The Toronto Mayoral By-Election is just under a month away, and candidates pump out announcements daily, often with a transit spin. In this article I will look at the transit-related issues they are trying to address (or in some cases avoid).
All of this takes place in a strange world where the availability of money to pay for anything is suspect. Is a promise is even credible let alone affordable? Many of the platforms overlap, and so I will take related issues in groups rather than enumerating and critiquing each candidate’s platform.
A month ago, I wrote about what a transit platform should look like:
That sets out my philosophy of what I seek in a candidate, and the short version appears below. If you want the long version, click on the link above.
- Service is key. Run as much as possible, everywhere, and run it well.
- Build budgets based on what you want to see, not on what you think you can afford. Just getting by is not a recipe for recovery and growth. If the money doesn’t come, then look to “Plan B” but aim for “Plan A”.
- Fares are a central part of our transit system, but the question is who should pay and how much. Strive for simplicity. Give discounts where they are truly needed. Make the transit system worth riding so that small, regular increases are acceptable.
- Focus on ease of use among transit systems in the GTA, but do not equate “integration” with amalgamated governance.
- Transit property: parking or housing?
- Foster a culture of advocacy in management and on the TTC Board.
- Beware of lines on maps. A “my map vs your map” debate focuses all effort on a handful of corridors while the rest of the network rots.
- Plan for achievements in your current term and make sure they actually happen. Longer term is important, but the transit ship is sinking. You are running for office in 2023. Vague promises for the 2030s are cold comfort to voters who have heard it all before.
Full disclosure: I have always maintained an “open door” to anyone who wants to talk transit, and in this round I have been approached by both the Matlow and Chow campaigns for information and advice, as well as some media outlets. This I provided pro bono and without any “leakage” of who asked me what. No other candidates asked. How much of my input shows up in platforms is quite another matter. We shall see as the campaign unfolds.
Restoring Full Service
Recently I wrote about the estimated cost of restoring full service at pre-pandemic levels on the TTC.
Some candidates have called for this and cited costs ranging from $53m (Hunter) to $183m (Matlow). Lower values come from an erroneous budget-to-budget comparison by the TTC, but actual service and spending in 2022 were below budget. This is another gap to be filled. (See the article for details.)
The target for full restoration varies among candidates, and some have no commitment to better transit service (Bradford, Saunders). At debates, Brad Bradford has been openly dismissive about running buses where there is no demand, as if this answers the larger questions about service quality.
Hunter promises to restore services in September 2023. That is not practical given the lead time for TTC planning and staffing, but any new Mayor should prioritize service restoration rather than leaving this to languish until sometime in 2024.
Rolling back the clock on service is not enough, however, because Board intervention in TTC management is required to establish policies for future service design and management.
Service frequency is related to crowding and demand through the Service Standards. These set the upper bound for average hourly peak loads for each type of vehicle and service period.
In the 2023 budget, management changed the off-peak standard raising allowed crowding to nearly peak levels and claimed that this was their prerogative. That conflicts with the fact that all previous changes were presented to the Board for approval, and the standards are commonly referred to as “Board approved” when management defends service levels. This time, the “approval” was retroactive and indirect through the budget approval.
The version still online lists the pre-2023 standard (at p. 14), and it has not been revised to reflect the 2023 update.
An important factor in future budget planning will be a public debate on service standards and how much the City is willing to pay for less crowded service. This should not be presented as a fait accompli when a budget appears for final approval.
Another key factor will be route management. When buses and streetcars run in pairs (or triplets or …), riders see much worse service than is advertised and vehicle capacity is poorly used with most riders typically on over-full lead vehicles in the packs. This is a complex issue involving scheduling, supervision, labour relations and an organizational culture that blames external factors for its failings.
The TTC has a large but underutilized fleet.
In pre-pandemic times, requests for more service were typically met with “we have no buses”. That is certainly not the case today. Over 2023-24, Toronto will receive over 300 new hybrids to replace the oldest and least reliable vehicles in the fleet. 60 new streetcars will begin to arrive later in 2023, and these are net additions, not replacements for old vehicles. Some space at Harvey Shops (Bathurst & Davenport) will convert from repair functions to a small carhouse to accommodate some of the new fleet. (Streetcar maintenance has shifted to Leslie Barns which was purpose-built for the new, longer cars.)
What the TTC lacks is the budget to operate more service. Buses and streetcars sit in their garages and carhouses. Yes, the City faces a financial problem, but having or getting a larger fleet is not an issue.
On the subway, service operates much less often than pre-pandemic, but again restoration is a question of the will to fund service, not of train availability. Going beyond 2019 levels, however, is not possible on Line 1 because there are few spare trains, and on Line 2 because the old signal system restricts train spacing. New trains are in the capital plans, but they are not yet funded, let alone storage space to handle larger fleets.
Subway demand sits at under 60% of pre-pandemic levels, and yet crowded trains are not uncommon. Returning to full service may not be needed in the short term, but deep cuts to off-peak service (already partly reversed on an ad hoc basis pending new schedules) send the wrong message about subway comfort and convenience. Riders should not have to factor long wait times into their trips on these core routes.
Mitzie Hunter proposes that subway service begin at 5:30 am instead of 6:00. In fact trains leave their yards well before 6:00 today and this is necessary to position them to begin revenue service at 6. Moving the start time back to 5:30 would affect not just train dispatching, but also a small army of support and station staff. It would also require earlier start times for many bus routes so that riders could access the subway service. (Start and end times for all services can be found in the Scheduled Service Summary available on the TTC’s Transit Planning Page.)
There is also the question of a vanishing infrastructure maintenance window between the end of service (last trains leave Bloor-Yonge at about 1:55am) and the buildup for the following day.
Construction Management & Congestion
Several candidates want to attack traffic congestion, and Toronto’s alleged ranking among the most congested cities plays well among voters who only think of their cars. However, that rank is based not just on commuter traffic into the core, but a wide variety of trips across the City. One need only listen to the traffic reports to know that congestion is a suburban issue, not just downtown. There are no streetcars north of St. Clair, or east of Victoria Park, and they exist (when they run at all) beyond the Humber River only at the very south of Etobicoke.
Bike lanes are another matter, but so are proposals to remove space from road lanes for bikes, BRT and LRT lines. The common factor is that there is less space for trucks and autos. Any plan to tackle congestion must look beyond the King Street transit corridor or the Ontario Line construction at Queen & Yonge.
A vital part of any congestion relief will be to balance road space among competing users. Integral to that is the enforcement of priority schemes to keep lanes clear, to manage traffic at choke points, and to give real meaning to “transit priority” so that transit gets the benefit, not the leftovers.
Speaking of bike lanes, Mark Saunders argues that “The mayor needs to listen to all the voices, not just the loudest voice.” He is silent on whether “all voices” includes transit riders and pedestrians, or only motorists. He would also triple fines for stopping where prohibited especially during peak periods.
Proposals by Saunders and Brad Bradford to redeploy parking enforcement officers to traffic management imply that parking violations are not worthy of their time. Parking scofflaws are a major nuisance because they can occupy lanes that should be open for traffic. More generally, traffic policing is an important matter of public safety. There is no point in passing bylaws if nobody will enforce them. Saunders’ record of sidelining police traffic enforcement does not bode well.
Construction co-ordination (or the lack of it) is a common complaint echoed by several candidates. Calls for a coordination office, for a congestion relief commissioner beg the question of just what the existing coordination unit is doing. Anyone who has been on Council recently should know this exists, and if its work is hard to see, then the question is one of effectiveness and competing priorities.
Would the office or a Commissioner have the power to block or reschedule utility work or to force developers to structure projects so that curb lanes of major streets would stay clear? King Street downtown curb lanes are already occupied by a few condo projects and two major Ontario Line locations (Bathurst and Parliament) are soon to follow. Does pandering to developers and supporting transit expansion take priority over congestion problems?
Both Saunders and Bradford propose converting the Richmond/Adelaide pair back to pure auto use. Saunders would simply ditch the King street transit mall arguing that lower demand downtown due to work-from-home makes the mall obsolete. He should look at loads on the King car, and should also remember that the Entertainment district includes a large number of patios (although CaféTO has scaled back somewhat due to changes in City policy). This is another example of road space dedication to something other than moving autos.
Conversely, Bradford would make King an express streetcar route from Spadina to Church and divert the Queen car around Ontario Line construction via King rather than via York, Richmond, and Adelaide as planned.
Saunders and Ana Bailão advocate round-the-clock, or at least double-shift construction although they do not address either the workforce availability, nor the problem of noise in residential areas which increasingly are part of downtown.
Bailão proposes a ban on lane closures from Bay to Victoria on Dundas, Richmond and Adelaide. This is an example of seeing the problem on too small a scale. Transit diversions and traffic congestion extend well beyond the Bay-Victoria segment, and the ban would have little effect because little or no construction is planned there.
Chow pledges to make transit service fast and reliable, but is silent on traffic control measures.
The Gardiner
Both Olivia Chow and Josh Matlow would change plans for the Gardiner to build an at-grade boulevard from east of Jarvis to the Don River, while all other candidates would stick with the current plan for a new, relocated Gardiner to be on an elevated structure.
There are three important issues here.
First, the existing structure will be demolished in stages no matter which plan is selected, and this will make through DVP/Gardiner trips difficult during the transitions from old to new structures and alignments.
Second is the development potential of land around the expressway which differs between the two options.
Third, there are two elements to the purported saving of the boulevard plan. Part lies in lower capital cost, and this is a one-time saving during construction. The other is long-term reduction in road maintenance costs for an at-grade road. Depending on which costing method one uses, the added cost of the elevated version can be minimized by stating future maintenance costs on a net present value basis. The further in the future the expense is incurred, the lower its current value.
Any move to repurpose Gardiner funding must take into account the unavoidable costs of either plan, the amount of saving on the capital account, and the future maintenance savings both in magnitude and timing.
A motion by Josh Matlow at the May 10 Council meeting asking for an updated cost comparison of the Gardiner options was defeated 16:9. There is little doubt that the issue would be revisited if either Matlow or Chow is elected Mayor, but any decision must occur quickly.
A related transit issue is that the Gardiner crosses over the proposed Cherry Street LRT extension south of Distillery Loop. The design will have to be reviewed if the Gardiner moves down to a surface boulevard, and there must be good transit priority to ensure that this link operates well (unlike the less-than-transit-friendly signalling at the Spadina/Lake Shore/Gardiner intersection).
Fare Policy
Various fare options have been proposed by some candidates.
- Ana Bailão: Reduce fares to $2 on the SRT bus replacement and the 501 Queen streetcar during construction.
- Brad Bradford: No fare policy announced.
- Olivia Chow: No fare policy announced.
- Mitzie Hunter: Seniors ride free on the conventional and Wheel-Trans systems. The 2023 fare hike for adults and youths would be reversed. Hunter would negotiate with the Province on cross-border fares.
- Josh Matlow: Seniors’ and Fair Pass holder fares would be equalized by reducing seniors’ fares by 15 cents to match the Fair Pass pricing.
- Mark Saunders: Seniors would ride free on Mondays between 10am and 3pm.
Charging a route-specific fare is not practical because, especially for the SRT bus, it will be a bridge between other full fare services. Moreover, for anyone eligible for a discounted fare, $2 is not much of a break. Many routes will be affected by Ontario Line construction. Cherry-picking the Queen car ignores the disruption riders on these routes will encounter.
No candidate has talked about completion of the Fair Pass rollout to the larger, originally intended groups. This is not a cheap option, but it should be explicitly addressed even if as a future goal.
With the move to work-from-home, the attractiveness of a monthly pass has declined. Pass sales are down substantially from pre-pandemic levels. Fare capping is an option the TTC has considered, but the whole debate about fares has not been a prominent issue during the covid era, and a final report expected in May 2022 did not materialize. With caps, the total charged per month, week or day would be limited and riders would automatically receive the discount without “opting in” with an advanced purchase.
Note that a daily cap already exists, but it requires the use of a separate day ticket and is not available to Presto card users. Monthly and weekly caps already exist on other systems using Presto.
Subway Safety
Two candidates, Mark Saunders and Brad Bradford, are playing up the fear and security angle both as a general social problem and as a deterrent to riders’ return to the transit system. The media can find sound bites of the “I’m afraid to ride the TTC” variety, and yet there are still many riders. According to Bradford, “people feel like they are putting their lives at risk by getting on transit.” How true this actually is depends a lot on where and when you ride.
The question, of course, is whether so-called choice riders, those with some other travel option, are given yet another reason to not take transit.
There is also the whole cluster of problems related to service frequency, reliability and crowding which can contribute to a sense of unease among riders. Too often I hear interviews or read Twitter horror stories about long waits for service that never arrives. This is at least as important as problems of physical assault, and the two reinforce each other.
Bradford was on the TTC for the last four years, a period when service reliability declined even before the recent budget cuts. He did little to challenge management except for a few routes in his ward, and most of that before the pandemic struck.
An important aspect of any discussion about safety on the TTC is just what do we mean by that term? Is the primary issue random assaults? Is it a dual health and safety concern of riding packed buses? Is it the exposure at isolated stops while awaiting unreliable service? Is it the need for visible presence of someone in authority to discourage and possibly intervene in unwanted acts? Is it support for those of tenuous mental state or the unhoused, each of whom has their own needs? Where do tunnel walkers and potential suicides fit in the debate?
The response should be tailored to the problem. To his credit, even the ex-Police Chief Saunders says “simply adding more police or more money isn’t the solution.” However, elsewhere in his platform he calls for more Special Constables and integrating that group into the Police Service (they are now TTC staff). He also flags loitering as a problem, but this can lead to “moving people along”, a practice that rarely fixes anything and is ripe with chances for discriminatory behaviour.
Bradford also calls for more Special Constables and police who could focus on “hot spots”, but it is unclear whether this would apply only to stations or also on trains.
Mitzie Hunter talks about safety on the TTC, but argues for social workers, not cops, as her solution. Her program is priced at only $540k/year with much staffing from redeployment, not as new positions. She speaks of “Community Ambassadors”, but is unclear on their formal role, responsibilities and remuneration.
Platform Edge Doors (PEDs) have their advocates. Bradford would aim to install them at the four busiest locations, and so his take on the requirement is to keep people from being pushed onto the tracks, with a smaller benefit in train operations (operators need not slow down when entering a crowded station for fear of hitting a would-be rider). But only four stations will not deter the track-walkers, and there will be plenty of locations where the tracks are still accessible.
Hunter is also a PED advocate.
The PED project is priced at $2.868 billion in the TTC’s capital plan [see table beginning on p. 40], and none of this is funded. Moreover, before PEDs could be installed on Line 2, it must be converted to automatic train control and receive a new fleet. Together these projects are worth $2.526 billion of which less than 50% is funded. This is a project with a very long lead time and a big pricetag. The new trains and signalling for Line 2 are “must haves” because both the fleet and signal infrastructure are wearing out.
Olivia Chow would restore station staffing although this does little to provide a visible presence away from the fare line, and some stations have a lot of territory to cover for a walking patrol.
A common factor across candidates is the need for cell phone coverage throughout the subway. However, at most the new Mayor’s role will be to ensure that the major Telcos work together, and that infrastructure is installed throughout the subway as quickly as possible. It is not in the Mayor’s gift to simply wave their hand and say “make it so”.
In all of this, the discussion is almost entirely on subway travel even though there are security concerns on buses and streetcars too. The system is far too large to have a preventative presence on every vehicle, but the ability to respond quickly across the city is vital to making this more than “security theatre”.
Social Workers, Not Police
Although some candidates acknowledge the need for various support services in dealing with people in distress and homelessness on the TTC, their willingness to devote resources to this is limited. Instead, there is talk of consolidation of existing staff with the premise that this will improve service delivery.
What is quite clear is that most candidates focus on support services and recognize that the major problems are homelessness and social issues, not rampant violence.
We know already that the existing small group of support workers is inadequate to address the scale of social problems, and they are hampered by a lack of facilities to which those in need can be moved. Doing this on the cheap risks failure especially when cold weather returns and the TTC’s role as a refuge grows again.
A related problem will be how the mixture of support workers, TTC Special Constables, other station staff and Community Ambassadors will co-ordinate their work and who has the role of overall direction during any incident.
New Builds
Despite my advice to avoid drawing maps, some candidates are bent on this approach. The lines on a map could be useful, but the exercise tends to solidify into “the Mayor’s Plan” and is almost impossible to unwind. John Tory may have left the building, but the legacy of SmartTrack in distorting planning and discussion of alternatives haunts us still.
Of the already active projects, the SRT busway replacement sits at the top of the list. The TTC has unearthed money to complete the engineering, but for construction funding the City looks to Queen’s Park. The premise is that without Doug Ford’s takeover and delay of the Scarborough Subway project, the long replacement for SRT service would be unnecessary.
This is too important a project, and at under $100 million is small change in the City’s overall capital plans. Waiting for Queen’s Park is an abdication by Council who would rather make SRT riders fume with longer bus rides than risk paying to convert the SRT corridor as a bus roadway and being stiffed by Doug Ford.
Other short term projects include the proposed RapidTO bus network for which Olivia Chow is the most ardent supporter. However, it is not clear that all proposals are actually workable, let alone how long it will take to study, approve and implement them.
The Waterfront East LRT is nearing 30% design, and that will come to Council soon for approval. How this project will fare, including provincial and federal contributions, remains to be seen. Meanwhile, Waterfront Toronto beavers away building Villiers Island, planning the reconfiguration of Queens Quay East, and advancing plans for residental and commercial development. A sense of urgency for good transit to the eastern waterfront is entirely missing from Council.
Of the candidates, only Mitzie Hunter explicitly mentions the Waterfront East LRT saying that she would “drive forward construction”.
The Eglinton East LRT has evolved into a U-shaped route from Kennedy Station east to Morningside, north by way of UTSC campus, and west on Sheppard to the future Sheppard-McCowan Station. Public consultation for this project is underway.
It is supported by Chow, Matlow and Hunter. The others are silent on this proposal.
Mitzie Hunter, living up to her moniker of “Subway Champion”, touts the North York-Scarborough line with segments from Sheppard-Yonge to Sheppard West Station, from Don Mills Station to Agincourt (GO) Station and thence southeast to Scarborough Town Centre. Note that this is different from the provincial Sheppard Subway extension that would run straight east from Don Mills to Sheppard McCowan Station.
Hunter also supports construction of a Cummer Station on the Yonge North extension, although it is unclear who will pay for this. The City plans to seek provincial funding, an example of how priorities are set and spending committed based on the then-current squeaky wheel rater than overall comparison of priorities.
Funding
With a platform that is, at least in theory, “fully costed”, Mitzie Hunter has the most detailed financial proposal of the candidates. Her premise is that much of the money her administration would require is already there for the taking. This includes raiding:
- The City Building Fund: Monies from this fund are already allocated to major TTC projects including the reconstruction and expansion of Bloor-Yonge Station. Other TTC projects also assume CBF contributions.
- Gas Tax Reserve: This “reserve” is simly a holding area for provincial gas tax passed on to the City from the Province. The City allocates $91 million annually to operating subsidies, and the rest goes to various capital projects. The money is not sitting around waiing for a home.
- Development Charges: Again, many TTC projects assume partial funding from Development Charges. Whether these will actually materialize is an open question thanks to provincial changes in these charges and the open question of whether Toronto will be “made whole” for lost revenue.
- Scarborough and Waterfront LRT projects: Hunter would transfer existing funds into project-specific reserves. This does not create new money, but merely allocates it to an account where its puspose is clear.
Mark Saunders is silent on funding any transit projects, as are Brad Bradford and Ana Bailão.
Josh Matlow funds his transit proposals from a mixture of his Scarborough Moves Plan using money already earmarked for the Eglinton East LRT, a proposed Climate Action Levy, savings from the Gardiner project and part of his proposed City Works fund. This has not been consolidated in his campaign materials to show all of the funding elements together, or give a sense of which require new money and which repurpose existing funding streams.
Olivia Chow has not yet produced a financial plan.
Advocacy
Any Mayor must advocate for better transit across the network, for more than a handful of vanity projects or, worse, a single-line-to-solve-every-problem. If their platform’s benefits all lie in the distant future, they are not serious about achieving as much as possible within their term. Endless contemplation, study and consultation give people like me something to write about, and keep the consultants in small change, but with a sense that no project will ever actually exist.
After writing this blog for 17 years, and with many more years’ archives of past discussions, there is a repetition to so much, a sense that we will never break out of the back patting, the cronyism, the pandering that “transit planning” has become.
What is needed is a Mayor who will care about the City and its residents. Someone who works for them to make transit better with whatever resources can be mustered to that task. I will turn to evaluation of the candidates in a future article.