About the same time this was happening, the Presto smart fare card was being field tested ahead of a full roll-out over the next year. Presto could have made this fare increase more manageable, but mass media details on how it will work for the rider have been slim. Many of the questions being raised have already been answered, but the information isn’t really getting out to the public. So, here’s some reflections on what Presto can do for the riders in the GTHA.

What is Presto?

Presto is a debit-style, RFID fare card that will eventually be used to pay transit fares in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area. After you purchase the card for $6, you can load a minimum of $10 onto the card and hold a maximum value of $320 dollars. If you choose to register your card, you can sign up for auto top-ups that will add value to your card when your balance drops below a certain level. The auto top-up can be anywhere between $20 and $300. Registering also lets you recover your balance if you lose your card, allows a transit tax credit receipt to be downloaded, and lets you finish your trip as long as your balance is greater than zero when you set out.

When can I use it?

Right now you can use at Bronte GO Station, Oakville GO Station, Union Station (TTC, only if you are boarding) and on Oakville Transit routes 22, 32 and 110.

In the spring you’ll be able to use it on the Lakeshore West, Georgetown and Milton lines, on Oakville Transit, Burlington Transit, and at 6 more TTC subway stations – Bloor-Yonge, College, Dundas, Queens Park, St. George & St. Patrick.

In the fall you’ll be able to use it on the Lakeshore East, Barrie and Richmond Hill lines, Mississauga Transit, Brampton Transit, the Hamilton Street Railway and at Kipling and Islington Subway Stations.

In winter 2011 you’ll be able to use Presto on Durham Region Transit, York Region Transit, the Stouffville line and at Don Mills, Downsview and Finch subway stations.

2011 will also see Presto come online for OC Transpo riders in Ottawa, and the TTC’s full roll-out should be complete around 2013, according to Adam Giambrone’s twitter feed.

How does it work on local transit?

Instead of dropping coins or tickets into the fare box, you tap your Presto card onto the reader and your fare is deducted. That’s it. When you transfer from one route to another, you tap again and the card will figure out if you’re eligible for a free transfer. The individual transit providers will be able to set their own fare rules, so the transfer period could vary from 90 minutes to two hours from the time you first pay, and could include free transfers from other agencies.

The amount that you will actually have to pay depends, again, on the individual transit system. Some will allow you to load a monthly pass onto your card, but others will eliminate passes completely and move to a frequent rider program. On Oakville Transit, the following fare scheme is planned for trips taken within a calendar month:

Trips 1 – 8 : Adult Cash Fare
Trip 9 : 50% off Adult Cash Fare
Trip 10 : Free
Trips 11 – 35 : Adult Ticket Fare
Trips 36 + : Free

By the end of the month you’ve paid about the same as you would have if you had purchased a monthly pass, and each system could make the scheme break even by modifying the point at which your rides become free.

The main benefit of frequent rider programs like this is that you don’t have to pre-plan your monthly travels. You pay for what you use up to the value of the monthly pass, then you’re free for the rest of the month. If you ride less you pay less. This program is also more affordable, as you can deposit the value over time instead of in one lump sum. Because of these benefits to the customer, I would hope that all transit agencies abandon monthly passes and move to frequent rider programs.

How does it work on GO Transit?

Just like on local transit, Presto works by tapping-on when you board and tapping-off when you reach your destination. However, GO riders will be able to set a default trip that simplifies the process. When you make your default trip, you only have to tap-on at the start. If you are making a different trip then you can override the default, but you’ll have to remember to tap-off.

In addition to how you pay, what you pay will also change. Like Oakville appears to be doing, GO is planning on phasing out monthly passes and 10-ride tickets in favour of a frequent rider program:

Trips 1 – 10 : Adult cash fare
Trips 11 – 20 : 5% discount
Trips 21 – 30 : 20% discount
Trips 31 – 35 : 30% discount
Trips 36 – 40 : 65% discount
Trips 41 – 45 : 95% discount
Trips 46+ : 95% discount

If you ride every workday in a month, you’ll pay about the same as you would if you purchased a monthly pass – but you didn’t have to purchase the pass in a lump sum. If you ride less, you pay less. But, if you more then you’ll pay about 30-cents per trip instead of riding for free. This might inconvenience a few heavy users, but there are three changes to sweeten the deal. First, you’ll won’t have to keep a separate ticket for the occasional side trip. Riders who keep one ticket for Union to Brampton and another for Union to Bramalea will appreciate this. Second, the way the fare-by-distance system is calculated will change to better reflect the actual distance travelled. In time, this will fix some of the fare quirks involving York University. Third, if the transit system participates in the co-fare program, the Presto system will automatically adjust the fare if the rider uses local transit to get to or from the GO station.

Since there are no fare gates on GO Trains, a rider won’t encounter a problem if they have to change trains to complete their journey. They simply have to tap on in Brampton, tap-off in Pickering, and do nothing at Union. The system will consider this one trip and will not charge the $3.95 base fare twice. However, the policies for GO buses will have to be a little different. It’s safe to assume that you’ll have to tap-on when you board the bus (how will the driver know if you’ve paid or not?), but how will this affect an active trip? Will the driver ask you to tap-off when you leave, and how will this affect a default trips that has been programmed? How long will you have to transfer between routes before the system concludes that a new trip has begun? I’m sure these questions will be answered once GO buses are added to the rollout in the fall, but all that really matters is what the rider has to do. The system, if well designed, will do all the calculations and ensure that the right fare is charged.

Conclusions

The Presto smart card is going to revolutionize how we think about paying for transit services, and is the first stepping stone to a true region-wide integrated fare payment system. Instead of dealing with a rainbow of tickets, tokens and passes and waiting in line to pay a fare, riders will be able to show up at the stop and get moving. From my perspective, the biggest change is the frequent rider program (“virtual monthly passes”, as I call them). They do have numerous advantages as I’ve described above, but there is a certain psychological comfort in knowing that you have an all-you-can-eat pass (except when you lose it). Is that feeling really important, or does it really matter what it looks like as long as the price is the same at the end of the day?

Oh… And don’t poke a hole in it to put it on a chain. That will wreck it.

Photo source: Flickr user wyliepoon (The Great).

During the fall of 2009, my typical commuter into the city started with a five minute bike ride to the bus stop, an hour trip into the city, followed by another five minute bike ride from Union to campus. Compared to a fifteen minute drive to the station, five minutes of hunting for a parking spot, a fifteen minute drive to the far station (if I’m unlucky) and a 30 minute train trip into the city, my commute became less stressful, less expensive and more environmentally friendly. But, it’s not only about commuting. Having a bike that can be taken onto the regional transit system puts most of the region’s trails in easy reach. While it might not be feasible to bike the entire Humber River trail as a round trip, taking the bus up to Humber College and biking back down is doable. The Don River, Taylor Creek and Waterfront Trails, to name a few, are all easily accessible by transit. Now, thanks to the installation of bike racks on buses, this enhanced mobility isn’t limited to people with folders.

GO Transit, Burlington Transit, Brampton Transit and the Hamilton Street Railway have outfitted their entire bus fleets with bumper mounted bike racks, Oakville Transit and the TTC have racks available on some routes, and Durham Region Transit and York Region Transit are expected to install bike racks within the next few years. These racks are dirt cheap – about $1000 each – so a medium-sized fleet can be outfitted for less than the cost of a new bus. Each rack can accommodate two bicycles, take less than 15 seconds to load, and only require the physical strength necessary to lift your own bicycle. In addition to people taking their bicycles out to the country-side to explore an otherwise inaccessible trail, these racks will benefit commuters who live too far from their destinations to cycle the entire way but also live just beyond walking distance of the local bus stop. On top of that, these racks could benefit anyone who has a cycling trip that crosses Davenport – a rider bomb down the hill in the morning and take the bus back up in the afternoon (even in rush hour). Hardcore riders who take pride in tackling the hill may not use them, but they can add flexibility and increased mobility to anyone who already does or has ever wanted to commute by bicycle.

In the GTHA there are two basic types of bicycle racks:

The Byk-Rak 2-position model is used by the HSR and GO Transit, while Byk-Rak branded bumper mounts have been spotted on some Mississauga Transit buses. These use a spring-loaded locking arm that has to touch the front tire to lock safely. They can accommodate bikes with 16 inch wheels, but you may have to remove the front fender on smaller-wheeled bikes to ensure the arm makes contact with the tire. Here’s a handy video from the HSR on how to use them.

The Sportworks DL-2 model is used by the TTC, Oakville, Burlington and Brampton Transit. The locking mechanism here is a hook that is lifted as high over the tire as possible (wedge it between the tire and the fender if necessary, the TTC says), just like in this video from San Francisco. But, there is an issue with these racks. The transit agencies claim that these racks can accommodate 16-inch wheels, the manufacturer says that they can accommodate 20-inch wheels, and some TTC drivers have quoted me a 22-inch wheels minimum. I’ve never had a problem with my 20-inch folder, but I am calling on officials from all transit agencies across the GTHA that use Sportworks bike racks to clarify their rules once and for all  – so that eager riders don’t get left at the curb.

Bike racks on buses should not be a substitute for an extensive network of bike routes and on-street bike lanes across the region, but they are a great helper service for people who either want to commute by bike or want to take transit but aren’t interested in a 30 minute walk to the bus stop. The region we live in may not have been designed to encourage sustainable transportation choices, but low-cost projects like this can help correct those mistakes. Being Bike Month in Toronto, it’s a great time to try cycling to work or at least exploring the many ravine trails by bike. If doing so from your home isn’t feasible then give the bike racks a try and enjoy the enhanced mobility that I’ve enjoyed for the past year.

Once you use a rack you won’t go back – until winter at least.

Credit for the first photo goes to Flickr user mr brown. Credit for the second photo goes to Flickr user jochemberends. Both photos are Creative Commons licensed.

Engineering students at the University of Toronto displayed working models answering these, and many other questions, at the 2009 PRAXIS II Design Showcase all day Wednesday, April 15, 2009.  For the past couple of years, PRAXIS has focused on the TTC, noted third-year student Jane Chiu, because the students developed a particular interest in local public transit; fourth-year student Kristen Facciol explained that previously, PRAXIS had not been focused on one theme. 

First-year engineering students began the term by identifying and researching issues of TTC usability, accessibility, and sustainability.  They settled on six design challenges.  Each team of students produced a project proposal for one of them, according to Alan Chong and Jason Foster, their instructors.  And each team’s project included a cost estimate.

Two themes kept coming up as I spoke with teams and examined their projects.  The students made explicit the need for passengers to learn new behaviours.  Sean Sit, for example, termed this a process of cultural change.  And many teams explained the way they had adapted technologies successful elsewhere in Toronto and elsewhere in the world to meet the challenges of these new tasks.

The limited area meant teams took turns displaying their projects.  The displays were engaging, and the students clearly and eagerly explained their work.  I regret my other commitments meant I couldn’t be there all day.  I’m sure I missed a lot.  Here’s a summary of what I learned, organized according to the six challenges.

A: Improving Passenger Safety Near the TTC’s Exposed Subway Tracks

Team 56: Armin Hamta, Jason Hambrey, Goce Jankuloski,

Team 56 with GTA Transit Advocate Dave Fisher

This team recommends installing emergency stop buttons under the tracks, which passengers who fall can reach.  They also advise installing infrared cameras for track area observation, with computerized data analysis, so TTC personnel can immediately notify drivers if a person is detected on the tracks.

Team 64: Kevin Choi, Hyung Jin Lee, Hui Lin

Team 64

Spring-loaded platform doors are pushed aside by passengers walking through the openings to board trains, then close automatically to protect passengers when no train is in the station.

Team 67:  Syed Tamzid, Michael Tang, Elton Zhang

Team 67

Sturdy plastic barriers, lowered to below platform level (by infrared photo sensors activating pneumatic controls) when trains arrive, will prevent accidents, homicides, and suicides.  Installation can be adapted to all subway stations.

B: Solving the Heat Loss Problem

Team 34:  Navid Nourian, Aakash Sahney, Hamed Shalileh

Team 34

Thin piezoelectric panels, positioned where every passenger will step on one or more (without noticing them), can capture the force of each step to power ambient systems on the TTC, such as lighting.  These panels convert mechanical pressure to electrical energy.  The technology is in use on one subway line in Japan; this team believes the Bloor-Yonge station, Toronto’s busiest, is the place to start here, explaining that, because climbing and descending stairs concentrates a person’s mass, this process is very efficient. 

Team 58:  Michael Lee, Cheng Bo Li, Steven Yu

Museum Station was the site for this team’s project.  They recommend subway platform sliding doors, made of two glass panels with inert insulating gas in between, to reduce noise, and heat loss from wind chill, yet permit light transmission.  These doors would also increase passenger safety.

C: Improving Way-finding Signage on the TTC

Team 74:  Colin Merkel, Jordan Ponn, Zongyi Yang, Jaeeun (Angela) Yoo

Team 74

Colour-coded signage at subway stops, with a strip on the floor of each colour for passengers to follow, will help people in subway stations find the routes, buses, and exits  they want.

Team 78: Jason Deng, John Qin, Guang Wei Yu 

Team 78

This team developed a number of signage recommendations.  They want a consistent font and uniform arrows, in white letters on black (to avoid difficulties for the colour-blind), with essential information only.  They advise ensuring that all signs be positioned consistently for visability, and lit well.

D: Service Delays Caused by the Inefficiency of Passenger Dynamics Into and Out of Subway Cars

Team 27:  Glen Chao, Tim Cheng, Ray Ger

Team 27

Subways in Singapore, Stockholm, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Turin, Paris and Taipei were all evaluated by this team.  They recommend vertical light tubes, next to doors, that flash at boarding time, plus two different audible signals, one when doors are about to close, and a more urgent sound as doors are closing, to increase boarding efficiency.  As a train leaves a station, thermal people-counters in each car will transmit information to the next station, so those waiting can position themselves on the platform where the least-crowded cars will stop.  Results from this team’s electronic survey indicate that passengers are likely to use this information to decide where to stand.

Team 35:  Kevin Cho, Garrett Kuhlmann, Ashton Wu

Team 35

These team members believe replacing the amber warning lights on the TTC cars with signals that flash green as the doors open, yellow once the operator decides to close the doors, and red when the doors are closed, as well as making the audible signals adjustable, depending on platform noise, will improve travel efficiency.  ”It’s so simple,”  says Kuhlmann.  ”That’s the beauty of it!” 

 Team 38:  Sean Sit and Aditya Thakare

Team 38

Doors will become mono-directional rather than bi-directional: passengers will only be able to exit or enter from each door.  Platforms will be marked so passengers know where to stand to board the trains.  As well, an LED count-down (like those on Toronto’s traffic lights, which are believed to have reduced pedestrian fatalities) above each set of doors on each TTC car will help passengers decide whether they have enough time to enter.  These visual signals would be paired with audible signals.  

Team 70: Victor Feng, Owen Tao, Francis Teng

Team 70

Turnstiles installed on the yellow strips at the edges of platforms, located exactly where doors will be when subway cars stop (with one at the security car wheelchair-accessible) will prevent delays due to overcrowding, door-holding, and door-blocking.  

E: Revising TTC Bus Interiors to Maximize Space and Boost Passenger Satisfaction

Team 66: Sarah Boetto, Yenson Lau, Eric Ma, Bahing Sivapathasundaram

Team 66

A U-shaped seating area, around the inside perimeter of the back of the bus, will increase seating capacity, while making empty seats more visible.  Extra space in the centre will encourage rearward passenger movement, especially if supplemented by a large row of arrows on the bus floor, pointing to the rear.  These arrows will be clear to passengers who cannot read the current English ‘please move back’ signs.  

(Team Number Not Given):  Phil Chen, David Koo, Ben Ouyang

One way to solve bus overcrowding is to design buses to hold more people.  This team redesigned the Orion VII’s interior.  Seats that can fold will permit more standees during rush hours, and also create more centre space, which should encourage more people to move away from the doors.  Moving wheelchair areas closer to the entrance will increase efficiency; as well, providing a dual-purpose stroller/wheelchair section will make aisle space more consistently available.   

F: Improving the Emergency Response System on the TTC Subways to Decrease Delay Time and Increase Safety

Team 63:  Alex Piggott, Zhiyao Ma, Wenbo Yin

Team 63

This team addressed the poor sound quality of the current subway car radio system.  They recommend a two-way system in subway cars, to increase response speed, and a video camera system (for passenger privacy, activated only during emergencies).

I hope PRAXIS is publicized well next year:  it’s an exciting way to spend the day.  And I look forward to contributions to public transit improvement from this student cohort.

Photo credits:  Bill Michelson

On April 1st, the Government of Ontario announced funding a collection of transit projects across the GTHA. While many of the projects are in the central parts of the region, and there has been some criticism of this fact, these are the projects that are closest groundbreaking – some will see construction start next year. We can’t forget that we need to build a region-wide network, but we need to start somewhere.

Here’s what was announced:

• $1.4 billion to upgrade the VIVA Network and give vehicles their own lanes on the Yonge Street and Highway 7 corridors. Construction is to begin in 2009 with phased opening from 2011 to 2013.
  • VIVA has been an unprecedented success in the 905, and having ridden from Aurora to Finch Terminal today, I was very impressed to see how many people were riding the service in the more suburban areas of Richmond Hill. We did hit traffic around Major Mackenzie, so lanes will definitely make trips faster and more reliable.
• $1.4 billion to replace the Scarborough RT vehicles and extend the line to the Malvern community, though the exact cost will depend on the choice of technology. Construction could begin in 2010 and the line could open in 2015.
  • While we don’t know what kind of vehicles the refit will use, it’s safe to say that the line will have a higher capacity than before and that users coming from the northeast might be spending less time on local buses and more time cruising past traffic on the trains.
• $4.6 billion to construct the Eglinton-Crosstown line from Kennedy Station to Pearson Airport. This will include a tunnel under the narrowest sections of Eglinton from Leslie to Keele. Construction could begin in 2010 and the line could open in 2016. Technology choice may still be in the air, but the most commonly mentioned option is surface LRT with a central tunnel.
  • Whatever vehicle choice is made, Toronto needs a high-capacity crosstown line north of Bloor. The Eglinton-Crosstown line will provide this, and depending on the technology choice, there could be opportunities to interline the service with the Scarborough RT or the future Scarborough-Malvern line.
• $1.2 billion to construct the Finch West LRT from Humber College to Don Mills station. Construction could begin in 2010 and the line could open in 2013.
  • It’s fairly certain that this line will use surface light rail to replace the very busy #36 bus, adding capacity and reliability to the route. This line could eventually be extended to the proposed Woodbine Live! entertainment complex a few blocks south of the college and even to Pearson Airport. Malton is also within reach. On the east end, it appears that the line will continue past Yonge to Don Mills and Sheppard, passing Seneca College along the way. There has yet to be an announcement of what will happen on Sheppard, but the TTC board is recommending that the proposed LRT meet the subway at Don Mills station and the Sun is reporting that the mayor has been dropping hints left, right and centre.
• $3 million to finish the Hamilton rapid transit studies to recommend the preferred option for the east-west King/Main corridor and the north-south James Street corridor. The study should be completed in 2010.
  • Hamilton has been very proactive in pushing for rapid transit, and it could do wonders to revitalize the downtown core, especially in an era where the manufacturing base is declining. The city’s preferred option is light rail, so it will be interesting to see how things play out.

But wait! There’s more!

• On the Milton line:
  • An EA will be started to bring all-day service to the corridor, with an aim to complete the environmental study early next year. This will eventually end the parade of off-peak buses that currently serve the corridor.
  • The Streetsville bus garage will be expanded to hold more buses, including the potential for more double-decker buses.
• On the Lakeshore West line:
  • Tunnel, bridge and platform improvements will occur at Exhbitiion, Clarkson and Burlington stations to improve passenger flow and install snow-melting systems.
  • A fifth track will be constructed through the Exhibition station area. More tracks means more trains can pass through and reach Union Station more efficiently.
  • A train fueling station will be built at Aldershot to reduce the need to bring trains back to the main facility to be serviced, and will come in handy until electrification is complete as this facility can be built by November.
  • Bus service to Niagara will begin in the fall and connect to the train in Burlington. The bus will make stops in Grimsby, St. Catharines and Niagara Falls. While Park-and-Ride stations will be built, I hope that the buses can find a way to serve the downtown terminals in those cities and that the route successful enough to justify train service (maybe a VIA-GO joint venture – comfy VIA seats at GO prices).
• On the Lakeshore East line:
  • A satellite bus garage will be built in Ajax to store more buses and reduce the time it takes for them to get into service.
  • An EA will soon be started to extend service past Oshawa to Bowmanville. It’s not clear if the line will use the CN or CP corridor, but both have their advantages. Using the CN line w
  • Bus service to Peterborough will begin in the fall and connect to the train in Oshawa. Again, I hope that the buses serve the downtown terminal and that the route is successful enough to justify train service (yes, I support the train to Peterborough as a first step in rail expansion in southern Ontario. But, we’ll have to see where people are getting off. If they are bound for Oshawa then a train across northern Durham Region won’t help them).
• On the Richmond Hill line:
  • Station improvements at Oriole will better integrate the station with the adjacent community, and improvements at Langstaff station / Richmond Hill Centre Terminal will better integrate GO and YRT/VIVA services. The latter will be a big benefit to commuters because the 407 GO buses, Richmond Hill GO buses, and YRT/VIVA/GO Airport Express buses currently stop in three different parts of the complex.
• On the Bradford/Barrie line:
  • Allendale GO station in downtown Barrie will be constructed to respond to rising demand, make the service more convenient and support the Places to Grow growth centre objectives. It’s unclear how much, if any, of the historic station will be re-used but I hope the answer is as close to “all” as possible.
• On the Georgetown line:
  • The bridge over the Credit River will be expanded to for a second and potential third track. This line has many bottlenecks that prevent service from expanding, and expanding the bridge will take care of one of them.
• On the 407 corridor:
  • A new bus storage facility will be built at the Aberfoyle Park and Ride to reduce the amount of time buses take going into service, and discussions are taking place for a joint GO-Greyhound terminal at the site.

Also, GO is:

• Refurbishing tracks and railway bridges it owns. Bridges are often choke-points for service expansion, and new rails will allow for higher speeds and shorter travel times.
• Purchasing the CN Weston subdivision for $160 million. This is akin to buying a house instead of renting indefinitely when you pay more rent the more time you spend inside. This takes GO’s destiny into its own hands and hopefully sets a precedent for future acquisitions.
• Installing snow-melting systems at Ajax and Bronte stations in order to reduce the salt they use in winter.
• Installing 56 covered bike shelters this summer to encourage people to cycle to stations rather than drive.
• Installing computer aided dispatching capabilities to the fleet to make service management easier and potentionally provide real-time arrival data to customers.
• Constructing a rail-to-rail grade separation on the outskirts of Hamilton to let passenger trains bypass a busy freight choke-point and constructing more parking at stations across the region as part of an earlier announcement.
• Refurbishing 45 locomotives to tie itself over until new ones arrive and buying 20 new commuter rail cars for service improvements.

The last ten days have been very interesting for GTHA transit, and I think everyone can agree that this momentum needs to be continued long into the future.

Photo source: Flickr user un_owen

Today the Province introduced The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area Transit Implementation Act, which makes very important changes to Metrolinx, GO Transit, and potentially transit across the region. This proposed law, which has passed first reading in the legislature, has (according to the press release), a few key elements:

• GO Transit and Metrolinx merge into a single transit agency to build more transit faster.
  • A few weeks ago a friend asked me why GO’s fare increase was met with fairly little public opposition compared to previous years. After thinking about it for a while, I figured that it was because people can see GO improving services every day. While every transit agency is buying new buses and putting them on the road, you can see GO buying new locomotives and new rail-cars, and you can see construction at stations and along the line building new platforms and tracks. You can see where they are building grade separations and can even ride across some of the new ones. Compared to other transit agencies, people see GO as working hard to improve service – and there is a lot of truth to it. Metrolinx isn’t a builder or an operator, so to me it makes sense to have GO be the muscle and Metrolinx be the brains. I just hope that the very strong GO brand remains in some form.
• Ontario taxpayers, through Metrolinx, to own selected new regional transit infrastructure. Ontario would have greater control of valuable transit assets funded largely through the provincial government.
  • My interpretation of this is that the province will own the lines that it, through Metrolinx, builds. In this industry, however, owning a piece of infrastructure doesn’t necessarily mean that you will be the one operating it.
• Up to 15 members on board of directors for new organization draw on professional and corporate experience to implement a regional transit network.
  • One of the major changes to the governance model, this new board would be filled with industry experts instead of politicians. It’s currently unclear how these experts will be appointed, but this follows the recent changes to the board of TransLink in Metro Vancouver. On the one hand, an expert board gives formal recognition to the expertise that transportation planners, communication experts, civil engineers, public administration gurus and financiers have. On the other hand, these individuals are not politicians and are not directly responsible to the taxpayers. They might not be sensitive to the particular needs of a particular community, but they will be less likely to be biased towards or against certain communities. Ultimately, how one feels about this move will depend on how they feel about the current governance model. Was it too political? Was it biased for or against Scarborough (as an example, of course…)? Not in my view, but I concede that not many share my opinion.
• Transition advisor and Transition Advisory Board support merger and help bring two organizations together.
  • Among this group is Rob MacIsaac, Peter Smith and Paul Bedford, all current board members, as well as industry experts. I get the sense that this is a glimpse into the future makeup of the Metrolinx board.
• Minister of Transportation issues transportation planning policy statements based on Regional Transportation Plan and municipalities to align transportation plans accordingly.
  • This is the part that interests me the most, but ironically, I have very little to say about it. We know that certain transit agencies have been very keen to work with Metrolinx, GO and others on service and fare integration, while certain other agencies have not been enthusiastic. It will be interesting to see what direction the province will take with these policy statements. Will they mandate fare integration between the TTC and YRT? Will they order local transit to be introduced in areas where none currently exists (looking at you Caledon…)? Will they upload all transit services to GO? Should they? It’s clear to me that Queens Park wants to reserve the right to do so.
• Metrolinx consults with all municipalities in the GTHA on any changes to the plan.
  • We have decided to organize ourself into a region of independent cities and towns, so it is critical to consider that layer when we need our plan to evolve to respond to changing times and conditions. But, we have to stop thinking of ourselves in this way. The GTHA is an interconnected region and the economy, environment and quality of life doesn’t drastically change when we reach a municipal boundary. It’s critical that the province consult with the municipalities – because they are going to be affected – but we have to keep our eyes on the prize of an interconnected regional transit network and work through any differences of opinion at the municipal level.

Time will tell if this betters the ability of Metrolinx and GO to deliver well planned, well built and well operated transit infrastructure to the residents and visitors of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area, but I’m very optimistic. I see this act as the province recognizing the leadership role that Metrolinx should play in regional transportation planning and the effectiveness of GO Transit in delivering high quality services. Having served as a citizen advisor to Metrolinx on the Regional Transportation Plan, it’s no surprise that I have an interest in seeing the  plan being implemented. Hopefully, this move is the first in many steps to get The Big Move moving.

Image source: Flickr user “itchycam”

Toronto has the only existing street railway/"light rail" gauge in Ontario.

Track gauge is a finer detail in the technology of rail-based transportation.  It is defined as the distance between the inside edges of the heads of the running rails.  It’s an important detail since this decides the distance between wheels on the trucks/bogies of rail cars, which can impact what systems on which said rail cars can and cannot run.

What makes this topic interesting in Toronto and the GTA is that the TTC has its own unique gauge: 1495mm.  This applies to both the streetcar and the subway networks of the TTC, but excludes the SRT (which is currently standard gauge. However, if the SRT is converted to LRT, as is widely expected, it would be changed to TTC gauge).  The TTC is expected to apply their unique gauge to Transit City as well, as it keeps the system flexible and has maintenance efficiencies.

Standard gauge, however, is 1435mm, and is used by the freight railways, which would include GO Transit’s rail fleet.  If one goes back in Toronto’s history, one will find two streetcar companies operating on Toronto’s streets, one at standard gauge and the other at the TTC’s, a result of meeting a legal requirement at the time.

There are now many communities in Ontario talking about LRT in their future networks.  These include not only Toronto, but also Hamilton, York Region, Region of Peel, Kitchener-Waterloo, Ottawa, and even London.

While GO Transit is expected to cover the long-haul trips in the region, there are shorter trips that could concievably be covered by LRT while crossing municipal boundaries.  For example, a trip on a future LRT network from Square One in Mississauga to Eglinton and Royal York in Toronto could be done without transfering vehicles if Mississauga and Toronto are using the same track gauge.  The Metrolinx RTP map suggests the possibility of future LRT on Dundas all the way to Burlington.  Trips to and from any points between Etobicoke and Burlington could be done if the gauge is common across the corridor. 

While it is too early in the transportation planning future of the region to speculate on rapid transit connections between Hamilton and other parts of the region that aren’t covered by GO Transit, there is the significant issue that the region is starting an LRT network from close to scratch;  The only LRT network in operation in Ontario currently is Toronto’s streetcar system.  While Hamilton and Burlington might not see interlined services, what if both of their fleets were to grow beyond the capacities of their original carhouses, and they could share the costs of a new carhouse, for example, in the Old York Rd. area, through a common track gauge?

What if the 407 bus services eventually become LRT?

Since Toronto is the only existing standard the Province has at this point in its history for non-grade-separated light rail, should TTC’s gauge be adopted as the provincial LRT standard, to maximize flexibility in system management and keep interlining options open across the region or even the province?

Photo credit: Photojunkie (Rannie Turingan)

Looking into the future, by KaroliK

Some of our Metronauts contributors came together at the invitation of our friends at TRAC this past Saturday to discuss the future of Metronauts.ca.  Since our site activity dropped off in December, many have been asking the question – “What’s going on with Metronauts?”.  This post is a summary of how we got here and an invitation to our community to guide our future direction.

This site was originally conceived as a community space to discuss issues and plans contained within the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan alongside its public consultation process.  With Metrolinx as a major sponsor, my role was to help create the platforms for community engagement, including this site, and to help steward the community. With that project completed (and with my role as a consultant to Metrolinx now done) it is time to reflect on what this place is, who we are as a community and what we might do together in the future.

I will retain my role as steward of the Metronauts brand and the metronauts.ca web domain, but I am looking for proposals and leadership from our community about what the future of the site could be. I intend to step into a supporting role for the best vision and plan for the future.

The role of Editor-in-Chief is now open. We are looking for proposals from the right person with the vision, energy, leadership and ability to help us realize the potential of this site.

There are several key assets and strengths we can build from:

• metronauts.ca domain and the playful and engaging Metronauts brand
• a beautiful visual identity and strong design direction from Alistair Morton of Peapod Studios
• a strong core of content with some talented and passionate contributors
• an informed and active community of commenters who engage in intelligent discourse about the issues they care about
• a strong readership: 16,675 absolute unique visitors, 69,691 pageviews and 1,324 comments since August 1st, 2008 (the Google Analytics graph below charts weekly site visits over this period)

We need your feedback. Please leave a comment and answer some key questions:

• Are you a reader, regular commenter, writer? Why do you visit Metronauts?
• Clearly we are a community with an interest in change through dialogue and participation. What is the specific change we’re looking for? What is our shared vision of the future?
• What should the goals of Metronauts.ca be: 1) as an online source of content and 2) as a community platform?
• Should the focus of Metronauts editorial content be narrowed or broadened? Are we only about transportation and transit, or is there something else about sustainable urban futures that we care about?
• Should the geographic scope of Metronauts content, contributors and readership continue to focus on the GTA and Hamilton or should we expand? Narrow?
• How can the work of a decentralized group of community volunteer contributors and editors be made sustainable?
• Where should Metronauts be positioned in the ecology of online content about transportation, cities, urban design and experience?

Please use the comments to answer these questions and to share your ideas for what Metronauts could become. Somebody described Metronauts as a community with an online magazine. I like this idea. If you come here, this is your place.

Please invest some of your time and leave a comment below. You can also join the live conversation on Twitter by following @TheMetronauts and using the hashtag #metronauts.

1. What should we do with the Sheppard corridor? Should the original subway vision or the new light rail vision be fullfilled?
2. What should we do with the Scarborough RT corridor? Should it be refurbished with Skytrain or conventional cars, or should it be replaced with a subway?
3. What should we do in the Mississauga City Centre? Should the future light rail line run to the terminal, or should the terminal move to meet the future light rail line?

There have been very vocal arguments on both sides, and I don’t see a reason why Metronaunts can’t host some of that spirited debate. Since it’s not in the spirit of the community to descend into a flame-war, I’d like to try to guide the discussion by laying out some relevant facts and asking community members to answer a question (keeping those facts in mind, of course). In a way, it reminds me of an academic examination – hence the “discuss with examples.”

So here we go:

Sheppard Subway Debate

Fact: The Sheppard Subway was originally intended to operate from Yonge Street to Scarborough Town Centre.
Fact: The Sheppard Subway was only constructed as far as Don Mills Road.
Fact: The projected ridership along the unconstructed corridor is around 3000 passenger per hour at the peak point, according to Metrolinx. This falls below the minimum cost-effective ridership level for subway construction, according to the TTC (around 8000 to 10,000 peak point riders)
Fact: If a subway were constructed to Scarborough Town Centre, projected ridership would rise to 5000 passengers per hour at the peak point, according to the TTC (owing to increased attractiveness of subways over light rail). This still falls below the minimum cost-effective ridership level for subway construction, according to the TTC (around 8000 to 10,000 peak point riders).

Question: Does constructing a portion of the line justify finishing the original vision, or is it acceptable to change priorities in order to correct a perceived mistake of the past? Does eliminating a transfer of mode and increasing convenience justify building a line which will be much more expensive and have underused  25 years into the future?

Scarborough RT Debate

Fact: The Bloor-Danforth Subway currently terminates at Kennedy Station.
Fact: Scarborough Town Centre serves as a major transfer point for riders traveling to and from northwestern Scarborough.
Fact: The existing Scarborough RT primarily serves as a shuttle between Kennedy Station and Scarborough Town Centre.
Fact: The projected ridership on the corridor is 6400 passengers per hour at the peak point. While trains using the existing alignment can accommodate this demand, it is also reasonably close to the justification point for subway construction.
Fact: Money spent on a refurbished line (LRT or otherwise) from Kennedy to Malvern would likely only pay for a subway extension as far as Scarborough Centre.

Question: Is eliminating a transfer enough of a justification for the construction of a subway when a less expensive option will accommodate the demand? Is building a perceived high-quality transit solution to Scaborough Town Centre only a better policy decision than building a perceived medium-quality transit solution to Scarborough Town Centre and beyond?

Mississauga City Centre Debate

Fact: The Hurontario Rapid Transit project is proposed to connect Downtown Brampton (and eventually Mayfield West, Caledon) with Port Credit, Mississauga along the Main Street / Hurontario Street corridor.
Fact: Square One is the most important transfer point in the City of Mississauga.
Fact: Diverting the line from Hurontario Street to the existing Square One terminal would increase travel times along the corridor.
Fact: Moving the terminal closer to Hurontario would divert funds from other worthy projects due to the necessary size and complexity of the terminal.

Question: How much existing infrastructure should be used when we build new rapid transit lines? Should we attempt to maximize existing infrastructure and tradeoff convenience or should we correct the perceived mistakes of the past at increased cost?

So there we are. Three sets of questions… Discuss with examples.

Photo credit: Flickr user Gloom

Greenwood Subway Yard - Only at yards can TTC trains turn 180 degrees.

Rollsigns!  Those useful little things that tell us where the train is going so that we know where we’re going when we get on.  A small but very important detail in every transit system. 

I remember when I was travelling by transit to get to college (Sheridan’s Davis campus), I would take the Spadina line to Yorkdale to connect with a GO bus.  In the mornings, many trains short-turn at St.Clair West.  And sure enough, both the desitnation signs and the Solari signs (those signs on the platform that tell you where the next train is terminating) would switch between Downsview and St.Clair West as appropriate.

I’ve been noticing something that I typically never saw, or at least saw so rarely that I don’t remember it happening.  For reasons that I do not know, subway rollsigns are losing their accuracy now.  I’ve noticed this now 5 times in about as many weeks.  From “almost never” to “about weekly” is a big jump.

The first instance I noticed was probably the most glaring.  I’m transferring from the Yonge line to the Bloor line, on the way home from work.  I get to Yonge station on the Bloor line as an eastbound train pulls in.  I am a little surprised to see the rollsign read “Yonge Street.”  Is this train going out of service right here, right now?

Apparently not, as there’s no annoucement or warning telling people not to board the train.  So, with only one other explaination left, obviously this train (or, to be accurate, this married pair) has previously been in service on the Sheppard line to have had its rollsign set to that.   I tried to let the crew know the sign is wrong as I got off, as I was in the DWA car anyway, but all I got was a shrug, complete with facial expression that read “whaddaya want me t’do ’bout it?”  That was the first and last time I let staff know the rollsign is wrong, they clearly don’t care (and don’t recognize that they matter).

Twice I’ve noticed it on my way to work in the morning.  I was at Bloor station on the Yonge line, on the northbound platform.  A train pulls in, and I saw the sign: “Downsview.”  I just shook my head, positive that I was on the right platform (and I was, too).  Twice I’ve seen this now, same station, same time of day.

I was at Queen station in the early evening on the way home, heading northbound again.  A train pulls in… “Downsview.”  I look back to the stairs I just came down to make sure I’m on the right platform.  “Albert St.” it says, meaning that this train is absolutely heading north.  Now, I think this is significant, think about this:  I’m extremely familiar with the system, and an incorrect rollsign is making me double check whether I’m on the wrong platform or not.  These signs are clearly important.

Then there was that blackout last month that shut down part Bloor St. West’s subway service during the morning rush.  All announcements being broadcast were saying that trains would be turning back at St.George.  “St.George” exists in the rollsign, and it should have been used… what about the riders that are hearing-impaired?

The subway is managed in such a manner so as to not need to check the rollsign except when leaving the yard to enter revenue service (particularly at Greenwood due to the wye there, but apparently the runaround track at Wilson is popular to be sending me on ”Downsview” trains to Finch).  Is it not in the subway operators’ job responsibilities to ensure the rollsign is properly set?  If not the duty of the operator, then of the yard staff that take the train from the depths of the yard to a special platform to hand over to the operator?

If the TTC is planning to short-turn trains at Steeles West and Finch in the future when the York Region extensions are open, they have to pay better attention to the rollsigns.  Riders are not going to be impressed when they’re told to get off and that the train is out of service at Finch when the rollsign says “Richmond Hill.”  Nevermind getting on a train from Steeles West’s middle track that reads “Finch” and ending up in Vaughan.

Proposed new GO platform location (Source: Metrolinx)

The proposed Georgetown South rail corridor expansion and new rail service between Union Station and Pearson International Airport is one of the first big moves to be implemented from “The Big Move”, Metrolinx’s Regional Transportation Plan for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA).

Metrolinx hopes this rail link will “make it easier to get around the region, create construction jobs, spur economic growth for businesses and communities in the GTHA, ease the social and economic burdens of traffic congestion, and reduce air pollution.”

The Metrolinx Virtual Open House for the this project is now live at the Metrolinx Consultation Portal. You can review project details, Open House storyboards and submit your comments to the project team anytime before Monday, March 16, 2009, 5pm EST if you want them to be included in the draft Environmental Project Report (EPR) when that goes out for evaluation. Comments received after March 16th will be included in the final EPR.

As well, there will be “Community Open House” events where the project technical team will be there to answer individual questions on the following dates:

• Tuesday, February 3, 11am – 8:30pm, The Lithuanian House, 1573 Bloor St. W, Toronto, ON
• Wednesday, February 4, 11am – 8:30pm, Mount Dennis United Church, 71 Guestville Avenue, Toronto, ON
• Friday, February 6, 11am – 8:30pm, Weston Park Baptist Church, 1871 Weston Road, Toronto, ON
• Monday, February 9, 11am – 8:30pm, Direct Energy Centre – Salon 110, 100 Princes’ Blvd, Toronto, ON
• Tuesday, February 10, 11am – 8:30pm, Malton Community Centre, 3540 Morning Star Drive, Mississauga, ON
• Thursday, February 12, 11am – 8:30pm, Gordon Alcott Memorial Arena, 221 Guelph St, Georgetown, ON

Adam grew up on an airplane between Bangladesh and Ontario, and has lived as third-world rickshaw rider, downtown TTC fanatic, 400-series commuter, and VIA Rail commuter. A recent graduate of York University’s Glendon College, he’s back on the fringes of the GTHA in the City of Brantford, where he does marketing & new media design, and is working to get the Ethical Coffee Chain up and running. He’ll be chronicling his adventures at his blog and as a perpetual Twitterist.

DRL Map by C. Livett, adapted from Network 2011 DRL plan

On Wednesday, Toronto city council voted to study the possibility of fast-tracking construction of the long-dormant Downtown Relief Line — perhaps even putting it ahead of plans for extending the Yonge line further north. Not only was the Yonge North extension approved in principle with previous conditions attached, but council also moved to study the Downtown Relief Line in detail and suggest having it moved from Metrolinx’s 25 year plan to the 15 year plan.

And they want to replace the technical name ”Downtown Relief Line” with something more imaginative and marketable. Ideas, anyone?

According to an article in the National Post, Councillor Michael Thompson (Scarborough Centre), who proposed asking Metrolinx to review its priorities, said the downtown relief line might be a solution to the overcrowding that is expected to result from extending the Yonge line north.

“The residents of Toronto deserve better, the riders of the TTC deserve better,” said Mr. Thompson. “From a perspective of cost, the downtown relief line is cheaper, it is more efficient, it provides a utility that is needed.”

Over at Spacing Toronto, Sean Marshall wrote an article noting the opposition within the TTC to the Yonge extension and staffers’ views that the DRL should be “a last resort”. However, with the Yonge extension becoming a more likely reality, if the DRL is already in place when the Yonge extension is completed, it would relieve future overcrowding on the Yonge line as a result of the new stops. As well, the new subway line would put off or even altogether negate the need for an expensive and awkward second renovation of Bloor-Yonge station, the worst bottleneck in the subway system, and relieve crowded streetcar routes on Queen and King.

Transit critic Steve Munro has suggested that instead of ending at Pape as the map here shows, the Downtown Relief Line should go all the way up to Don Mills and Eglinton to meet with proposed Eglinton-Crosstown and Don Mills LRT lines, rather than having the Don Mills LRT route come all the way down Pape to meet with the Danforth subway, arguing this would provide an efficient  funnel to divert riders into the relief subway line rather than creating an unthinkably busy multi-system junction at Pape & Danforth.

You can also jump into discussion at the DRL Facebook group.

Adam grew up on an airplane between Bangladesh and Ontario, and has lived as third-world rickshaw rider, downtown TTC fanatic, 400-series commuter, and VIA Rail commuter. A recent graduate of York University’s Glendon College, he’s back on the fringes of the GTHA in the City of Brantford, where he does marketing & new media design, and is working to get the Ethical Coffee Chain up and running. He’ll be chronicling his adventures at his blog and as a perpetual Twitterist.

Vancouver has a plan to extend one of their Sky Train lines from the downtown core to the University of British Columbia campus at a cost of $2.8 billion, and while this is a missing link in their network, there have been many calls to consider other technologies, such as the same European-style trams being considered for use in the City of Toronto. There’s no question that more lines could be built for the same price tag if trams are used, but the Sky Train (the next evolution of our Scarborough RT) has a speed advantage that is very difficult to ignore in today’s fast-paced society.

This debate is pretty similar to some of the debates we’ve had here in Toronto, especially surrounding the Transit City component of the Metrolinx RTP. These lines are proposed to use trams running in their own lanes, generally on the surface, with stop spacing designed to provide more locally oriented service. These lines will be faster and more reliable than the buses they will replace, but will not be as fast as a subway. While this is the approved plan, there is still a significant number of advocated who believe that more subway lines are needed. They will be faster than the current plans, but will place stops much further apart and they will cost a pretty penny more. Clearly, the technology needs to be tailored to the conditions of and vision for the corridor, but there are many places in this region where it could go either way.

When advocating for a certain transportation network, we have to balance speed, accessibility and costs. A line which maximizes speed will need to be fully separated from traffic, increasing costs. It also has to have fewer stops to maintain that speed, raising the possibility of under-served areas between stops. A line that maximizes accessibility will have plenty of opportunities to board, but will have a slower travel time. Also, stations cost money, making the line more expensive. A line which keeps costs down might be completely inappropriate for the needs of the corridor.

There’s no question that we need fast trains to cover long distances, and there is no question we need to build a strong local network to bring it riders from their doors to the fast trains. But there are many places in this region where we need to rethink the absolute need for speed or we won’t be able to afford what we need to move us into the future. It’s not about being a subway fanboy or a streetcar fetishist, it’s about making sure we build a network instead of just a collection of lines.

Photo source: Flickr user PoYang_博仰, creative commons license

Second Meeting: Saturday, December 13th

2:30 PM to 4:30 PM at Toronto Reference Library (Room B1)

 MEETING GUIDELINES

Members should bring screen-caps, sketches, photos, etc. of favourite websites in preparation for the website design charrette. Refreshments will be provided.

 Full agenda follows after the jump.

AGENDA

1. Introduction of new members (5 minutes)
   1. Name, profession/major/discipline, where are you from?
   2. What brings you to the TRAC?
   3. Why do you feel strongly about improving transit service?
2. Review of minutes of first meeting (5-10 minutes)
   1. Review vision, objectives, principles
   2. Methods
   3. Any additions, new ideas, refinements, etc?
3. Organization (45-50 minutes)
   1. Meeting etiquette
      1. Who chairs the meeting? Rotating chairs, co-chairs, etc.
      2. Who takes notes?
      3. Who prepares the room?
      4. Time? Location?
   2. Positions: What positions do we need? What should be their roles/responsibilities? Who should fulfill them? Some ideas:
      1. Secretary, Treasurer, Webmaster, Communications/Public relations
   3. Members-at-large, ideal size, ideal structure?
      1. How do we grow membership/involvement?
   4. Money matters
      1. How do we divide the costs of startup prior to securing funding?
4. ***3:30 PM – BREAK*** 
5. Website Design Charrette (45 minutes)
   1. Break into teams of at least three people. One person per group should take notes. (15 minutes)
   2. Questions each group should answer:
      1. Name: What should be the URL/website name? A list of URLs which are already taken will be provided.
      2. Discuss your favourite features of the website you chose, and how you think they can be applied to our website?
      3. Structure: What sections should be on our website in the near-term? In the long-term?
      4. Content: What facts, figures, and research need to be provided to support the organization?
      5. Features: Are there any other features which we should consider? Try to focus on near-term needs for now.
   3. Each group reports their answers to the above questions. A recorder will take down all the suggestions on chart paper for everyone to see. (5 minutes)
   4. Finalize website design: The whole group discusses the suggestions made in the break-out session and decides by consensus the final structural design of the website. (25-30 minutes)
6. Next steps
   1. Website: Who can do what work on the website? How long will it take?
   2. Next meeting: When and where should we meet next?
   3. Any other suggestions?

According to a Thursday post on the Post’s Posted Toronto blog, the TTC will have a contract and roll-out plan for mobile-phone service in the subway tunnels. Once the details are ironed out it could take two or three years to install the infrastructure, but the $30 million price tag would be payed by the mobile phone carriers. Market research shows that 59% of subway riders want this service, 24% are indifferent and 17% are opposed, so I suppose we can say that the TTC is giving riders what they want. But do we really want this?

Having access to the mobile phone network will allow subway riders to call and arrange to be pick up at the terminal, call work to warn the boss that they have been delayed, or even call for a reassuring voice when they are traveling alone late at night. But, I believe that the real benefit will come from the availability of high-speed mobile internet. Business-people who might not be attracted to transit might choose to ride if they can deal with their email on the way to work and arrive ready to be productive. Riders will be able to receive messages about service and about the lines they are planning to transfer to. Combined with having system maps in the palms of our hands, riders could potentially plan alternative routes instead of fighting others for a spot on the replacement bus. Bloggers will be able to instantly tell the world about the quirky happenings of the city, and member of the Metronauts community will be able to discuss the issues of the day without having to wait until they get home.

Of course, not every consequence of this move will improve our lives. One of the largest areas of the city without mobile phone service, the subway is currently the last refuge from hearing the “interesting” conversations of others. Let’s face it… at one time or another we’ve all been next to someone on their cell phone telling their friends how too much alcohol led to an “oops” with someone they met at the bar the night before. I think we can all agree that we don’t really need any more of that, but while it’s taboo to talk on the phone on the train in places like Japan, if the surface network is any indication the wisdom of our far eastern friends might not prevail here. A few transit agencies and railway companies in North America, like Amtrak, offer “quiet cars” on their trains where cell phone conversations and loud conversations are banned, and these have been well received by users – and has apparently spawned an internet anti-quiet car subculture. Regardless, early-morning GO riders, anyone riding the surface routes near a high-school and those who are making their way home after an “oops” would love quiet cars. Unfortunately, the crowding and passenger turnover rates of the subway wouldn’t really make this feasible, especially in the peak hours when it would matter the most.

Cell phone service in the subway will bring a number of customer service, convenience and safety benefits, but there’s no question that it will increase annoyances. Marketing measures like MBTA (Boston)’s “Peace and quiet. It has a nice ring to it” advertisements might help, but what else can we do to make the subway system more inclusive and attractive without tipping the scale too far to the other side?

Image source: Flickr user ‘izzyplante’. Creative commons license.

Thanks to all the members of the Metronauts community (and beyond!) who came out to the inaugural meeting of the Transit Riders Advocacy Coalition (T.R.A.C.) on Saturday! Although only 8 people were able to make it to the meeting, we had an engaging discussion about the roles, tactics, and objectives of the Coalition. So engaging, in fact, that we hardly had enough time to get to the second half of the agenda! As such, we’ve decided to hold a second meeting on Saturday, December the 13^th – almost two weeks from now. The meeting will be held at 2:30-4:30 PM in room B-1 at the Toronto Reference Library (just north of Bay Station); I will post the agenda as soon as it is approved. In addition, there is limited amount of space in the room (no more than 15 people), so please RSVP before Thursday December 11th by emailing me at peter.kucirek [at] utoronto.ca

 The minutes for Saturday’s meeting can be found after the jump…

MEETING MINUTES

NOVEMBER 29, 2008

Rm 728, 140 St George Street, Toronto

IN ATTENDANCE

            Peter Kucirek, Karen Smith, Karl Junkin, Dave Fisher, Kevin Branigan, Miroslav Glavic, Andreas Link

 MEETING OPENED AT 1:40 PM

•  “What is public about public transit?”
  • The concern was raised that public access to the political discussion which defines public transit service is lacking – that most citizens are intimidated by the complexity of the issue and lack understanding of ‘who to talk to.’
  • A movement/organization is essential to involving citizens in the decision-making process. B.E.S.T. B.C. is an example of a good organization.
  • While there are a number of individuals (and a few groups) commenting on the state of transit in the GTHA, none of them are very visible to the general public.
  •  We don’t want to single out transit users alone; car drivers also benefit from better transit by increased road space efficiency.
• Methods
  • Ultimately, as the organization grows, we will want to have sub-groups and/or representatives/spokespeople from each municipality.
  • We need to keep abreast of rider opinions and concerns for us to be a true ‘riders advocacy’ group.
  • Setting up a website/webspace/wiki is a critical first priority
    • MyTTC has a wiki, which could be used.
    • Miroslav suggested a server which also registers a domain name for a reasonable fee.
    • Allow users to post ‘stories’ of both positive and negative transit experiences – This could probably best be done in a blog format.
  • Some other methods discussed were petitions, form letters, a letter kit/fact sheet, events calendar for important municipal meetings/PICs/EAs/etc.
• Mailing List and Signup
  • A list with the contact information of those present was created to be distributed later by email.
• Vision and Objectives
  • Our Vision: We focus on “Improving the transportation experience for travellers in the GTHA.”
    • Objective: Increase the accessibility of transit/transportation information
    • Objective: 100% of urban GTHA residents should have access to rapid transit (‘access’ can be further refined at a later date to mean a feasible minimum distance to a rapid transit service – say, 2km)
    • Objective: Consistent quality of service should be implemented throughout GTHA transit operators
    • Objective: Advocate for stable/predictable funding (adjusted appropriately for inflation) from upper levels of government
    • Objective: Help travellers to advocate for improved transportation environment and choices.
• Languages potentially spoken by attendees:
  • Japanese
  • Swedish
  • Mandarin
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
• Organization
  • Discussion about the TRAC organizational structure was postponed until the next meeting.

 ‘TO DO’ LIST

1.      Find a room for next meeting (scheduled for December 13) [Peter]

2.      Type up minutes of this meeting. [Peter/Andreas/Karen/Karl]

3.      Write up Metronauts post recapping the first meeting. [Peter]

4.      Get in touch with other transit advocates (Steve Munro) and websites (Spacing magazine), notifying them of our next meeting (once we have a location set). [Dave]

5.      Register a common GMAIL account for TRAC business. [Peter]

6.      Look into accquiring web space [Peter/Miroslav]

7.      Create an agenda for the next meeting and send it around the group for comments. [Peter/All]

 MEETING CLOSED AT 4:05 PM

NEXT MEETING:

     When: 2:30 PM on Saturday, December 13th, 2008.

      Location: Room B-1,  Toronto Reference Library, 789 Yonge St. About 5 minutes’ walk from Bloor-Yonge Station.

Checkout: http://www.innocentive.com/

Its not a traditional RFP, they just want your ideas, and there is no cost for submission, other than your time.

Did I mention there is a $5,000 prize for the best idea ?

I am sure many of the ideas generated through TransitCamps and Metronauts are as applicable in Chicago as they are in Toronto.

If anyone wants to collaborate on a submission, contact me at

Blinkenlights Stereoscope (2008), City Hall, Toronto

Binary data is often represented by two states: on and off. The Blikenlights Strereoscope installation at City Hall this year during Nuit Blanche, made data very public.  If you attended, you may have noticed the installations’ connection to open, malleable and user-contributed data.  As stated on the project website, “Project Blinkenlights invites the public to be a part of the installation by opening up a variety of ways to interact with and provide content.”  In terms of a practical application of open data, the issue returned to city hall through the issue of open transit data, discussed at the Web 2.0 Summit on November 26, 2008.

Wikipedia defines that open data is “a philosophy and practice requiring that certain data are freely available to everyone, without restrictions from copyright, patents or other mechanisms of control.”  The challenge to open up the city’s transit data (i.e., schedules, routes and timetables) to be used in Google Transit was posed by Mark Surman of the Mozilla Foundation during his talk at the summit.  Mayor Miller stated in response to Surman that the process to get Toronto online with Google Transit is underway and we can hope to see results next year.  Surman summarizes this exchange via a blog entry accompanying an archive of his talk.

Many questions about opening up transit data are still outstanding in relation to the draft RTP or final RTP in relation to trip planning and fare cards:

Trip planning:

• If Toronto opens up data their data for Google Transit, will the other regions and transit agencies in the GTHA be encouraged to do the same? (Note: Hamilton’s HSR system is already online at Google Transit)
• Do Metrolinx’s plans for an integrated trip planner take into account Google Transit, mashups or citizen initiatives?
• What information is needed by citizen and community-based groups like myttc.ca to continue to innovate and build from the community level up?

Fare cards: intense data collection is also a real possibility with fare cards when they are implemented across our region.

• What data will be collected through fare cards?
• Where will this data be stored, who will access it and for what purposes?
• Will any of the aggregated data from fare cards be opened up?

Links, so you don’t have to dig through the agenda:

• Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan (Final)
• 15 Year Map
• 25 Year Map
• 2009/2010 and Five-Year Capital Investment Plan
• There is also an interesting report on the Cost of Congestion in the GTHA

Although PickupPal did not financial benefit from the rideshare transaction, they were fined $11,336.07. This fine amount does not include any of the legal fees PickupPal incurred defending the case in court).

As a result of the broad public outcry via PickupPal’s petition and extensive media coverage both locally and internationally, the Government of Ontario has moved quickly to introduce an amendment to the Public Vehicles Act.  Once Bill 118 is amended, fair and reasonable carpooling and ridesharing in Ontario will be permitted. (More info at this link, near the bottom of the page).

According to PickupPal, in the 104 countries where they provide their service, they have never before encountered this type of “antiquated law” discouraging ridesharing. PickupPal Co-founder and CTO, Eric Dewhirst, commented on the government’s new proposed legislation, saying, “What they are in effect doing is bringing their transportation laws in line with the rest of the provinces in Canada and jurisdictions around the world. We applaud the government for suggesting these changes — however, the legislation has not been amended yet and there is still a chance that it may get dropped.”

PickupPal is asking their members and the general public to send messages to the Minister of Transportation, Jim Bradley, to let him know that you support the changes to Bill 118 that will allow for fair carpooling and ridesharing in Ontario.

Adam grew up on an airplane between Bangladesh and Ontario, and has lived as third-world rickshaw rider, downtown TTC fanatic, 400-series commuter, and VIA Rail commuter. A recent graduate of York University’s Glendon College, he’s back on the fringes of the GTAH in the City of Brantford, where he does marketing & new media design. He’ll be chronicling his adventures at his blog and as a perpetual Twitterist.

Two station names, four stations nowhere near one another.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but higher-order transit stations aren’t there to smell sweet, they serve an important navigational purpose, and the proportion of that importance is directly related to the size of the system.  As the network of the GTHA is poised to grow by a significant measure, the importance of the names for higher-order transit stations is going to grow in step with it, especially if a fare-integrated network comes to fruition.  Naming stations in large and growing networks can become complicated and/or problematic if a cautious, comprehensive approach isn’t taken towards the issue, and addressing it will be an exercise in management and planning, with the name of the game being “Foresight.”

The name of a station may be seen as a minor detail, and it is true that it is one of the final things to be decided in design and construction since a decision on the name isn’t required until the interior finishes stage.  However, changing the name later, after the service is operating and an integrated component of the network, comes with a high price.  Changing it later is more expensive than the first time the name is decided and built into the network, and involves a lot of co-ordinated, less-evident-but-no-less-important changes within the system.  “Crescent” is a good example… which the TTC changed to ”Rosedale” at the last minute. 

The key is that stations are not stand-alone structures.  Even as a piece of architecture, stations tie into the running structure for the transit vehicle (which falls under civil engineering, not architecture).  In denser areas, stations may be built into other buildings, prime examples include St.Clair West, and Bloor-Yonge.  Then, of course, there is the larger network that the station is a part of, making the term “stand-alone station” an oxymoron. 

Transit stations’ names appear in many more places than just the station itself.  They appear on various maps, such as system wide maps and local routes’ individual route maps, not only of the service provider whose network the station belongs to, but potentially those of other service providers if a transfer is present (or nearby), city and regional map publications, and even on Google Maps or similar services.  They appear on directional signage in the neighbourhood (unless it just says “to subway”).  Changing this name later does have a fair share of expenses attached, when one considers how many times certain maps appear across the system or how many signs in the area point towards a station.  If the station is a terminus for a route, that means new destination sign configurations.  Don’t forget the automated stop announcement system.  Co-ordination is a very big deal, and such a change should only occur together with another significant system change, such as a new transit line opening or a new station added along an existing service.

Indeed, the public gets used to the names assigned to stations and re-adjustment isn’t instantaneous.  St. Andrew and St. Patrick stations have never had their names changed, despite the wards of the same name (from which the stations got their names) no longer being in existence.

Station naming has been historically simple since higher-order transit lines were relatively few, but now that higher-order networks are taking real shape in a way that is unprecedented in the region (if not the country), problems that have never been an issue before are starting to creep into view, and such problems must not be allowed to fly beneath the radar.  With all the proposals coming forward over such a wide region, a region that is supposed to be integrated, coordinated, even unified, more importance than just geographic relevance now becomes placed upon the naming of higher-order transit stations, due to the scale the network is growing into.  If conflicts sprout up in the network, the risk exists that riders, particularly new riders (ever so important in getting a better modal split in the region), will be confused. 

The network has existing problems: 

Take Eglinton.  Eglinton GO and Eglinton TTC stations are nowhere close to one another.  If someone from Scarborough calls up a friend and suggests meeting at Eglinton station, it’s concievable that they may never find each other since at the agreed meeting time, they inadvertently end up 10s of kilometres apart.  This is particularly possible if SuperGO appears on the Lakeshore East corridor.

“Meet me at Bloor Station,” someone from Brampton may suggest, and one person may end up at Yonge while the other is near Dundas West.  This is bad news for the network, and this is a situation that needs to be brought under control before it becomes a widespread issue.  The opportunity to stop a potentially frustrating problem before it spreads beyond the first few instances is available for the taking, if there’s enough awareness of the issue.

There are other instances that are potential trouble, but as of yet aren’t serious.  These include Scarborough Centre and Scarborough GO, a significant nuance since GO Transit services both, but with different modes (no GO Bus service ever goes to Scarborough GO train station).  Scarborough GO can be considered a bit of a curiousity in regards to its naming, as Cliffside or Cliffcrest would have better followed the pattern GO typically sticks to instead of Scarborough GO, based on this map of the city.  When one considers GO has 7 rail stations in Scarborough proper (Scarborough, Eglinton, Guildwood, Rouge Hill, Kennedy, Agincourt, and the recently relocated Milliken (which was in York Region prior to its relocation to the opposite side of Steeles Ave. E.)), a number that may rise in future, a strong argument for renaming Scarborough GO materializes.

Interesting to note, based on the same map, is that “Eglinton GO” isn’t necessarily named after Eglinton Avenue, but there is a part of the city on the north side Eglinton Avenue by the GO Station called “Eglinton,” thus following GO’s typical practice.  The same applies to “Danforth GO.”

The TTC grappled with the station naming issue as the Sheppard subway neared completion with its connection to the Yonge line.  There were a couple of suggestions considered, including “Yonge North,” but eventually settled on “Sheppard-Yonge” to avoid the confusion that may result from two Yonge stations in the network, as well as the issue of there being no such street as “Yonge St. North” in Toronto, in contrast to many major east-west avenues, which have been applied to the naming of stations on the Spadina subway line, as well as Dundas West on the Bloor line and Lawrence East on the SRT.

There’s more potential problem cases on the way; Woodbine (Bloor-Danforth subway, and proposed for the GO Georgetown Line), and Mount Pleasant (GO Georgetown Line and proposed for the Eglinton underground LRT).  These cases would be even further apart from one another than the existing cases above, but even worse, the two lines in question connect to one another or are proposed to connect to one another (at a point other than Union Station).

Richmond Hill is another problem potentially on the horizon.  Richmond Hill GO and Richmond Hill Centre bus terminal are not the same place/area, and the subway extension on Yonge from Finch is going to have to include some resolution to this.

While unrelated to any subway extension, Newmarket GO and the Newmarket Bus Terminal is another instance of the same problem.  These are about 3km apart, and Metrolinx, together with York Region, is proposing both be served by the same “rapid transit” corridor (presumably LRT, given the popularity of the Yonge corridor). 

“King” would also have to be resolved, as this station currently exists in two parts of the Yonge corridor, but on different service providers’ networks (King is the zone boundary station on Viva Blue, as well as the southern-most subway station on Yonge St.). 

The proposed Highway 7 Rapidway, counting as higher-order, will also have a number of conflicts with the subway, including Bayview, Leslie, Warden, Kennedy, and McCowan.

York University is going to be another problem point in a few years, as GO and TTC rail stations of the same name will be at different locations.  Some may indeed wonder what the fate of the York University GO station will be when the subway is extended to the campus with a connection between the Barrie GO corridor and the new subway extension at Sheppard West station. 

Bramalea and Bramalea City Centre is a situation similar to Scarborough’s.  Again, both are serviced by GO Transit, but in this instance GO bus services also reach the Bramalea GO station in addition to the Bramalea City Centre terminal.

This is a situation that can get out of hand if the broader network is not taken into consideration when naming transit stations, and a policy should be put into place to not only keep such problems under control in the future, but to consider what measures should be taken to fix existing known problems in the network.

One future consideration worth bearing in mind as well, would be the name “407 Transitway” as a station on the Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension (TYSSE).  What if other higher-order transit lines connect to the 407 Transitway?  Nevermind some people’s comments on the name sounding awful (which is subjective, unfortunately), the idea that the proposed station is the only 407 Transitway station is potentially overstating the station’s place in the network.  What about Longbridge and Yonge, the site of the only Park’n'Ride lot on the proposed Yonge subway extension, which is right beside the 407?  That station also counts as a 407 Transitway connection.  So does Bramalea GO.  Maybe “Beechwood” as an alternative name to the TYSSE’s 407 Transitway station is more appropriate?

This list is by no means a complete listing of the instances where this issue currently occurs, nor where potential future instances could occur.  This is just to get people thinking about the broader network and make sure it is co-ordinated and easily used by everyone, especially new riders.  While bus stations will inevitably have duplications due to the reality that street names are inevitably duplicated, the higher-order stations need to go to greater lengths to avoid this issue, as they are the backbone trunk lines carrying medium- and long-haul trips. 

Can you add anything that’s missing to this list?