Category: Transit

  • Mapping an accessible TTC

    IMG_3898

    Last week in Torontoist
    , I wrote about the challenges of getting around on the TTC for passengers who rely on mobility devices, such as wheelchairs. Most of us never think about this problem unless we’re directly affected by the consequences of an inadequate system, as I was after a cycling injury in 2012.

    But for TTC users with mobility disabilities (or even passengers with strollers, wheeled carts, or luggage), it’s an issue. While the bus system is (mostly) fully-accessible, the backlog in the delivery of new streetcars and the installation of elevators in subway stations leaves the system failing many of its riders. The alternative, Wheel-Trans, is also underfunded, inconvenient and useless for last-minute travel plans.

    Here’s what the subway system looks like if you require the use of elevators to navigate the system:

    accessible map - now 2015

    By 2016, only one more station  — St. Clair West  — will be equipped, by 2017, Wilson, Ossington, Coxwell, and Woodbine (and hopefully the Spadina Subway Extension to Vaughan Centre, with its six new fully-accessible stations, will open by then) will follow. But there’s not enough funding to make the entire system accessible by 2025, the deadline set by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). Seventeen stations, including Islington and Warden, remain unfunded.

    The entire bus fleet is accessible, though not all bus stops are (the TTC requires a solid, concrete or asphalt place to deploy the ramp or lift, and room for the passenger to board; some suburban stops without a bus pad, or narrow urban sidewalks make loading a passenger in a wheelchair difficult). The first four low-floor streetcars are operating on Spadina Avenue, 200 more are still to be delivered. By now, the Spadina, Bathurst and Harbourfront cars were to have been fully-equipped with the new trams.

    In the meantime, the few bus routes that operate in the central core don’t have many accessible connections; east-west travel is particularly difficult. For example, the 47 Lansdowne bus is inaccessible from either subway station it services (Lansdowne and Yorkdale), and offers no barrier-free transfers south of Dupont Street. The map below shows this problem:

    TTC - Downtown v3 Crop

    Elevators at Ossington would connect the subway with three accessible bus routes, including the 94 Wellesley, a useful east-west alternative. (The 94 serves four subway stations and enters three of them, not one is equipped with elevators.) Meanwhile, both Toronto Western and St. Joseph’s Hospitals are isolated from the accessible transit network.

  • The genesis of Mayor John Tory’s SmartTrack

    I was recently browsing Urban Toronto‘s forums (a great resource if you’re interested in keeping up with construction updates and development proposals here in Toronto), when I came across a post written by “AlvinofDiaspar” in a thread discussing SmartTrack.

    Alvin’s post linked to an interesting report written by the Strategic Regional Research Alliance, a consulting group based in Toronto that I had never heard of until recently. The report, entitled “The Strategic Case for the Regional Relief Line,” was published in October 2013, just before the mayoral race began for the 2014 election.

    John Tory unveiled his “SmartTrack” plan, promising a “London-Style surface rail subway” (whatever that meant), on May 26, 2014. The transit service, using frequent, electric multiple unit trains (like those used for commuter/regional transport in many European cities) would mostly follow existing railway corridors from Markham to Mississauga, via Union Station.

    On the east end, the route would follow GO Transit’s Stouffville Line from Union Station as far as Unionville Station, making more frequent stops, serving the Unilever plant (which will be replaced by a massive commercial/office redevelopment by First Gulf, first announced in 2012), as well as additional stops at Queen St East, Gerrard/Carlaw, Lawrence East, Ellesmere, Finch and 14th Avenue, in addition to existing GO Transit stops at Danforth/Main, Scarborough Junction, Kennedy/Eglinton, Agincourt (Sheppard), Milliken (Steeles) and Unionville.

    To the west, the line would follow GO’s Kitchener Line from Union Station as far as Mount Dennis (Eglinton Avenue, near the western terminus of phase one of the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT), with stops at Spadina, Liberty Village, the existing GO/UP Express station at Bloor, and at St. Clair Avenue. At Mount Dennis, the SmartTrack corridor follows a routing via Eglinton Avenue into Mississauga’s Airport Corporate Centre office district, which of course has no existing rail infrastructure to capitalize on.

    Tory promised to have SmartTrack operational in seven years, by 2021, putting other approved and/or proposed transit projects (the Downtown Relief Line, the Sheppard East and Finch West LRTs, among other plans) on the back burner.

    smarttrack_fbJohn Tory’s “SmartTrack” map

    Back in 2014, transit observers were taken aback by this new “bold” transit idea (John Tory kept using that word to describe SmartTrack), as his campaign had recently taunted Olivia Chow’s hesitancy to prioritize the Downtown Relief Line (DRL) in her transit platform. At the time, Chow, the presumed front runner in the mayoral race in April 2014, promised to increase TTC bus service and build the Scarborough LRT while planning for the DRL continued.

    The DRL is a long-proposed subway line under review by the City of Toronto and by Metrolinx that would connect downtown Toronto to the Bloor-Danforth Line east of the Don River, thus relieving the the Bloor-Yonge subway interchange from overcrowding, while offering improved transit access to east end Toronto, and addressing overcrowding on Yonge subway trains. Further extensions to the north, towards Thorncliffe Park, Flemingdon Park and Don Mills, would re-direct many current and potential transit riders from the Yonge Subway, allowing for an extension of that line from Finch to Richmond Hill.

    But to some degree, Tory’s promise of frequent, regional electric rail on GO’s corridors dovetailed with provincial plans for electrification of part of GO’s services and the Airport Rail Line (now branded as the Union Pearson Express). Improved services on GO’s corridors, if paired with fare integration with local transit (GO’s fares are very expensive for short trips), would provide useful rapid transit to many areas not served by the subway, and could provide some relief to the existing subway network. John Tory was endorsed by many provincial cabinet ministers; it appeared that he had the support of the Liberal government itself, though Premier Kathleen Wynne never endorsed any mayoral candidate directly.

    The only hint of this SRRA report that I could find in the mainstream media was in an interesting article written by Tess Kalinowski, the transportation reporter at the Toronto Star after Tory’s win on October 27, 2014. In an article published on November 17, entitled “The evolution of SmartTrack,” a report entitled “The Business Case for the Regional Relief Line” was mentioned. Also mentioned in the article was John Duffy, a political strategist who worked on the provincial Liberal leadership campaign of former transportation minister (now environmental minister) Glen Murray, and had ties to Wynne’s leadership and election campaigns. Kalinowski wrote that Duffy also was acquainted with Iain Dobson, a property developer and Metrolinx board member. Other people involved in putting SmartTrack together and mentioned in the article were the Canadian Urban Institute’s Glenn Miller (who is listed as a SRRA contact on its website, as is Iain Dobson, a real estate executive and Metrolinx board member), former Toronto chief planner Paul Bedford and businesswoman and urban expert Anne Golden.

    Transit advocate and friend Steve Munro picked up on this report before I had – you can read his posts which are more detailed and far better than my short analysis in this post:

    Munro: The Dubious Planning Behind SmartTrack Part I Part II Part III

    It’s unfortunate that John Tory decided to make this concept the centrepiece of his transit platform. Easily, the biggest flaw, mentioned by others, including Steve Munro and mayoral rival Olivia Chow, is the Eglinton section between Mount Dennis and the Airport Corporate Centre. The corridor already had a proposed rail transit project, the western leg of the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT line, a project first proposed in 2007 as part of a larger city-wide LRT plan known as Transit City, and confirmed in 2009 when the provincial government announced funding for it and three other LRT lines. (In 2010, funding was deferred for the section west of Weston Road). The once-available right-of-way that would have allowed for a surface-running heavy rail transit project was already disappearing.

    But in the SRRA-authored report, we see why Tory went along with the problematic Eglinton routing, rather than having SmartTrack continuing along the GO Kitchener/UP Express corridor towards the transit desert of northwest Toronto. It was part of a larger plan to connect suburban office parks to Downtown Toronto.

    The Regional Relief Line, as envisioned by the SRRA, would have included a third phase, from the Airport Corporate Centre to Meadowvale Business Park, another large, although sprawling, employment centre near Highway 401 and Mississauga Road. The “Phase Three” of this proposed regional rail route would follow Highway 401 on a new alignment.

    srra mapThe map from the SRRA report, published on page 4. Note the use of Google Maps to create the map.

    The SRRA planning exercise appears to be one where well-educated planning experts were engaged in a game of “connect the dots.” Sure, the Regional Relief Line connected several major employment nodes in Markham, Toronto, and Mississauga, with the nodes in Mississauga lined up along Highway 401. But this error on page 6 of the report makes me wonder how many of the facts and assumptions the authors simply got wrong or didn’t fact-check:

    This phase will take a little longer to complete than the Markham phase because there are no tracks on the section from Mt Denis to the Airport Corporate Centre. This right of way will take longer to design and obtain approval in an EA process. It is owned by the Province and was intended to be an expressway. There is ample room for the dedicated right of way.

    In fact, the Richview Corridor, the right of way mentioned, was owned by the city, not the province, reserved in the 1960s for an expressway linking Highways 401 and 427 to the proposed Highway 400 extension, part of a much larger highway plan for Metropolitan Toronto. The 400 extension was cancelled and the at-grade Black Creek Drive was built instead; the Richview lands along Eglinton Avenue West in Etobicoke remained dormant for decades. But in 2011, the city started selling off the land for residential development, making the right of way unusable for any transportation corridor. (This did not matter in plans for the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT connection to the airport; there was still room to build a median LRT corridor along this section.) In 2013, pre-eminent local transit and planning experts should have been aware of this development and be able to identify the proper owner of this former right of way.

    It also strikes me as a little backwards looking to link auto-dependent office parks together with a new transit line, especially without a detailed origin-destination study. Shouldn’t urban planners be promoting dense urban employment clusters in areas well-served or potentially well-served by transit? Does it make sense to build expensive transit lines to serve low-density office complexes that come with large parking lots and garages, such as those in Mississauga’s Airport Corporate Centre? Or am I confused?

    In December 2014, mere weeks after Tory’s election, Council voted 42-1 to accelerate the work plan for the rail line, awarding up to $750,000 for early analysis and modelling work. The consultants awarded the funds? A group from the University of Toronto and Strategic Regional Research Associates. In February, council approved an additional $1.65-million towards studying SmartTrack, at least taking a closer look at the Eglinton West section of the corridor.

    To me, it seems just a little bit odd that Tory’s campaign advisers were awarded this contract to study a project, that until Tory’s election, wasn’t even on any transit planning maps. Steve Munro picked up on this as well, questioning whether  Iain Dobson, a member of the Metrolinx Board, has a conflict of interest due to his involvement with the SRRA and a member of the Advisory Board to the University of Toronto Transportation Research Institute. After all, Metrolinx is supposed to be the expert, disinterested provincial agency charged with evaluating and implementing various transit plans. Meanwhile, the need for a Downtown Relief Line hasn’t gone away.

    Tory and his connections in academia and the private sector have managed to change the course of Toronto’s short-term transit planning, and I can’t help but feel a bit suspicious of the behind-the-scenes planning that went into SmartTrack. This is a story very much worth following.

  • Streetcars of desire: why are American cities obsessed with building trams?

    IMG_5868-001

    Back in January, I posted my thoughts on some of the new streetcar systems being built in the United States after visiting Detroit, Cincinnati, Atlanta and Tampa on a Florida road trip. I soon cross-posted the article to Spacing, where it got more interest.

    Not long after the Spacing cross-post was published, I got a message from Guardian Cities. The editor, Mike Herd, asked me if I was interested in writing a similar piece, expanding on my post and discussing the difference between the streetcars in my hometown of Toronto, and the new systems being built in the US.

    It was an interesting experience, and one where I came to appreciate the role that content editors have. The article went through several major changes until we were all happy with the final product.

    You can read my Guardian Cities article, which was published on Friday, here:

    Streetcars of desire: why are American cities obsessed with building trams?

  • The new American streetcar: A visit to Detroit, Cincinnati, Atlanta, and Tampa

    IMG_5868-002The brand new Atlanta Streetcar

    I went on a short vacation, driving down Highway 401 and Interstate 75 from Toronto to Florida’s Gulf Coast. From there, I went on to Miami and Miami Beach, before flying back north; first to New York, then back home to Toronto.

    On the drive down, I took the opportunity to visit some of the cities along the way. Once I crossed the border and entered Detroit, my route followed Interstate 75 all the way. The great highway, 2,875 kilometres (1,786 miles) long, goes from the Canadian Border at Sault Ste. Marie to Naples, Florida, and via Alligator Alley to just north of Florida on the Atlantic Coast.

    Interstate 75 passes through Detroit, Cincinnati, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Atlanta, and Tampa; all were stops along the way. Four of those cities — Detroit, Cincinnati, Atlanta, and Tampa, all are either building, or have completed, new streetcar lines. Tampa’s TECO Line is a vintage heritage streetcar (like those in New Orleans and Memphis), the other three are modern streetcar lines that are or will be similar to those in Portland and Seattle — short urban circulator routes. Nearly all streetcar routes build in the last decade have followed Portland’s model of a modern circulatory streetcar; older systems, such as Tampa’s (or those in Memphis and newer lines in New Orleans) are heritage-type streetcars, using vintage or replica equipment on lines that are part of the regular transit system, but geared more to tourists and occasional riders.

    Unlike light rail, (think Calgary’s C-Train, or Los Angeles’ Gold, Blue, Green, or Expo Lines), the new streetcar systems being built in the United States have short stop spacing, usually run in mixed traffic (or in separate lanes on city streets), and are often built to promote urban development, tourism and/or local transit ridership. The systems planned or being built here in Ontario, such as Ottawa’s Confederation Line, or Kitchener-Waterloo’s ION line, should be considered to be light rail (though ION will be partially running in city streets in Uptown Waterloo and Downtown Kitchener).

    Detroit

    IMG_5482-001
    Looking down Woodward Avenue towards Downtown Detroit, January 2015

    After crossing the border, I made a quick stop in Detroit to see the progress on the M-1 Rail streetcar.

    The 12 stop, 5.3-kilometre (3.3 mile) streetcar route, now under construction, will run on Woodward Avenue, Detroit’s main street, from Congress Street, downtown near the river, up to Grand Boulevard, in the New Center district. The streetcar line will link the reviving downtown core, three major sports venues and live theatres, Wayne State University and the fabulous Detroit Institute of Arts, and Detroit’s Amtrak Station. (Map)

    Near Wayne State University, the roadway was being rebuilt to accommodate the new tracks; crews had dug-up the old streetcar tracks last used in 1956. Detroit once had a very extensive streetcar system that was one of the first to be publicly owned (Detroit and Toronto were pioneers in this respect); Detroit’s Department of Street Railways (DSR) even had a fleet of modern PCC streetcars in the post-war era. But the Motor City opted for buses, and it, with state and federal financing, was busy building a network of freeways to serve that rapidly decentralizing urban area. The M-1 streetcar is scheduled to open in 2016; 60 years after the last Woodward streetcar pulled into the carhouse in Highland Park for the last time.

    The route will mostly operate in curb lanes, much like other modern streetcar routes in Portland, Seattle, and the new Atlanta Streetcar discussed below. Interestingly, only the central section will have overhead wires; downtown and in New Center, the streetcars will operate off of battery power.

    In a city emerging from bankruptcy, Detroit’s short streetcar is being built mostly with private money; downtown business interests and some public institutions, such as Wayne State University, are contributing most of the funds. These business interests include the owner of the Detroit Red Wings and Tigers, pizza magnate Mike Illitch. Illitch’s firm, Olympia Developments, is looking to build a new arena for the Red Wings right on the streetcar line. Dan Gilbert, the head of Quicken Loans, centralized his company’s offices downtown and is one of the line’s biggest backers.

    Certainly the line will be an improvement and spur more development along Detroit’s most famous avenue; it will connect most of Detroit’s major trip generators. But the rest of the city is sprawling, largely poor and blighted,; the public transit system, D-DOT, has been forced to make major cutbacks in the last few years.  The city and federal governments preferred to build a bus rapid transit system that would serve suburban commuters as well as city residents; this is the main reason private funds are being used for this project.

    IMG_5469-002
    Former DSR tracks, last used in 1956, are removed as construction progresses on the M-1 streetcar, January 4, 2015

    Cincinnati

    IMG_5599-001
    Central Boulevard, where newly laid streetcar tracks sit above the abandoned Cincinnati Subway 

    The Cincinnati Streetcar, also planned to open in 2016, is further ahead in construction than Detroit. Like Detroit’s line, it was planned to link the downtown core with sports and entertainment venues, educational institutions, and gentrifying neighbourhoods. However the line, first proposed in 2007, has been mired in controversy. An unlikely alliance, conservatives and the NAACP, opposed the streetcar plan for different reasons and backed ballot initiatives to block the project. Republicans at the state level pulled funding for the project and opposed it at the federal level. (To put it very simply, conservatives were opposed to money spent on the project, while the NAACP saw the streetcar, serving the downtown and the gentrifying Over-the-Rhine district, distracting from social needs elsewhere in the city.) Until a pro-streetcar council was elected, it seemed that Cincinnati was yet again going to see a rail transit project abandoned before completion.

    After the First World War, plans were drawn up for a new streetcar subway line through an abandoned canal bed on the north side of the downtown core, with a new parkway built on top (Newark and Rochester also built streetcar subways in disused canal beds; Rochester’s was abandoned in the 1950s, Newark’s City Subway is still in use as part of its light rail system.) Central Parkway was built; the subway underneath was partially completed, and when the costs to complete the line soared, and construction bonds ran out, work was abandoned. The Cincinnati Street Railway completely got rid of its streetcars in 1951. Interestingly, many of Cincinnati’s streetcars continue in service here in Toronto. The purchase of 52 PCC streetcars was the first of several streetcar acquisitions the TTC made from American cities abandoning their street railways in the 1950s.

    The current route being completed is a short 5.8 kilometre (3.6 mile) long loop, utilizing Cincinnati’s one-way street grid. (Map) In effect, the first phase would be nearly half the length of Detroit’s starter line. (The extension to the university campus is now planned for a later phase, subject to funding.)

    While in that city (which I’d like to explore further; I was only there overnight and in the morning), I got to see new streetcar rail be laid along the route, and poles put up for overhead wiring. But without the extension to the University of Cincinnati, and a route catering more to tourists and to downtown and Over-the-Rhine residents and bar-goers, I wonder about the utility of this one short loop.

    IMG_5555-001Laying track for the Cincinnati streetcar, near the Reds’ ballpark

    Atlanta

    The Atlanta Streetcar opened on December 30, 2014, so I got to ride it a week after its launch. The Atlanta Streetcar, intended as the first phase of a larger system, connects downtown with the near east side, an area known as the “Old Fourth Ward” which includes the Dr. Martin Luther King Historical Site (where the civil rights leader was born, grew up and preached at his community church). The route, a one-way loop, similar to Cincinnati’s project, is only 3.7 kilometres long (2.3 miles); streetcars currently run every 10-15 minutes. For the first three months, the streetcar is free. Atlanta ripped out its streetcar system in the 1930s and after the Second World War; the last streetcar operated in the Georgia capital in 1949.

    The route serves many of Atlanta’s tourist attractions, including the King Historic Site, the Centennial Olympic Park, the World of Coca-Cola and the Georgia Aquarium (Atlanta, being land-locked, hundreds of miles from the Ocean and not even on a river, is an odd place for an aquarium, but I digress) and connects with Atlanta’s rapid transit system, the MARTA subway.

    But the streetcar’s short route, and infrequent schedule work against it. I found it to be very slow, and with a frequency of only every 10-15 minutes, it isn’t an efficient way of getting around the downtown core. If you miss it, you’re better off walking.

    IMG_5903-001
    The Atlanta Streetcar in mixed traffic. Note that cyclists are banned from the streetcar’s route.

    Tampa

    IMG_5991-002
    TECO Line streetcar at Whiting Station, in the south end of Tampa’s downtown core

    Tampa’s streetcar, opened in 2002, connects Tampa’s downtown with the historic Ybor City neighbourhood via a route along the city’s waterfront. While Tampa’s downtown is an important regional financial centre, it is rather dull, even sterile. Ybor City has emerged as the city’s nightlife and entertainment district. It has a bit of the same architectural charm one finds in the French Quarter in New Orleans.

    Like most early streetcar projects in the modern era, the TECO Line (named for Tampa Electric, the electric utility that helped sponsor its construction and operating partner) is a vintage streetcar system, using replica “Birney” streetcars built by the Gomaco Trolley Company in 2000. The streetcars run every 20 minutes, until about 9PM on weekdays and after midnight on Friday and Saturday nights. The line also passes the arena where the NHL’s Tampa Bay Lightning play; service is extended when there is a home game on weeknights. The TECO line is operated by the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit; fares are integrated with the rest of the local transit system.

    IMG_5986-002
    Interior of a replica streetcar on the TECO line

    Like most American streetcar lines, TECO streetcar line is intended to boost development (of Tampa’s waterfront and around Ybor City) and caters to tourists; there were several European visitors on the ride into Downtown Tampa. But unfortunately, all but one streetcar in service that day were wrapped in full-body advertisements, obscuring the view out the windows. I detest transit ad-wraps; they devalue the transit agency’s branding; if they cover windows, they partially obscure the view from inside the vehicle. I feel that they disrespect paying passengers. But to wrap the signature transit fleet, especially one intended for visitors and occasional transit riders, seems wildly inappropriate.

    IMG_5967-002Fully wrapped TECO streetcar in Ybor City

    Concluding thoughts

    I’m a Torontonian, and I have loved streetcars since I was a small child. They have a certain “magic” that buses simply don’t have. Here in Toronto, and San Francisco, Philadelphia, Melbourne and many cities in Europe, streetcars/trams are an essential part of the transit network. Following Portland’s lead, the new modern streetcar lines being built across the United States (Washington, Milwaukee, and Kansas City are also building new streetcar lines) are looking to rail transit to promote mobility and economic growth in specific parts of those cities. Perhaps the small starter lines being built now will grow into large networks.

    It’s likely that Atlanta’s streetcar system will grow and become more useful. Maybe Detroit’s M-1 streetcar will speed up the revitalization of the Woodward Avenue corridor and become a symbol of the Motor City’s turnaround (it does have the most utility, it seems, of the four routes I saw on this trip). I am happy to see federal money spent on transit and cities looking to building local transit projects, instead of the massive highway construction projects of the last century. But with those good feelings, I can’t help but feel a touch of skepticism as well.

  • The over-simplification of the TTC’s maps

    IMG_7647[1] The 192 Airport Rocket on the new TTC subway map posted in its trains

    The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) introduced a new subway map on “T-1” subway trains, the older 6-car trains used on the Sheppard Line (known as Line 4), and the Bloor-Danforth Line, now known as Line 2. I first spotted the new map a few days ago and I have a few thoughts about it.

    In the latest edition of the map, found over every second set of doors, a red line representing the 192 Airport Rocket bus route was added, the first time a bus route was included on a TTC subway map. It’s a helpful reminder to passengers that a fast, frequent, affordable, and usually reliable airport transit link exists. I could quibble about the details (which makes little sense; I’d simply terminate the line at the airport icon), but it’s a great addition to the map. Now that the premium Union-Pearson Express train is about to launch, it’s an excellent time to remind customers about the TTC’s affordable airport link. (It’s worth noting that the MTA in New York City includes bus routes to LaGuardia and JFK airports on its subway maps as well.)

    Another little change that I like is the removal of the word “Spadina” from the name of the Yonge-University-Spadina Line, now known as Line 1. With the subway extension to Vaughan [ugh] Metropolitan Centre due to open in 2016 (though it may end up being 2017), Line 1 will now serve all four of Toronto’s universities (not counting secondary campuses): Ryerson, OCAD University, the University of Toronto, and York University. Since the line only operates under Spadina Road for less than 2 kilometres, and will extend beyond the old Spadina Expressway alignment (now Allen Road), the shortened name makes a lot of sense.

    And there’s one more great little addition to the new map: information on how to purchase your own subway map via the TTC’s website. The TTC’s slowly starting to realize the demand for transit-related merchandise; it recently began selling re-prints of old promotional posters and maps to the public via a new Shop TTC page on its website and through the new Spacing Store. An authentic subway map can be yours for $10. The new maps also emphasize the subway lines’ numbers over their names, part of a larger TTC wayfinding strategy. Numbered bullets, similar to those used in New York City, are used on new signage and maps for each subway and RT route.

    IMG_7644[1] Spadina is dropped; information on how to buy your own map

    Despite these changes, I feel the new map edition is still two steps forward, two steps back. For one thing, there are too many details removed. Compare it to the 2005 subway map [PDF, archived at Transit Toronto]. The 2005 map includes the station’s address (which is quite useful on Yonge, Bloor, and Danforth if looking for the closest station to a specific address), whether a paper transfer is required to connect with surface transit routes, and the locations of commuter parking lots. On the 2005 map, the international symbol of access (the blue wheelchair icon) indicates which stations in the system are fully accessible. In 2005, 22 1/2 of 69 subway and RT stations were accessible. (The 1/2 refers to Spadina Station, where the University-Spadina Line platforms are not accessible to persons using wheeled mobility devices, but the platforms for the Bloor-Danforth Subway Line 2, buses, and now, streetcars, are.)

    Ten years later, in 2015, 11 additional stations were fitted with elevators, bringing the total up to 33 1/2, nearly half of the TTC’s 69 stations. The 2015 map still includes the ISA icons, but they are now smaller, located within the white dots indicating the location of each station. In the photo below (taken with an iPhone), Scarborough Centre, Kennedy, Victoria Park, and Main Street, all accessible stations, are nearly indistinguishable from other, nearby stations that are not. The ISA icons are practically illegible from any distance or to anyone with impaired vision. This is the greatest failure of the new subway map; I believe that the TTC should re-issue these subway route maps for this reason alone.

    IMG_7645[1]

    The new subway maps available on the internet and on the Ride Guide paper system map have white backgrounds (perhaps to save printer toner if one wishes to print the PDF?), but it the same flaws as the version used in the subway trains.

    Subway_Map_2015
    Click image for full-resolution version on the TTC’s website

    The new, over-simplified subway route map reminds me of complaints that I had about the new TTC system map, released in mid-2014. The old system map was too large and cluttered (see the 2013 version archived at Transit-Toronto [PDF]) and was in need of a re-fresh. In the new map, the street grid is removed; as are bus routes operated by adjoining systems, such as GO Transit, Miway and York Region Transit. Landmarks are removed as well, but the addition of thick lines representing frequent-service surface routes was a nice addition. Green lines indicating express bus routes was also a great feature, though I don’t understand why frequent express routes, like the 196 York University Rocket, weren’t represented by thick lines either.

    Hopefully the TTC will re-think and revise both maps in the very new feature.

  • Does Scarborough need a subway extension? (No, it doesn’t.)

    Scarborough - 2014Rail transit routes in Scarborough, 2014

    The Scarborough Rapid Transit (SRT) line, opened in 1985, is in dire need of replacement. The SRT was planned as a grade-separated LRT route (here what it would have looked like), but the province pushed a new automated light metro ICTS technology. ICTS was developed by the Urban Transportation Development Corporation, then owned by the provincial government (UTDC’s technologies are now owned by Bombardier). ICTS has proven to be successful elsewhere, particularly for Vancouver’s SkyTrain, but not so much in Toronto.

    The city and province originally agreed to replace the ageing SRT with an extended LRT line, which would have been fully grade-separated. It would provide a rapid, high-quality transit route similar to LRT networks in Calgary or San Diego. Repairs to the existing line and new ICTS rail cars would have been expensive and difficult. For example, a tight tunnel between Ellesmere and Midland Stations would require complete reconstruction to fit the larger cars Bombardier still produces for Vancouver.

    In 2010 Rob Ford got elected on a promise of building “subways, subways, subways,” and with the province, had the fully funded, shovel-ready LRT conversion and expansion put on hold. Queen’s Park was wary of Ford’s support in those early years, and the Liberal government afraid of losing seats in Scarborough to the Conservatives. Interestingly, left-leaning councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker was one of the most vocal champions of the subway.

    The alignment for the Bloor-Danforth subway extension from Kennedy Station, which has not yet been decided, would probably be routed via Eglinton Avenue, Danforth Road, and McCowan Road, with stops at McCowan and Lawrence, McCowan and Ellesmere (or closer to the Scarborough Town Centre Mall) alignment to Sheppard Avenue, and McCowan and Sheppard.

    Council had the opportunity in 2013 to reverse its stance, but it unfortunately voted 26-18 to pursue the subway. Paul Ainslie (my favourite councillor in Scarborough), voted for the LRT, the only councillor from that part of Toronto to do so. In return, Mayor Rob Ford robo-called Ward 43 residents, falsely accusing the Ainslie of not consulting with his constituents when he decided to back the LRT. Ford was later forced to apologize by order of the integrity commissioner.

    Ainslie has it right. Support for the subway extension, even in Scarborough, isn’t as strong as many of its politicians’ rhetoric makes it sound. Some polls even suggest that residents in Scarborough support LRT. Mayoral candidates David Soknacki (who dropped out in September) and Olivia Chow supported going back to the LRT plans, but Doug Ford and John Tory backed the subway.

    So here we are. John Tory, elected mayor of Toronto, promised to continue with plans to build the Scarborough subway extension, despite its higher cost and his commitment to SmartTrack. On the campaign trail, Tory has not come out fully supporting LRT construction on Finch West or Sheppard East, two of the three pieces of the Transit City plan that are still funded. (The Eglinton-Crosstown LRT, the only Transit City route so far underway, is being built by the province through Metrolinx.)

    (more…)