Last night (July 5th) I attended a meeting of the Public Liaison Committee for the Georgetown Corridor EA which is currently reviewing its Terms of Reference. I went purely as an observer, but what I saw was an appalling abuse of the community’s time and effort.
The meeting call was for a period from 7:00 to 9:00 pm, although it was clear that the moderator wanted an early finished when he announced an 8:30 target for adjournment. The agenda was quite clear:
- Review recent events
- Talk about an upcoming meeting in September
- Go home
This is a very contentious EA because of the potential effects both at West Toronto Junction and in the former town of Weston. Major civil works are proposed in both locations, and if the Airport Rali Link (ARL) goes ahead, there will be a significant increase in service frequency in the corridor with little or no benefit for the people living along the right-of-way.
At a public meeting in June, attended by over 300 people, the agenda was not covered even after four hours, and a continuation meeting was planned for September. The community assumed that “continuation” meant that the entire ToR review and comment process would remain open over the summer pending discussion of the unfinished items in September.
The consultants took a very different attitude. They have extended the period for comments on the draft ToR until early August, even though their own presentation last night clearly states that they would incorporate any comments arising from the September meeting into their final version. Half of the meeting was consumed by a back-and-forth discussion in which the community complained that people would feel their input didn’t matter and were perplexed at the obvious contradiction in the consultants’ position.
Almost the entire meeting dwelt on process issues — who does what and when — rather than substantive issues the community expected to be on the table. Why else would a two-hour meeting be scheduled if the only real business was a quick review and plans for September meeting? To me, there was a clear intent to marginalize public input, and this may foreshadow an attempt to paint the folks from Weston as a pesky, uncompromising minority who can be ignored.
This is a huge contrast with the relationship between proponents, consultants and the public at the meetings for the Waterfront East EA Terms of Reference which were recently finalized for submission to Queen’s Park. At those meetings, there was a vigourous give-and-take between community groups and the professionals, and a clear willingness to entertain additional options and issues as part of the EA. The process worked the way it really should, and most participants came away feeling that their input was listened to and had a positive effect on the final document.
Of particular irony is the fact that McCormick-Rankin is the prime consultant for both EAs and there is some overlap of staff between them. The big difference at the Waterfront is that the consultants are not running the meeting, and there is an openness to discussion by the TTC’s representative at the meetings. In addition, the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation has been through several major design exercises including the recent international competition for the water’s edge. They know what public participation means and how valuable it can be to build support for their proposals.
The Georgetown/ARL study suffers from a major problem. Unlike a TTC transit study where the question is at most a choice of technology and a corridor, the Georgetown study involves two separate services — one an expansion of GO, one an express link to the airport — and possibly three separate operators depending on which option is selected. This, in turn, has a significant effect on the impact a new service will have in the larger context of the network.
How much traffic will it carry, at what fare and with what origin-destination pattern? We cannot directly compare a premium fare service linking downtown to the airport with a regular fare TTC service such as an LRT line from Union or Kipling stations. They would serve different markets and attract different riders. Similarly, a GO service branching south off of the Georgetown line would be priced as part of the GO fare structure. It wouldn’t be as expensive as the ARL, but it would be more expensive than a TTC route.
Part of the “cost” evaluation has to look at not just the capital cost, but the ongoing operating subsidies that are inherent in the fare structure. The trade-offs between schemes will include the additional markets that something other than an ARL may serve. Indeed, it is likely that new or improved GO or TTC services will attract more people out of their cars, looking at the region as a whole, than will occur with an express service to the airport that primarily serves business travellers and tourists.
The whole Weston/Georgetown corridor debate has been contentious for a long time, and the level of antagonism is evident when one attendee last night referred to a member of the consulting team as “the devil incarnate”. Relations with the folks working on the Waterfront project are much more cordial.
The Georgetown study is well on its way to showing everyone how not to conduct an EA by alienating the community. Where all this will wind up I’m not sure. The next installment comes in September.
Steve Munro 
Environmental study does not always [lead to] the most desireable result from a transit stand point. I went to the Scarborough RT meetings during November 2005 and April 2006. People there were complaining about how subway makes their community vibrate and disturbs the magnetic fields. There needs to be a set framework in which to discuss. People should at least agree that a rail service is needed and discuss issues like station placements and technologies.
Steve, you should never put a price tag on transit. Car users for the most part do not keep a log of how much they spend using the car. There must be an over capacity in any transit service to encourage people to use it. People want to see seats available for seating as oppose to sardine cans. No one wants to be the 50000th car on a road with a 50000 vehicle capacity. Over capacity will always cost extra, but no one complains when there is an over capacity on roads.
Steve: Up to this point I more or less agree, especially that if we don’t provide an attractive capacity on transit systems, they will not attract riders out of their cars. One significant difference for a car driver is that although they may be stuck in traffic (they may be that 50001st car), they are in their car, not standing on the sidewalk or jammed into a bus.
The corridor is a perfect show case for Bombardier ICTS technology. The rail corridor will nicely hide the ICTS tracks. When the ICTS hits a road, a guildway can be built along with a station. If residents really complain, stations can be integrated into buildings since the ICTS is so light weight. Elevated guildways will remind the motoring public that transit is faster. Think about how motorists feel when they see an ICTS vehicle moving at 80km/h and the 401 is jammed.
Steve: This is where we part company. I don’t believe that any line should be the “showcase” for someone’s technology. This has led to many transit orphans over the years including the Scarborough line. I’m intrigued that it’s OK to showcase Bombardier’s ICTS, but it’s not OK to sole-source a subway car purchase. Toronto does not exist as a billboard for Bomnbardier’s products.
The TTC should run the service with station placement every 1 to 2 km or so. This will generate the most amount of riders in addition to tourists. With ICTS, no drivers would be needed. This would reduce the amount of subsidy needed to operate the service. According to Bombardier, since the ICTS is motorless, maintenance would be reduced too. ICTS has demonstrated it is the best foundation for an airport rail link. Beijing, New York and Seoul has all chosen ICTS technology.
Steve: The question of drivers is a union issue at the TTC that we are unlikely to change. If we are going to have drivers, there is no point in having the expense of a complex computer control system. The motor is only one component of the ICTS vehicle and infrastructure, and even the motors need regular maintenance. You cite New York as an example, but this is an airport inter-terminal shuttle, not a mainline transit service. Such operations have major advantages in that their stations are integrated into terminal buildings as an integral part of design, and their guideways do not through urban areas where pedestrians, motorists, residents and businesses would be affected by the presence of an elevated guideway and stations over a street. Stations for trunk routes will generally not go into buildings because either the buildings are already there when the line is built, or an existing station structure is hard to incorporate into a new development.
In the end, EAs might not be the best way to approach transit. The best transportation projects in the world are done largely without cumbersome EAs. Beijing planned their ICTS airport link during 2005, the completion date is schedule for June 2008. Narita International left the planning stage in less than 2 years. The Shinkasen was built for the Osaka World Fair and completed in less than 10 years. Why are Torontonians bickering about an airport link or the future of the Scarborough RT through EAs? This is troubling.
Steve: EAs exist bluntly because people don’t trust public (or private) agencies to act in the best interests of the community as a whole, and expect that designs will be rammed through because the technocrats and the developers want them. We very nearly destroyed the city with an expressway network, and the EA process grew out of that kind of experience. It is a flawed process, far too bureaucratic and alienating to the public, but it’s the process we have.
I don’t know how common extensive public criticism and participation are in Japan or were when the lines you mentioned were proposed and built, or to what extent they affected existing neighbourhoods. Here, if someone proposed slicing a new rail corridor through the city, they would be voted out of office before they knew what hit them. As for Beijing, the level of public participation there leaves a lot to be desired. I will take bumbling old Ontario over them any day.
LikeLike
[The following comments are presented more or less as I received them except that I have omitted individual names where they occur. I’m not trying to protect anyone from criticism, but want to focus on the issues.]
Interesting commentary Steve. You should know that during the former Class B EA that was cancelled due to the push by the Weston Community Coalition leader […] to go for a full EA, the former consulting team openly approached [… two individuals …] very early on during a meeting with the local Councillor and very openly gave all the information about the potential impacts of this project.
At that time the answer from these individuals was one of cordiality and ended with a promise to work together with the community to see how this project could be tailored to fit within the various communities it was to serve and pass through.
Little did they realize until the first information centre, that these individuals had a completely different agenda behind these smilling faces: to get all the details and then scare monger the Weston Community into believing that the project would completely devastate the Town of Weston.
The previous Public Meeting back in April of 2005 was basically run by the WCC and consisted of hours of blasting negative words and smears on the project(s) with an agenda to basically kill it.
This was perfectly coordinated (including any pre-meeting news conference) […] with a few other members of the community who are still sitting on the Weston bandwagon. There are basically 6 or 7 main individuals in that group who will continue to push that project and any other initiative that affects the “Town”.
Most of these people are great people to deal with, but they were swayed by WCC to believe that this project would kill the Town. While some of them clearly wanted to discuss the impact issues with GO Transit, they were afraid to come forward individualy to support it for fear of being cast out of the community (just ask the head of the Weston BIA). Just think of the core Weston Community (the older stable business and historical part and those who have lived there fot a long time) as a Church where if you do something wrong you are cast out of it and banned until you repent.
Case in point, at the April 2005 meeting GO Transit proposed to even cover the section going through Weston, but it became very clear that by the end of 5 hours of ranting, the crowd had already been swayed just not to accept the ARL no matter how you would go through Weston. The Consultant even suggested looking at a stop for the ARL at Weston station.
One or two persons that stepped up to the microphone had commented that the good of the City should also be considered and that there are benfits to the ARL for the City as a whole. One of those persons was threatened after the meeting in the parking lot by a resident of the community and had to be escorted by a few other persons to avoid any physical injury. This shows you how those few individuals in their managed to completely change the reality of the situation and convince them into thinking the World was basically going to come to an end.
By that time, the agenda was clear to those who stepped back and looked at the overall situation: the WCC was attacking the Private Sector involvement in this project. The leader of the WCC had convinced the Weston public that it was all about the trains running through while giving nothing but bad air and no benefit to the community.
The original team was open and honest and got stabbed in the back by a few people with specific interests that have less to do with the community and more to do with personal preferences.
When next in Weston, you might want to find out how close the key individuals live to the tracks. You will be surprised how many blocks away they live from it. They skillfully managed to scare the living daylights of the hard working everyday persons living in the community, most in houses near the tracks) and like a well oiled machine coordinated the anti ARL campaign, which continues today.
That is why you felt the meeting did not show a connection between the public and the consultant.
It is always good to know both sides of the story.
John Smith
Steve: This is very intriguing background. I must say that when the consultants tiptoed into a possible discussion of issues at Wednesday’s meeting, what they were offered was rather vague. I put this down to the WCC doing a rather poor job of representing their position. However, the optics of the situation were clear: although the study team has another public meeting in September at which comments will be received, the deadline for comments is in August. This simply does not make sense.
With respect to the ARL itself, I too have a problem with it as a private sector, premium fare undertaking. We are giving up valuable land in the Weston corridor that could be used for transit service to a much broader community for a line that will only serve tourists and business travellers.
Suppose that the ARL were part of the GO system. The highest fare GO charges to get from Union to Malton (a single trip ticket) costs $4.90. On a 10-trip ticket, typical of what an airport employee would use, the fare is $4.50. This is a far cry from $22 and much more in line with a “public transit” service.
If the ARL were an LRT line with regular TTC fares, it would draw a large demand from regular TTC riders in the northwest part of Toronto and would provide the spine to bolster service on connecting bus routes. The WCC claims that an LRT line would be acceptable to them, by the way.
If anyone wants to kvetch about an airport link having stops on its way into downtown, they should try riding the Chicago subway link from O’Hare. Dedicated trackage is far too valuable to be used only for a point to point link unless there is a huge demand. The Weston corridor’s demand is not, primarily, the airport and the sooner we stop studying things on that basis, the sooner we will see more reasonable proposals.
LikeLike
Steve, I want to make some clarifications and rebuttal to the points you have made.
I hate to be the 50001st car on a road with 50000 capacity. At that point, it implies that traffic is at a virtual standstill. Does it really matter that a motorist is sitting on a comfortable chair, blasting their A/C and listening to radio? It cost money to sit in a traffic jam in terms of wear and tear, gasoline. At some point, motorists will be screaming for transit as a way to get people off the road.
Steve: Actually, the problem is that when surveyed, motorists have such a negative impression of most public transit offerings that they would still prefer to sit in traffic. A related problem is that the 401 may be jammed, but there is no transit service that gets them from home to work (for example) via a fairly direct, timely route. This is a major problem with transit systems, and it will be solved only by providing a lot of new services in many places (including taking road space for transit lanes), not by building a few very expensive trunk routes that don’t serve most riders.
Getting back to the technology for the air port link. Do you have any numbers in how much it cost to build the link using various technologies: heavy rail metro, ICTS, LRT (trams), Guided Light Transit (GLT) and buses (like Viva)?
Steve: No, but various studies have been done and you may want to look at documents on the Weston Community Coalition’s site. In this type of corridor, it is important to be careful in making comparisons between estimates. If, for example, someone assumes that much of a subway/metro line can be built on the surface, this has a huge impact on the cost.
California recently propose a maglev link from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. The projected cost for a single track maglev is about $35 million USD per mile. Even if they double track it, it would still only cost $70 million USD per mile. This is much less than the cost for a heavy rail metro or ICTS technology. Any comments?
Steve: This is a totally invalid comparison. First, much of this route crosses open desert where it can be built at grade. Second, the station spacing compared with urban transit will be miniscule. You have talked about urban lines with 1 to 2 km spacings. Los Angeles to Las Vegas might have a few stops over a distance of hundreds of km. Stations are very expensive parts of a transit system especially when they are elevated or underground. The escalators and elevators alone add millions to the construction cost and are a significant part of ongoing station maintenance costs.
Toronto should be a show case for Bombardier’s product. We are Canadians after all.
Steve: Why? Should we not also be a showcase for every other struggling Canadian manufacturer? If I were asked to spend money on something “Canadian” as a municipal expenditure, I would spend it on the arts to build a thriving performing and fine arts community that would attract tourism from all over the world, and would vastly improve life in Toronto itself. We have a huge pool of talent from every conceivable culture here in the city and GTA, and we should be showcasing that.
Bombardier has managed to sell their ICTS to a handful of systems and the two Canadian ones exist only through political interference. Both Toronto and Vancouver were planning LRT lines orginally.
In the US, the federal government frequently subsidizes Boeing civilian aviation R&D through military contracts. American airlines in turn purchase Boeing planes. It helps to sell Boeing planes abroad.
Steve: Your example is valid, but only in that it is the approriate level of government. The US government does not ask municipalities to subsidize Boeing.
Besides, transit should not be about using tried and tested technology.
Steve: Why not? When I am freezing my ass off standing at Scarborough Town Centre station in February because the computer system is broken down again, I really don’t care that this was a technology showcase. I want to go home. By analogy, we should force people to buy only hybrid cars made in Canada. Good luck!
Every city is different and each will require different transit technology. Shouldn’t Toronto experiement with different Bombardier technologies for reasons like 1) Promoting Bombardier’s products 2) Provide employment for Ontarians 3) Lower the cost in delivering transit service to a large area?
Steve: Your priorities are all wrong. Lowering the cost comes first, with the proviso that this means we can provide more service, not just save money. It is not the city’s job to address the other two points. If Queen’s Park or Ottawa wants to do this, then let them pay for it, and not just the capital costs, but also the additional operating cost of getting the untried technology to work properly.
I don’t understand why the animosity towards ICTS in Toronto. Given the right circumstances, it will excel. A quick read at the Bombardier’s website states that the MkII vehicles are 10.6 feet in width. A Toronto T1 Metro car is only 10.75 feet in width. In comparison, a Bombardier CRJ 900 airliner is only 8.5 feet in width. Capacity wise, ICTS should be not a problem. A 6 car ICTS MkII can easily move 10000+ people per direction hour with 110 seconds headway. The infrusture cost is less than a metro. ICTS is like a poor man’s metro and it works.
Even if ICTS or metro technology cost more, now is the best time to build them for Toronto. The current yield on a 30 US Treasury is about 6.6%. If the TTC borrows in USD, it will benefit when the USD depreciate in value relative to the CAD. Since Bombardier price their hardware in USD, it is not a problem. Transit construction should be repay not from current revenues but across generations. When future generation pay off this 30 year note, they will know that they are one step further in using less energy for transporation. It is worth while indeed.
Steve: We really are getting into fantasy when we talk about buying cars in US dollars. The primary cost of a line is the infrastructure, not the cars. This and the ongoing operating costs are paid for in Canadian dollars.
Just to end off with a quick note. I did a quick read into the history of Narita International construction. There were no EAs to speak of and the Japanese government simply shoved it down the residents’ throats. It resulted in protest. The riot police were called in to disperse them and appropiate the land. It ended with the death of about 20 people. I guess this is the price of progress and modernity. What do you say?
Steve: If you consider the death of 20 people to be “the price of progress and modernity”, then you and I are living on completely different planets. This is the last post in this thread that I will publish because I think we have beaten the subject, if not the readers, to death.
LikeLike
I could feel your disappointment by reading your article. I know what you mean; to have a productive environmental study, there should be participation between the experts conducting the study and the community affected, both directly and indirectly. Information should come from both ways or else whatever resolutions we come up will not be realistic or worth much. My company has been a part of several environmental studies here in downtown LA and the organizers always make sure that members from communities and businesses are present for dialog.
LikeLike