass transit system.More importantly, speed of the line itself means nothing without the bigger picture of what the typical commuter’s average travel time will be. The underground option will eliminate a number of stops on the line, which helps increase the average speed of the line, but dramatically increases the average amount of time the typical commuter takes to get to where they are going as they now need extra time to get to a stop that is farther away from where they are coming from or where they are going.
    
2. Capacity. Underground can carry more people than a road median surface alignment. Yes and no. Underground, we could easily run five-car trains, but the practical upper limit to train length for a road median alignment is only three cars. The trouble is, the underground stations are being designed for only a three-car length. There is a “utility” section at each end that will likely still have level track, so it is conceivable that the stations could be expanded for four-car trains, but that is it.The underground section can move faster with the use of ATO, but one must consider just how much capacity is needed where. The central core that was to be mostly underground in the Transit City plan needs higher capacity capabilities for future needs, but does that mean the expense of that capacity should be spent for the entire line. One of the big advantages of LRT is the ability to move from an area of high capacity in a dedicated right of way, to a reserved median or side-of-the-road right of way, to even a mixed with traffic operation. This latter example is not part of any of the Transit City plans, but is a viable way of extending a line further out in the suburbs at a lower cost where the need warrants.
3. Building for Today or for Tomorrow. This is always a biggie, particularly with arguments for full subway. The claim that need for the line will outgrow capacity at some point. This often ignores that there is a significant amount of overlap in capacity between different modes. Just because we need to justify 10,000 ppdph to say that a full subway is needed today does not mean that LRT falls apart the day the needs reach that figure.Furthermore, the lower cost of building at-grade LRT allows us to meet the needs of today and for a significant time in the future economically while allowing the construction of parallel LRT services on other corridors to cover future growing capacity. Instead of spending X dollars on a single line that has a huge capacity that will not be needed for some time (or maybe not ever), spend X/3 dollars to build a line that meets today’s needs and the needs for the next couple of decades. During that time, another X/3 dollars can be spent to build a parallel line 4 km away on another main corridor to double the capacity AND be more convenient to people closer to the other corridor. The bonus is that WHEN a problem shuts down a line, there is a back-up available for commuters.
4. Impact. A median right-of-way has a significant impact on the street.Sure it does, but this is sometimes a good thing. Certainly at Yonge and Eglinton, it would be a bad thing, but Transit City recognized that and placed the line underground there. Out in Scarborough, Eglinton was designed as a major artery with a minimum 7-lane road allowance. Median right of way has a very positive impact in this environment, and it is often overlooked that the elimination of buses taking up road space improves this impact even more. An underground line with longer station spacings will still require buses to clog up traffic.
5. Cost. Underground costs more, but Kelly claims that operational savings will outweigh this in the long run.What operational savings? There may be some when it comes to station maintenance, since there will be fewer stations to maintain. Longer trains does reduce operational cost, since more people can be carried with a single operator, but don’t forget the underground stations will only be three cars long.Does Kelly expect the east end of the line to grow in capacity to the point that the masses will cry to have it put underground? The money to put this part of the line underground should be used to provide rapid service to other parts of the city that need it now.

The Transit City plan for Eglinton-Crosstown was not perfect. The TTC was very pig-headed about some issues, such as ballasted tie construction at the side of the road where practical. It is true that there are very few places in Toronto where this is practical, but parts of the Eglinton-Crosstown route are ideal for it. From the east portal of the underground section to Don Mills, the line should be built along the south side of Eglinton and not down the middle. Don Mills station was to be underground, and the line may remain underground to just east of the Don Valley Parkway. Between there and Victoria Park, it is possible to place it on the north side of the road and have it move to the middle of the road on an elevated structure at VP.

I have read of some problems that people have had with Presto and, for the most part, they mainly had to do with applying for and activating the card online. I am also aware of an issue when tapping onto a vehicle when another RFID card is near the Presto card, such as a credit card equipped with this technology. Until now, I have never run into a real problem.

All that changed last week when my daughter returned to school after the break. We didn’t think to check her Presto balance until the evening of Sunday January 8. At that time, it was $2.90 and I did a $20 I-POS transfer, knowing it would take about 24 hours to get to her card. With the continuing strike at YRT, she would be getting a ride to school in the morning and wouldn’t need to use the card until the afternoon. The new ticket price for student fare is $2.10, so there would be enough to cover her until the e-purse load occurs.

At the end of Monday January 9, her e-purse balance was $0.80, still awaiting the $20 load. She did not need to use transit until Wednesday afternoon and boarded as usual. The bus she boarded had a non-working Presto terminal, so there was no need to top on. Her next use of transit was not until Friday after school, when she again tapped on without her nor the operator noticing an error, though one of her friends indicated she thought she saw a red light on the terminal. She needed a second fare a few hours later on Friday and when she tapped on, the operator indicated that there were insufficient funds on the Presto card, so she had to pay the cash fare of $3.50.

Looking at her card online Friday evening, it only showed a balance of $0.80 and the transaction from the Monday that brought it down to that balance. I called Presto’s customer service line and they could see that the card went into a negative balance and could see the load but could offer no explanation as to why the load was not there by the Wednesday. They also could not do anything about bringing it “out of a negative balance” over the phone, and that I would have to either go to a GO station or a transit operator’s customer service office.

This will cost me $2.80 (plus my time), and since I have my daughter’s Presto card, she is using my wife’s card to get to school, which will charge us $0.70 more than necessary (adult ticket/Presto fare is $2.80 and student ticket/Presto fare is $2.10).

Will they be able to restore her Presto card balance and reimburse today’s costs plus the extra amount paid on Friday ($1.40 - $3.50 cash fare was paid instead of $2.10)?

Stay tuned…

Update at 10:45 am: I am reasonably happy with the results of this, but that may only be because my daughter received a “free” trip last week. I do have some new understanding into the workings of Presto.

When there is not enough balance on the card when it is tapped, one of two things will occur. If your card is not registered, it will be denied. If your card is registered, it will be allowed to enter into having a negative balance. I suspect this occurred with my daughter tapped on the first trip on Friday. The terminal probably did display a red light, but the operator likely did not receive a message that the fare was invalid.

When this occurs, the card is locked. At this point, nothing can be done with the card until the negative balance plus a 25 cent service charge is paid. This can only be done at a GO station or at a transit operator’s customer service centre. This wasn’t totally made clear by the Presto representative I spoke with on Friday. They did say that the card could only be unlocked, but mentioned nothing about what was needed. It doesn’t matter if there is a new balance to be loaded onto the card, because it can’t be loaded while the card is locked. Ergo, that balance cannot be used to pay what is needed to unlock the card. Oddly, in looking at the transactions on my daughter’s card, there is no transaction that deducted $2.10 from the balance of $0.80. There were two attempts to load the $20.00 when it was locked, so the balance remained at -$1.10. Why it wasn’t -$1.30 is a mystery.

I was hoping to leave YRT’s office with a $19.40 balance on my daughter’s card, which was $20 less the trips she took last week, plus the costs of all this mess. I had to pay $1.35 ($1.10 negative balance plus $0.25 service charge) to get the card unlocked, leaving it’s balance at zero. The load would not take place until a balance check was done on the card, though why they could not perform that operation at the YRT office is another mystery. If one goes there to pay and add a balance on the card, it is loaded immediately. I suspect there is a way the office can do a balance check, but lack of training prevents them from doing so. Since Richmond Hill Centre terminal is a five minute walk from the offices, I immediately went there to perform a balance check. The balance now showed $20. Given that I had to pay $1.35, the net effect is $18.65.

Much of YRT and all of VIVA are now in their fifth week of a strike and little is being done. The unions are asking for arbitration and for York Region to get involved. The Region is saying it is not their problem.

My opinion is that the Region has a duty to get involved and bring in binding arbitration between the contractors and their unions. My reason is simple: York Region created the mess, and it is their responsibility to fix it.

I would like to ignore the argument about transit being an “essential service”, but that always comes up, so let me explain my position on that to get it out of the way. I put it in quotes because I know that others will differ on what the word “essential” means. When the TTC was being made an essential service, someone argued that they should not because they are not necessary in a life and death situation. I don’t buy that definition of “essential”. I equate “essential” with whether or not one has the choice to pay for it. By my definition, everything the government does itself is “essential” because we don’t have the option to not pay a portion of our taxes because we don’t make use of certain services they provide.

Quite frankly, if is not “essential” then the government should NOT be doing it. The exception to this is where it may be necessary for the government to oversee and manage a service for the better good the community, but not actually implement it themselves. Garbage collection is a good example of this. I want the government to set the standards and schedules, but they don’t actually have to have their own employees do the work, so it can be contracted out.

As much as I believe that ALL government workers are “essential”, and therefore should NOT have the right to strike, I also believe that any workers for a private company SHOULD have the right to strike. Therefore, it must be realized that when a service is deemed necessary for the government to oversee, but not essential for them to implement, then by contracting it out, there is the possibility that the workers of the private contractor could go on strike. That is a fair trade off, and it is the responsibility of government to minimize the possibility.

This brings us back to transit operations. Should it be essential or not? That question can only be answered on an operator by operator basis. The TTC is a significant life force of Toronto. With about a 40% modal split for commuters, it is perhaps best if it were not only managed by, but operated by the city. As such, it is “essential”. In York Region, the modal split is closer to 5%. Not to suggest that those 5% of commuters are unimportant, but as we have seen, there are ways to get around. In addition, contracting creates a situation where part of the system continues to operate during a labour dispute. I does make me wonder how it is possible for three of the four contractors to have collective agreements that expired at the same time.

Now that I have given my position on “essential service” and contracting out, what do I mean by, “York Region created the mess, and it is their responsibility to fix it”?

Quite simple: while contracting out opens up the possibility of strike action, it is the government’s responsibility to minimize that. The clowns that run York Region somehow signed contracts that outlive the collective agreements that the contractors have with their unions. Just last year, the division that is currently still operating nearly had a strike, but managed to sign a new collective agreement. Just months after that, YRT signed a new FIVE YEAR deal with the contractor. How much do you want to bet that their collective agreement expires before the new contract does?

It is extremely important to NEVER give a contract that outlives a collective agreement currently in place. If the collective agreement expires in 20 months, then sign them for 19 months with a provision that they will be resigned without the need to tender once a new collective agreement is in place (barring any other condition of the contract that may result in the loss of the contract). One might suggest that this would deter potential contractors from bidding. If that is the case, then the alternative is to have a clause in the contract that allows the operator to use another contractor should they not be able to deliver service. Can’t be done? I did that when I built my own home. The contract that my subcontractors signed allowed me to CANCEL their contract if a labour dispute stopped their work for more than three days.

York Region must get involved to fix the current problem. Then, they must implement policy that forbids the signing of contracts that outlive contractors’ collective agreements. I am thinking of turning this second point into a campaign for the next municipal election. York Region councillors beware!

I noticed this announcement:

Starting Tuesday, November 1, GO Transit is responding to passengers who asked for more stops along the 71 Uxbridge - Union route. Starting that day, both north- and southbound buses drop off or pick up passengers on Tenth Line at Sleepy Hollow Lane, beside the entrance to the Sleepy Hollow Golf and Country Club. The new stops are just north of Lincolnville GO Station.

Is is just me, or wouldn’t this be more appropriate if it were to start on Monday October 31 (Hallowe’en)?

In a posting last week, Steve Munro opines that, “the TTC is hurt by the absence of small, regular fare increases to cover, at least in part, its increasing costs.”

I agree that fares should at least increase with inflation. Small increases have little to no effect on ridership, but holding fares the same puts more pressure on those fares as costs rise and eventually a nasty jump in fares is needed that has a drastic effect on ridership.

In yesterday’s Toronto Star, columnist Heather Mallick speaks against this idea claiming a hike is like “poison for the poor”.

Mallick must not be a frequent user of the TTC, as she tries to make the case that the working poor are paying the $3 cash fare to get to and from work each day instead of purchasing 10 tokens for $25 once per week. She claims that coming up with $25 to purchase tokens ten at a time can be a hardship for the working poor, but this is really a personal planning issue. She claims that a 10 cent fare increase adds up to a dollar per week that the working poor don’t have, while making the claim that the poor must be already spending $5 per week by paying cash fares.

I say she must not be a frequent user of the TTC because, unlike other GTHA transit agencies, the TTC does not make its riders purchase TEN tokens in order to be able to get on board for $2.50 instead of $3.00. Every location where tokens are sold will sell five for $12.50. In addition to this, some subway stations have token machines that will sell you 4 for $10 or 8 for $20. Granted, these machines do not accept five dollar bills, but many stations will sell you tokens in 4 and 8 quantities from the collector booth, even though those quantities do not appear on the “official” fare chart. I know from personal experience that tokens are sold in 4 and 8 in addition to 5 and 10 quantities at Don Mills station. The collector booth has a hand-written sign indicating the 4 for $10 and 8 for $20 availability.

Is purchasing $10 of tokens every two days that much of a hardship for someone needing to carry $6 each day?

Incidently, for those using a transit agency other than the TTC that now accepts Presto, it is now easy to add $10 to the card balance at a time online, instead of having to go out and purchase 10 tickets at a time.

Mallick also holds the point of view that transit should be free because it has a social value. I agree that it has a social value, but is that a reason for it to be free? I argue that things that are ‘free’ (meaning that you don’t pay as you use it, but through general taxes) are too easily taken for granted. So much so, that when budgets are tough, cuts are made far too easily by those in charge and the public does not get mobilized against those cuts until it is too late. When the public must pay something for a service, there is an inherent interest in making sure it continues. When cuts are being considered, well before they are a done deal and often when they are just trial balloons, people get motivated and take action. How much of the cost should be paid by the user versus covered by general taxes is a whole other debate, but zero fares leads to zero concern for preservation of service.