Transit activist Steve Munro has some very good updates for the 2008 TTC budget over at his website. It will be a very busy time for the TTC, as it not only continues to replace its bus fleet with low-floor accessible buses, but will be also replacing its subway cars, streetcars and even the Scarborough RT, and building the subway extension to York University and into the car-friendly sprawl of Vaughan. On the operating side, the TTC will have to negotiate a new contract with ATU Local 113, which represents TTC operators and station staff, and increasing ridership and backlogged bus and streetcar service improvements to handle the demand.
Highlights of the operating budget:
- The TTC workforce will increase by about 400 to 10,249 by the end of 2008 mostly due to service improvements. The effect of the bargained ATU wage increase has not yet been estimated, and could eat into the TTC’s operating budget.
- The planned service improvements for Fall 2007 that were postponed will finally take place in February 2008, with further improvements by November. These improvements depend on both vehicle availability and staffing.
- Ridership is expected to be 464 million in 2008, which would be the equivalent to the current record set back in 1988.However, service on surface routes has not kept up, and many routes have less service than 20 years ago, largely due to the devastating Harris-mandated cuts of 1995-6.
Amongst the capital budget highlights:
- The TTC is considering the purchase of addtional new subway cars, so that the entire Yonge-University-Spadina line would get the new “snake” trains (also known by the unimaginative Toronto Rockets moniker), allowing the TTC to remove all the narrow-door trains dating from the 1970s and 1980s. The first of the new subway trains are expected to arrive in 2009.
- The new low-floor streetcars are scheduled to arrive, replacing the current streetcar roster, between 2012-2018. The order goes out in early 2008 but there is now money allocated yet for their purchase. The initial purchase of 204 cars will likely be augmented by more cars for the new Transit City lines.
- The Scarborough RT is also going to be replaced with larger cars and an extension to Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue near Malvern for 2013.
The issue, as Munro points out, is funding. Some of the projects, like the Sorbara, er, Spadina Subway extension to Vaughan is funded, as are the first order of new subway cars. The province also pledged to pick up 2/3 of the cost of Transit City (with the Federal government supposedly to pick up the other third). But there are also many much-needed capital projects, including the “state of good repair” items, such as the replacement of existing buses and station renovations (where there is already a $700 million shortfall). Then there are the new and expanded garages to hold the new buses planned in the operating budget.
It is often worthwhile to read Munro’s blog, which explains the background and issues in more detail, as well as the technical aspects of funding and operating the gigantic TTC.
photo by Stephen Gardiner
5 comments
One has to wonder at the somewhat perverse priorities of the progressives that has the Sorbara subway to sprawl funded and yet we have real city-wide challenges to the entire system that money could help fix.
That said, the WWLRT is a Metro-era clunker: it accepts the Front St. Extension as built; the EA processes ok more piecemeal planning that doesn’t look at a dozen transit options through the corridor including such very obvious ones as more GO service, which is soon to be boosted 20% through longer cars. This will do more for congestion relief than both the FSE and the WWLRT and it isn’t costing $800M or more, as the entry to Union Station likely needs a costly upgrade with WWLRT.
Don’t we need to squeeze the millions a bit more?
“the Sorbara, er, Spadina Subway extension to Vaughan is funded”
That’s sort of true. As Steve points out: “delays in starting the project have driven the price up to $2.6-billion, and funding for this shortfall has not been identified.”
Hamish – more GO service is all very well but it seems clear that demand from west 905 will generally fill this as it is provided, plus overdependence on GO as a “single point of failure” will cause even more chaos the next time CN derails a cargo train or some idiot goes walking on the Lakeshore line and gets hit.
The reality of Toronto transit is we are going to need both the WWLRT and expanded GO in order to decrease rather than hope to maintain current congestion levels, the question is how best to do it.
The increasing cost of the options involving Bremner and an expanded Union Station loop are looking scary not least since Union is one of the zones that due to curvature and gradient are especially problematic for the current streetcar tender.
It’s also curious that TTC are looking to spend $20m on the Coach Terminal when GO Transit are proposing to consolidate coach activities with a new terminal south of Union – redevelopment of the current Coach Terminal site to commercial and/or residential (a very depressing first impression of Toronto for any tourists who bus it) could be hugely profitable for TTC given its downtown location between the subway lines.
Why is the subway to Vaughan called “Subway to sprawl”? It should be called “Subway to jobs”. From the provincial perspective, its money would be better spent improving traffic in areas that are not stagnating i.e. the 905.
Glen, there are much cheaper options than subways for serving Vaughan and the other 905 suburbs: LRT, BRT, etc. And you have to look at the opportunity cost of the $2.6B for the Spadina subway extension, which could pay for five to ten times the length of LRT and even more of other transit options. And that doesn’t even include the operating losses the TTC would incur for years while the area around VCC gets built up.
Finally, the idea that the 416 is “stagnating” is a gross generalization that is, for the most part, wrong.
Fin, it was the sprawl part I had the objection to. I don’t believe that those objecting to it are doing so because of the mode, but for the destination.
As far as the stagnation comment, would you care to point me to some references that shows any meaningful employment growth in the 416 for the last 15 years? Also any that dispute the tremendous employment growth in the 905 area.