News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

Excellent read on
How Denver’s mile-high ambition is a road map for Toronto transit

by Rachel Mendleson News reporter
by Marta Iwanek Photographer/Videographer


from The Star, at this link.



The TTC, and Toronto, were leaders in public transit. Then anti-transit people, like Mike Harris, the Ford brothers, and their bootlickers & disciples, ruined it. Hopefully, the next group of politicians will correct things and Toronto & the TTC will return to being leaders in public transit.

This is funny, because in 2007 I worked in Denver and marvelled at how nice their transit system was. I guess they learned from our past, and created a beautiful transit system while we squandered and ruined ours... sad.*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
its $10 million a station from my understanding, so it would work out to around $750 million
My recollection in our past discussions about this, it was about $20 million per station.

In the 2013-2022 Capital budgetYonge-University-Spadina was costed at $550 million and Bloor-Danforth at $613.5 million for a total of $1.16 billion. This didn't include Leslie, and I don't think it included the future Spadina extension either.

That's almost $20 million per station for the Bloor-Danforth line, and a bit less for Yonge line - perhaps the outdoor ones are a bit cheaper.
 
TTC workers union unveils plan to fix troubled transit system

From The Star, at this link:

A landmark report from the TTC workers' union calls for more buses, more service and more comfort for riders.


Toronto could line its streets in reports on how to fix its troubled transit system, admits the president of the union that represents 10,000 TTC employees.

But Bob Kinnear says the labour group decided to release its own epic list of 68 costed recommendations to get the city moving to impress upon a new mayor and city council the gravity of the crisis facing the TTC.

The Amalgamated Transit Union report, called, Toronto’s Transit Future, is being released Monday. It coincides with a looming federal election next year and offers a dire warning that the TTC could collapse under the weight of neglect and the city’s booming population.

“(The lack of) transit is killing us economically, environmentally. As Torontonians we need to take a position that we are going to be unified to ensure we don’t continue down this road of stagnation,” said Kinnear.

He admits that riders will be weary of hearing the report’s key recommendations — that senior governments must pay more toward building and operating the TTC.

The people who know the system best — the TTC’s own employees — need a voice too during a perilous time in which ridership is at risk of out-stripping the system’s service capacity, he said.

The TTC is expected to carry another 60 million riders in the next four years. It will cost about $66 million more annually just to accommodate them at today’s inadequate service standards.

The $428 million subsidy that Toronto provided the TTC this year toward its $1.6 billion operating budget needs to grow to $612 million by 2018, says the report. A 5-cent fare increase will raise only about $23 million a year, according to the report.

“We have a federal election next year. If there’s one thing that came out of the mayor’s campaign, it is that we all agreed that we need the upper levels of government. The fact that we haven’t had any success doesn’t mean we should walk away from it,” he said. “We’ve got to stop begging and start demanding.”

Among the report’s recommendations: that the TTC immediately buy about 250, 40-foot buses, in addition to the purchases planned for the next three years. They would make room for more riders and allow for better maintenance to prevent breakdowns.

The union is also calling for an expedited analysis of mayor-elect John Tory’s SmartTrack plan to relieve TTC crowding by running electrified trains on the GO tracks around Toronto.

But building the project is almost secondary to analyzing the operating agreement between the city and the province on joint projects such as SmartTrack and the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, said Kinnear.

“What is the cost-sharing going to be on revenue? The slightest miscalculation could cost Toronto taxpayers tens of millions of dollars annually if that equation is not factored out right,” he said.

“I’m shocked that city councillors have not raised this issue,” said Kinnear.

Despite the tough talk, the report offers a supportive and measured response to many actions already under active consideration. It calls for more turn restrictions so transit vehicles aren’t held up by single-occupant cars. It recommends more transit priority at signalized intersections.

Of Toronto’s 2,200 signalized intersections, only 360 have transit priority technology that favours buses and streetcars. Of the 360, many don’t work.

The current technology is about 20 years old, Myles Currie of the Traffic Management Centre told the Star. Toronto plans to look at new systems and develop a strategy with the TTC. But he did not say how long that would take.

The report endorses many measures TTC managers recommended in August including, all-door boarding on streetcars; a 10-minute or better service network of buses and two-hour timed passes.

There’s even a hint of innovation. Among the more creative recommendations:

Boost the TTC’s Airport Rocket bus that runs out of Kipling Station. The bus will continue to provide affordable transport even after Metrolinx opens its new Union Pearson Express train next year. Rocket riders should get Wi-Fi on board the buses and a TTC fare vending machine at the airport. The Rocket should also get its own signage and brand.

Restructure the fare system with the widespread launch of the Presto fare card on the TTC to introduce weekend, 24-hour and quarterly passes.

Revisit a 2009 commitment to make sure that any bus or streetcar stop that serves more than 100 riders a day gets a shelter to protect riders from the elements.

Councillor Maria Augimeri, who chairs the TTC board, said the union’s report “was done with the good of TTC customers in mind.”

“It’s a careful and considerable study of the present state of disrepair and solid recommendations, very accurate recommendations for the future,” said Augimeri.

Criticizing former premier Mike Harris’s Conservative government for downloading operating of public transit on the city, Augimeri said the TTC has gone “from being the envy of the world to the clown.”
"Of Toronto’s 2,200 signalized intersections, only 360 have transit priority technology that favours buses and streetcars. Of the 360, many don’t work.

The current technology is about 20 years old, Myles Currie of the Traffic Management Centre told Torstar News Service. Toronto plans to look at new systems and develop a strategy with the TTC. But he did not say how long that would take."

The bad part is that the Transportation Services department is responsible for the traffic signals. The TTC may complain, but Transportation Services appears to not listen.

"Customer service excellence," Rob Ford boasted four years ago. Has not happened. You can't penny-pinch and have a good, if not the hoped for excellent, system.



Download the full Toronto's Transit Future from this link.

Download the summary Toronto's Transit Future from this link.



The ATU 113's website on Toronto's Transit Future is at this link.
 
Last edited:
One of the recommendations from the ATU 113 report:

Evaluating a “pulse transit” kind of schedule for the Blue Night Network.

Today the Blue Night system operates every 30 minutes, except for more frequent service on the Bloor and Yonge subway replacement routes. In the past, the TTC used a “pulse” system for its Blue Night system, but abandoned it when the network was expanded into the suburbs. Today many other systems still use a “pulse transit” where bus schedules are designed to minimize transfer times between routes. This is particularly important when vehicles come only every half an hour. By redesigning the system (perhaps changing routings) to help guarantee connections between major night routes, many of the four million plus annual Blue Night rides could be shortened considerably.




For information on pulse (or timed transfer) see this link.

A pulse is a regularly scheduled event, usually happening at the same time each hour, in which transit vehicles from a range of routes -- usually running every 30 or 60 minutes -- are scheduled to all meet together. A group of hourly local routes, for example, might all come to the pulse point between :22 and :25 after the hour and leave at :30. That way, nobody has to wait more than 8 minutes for a connection even though the services in question are hourly.
 
Last edited:
There was some talk about this in the other TTC thread. Haven't read the report, but I do think we should be looking at expanding our 60 foot fleet rather than our 40. It may mean less union jobs, but we have enough 40 foot buses for now.

Besides that, from the points listed it does seem pretty good.

I think we should wait a few years to see how our current ones age first. The last batch of `reliable, long-life` artic buses didn't fare very well.
 
I think we should wait a few years to see how our current ones age first. The last batch of `reliable, long-life` artic buses didn't fare very well.

You mean the ones using first generation articulated technology and built in the Soviet Union? Yeah, have a good feeling these ones will work out a little better.
 
Yeah, have a good feeling these ones will work out a little better.

So do I, and I'd gladly wave that kind of an inspection first if the buses had an 18 year warranty on all components. Even the best manufacturer warranties are geared toward American purchasing policies and have 12-years coverage for body/flooring (5 years on the engine).

Before picking up hundreds of the things it's in our best interest to ensure they won't need hundreds of thousands per bus after 6 years. The Hybrid buses were expected to be reliable for 18 years too.
 
Last edited:
You mean the ones using first generation articulated technology and built in the Soviet Union?

I don't know why people keep saying that was the case. The Ikarus buses were built in Hungary, which in 1986 or so had a more liberalized economy than the USSR and generally more sophisticated technology at its disposal.

The first-gen articulated technology wasn't even the issue: Ikarus supplied bus bodies (without even so much as doors or windows) to Orion, which took care of the rest. The problems were largely structural ones such as welding.
 
I think we should wait a few years to see how our current ones age first. The last batch of `reliable, long-life` artic buses didn't fare very well.

MiWay/MT has been using them for at least a decade (probably closer to two) - there is no need to re-invent the wheel, just look at their reliability stats. My guess is they don't last that long, but at the same time, you'd have to factor in the capital cost of purchasing additional non-artic buses and added labour costs (more drivers, more benefits).

AoD
 
Last edited:
MiWay/MT has been using them for at least a decade (probably closer to two) - there is no need to re-invent the wheel, just look at their reliability stats. My guess is they don't last that long, but at the same time, you'd have to factor in the capital cost of purchasing additional non-artic buses and added labour costs (more drivers, more benefits).

For some reason I thought MT vehicles were only expected to go through 1 rebuild with a ~15 year lifespan? Are they also using an 18 year expectation? If not, then great. Evidence achieved.

For some reason TTCs 18 year lifespan becomes 20 to 22 years by the time politicians actually make the replacement purchase, which is quite a bit longer.
 
For some reason I thought MT vehicles were only expected to go through 1 rebuild with a ~15 year lifespan? Are they also using an 18 year expectation? If not, then great. Evidence achieved.

For some reason TTCs 18 year lifespan becomes 20 to 22 years by the time politicians actually make the replacement purchase, which is quite a bit longer.

Except I am not sure if one should shackle the expectations by imposing a 18 year lifespan (or a lifespan of any kind) - the true effectiveness should be considered combining capital and operating cost.

AoD
 
Except I am not sure if one should shackle the expectations by imposing a 18 year lifespan (or a lifespan of any kind) - the true effectiveness should be considered combining capital and operating cost.

That's certainly true, but vehicle lifespan plays a large piece in that equation. A change in lifespan of 3 years can add/remove $10k to any given years cost allocation. Much of the reduction in driver pay is offset by an increase in maintenance costs (both equipment like larger lifts and staff).
 
Last edited:
MiWay/MT has been using them for at least a decade (probably closer to two) - there is no need to re-invent the wheel, just look at their reliability stats. My guess is they don't last that long, but at the same time, you'd have to factor in the capital cost of purchasing additional non-artic buses and added labour costs (more drivers, more benefits).

AoD

The TTC relying on another system's testing? They'll find an excuse to delay...."Mississauga has a much different climate and user base than Toronto"!!
 
The TTC relying on another system's testing? They'll find an excuse to delay...."Mississauga has a much different climate and user base than Toronto"!!

Well, maybe not that blatant about the climate. Perhaps something subtle, like the average weight of the riders in the city, the different chemical makeup of roadsalt used, etc.

AoD
 

Back
Top