One of the reasons why I started this blog was because society is very quick to declare #epicfail without offering any suggestions on how to improve transit. So, when I saw this terrible sign replacing a handwritten one inside Hamilton GO Centre next to the schedules, I felt that the responsible thing to do would be to help improve it. So, here we go:

1. The sign looks unofficial, and this calls its credibility into question. A sign which we do not know is trustworthy is not much better than no sign at all.
2. The sign continually refers to “out back” and “out front”. Given that many people arrive at the station by bus (which load at what a planner would consider the rear), someone could be forgiven for being confused. In any event, it is ambiguous and could benefit from clarity.
3. The sign directs passengers to take specific buses at specific intersections – due to one-way streets this is not ambiguous – but more information could be useful: The 5 Delaware bus has numerous branches and this begs the question as to if all or only some go to the desired destination. In addition, the fact that the 20 A-Line Express (erroneously numbered 22), 21 Upper Kenilworth and 33 Sanatorium also pass by Mohawk College would be handy as this was information the previous sign displayed.
4. As the downtown campus of St. Joseph’s hospital is a popular destination, and since describing how to get there by bus would be unwieldy (take any bus from Hunter and James except these…), encouraging the short walk is acceptable. However, travellers will not find Hunter Street at the top of the stairs, nor will Hunter take them to the hospital. The correct street is Hughson Street.
5. Finally, it should be noted that the bus to Burlington is operated by Burlington Transit. Those looking for a Hamilton Street Railway bus could inadvertently allow it to pass them by.

I write this post not to bash the Hamilton Street Railway – it gets me up and down the mountain daily and has made connections that should not have been mathematically possible. I write this to help them minimize customer complaints and deliver a higher quality of service to riders.

If we are talking exclusively about the 416 then there is no compelling need to overhaul the fare system. A few tweaks here and there will suffice. But, a continued failure to recognize that Toronto functions as part of an integrated region will limit Toronto’s economic competitiveness. At best, it will become an oasis in the middle of an inhospitable desert of congestion. At worst, it will suffer the consequence of a problem it did not really contribute to.

If we’re going to build a regional transit system then we will need to built a regional fare system. That system needs to have price increases at logical, defensible intervals as a flat fare from Durham to Hamilton will encourage sprawl and undermine our urban planning goals. That system must not discriminate between different transit operators and different modes, as maintaining overlapping services is a waste of resources. In my estimation, a fare-by-distance system is the only system that accomplishes these goals.

Our region consists of cities and suburbs and, in my view, we ignore the suburbs at our own peril. We have to look beyond the borders of the 416 if we want to solve an issue that really doesn’t care what side of Steeles you’re on.

[Note: The Toronto Star tends to re-use URLs for related stories as the event unfolds. At the time if writing, the URL led to the story I am discussing.]

Looking at Halton’s argument for a moment, I must point out that it is one that I hear quite often and feel very frustrated every time I hear it. We all know why improvements have been slow to arrive (I’ll give you a clue – it’s lack of money), so making this argument is like saying “we won’t give you money until someone else gives you money.” At best, that makes it a stall tactic to force someone else to fund transit. Since this hasn’t worked in the last 20 years, I do not see how it will be effective for more than the odd one-off project. At worst, though, it is a preemptive “no” to the notion of paying for a better transportation system. However, “no” comes with consequences which are far worse than saying “yes”.

Halton has a lot to be angry about, as does Peel, Toronto, Durham, York, Hamilton and the surrounding regions and counties. And, they should have an opportunity to make a case as to why their projects deserve priority. But, when people in my life disappoint me I’ve found that pushing forward and retaining 100% of the spoils is much more satisfying than reliving the disappointment over and over again.

In my opinion, the following criteria should be used to decide if a permanent change of mode is a wise decision:

• Does the change of mode occur at a destination in-and-of itself? Ideally, a transfer station should feature high levels of walk-in traffic. It should be a place where getting off of a train to leave the system is just as likely as getting off of the train to board another one.
• Is the change of mode easy? Subway to surface and subway to elevated transfers are inconvenient, while cross-platform transfers feel much less so. A single escalator ride from one platform to the next is the most a rider should experience.
• If a change in ridership or development pattern is being cited as the reason for a modal change, are those patterns permanent? The reason Arbutus is mentioned is because to the east is a busy midtown commercial district and to the west is a long stretch of single family homes. If the city plans to allow the west end of the corridor to intensify, Arbutus should not be chosen as the site of the transfer.
• Is the change of mode to a stub line, or to a line which is part of a larger network? Forcing riders to transfer onto a stub LRT from Arbutus to UBC is not a wise decision in my opinion, but a transfer to a larger LRT network – of which Arbutus to UBC is just one component – is justifiable.

As I said before, I feel we can all agree that the eastern half of Broadway needs a Skytrain and that the first phase should go to Arbutus Street. What we do from there demands further study. The conclusions we make must be well justified, and take into account transit planning, land-use and development, streetscaping and urban design, and all other things that influence the big picture.

There are many questions that remain about how riders will use PRESTO on the TTC and if there will be significant differences between the experience in Toronto versus the experience on, say, Burlington Transit. Rather than list those questions individually, I’ve decided to jump straight to the best practises that should apply to all flat fare systems:

1. PRESTO cards and credit/debit cards should function identically.
   • Both should track rides and transfers for a paperless experience as PRESTO provides today. The technology allows for debit / credit card users to experience all the benefits of an account-based fare card system.
2. PRESTO card readers should be installed at all vehicle doors.
   • Since the new streetcars will have all-door loading with no fare verification, a similar procedure should be applied to buses to reduce dwell time at stops.
3. A single tap deducts the fare and starts the transfer window for unlimited travel in any direction. A second tap doesn’t deduct a new fare until the transfer window expires.
   • Time-based transfers are more conducive to a car-free lifestyle, as they facilitate stopovers and short jaunts to the store and back.
4. After a set number of trips have been taken in a set time period, the fare drops to $0 for the rest of that time period.
   • This method of applying discounts sees the rider pay the same as they would if they pre-purchased a monthly pass, but is more affordable due to the ability to load smaller amounts on a weekly basis. In addition, it is more responsive to travel patterns which can vary from month-to-month.
5. Students who receive unlimited travel as part of their tuition should have their passes distributed on a PRESTO card.
   • This will give students discounted travel on out-of-town travel, and will reduce delays at ticket booths and on GO buses as the weekend approaches.

One of the reasons why Vancouver has been so successful in increasing sustainable transportation use has to do with its layout. For the most part, the city had resisted the temptation to build new neighbourhoods with suburban street patterns. The streets follow a near-perfect grid pattern, which helps make active transportation a more attractive option. For pedestrians, a grid of square blocks means that getting to the main artery is just a short walk away in any direction. For bicyclists, it means that those who do not want to ride on the main drag can use the next street over from one end of the city to another. In addition to all of this, access to the downtown peninsula is only available through a small number of choke-points which makes driving downtown a pain.

Once the city’s design was combined with mixed-use and increased density, it created a perfect storm for reducing dependency on the car. But, this perfect storm has resulted in transit capacity issues. This is most pronounced on Broadway, a major east-west midtown corridor that runs from the University of British Columbia to the border with Burnaby. Currently served by a combination of articulated express buses and local trolley coaches running as frequently as every three minutes during the peak hours, the corridor is at capacity and likely has the numbers to justify an underground Skytrain line. But, how far across Broadway that line goes is up for debate.

Going west from the current Millenium line (by then, Evergreen line) terminus at VCC-Clark, a Skytrain extension could travel to the Great Northern Way Campus, then turn southwest to reach Broadway and Main Street. From there, it is due west towards UBC:

Underground Skytrain extension from VCC-Clark to UBC via Broadway corridor. Source: TransLink

West of Arbutus Street, however, the character of the street begins to change from an uptown commercial centre to mid-rise residential buildings of descending density. By the time the corridor reaches campus, about 5 kilometres later, the character is mostly single-detached homes and low-rise commercial buildings. In concert with this, ridership begins to drop off to levels which are not nearly as high as those on the eastern end of the corridor. This is not really the kind of circumstance that lends itself to underground rapid transit unless a seamless connection across the corridor is a non-negotiable planning goal. But is a one-seat-ride non-negotiable?

Of the many options TransLink is evaluating, one appears to be able to fulfill all of the planning goals of the extension while delivering a more cost-effective option for the far western end of the corridor. This option, known as “Combination 1″ in the public consultation documents, first calls for a Skytrain extension from VCC-Clark to Broadway and Arbutus via the same alignment discussed above. At the same time, the proposal calls for a light rail line to be built along the south shore of False Creek from Main Street-Science World station to Arbutus and Broadway via a currently disused railway corridor. From there, the LRT would continue west to UBC:

Underground Skytrain extension from VCC-Clark to Arbutus via Broadway corridor, LRT from Main Street-Science World to UBC via railway corridor and Broadway corridor. Source: TransLink

In addition to the cost-effectiveness benefits, this alignment serves a much larger area of the city – particularly the Olympic Village and Granville Island. But, it introduces a transfer at Arbutus and is slower than an all-Skytrain alignment. Is the trade-off worth it? To figure that out, we have to look at each alignment by the numbers.

For the Skytrain extension:

Skytrain extension, by the numbers. Source: TransLink.

And for the combination alignment:

Skytrain extension & new LRT line (Combo 1), by the numbers. Source: TransLink.

From this, we can see that the combination alignment will save $2 million per year less than  a Skytrain, will take seven minutes longer for an end-to-end trip (only a three to six minute savings over the current express bus), and will introduce a transfer. But, it will save $500 million in construction costs. I am of the opinion that the transfer can be designed such that it becomes a mild annoyance instead of a large, deal-breaking inconvenience. Thus, assuming that light rail can handle the projected ridership on the western half of the corridor, the only real issue is how much we value those seven minutes. Personally, seven minutes are not worth a half-billion dollars to me – though your mileage may vary.

But, what if building a light rail line could kickstart a much larger network to serve the whole region? Downtown, the City has proposed to build a light rail line running from Granville Island, around False Creek to Gastown, then across the core to Stanley Park as an initial phase:

Proposal for a light rail / streetcar project serving downtown Vancouver and False Creek. Source: lrt.daxack.ca/

The combination alignment could be a precursor to this project, which will connect a number of important destinations to the broader rapid transit network. On the opposite end, the line could be split at Arbutus and Broadway with some trains continuing south to Marine Drive station, Bridgeport station or directly to the airport. This would add rapid transit service to the upper city and relieve the Canada Line in the event that ridership from Richmond fill the trains before they cross the river.

Coinciding with these LRT proposals, advocacy groups further upriver are advocating for passenger rail service to return to the BC Electric Railway corridor:

Map of the old BC Electric Railway Chilliwack line, where restored passenger service is proposed. Source: http://www.valtac.org/

For the first half of the 20th century, a network of electric interurban streetcars served the lower mainland. As the current Skytrain network largely parallels the old interurban lines, restoring service east of New Westminster isn’t exactly a radical idea. Were the Rail for the Valley initiative to be realized from Scott Road station eastward, the line could eventually be extended west through New Westminster and along the north bank of the Fraser to connect with the Arbutus corridor line. Such a connection, while not terribly useful by itself, would provide a direct route between the south-of-Fraser municipalities and the employment district which surrounds the airport.

A Skytrain line from VCC/Clark to UBC will serve the corridor perfectly – do not let my preference for the light rail option cloud that. That said, the LRT option does have a cost advantage and is a better fit with TransLink’s regional mandate if viewed as the first phase of a larger network. If this option is chosen, the citizens of the lower mainland should know that they are not getting an inferior product – they are getting something that serves their needs adequately and can be the stepping stone for the next round of transit expansion to keep metro Vancouver’s international reputation high.

The photos of the PRESTO readers on board the vehicle serves as a reminder of the fact that the fare card should be accepted TTC-wide in time for the Pan Am Games. In addition to the green PRESTO cards, users will be able to use near-field communication compatible credit cards (an “open payment” standard for Paypass, Paywave, Interac Flash or similar cards) to pay their fares. But, will the open payment option be of the single debit variety or will it be account based? In other words, will tapping your card setup an account to track your fares and transfers, or will it simply deduct your fare and print you a paper transfer? I hope it is the former, as the latter is a waste of the technology’s capabilities and not much of an improvement over today’s fare payment methods.

My second question is, given that much has been made of the fact that these vehicles are accessible to users of mobility devices, how will accessibility work in practise? Clearly, the vehicle will be able to deploy its ramp onto dedicated platforms. But, what happens when the vehicle stops at a typical streetcar stop in the passing lane? Surely the ramp will deploy down to the roadway, but will the ramp reach across the curb lane to the sidewalk? If not, what happens if (as is typical during rush hour) there are cars blocking the path between the accessible door and the curb cut?

These questions, I’m certain, have answers to them. I cannot imagine purchasing decisions of this magnitude were made without due diligence done. So, I hope that in the coming months the answers are distributed to a public hungry for progress and improvement to the transportation system.

Perhaps we need to examine what kinds of employment we want, and if those are not possible or desirable, what kind of employment we are willing to have as a substitute. From my perspective, heavy manufacturing like what currently occurs is probably not appropriate given the changes that have occurred in the neighbourhood around it. But, white-collar, creative-class and maybe even small-scale manufacturing jobs are very compatible with the surrounding residential buildings and could be a reasonable alternative. While a 27-tower residential development may be as bad planning as a new factory would be today, some combination of residential and employment may be a good vision for the site. This assumes, of course, that infrastructure – particularly transit – keeps pace with the growth. That, though, is a post for another day.

According to an article appearing in the Toronto Star, Ontario Conservative Party leader Tim Hudak says that, if elected, he would upload the Toronto subway system to Metrolinx, have that agency be the exclusive builder and operator of an expanded rapid transit system, and build new subway lines as opposed to surface light rail lines. Assuming that these promises are able to be kept, I have no problem with this. When it comes to provincial control versus municipal control of assets, I have always felt that as long as the system functions as part of a seamless network the back-end administrative scheme does not matter much. In other words, riders should be able to use any combination of transit agencies – municipal, provincial or contracted – to reach their destinations on a consistent, integrated fare. When it comes to subways versus light rail, I have always felt that subways can meet the same planning policy objectives as light rail can – the only question is if the added cost is justifiable. If someone with money to burn is willing to pay the extra cost to build and subsidize them I will certainly not refuse them.

I do have concerns about Mr. Hudak’s comments regarding public sector employees, but this is not related to his political strips. When I graduated from high school ages ago, I was filled with civic pride and looking forward to a career in the public service. Nowadays, a public sector worker has to deal with unknown job security; wages that may or may not ever keep pace with inflation; and observers who are quite willing to insult professional abilities, qualifications and even workers personally. Frankly, I worry that the times we live in have turned many talented individuals off of working for the public service. When I graduate from Mohawk College in a few years, I will again have to choose between pursuing a public sector or private sector career. For the first time in my life, I cannot say in which direction I will turn.

These options include:

• Personal income tax increase of 1 per cent (raises $1.4-billion annually)
• Sales tax increase of 1 per cent ($1.3-billion)
• Property tax increase of 1 per cent ($90-million)
• Payroll tax of 1 per cent ($500-million)
• Highway tolls of 10 cents/per km ($1.5-billion)
• Fuel tax of 10 cents per litre ($500-million)
• Vehicle tax of $100 ($300-million)
• Commercial parking levy of $365 per space ($1.08-billion)
• Land-transfer tax of 1 per cent ($600-million)
• Development charges of $5,000 per unit ($200-million)

Now, it will be very easy to say “no thank you” to any of the above options, but that means we will enjoy a lower quality of life because we will be sitting in traffic instead of spending time with our families. It will mean that we leave a degraded environment for the next generation, as more cars means more pollution and more urban sprawl. It will mean a compromised economy because workers will not be able to get to work on time and goods will not be able to get to market. And, if all that does not seem worthy of action, it means that many homes – the largest investment one will ever make – will be devalued because no one will want to live in a place where the commute is too long and too expensive.

In order to ensure that our region continues to be the economic engine of Canada, we need to make significant investments in our infrastructure to remain competitive. We cannot afford to stagnate, because stagnation will mean devaluation of our environment, our communities, our quality of life, and those things – tangible and intangible – that we have invested most heavily in.