The Metrolinx Board met on Wednesday, May 19 for an unusually long public session. Rather than post separate articles, herewith a compendium report. The major topics are:
- The Board Speaks!
- The Managing Director Reports
- We Have A Vision, We Just Don’t Know What It Is Yet
- Achieving 5 in 10, or Transit City Rescheduled
- GO Rail Service Expansion Benefits Cases
- A Question of Advocacy
The Board Speaks!
Probably the most astounding thing about this meeting, the first anniversary of the “new” Metrolinx, is that the Board members finally found their voices. I was beginning to wonder if they were ever going to show some indication of earning their keep and actually asking hard questions of staff in public. We’re not quite there yet, but at least the discussion gave an indication that the Board is thinking about its role.
As regular readers will know, I believe that organizations such as Metrolinx should be publicly accountable through an electoral process and through direct access to one’s representatives. Boards that answer to nobody but the government which appointed them, and entertain no criticism from the public, can leave much to be desired.
To be fair to Metrolinx, even when it had a political board, much of the “public participation” was managed to achieve concensus with, more or less, what Metrolinx planned to do anyhow. That other well-known transit board, the TTC, is elected, but has succumbed to the disease of being cheerleaders for the organization right-or-wrong.
Metrolinx has not had to actually do much (as opposed to GO Transit which was simply merged into its new “parent”), and we have yet to see how the Board and the Government will react if Metrolinx badly fouls up any of its projects.
The Managing Director Reports
GO Transit’s Managing Director, Gary McNeil, presented his regular public session report. There is another one on the agenda in private session, but we don’t get to see that one.
GO is quite proud of improvements in its on time performance. The information shows up in the Quarterly Customer Service Report also on the public agenda. The report neglects to mention schedule changes implemented over the past half year so that published times better reflect actual conditions on the line.
Don’t mistake me, having trains and buses show up when advertised is a good idea, but it is odd that GO wouldn’t mention this as a reason why their stats have improved.
Riding is up on the system, moreso on buses than trains mainly due to capacity constraints. This table of current demands on major corridors at Union Station is taken from the Benefits Case Analysis report on GO expansions discussed later in this post.
Over the summer, GO will review its priorities for future service expansion. To what extent this might be constrained by funding cuts or deferrals is unknown as the GO side of the house appears to have come through the budgetary process unscathed.
Board member Joseph Halstead asked what the TTC is doing on fare collection. McNeil replied that the TTC is looking at a parallel “open payment” system, and is working with the Province on integration of these systems. Those of us who follow discussions at the TTC might think this a slight exaggeration. On the TTC side, the grave concern is that by the time Presto is rolled out across Toronto, it will be “yesterday’s technology”. This matter will, no doubt, reappear for debate before both Boards.
Presto readers are installed in 12 subway stations which have been identified as the origin of 80% of GO’s commuter market for the 905. This allows the lion’s share of GO Presto users to board the TTC for their commute trips to and from Union Station.
We Have A Vision, We Just Don’t Know What It Is Yet
The Metrolinx Board gave some thought to a “Vision and Mission Statement” during a private meeting earlier in 2010, and a first cut at this showed up in a report on the May agenda.
Flame on. As someone who worked in management of a very large public sector agency for a quarter century, I have seen my share of “Mission Statement” proposals and they are without exception steaming piles of equine effluvia, management games replacing productive work with the illusion of motion, and an absolute boon to consultants and facilitators. Flame off.
The purpose of the exercise, I am told, is to aid in the unification of GO Transit and Metrolinx behind a common goal, mission, vision and set of corporate values. In furtherance of this marriage, a separate set of statements was proposed for each organization. This is rather like a marriage where each partner is reading from a different text.
- For Metrolinx
- Vision: Transforming the Way the Region Moves
- Mission: To Champion and Deliver Mobility Solutions for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA)
- For GO Transit
- Vision: To Be the Preferred Choice for Regional Travel across the GTHA
- Mission: To be a Customer-First Regional Transit Service
The Board was not overwhelmed by this proposal, and sent the whole thing back to staff for another go. CEO Rob Prichard suggested that they would try to come up with some corporate “values” that would support their mission(s).
Although Metrolinx has a mission to “champion and deliver”, I am unsure whether a sense of “advocacy” forms any part of this concept. I will return to this later.
Meanwhile, if I am waiting at a streetcar stop for a “mobility solution” to appear, I will remind myself that Metrolinx’ mission is for regional travel, and that for the Queen car I must complain elsewhere. Some day, Metrolinx will embrace the idea that regional journeys include local components that do not involve a private auto and a parking garage. They don’t have to own and manage the local component, but they need to acknowledge and fund it.
It is rather quaint that Queen’s Park wants everyone to use its standard fare collection system, Presto, but has little interest in funding the local service improvements the growth of transit riding will require.
As I was making notes about the debate, I wrote “how long will they talk about this versus the substantive reports on project funding”. Clearly I have sat through too many of this type of meeting.
Achieving 5 in 10, or Transit City Rescheduled
Just as the GO trains have been rescheduled so that the advertised times match typical day-to-day operations, Transit City and VIVA have been rescheduled to fit within Queen’s Park’s constrained budget. I have written at length elsewhere on the new rollout plan for Transit City and will not duplicate that discussion here.
CEO Rob Prichard observed that Councillor Lindsay Luby had thanked him for the delay to the western end of the Eglinton LRT project as this will allow more time to sort out its design. If every Councillor were so fortunate in having projects delayed indefinitely, we would never get anything done. Oddly enough, the Councillors and MLAs who object to the proposed design in Mt. Dennis are not cheering about the new Transit City schedule, nor are they being consulted regarding alternate designs.
The Finch West and SRT projects, now scheduled to begin in 2015, York VIVA Phase 2, and the Transit City carhouses (Conlins Road and Norfinch) will be reviewed as possible “alternative financing” projects by Infrastructure Ontario. I can only hope that “IO”, as it is called, and the whole PPP fetish held so dear by some will be much better understood by the time any contract must be signed for these lines. How many more failed partnerships and horror stories such as the demise of London’s PPP must we hear of?
Rob Prichard observed that one problem with AFP is that liabilities accrue regardless of who builds the project. Even if a private partner builds you a carhouse, for example, you are contractually obliged to pay for it. From an accounting point of view, that’s a debt from the moment you sign the contract. We can thank Enron and other scandals for changes to public sector accounting that prevent (or make more difficult) the hiding of public debt and future obligations through leases and third party transactions. This makes IO’s work a tad more difficult when the announced Provincial policy is to limit the growth of debt.
The revised rollout plan includes purchase of cars for the four lines. The total fleet, 182, is smaller than original plans because, of course, the full routes are not (yet) part of the grand design. The contract is expected to be signed before the end of June 2010.
During the presentation, Metrolinx Vice-President Jack Collins mentioned that the projects already in hand will keep the project team at the TTC extremely busy. This led to a question from Board member Peter Smith (formerly Chair of the GO Transit Board) asking whether the original scope of transit construction could have been achieved. This was quite transparently a gambit to suggest that even if more money became available, TTC and Metrolinx would be unable to ramp up additional projects.
That begs the obvious question of how Metrolinx itself planned to spend $2-billion a year or more if the Transit City project office will be hard-pressed to spend less than $4-billion from now to 2014. The obvious answer is that project offices scale depending on the amount of work. Other teams are today looking after the Spadina Subway and many GO capital projects.
Collins observed that the construction industry is hungry and capacity is available in the industry because the private sector has pulled back on major investments.
Board member Paul Bedford (former Chief Planner for the City of Toronto) asked about the Pan Am Games and service to the Aquatic Centre at UTSC (University of Toronto Scarborough Campus). Rob Prichard replied that the so-called “Morningside Hook” would cost about $165-million, but as it was not part of the original Sheppard LRT scheme, it would have to be dealt with as an “extra”. In due course, he agreed that staff would report back in June on this option, and there appears to be strong support among the Board for this. This is an obvious add-on to the Sheppard line not just for the Games, but as an eastern anchor for the line much as York U will be for the subway extension now under construction.
Note that on Page 16 of the presentation material, the location of Morningside Avenue is mistakenly shown as west of the interchange with the Scarborough RT when it is, in fact, somewhat to the east. This explains the corresponding error in the map published with the Star’s background article. It’s so nice to know that both our planners and our media are so well-informed on the geography of the city.
The Board has a short discussion on that difficult question “What Is LRT?”. Collins was prepared to talk for an hour if he had to, but gave a thumbnail sketch setting out the major differences between the St. Clair and Spadina lines (which are much closer to “streetcars”) and the Transit City lines (which are a hybrid between fully grade separated rapid transit and street running, the latter to have better priority and more widely spaced stations than “streetcars”).
On the subject of capacity, Collins stated that Eglinton would be capable of 12K/hour. To put this in context, that is 200/minute, or a three-car train (service design capacity, say, 450) every 135 seconds. (The 450 number is derived by taking the design capacity of the CLRV, 74, doubling it and rounding up to 150, and then multiplying by 3. This is a conservative value, and has plenty of headroom for surge/peak loads within a peak hour.)
To a question about the Air Rail Link (ARL), Prichard replied that this was a joint project between SNC-Lavalin, Ottawa and Queen’s Park. GO Transit will charge the ARL for use of its tracks and for support services such as dispatching.
GO Rail Service Expansion Benefits Cases
As part of the review of the “Big 15” projects within Metrolinx’ “Big Move”, the Board considered a compendium report on four proposals:
- Barrie Corridor
- Milton Corridor
- Richmond Hill Corridor
- Bowmanville Extension
This Benefits Case Analysis (BCA) report is summarized in the presentation given at the meeting. I will deal with this report and related reports about the proposed Peterborough service (here and here) in a separate post. Also, a report on the Stouffville Corridor is expected at the June Board meeting.
Among important points noted in the presentation:
- GO already has major capacity problems during the peak period and future service will outstrip the capacity of even the expanded Union Station. A separate study about rail terminal options is expected to report in the fall of 2010.
- Rail corridors are limited in their number and capacity, and another rail yard will be needed to service trains.
- The service levels proposed for Milton, Barrie, Richmond Hill and Stouffville are a huge increase over today’s operation with all-day 30-minute headways in both directions and 10-minute peak direction service.
- Diesel Tier 4 technology is assumed, but this matter will also be picked up by the Electrification Study. Indeed, the design of additional terminal capacity at Union may force electrification if the platforms are underground.
- All but the Bowmanville extension scored well on the cost/benefit analysis. These numbers are always suspect at Metrolinx, but I will not comment on the information in the BCA report until I have fully digested it.
- The Richmond Hill corridor still scores over 1 (at 1.1) even if the Richmond Hill Subway is included in the network. A full BCA for that subway proposal has not yet been published, but the numbers are rumoured to be quite uncomplimentary for this project.
A Question of Advocacy
Earlier I talked about the Metrolinx Vision and Mission statement which includes the concept of “championing” better transportation systems. To that end, Metrolinx needs to move beyond a meek, “yes Sir, right away Sir”, response to Provincial funding cuts into an advocacy role. Indeed, this is the heart of the cultural divide between Toronto politicians and Mayor Miller and those at Metrolinx and Queen’s Park.
Without question, it is the Government’s prerogative to set fiscal plans, and its agencies must live within them. However, it is also the duty of agencies and Ministers to advise the Government on the implications and alternatives available for future budgets.
In particular, the transit funding cut has been justified as a necessary step to limit the growth of Provincial debt. I will take the Government at their word that this is true, but if so, then the justification for withholding funding evaporates if the economy recovers more quickly than projected in the 2010 budget. World events are uncertain, although there are indications that Ontario is in better shape now that it had planned to be. Whether this holds remains to be seen.
Suppose there is more headroom for debt in 2011 than had been planned. What Metrolinx projects should benefit from the ability to move back toward the original “burn rate” of the budgets for the “Big 5” projects? The time constraints on the SRT project likely prevent its being moved back to a pre-Pan Am schedule, but Finch West is a simple project independent of timing constraints. All it needs is funding.
Metrolinx needs to embrace an advocacy role for transit — its funding, construction and operation — and this must include better funding for local operations. Imagine if GO does operate half-hourly service all day on its major routes. How will people reach their destinations if the train serves only a gigantic parking lot full of cars awaiting homebound commuters? Metrolinx may think of local transit as “something we don’t do”, but its Big Move is doomed if local transit isn’t funded and operated at a level that complements much more extensive rail operations.
Funding is a big issue now both locally and regionally. Funding needs its advocates, people who will take the political heat for new taxes and fees, people and organizations who can see, who have a vision of what transit will look like when it really is the preferred choice for travel.
Steve Munro 
Steve wrote:
“Riding is up on the system, moreso on buses than trains mainly due to capacity constraints.”
Kevin’s question:
What capacity constraints? I travel frequently on peak hour trains and have yet to see a single one packed to crush loads. Indeed, many peak hour trains have very few or no standees at all. In every case it has been possible to pack a lot more people onto the train.
Steve: I think that Gary McNeil is talking about the number of trains and the track time available, not physical space for passengers, although peak demand into Union on some corridors is already at or above seated load capacity. This chart is taken from the report on service expansion.
LikeLike
@Kevin, there’s a difference in standards between commuter/regional systems and mass urban systems. The standard that GO runs on has the capacity equal to the number of seats. If there are any standees, and no seats to be found, it means the train is overcapacity by commuter/regional system standards.
Steve: I have updated my reply to Kevin’s comment, as well as the main post, by adding a capacity table for the GO services taken from the BCA report on GO expansion.
LikeLike
I don’t think Metrolinx has anything to do with this but I think this is under the TTC’s jurisdiction and want to give them credit- and that credit is for the Station Modernization Program. Victoria Park Station opened up the shared bus platform and it is a vast improvement over the seperated bus platforms the station used to have. The reno is far from over still lots of work but it is already improved; anyone who is interested in transit check out this project as it slowly progresses.
If Metrolinx is taking over the way the funds are spent and this program of Station Modernization still continues. Maybe expansions will always get mired in local turf wars between ideas and communities but the Station Modernization program is improving what we already have. VP station, isn’t perfect, but when I think back to the old design I think it is at least 100 times better.
Steve, can you do a thread on the Station Modernization Program, VP is close to being done, Pape is in the middle of it, Warden might get funding, and I would like to find out who is funding this great program, the province through Metrolinx, the city, I doubt the feds? I think this program has the potential of increasing ridership significantly if they keep it going for other stations.
Steve: This program is funded mainly by the City, with some money coming in as part of Provincial and Federal gas tax, but not specifically earmarked for it. The program is on hold beyond stations already in the pipeline due to lack of funding. Metrolinx does not see this sort of thing as part of its mandate because it is part of “local”, not “regional” transport. One exception is the new terminal at Kipling for GO and Mississauga Transit which is being done by GO/Metrolinx as a “regional” facility.
Pape is underway, but is not as far along as Vic Park. Dufferin is in the very early stages. Beyond that, it’s anyone’s guess. Design work on Woodbine was cut from this year’s budget. Both Warden and Islington depend on at least partial financing from redevelopment that has not happened (a proposal for Islington fell through, and nothing has replaced it).
As a general rule, terminals with individual platforms for each route are to be replaced with shared platforms as this is much easier to manage for access (one set of escalators and elevators) as well as providing indoor waiting. Eglinton Station was the original design, and it now occupies temporary space inside the old Eglinton Garage pending construction of a new terminal as part of the Eglinton LRT project and any related redevelopment of the old terminal site. (The old bus bays were closed because the roof of the concourse below is no longer structurally sound.)
LikeLike
My favourite GO speak:
“Trains will depart this station earlier and arrival times at Union Station will be later . . .”
In other words, we can’t arrive within 5 minutes of the times published in our already well padded schedules. It’s remarkable that since GO service was established in 1967, nary a nanosecond has been shaved off the travel times of the Lakeshore West timetable.
On another note, was the Niagara service discussed?
Steve: In passing, mainly with reference to the outfitting of “bicycle cars” for this summer service.
LikeLike
I really can’t see any justification for still running buses to Eglinton and Eglinton West stations when the LRT is built and in operation. It makes no sense if you interline some of the routes that currently run out of Yonge-Eglinton. It strikes me as incredibly inefficient to keep buses running along Eglinton when there’s underground rail service along Eglinton at the same time, and furthermore wastes valuable real estate.
Steve: There will still be the 97 Yonge service and possibly a local surface bus on Eglinton that will need an interchange with the subway. Whatever is built will be quite small, not the megaterminal we once had.
LikeLike
DiCK says:
May 23, 2010 at 8:10 pm
“My favourite GO speak:
“ ‘Trains will depart this station earlier and arrival times at Union Station will be later . . ’
“In other words, we can’t arrive within 5 minutes of the times published in our already well padded schedules. It’s remarkable that since GO service was established in 1967, nary a nanosecond has been shaved off the travel times of the Lakeshore West timetable.”
The Lakeshore West timetable was originally designed to run with 10 car trains of modified subway cars. Since then it has changed to run with 12 car trains of bi-levels which have a much higher mass than the original cars. What has not changed is the tractive effort available to accelerate the trains, 72 000 pounds of force. With this increase in the mass of the trains it is a miracle GO managed to stay as close to the schedule as it did. The final clincher, I believe, was the change to 12 car trains which increased the mass of the train by about 15%. The higher horsepower locomotives will allow the trains to reach the same maximum speed but it will not reduce the time required back to what it was before.
The other problem is that many of the trains are running with 40 or 50 standees and the loading and unloading times are greater that designed for. While the bi-levels have two double doors the people from the upper two levels all exit through the outer half of each door so for a good portion of the time the doors are running single file.
The only way GO can really improve travel times is to change so self propelled cars. This is in itself a problem as Transport Canada considers them to be locomotives and the maintenance requirements are much higher than for coaches. GO is looking at electrifying with electric locomotives and this would be a mistake as it would only result in about a 10% improvement in running time versus a 25 to 30% that would result with EMU’s. The electric locomotives have ac traction motors which result in a slightly higher tractive effort than dc motors and their higher horse power allows this increased rate of acceleration to last to a higher speed.
So far GO/Metrolinx has only looked at electrification with locomotive hauled trains. Like the Peterborough study this will probably result in an impossibly high cost, especially if they use 140% contingency funds, and they will stick with diesels. Metrolinx seems to only want to study the concept that backs their pre-determined results, probably diesels forever.
GO/Metrolinx owns the Newmarket sub, the Weston Sub from Union Station out; they also own the Entire Uxbridge sub from St. Clair junction out. They can run captive equipment, cars that do not operate on the same track at the same time with heavy freight equipment, on Weston to Bramalea and Newmarket to Barrie. This equipment does not have to meet Transport Canada’s requirements for mainline buff loading strength and maintenance intervals. If they could purchase the Kingston Sub at least to St. Clair and could isolate one or two tracks then they could do the same for the Uxbridge sub. If GO/Metrolinx were to purchase the Havelock sub and connect it to the Uxbridge sub then it to could be run with lighter weight equipment. Freight trains could still operate on these lines between off peak trains or after service ceased at night. They will not look at any of this as it does not fit their paradigm of being a heavy rail commute operator.
LikeLike
“There will still be the 97 Yonge service and possibly a local surface bus on Eglinton that will need an interchange with the subway. ”
…except that 97 Yonge has operated out of Davisville Stn. (and St. Clair Stn.) for about two decades now, and the service south of Eglinton is needed since 5 Avenue Rd. no longer operates on that stretch.
Steve: Ah yes. Well, it will still be nice to have a bus loop for those times when the subway is broken, and shuttles run north from Eglinton.
LikeLike
Why did the province create another layer of bureaucracy? We already have a Ministry of Transportation. Isn’t it that Ministry’s job to deal with transit and transportation issues? Why does Metrolix exist and why is money being wasted behind this board.
Steve: Because the Ministry of Transportation is really the Ministry of Highways.
LikeLike
VIA trains count as mainline buff loading equipment. It is not just about heavy freight trains, but also fast passenger trains like VIA rail. GO will have to share with VIA on the Weston sub throughout the day. But I still think they should relax the buff strength of transit (GO) trains. It makes passenger trains too heavy and expensive and not energy efficient enough due to added weight to accelerate from every station stop.
LikeLike
…not that there wouldn’t be a bus terminal at Eglinton Stn., I’m just saying that 97 Yonge wouldn’t serve it (as for broken subway replacement service, let’s just not go there). Like you said, a local Eglinton bus service may be provided. And, though I have not seen the designs for stations at Avenue Rd and Mt. Pleasant, i would not be surprised if those buses still ended up going to Yonge-Eglinton Stn. so as to eliminate too many transfers to the main line.
Steve: Yes, there is no loop at Avenue Road, and changes at Mt. Pleasant would be very difficult. This implies the existing service arrangements won’t change unless the TTC through-routes services on those streets.
LikeLike
• 3onthetree says:
May 25, 2010 at 2:13 am
“VIA trains count as mainline buff loading equipment. It is not just about heavy freight trains, but also fast passenger trains like VIA rail. GO will have to share with VIA on the Weston sub throughout the day. But I still think they should relax the buff strength of transit (GO) trains. It makes passenger trains too heavy and expensive and not energy efficient enough due to added weight to accelerate from every station stop.”
VIA only operates 3 trains each way now and I doubt that their plans to go to 6 each way will come to fruition. With only 3 trains it should be possible to run them so that they are temporally separated from GO. Also GO/Metrolinx wants to have 3 or 4 tracks for most of the right of way between Bramalea/Pearson and Union Station. It should be possible to have completely separate lines for the VIA and GO trains that go past Bramalea. It is not impossible to do if, and this is a big if, Metrolinx will look at ALL the options and not just the ones that produced their predetermined results.
LikeLike
In looking at the summary of upgrades necessary, I note that for Richmond Hill it states that for case A there would be “New additional tracks and bi- directional signalling system”. Would this include the necessary Doncaster diamond grade separation?
If not, you can add another $200m to the $700m cost…
I look forward to your evisceration of the Peterborough line. The report seems pretty balanced to me, and makes it clear that there’s no way that Metrolinx could ever justify taking on the expense of reconstructing the Havelock sub. Also, it calls into question why Metrolinx bothered with purchasing the Don branch.
Steve: The Doncaster grade separation is essential for frequent service to Richmond Hill. As for the Don Branch, I suspect that the rationale was to buy it “just in case”> It is, after all, shown as part of the 25-year Metrolinx plan.
LikeLike
Notwithstanding the issues of a connection between Bala and Belleville at Wynford as identified in a City 2005 report, I would expect the best results for Richmond Hill service will only be achieved by rerouting it along the Don Branch, and I believe that that is worth its investment far more than Peterborough service would ever be. Don’t forget also that Metrolinx wants to operate GO service through Malvern and Seaton as well, assuming CP is willing to entertain Metrolinx on that prospect (I’ve heard some hints suggesting their relationship still has room to improve if you catch my drift).
LikeLike
Indeed, and the Peterborough study highlights that tension between CP and Metrolinx – half a $billion of the cost seems to be incurred in routes 1 and 2 when constructing the crossing (grade separated) of Belleville Sub to get to the Don Branch.
Add that to the Doncaster grade separation (I’d hold $200m for that).
The Don Branch reconstruction costs are shown in the Peterborough study as $35m (page 101, pdf page 104) which would have to be doubled for twin tracking.
As you can see, before we even get the portions of Bala south of York sub twin-tracked, we’re already at $770m, which is 10% higher than the Metrolinx projection for RH GO upgrades required for frequent service.
Karl, do you have a link to the Wynford report you mentioned?
LikeLike
PS – don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see the rail line built out to Peterborough, my old home town – but I can see from the report that unless these costs (Belleville sub crossing, Don Branch reconstruction) are removed from the line to Union via some other project, Peterborough will never merit the capital investment.
CP seems to have successfully managed that line into the ground, to the point that GE has paved over all of their sidings that go directly into their plants. I think the only heavy users now are the mining operations out past Havelock and Quaker Oats.
LikeLike
The trouble with running the line to Petebrough along the CP line is that most of the way it runs through greenbelt, and so will always have difficulties getting sufficient ridership to warrant the investment.
Personally, I think the route should follow the CP line up to the 407, run down the median of the 407, then along the area set aside for a “transitway” beside the 407 extension to its eastern end, then head north to rejoin the CP line the rest of the way to Peterborough.
Yes, this would be a new line, but the level of reconstruction required for the existing line is so big I don’t think it would cost significantly more. It would also run much closer to existing urban areas, and will be nicely in the middle of future urban areas as Pickering/Whitby/Oshawa creep ever northwards, and act as a reflief for the Lakeshore East line, in the same way the Milton line does for the Lakeshore West.
Or am I being crazy?
LikeLike
“Morningside Hook” is an interesting idea, but putting it inside Morningside Avenue would be a joke. There is plenty of vacant land nearby to build standalone tracks for the LRT, and nobody will be getting on or off at this Hwy 401 interchange, anyways.
LikeLike
I finally rode the SRT today. I’m definitely not the worst offender out there but I am, on occasion, guilty of redrawing the SRT’s alignment without being even slightly knowledgeable about the current experience.
It really is an odd ride. The vehicles are constantly noisy and the ride can be bumpy, but I assume that both are maintenance issues more than anything else. That said, the experience made me think about the upcoming order of 182 new cars for the revised Transit City plan.
Are the passenger cabins of these new standard gauge Bombardier cars going to be as narrow as the SRT’s Mark I cars? I know that capacity issues have been talked to death on this site, but those cars are uncomfortable whether sitting down or standing up, and it wasn’t even rush hour. You couldn’t avoid stepping on someone’s toes if you tried! Like the Orion 7s, I don’t think customer feedback is going to be terribly positive if vehicles of that cabin width are rolled out across the city.
I would hate it if Metrolinx scrapped the TTC’s “non-standard” gauge to save marginal millions and it turned out that it was that non-standard gauge that had allowed Torontonians to enjoy a more comfortable ride all along. Hopefully I’m wrong on that point.
Steve: The Transit City fleet will be about the same width as existing streetcars. The SRT cars are very small because the linear induction motors used on the “Mark I” cars had power limitations, and this limited the weight (and hence size) of the vehicles.
Otherwise, I think that I better understand why many of the “re-alignment” proposals for the existing SRT fall flat. Beyond engineering and cost issues, the truth is that the residential, commercial, and retail node has developed around Scarborough Centre Station in such a way that any relocation of that station would be suboptimal for at least one group of users.
An alignment under Midland might just barely work to preserve the location of Scarborough Centre, although likely not elevated, and to preserve plans for the SRT’s expansion to the northeast. Whereas an alignment under McCowan could only hope to preserve Scarborough Centre’s current footprint by expanding the SRT northwest instead of northeast. Now, that might not be a bad thing, it’s just a different policy decision. The politicians would have to be willing to disappoint Centennial College though.
LikeLike
Peterborough should be a busway. The eventual Highway 407 will reach all the way out to Highway 115 to Peterborough, leaving the obvious routing for a bus route or even BRT that would serve northern Durham region as well. Another consideration, though, for these north-eastern rail lines is the eventual Pickering airport. I can’t recall which line, but one of the branches of the CP mainline hits close to the planned airport site.
LikeLike
The proposal for the Pickering airport lands has a spur off of CP’s Havelock subdivision serving he airport. See this link for a zip file of maps and drawings and take a look at “PickeringSiteLayout2032.jpg” to see the proposed branch.
LikeLike
Karl wrote:
“@Kevin, there’s a difference in standards between commuter/regional systems and mass urban systems.”
Kevin’s comment:
So if I’m a lowly peasant untermensch spending 30 minutes on a subway or bus to get to work, the government treats me like pond scum with the attitude of “screw you, you can stand all the way.”
But if I’m one of the superior beings, the aristocracy of transport, those angels of light who ride a GO train for 30 minutes then I definitely should not be subjected to having to stand?
Last time I checked, I too pay taxes to the provincial government.
LikeLike
Kevin Love says:
May 28, 2010 at 10:38 am
My comment. If I ride GO from Brampton to Union for a 33 minute ride on the express I pay $5.18. If I ride The TTC for the same time I pay a lot less. I also often have to stand on the way home as far as Bramalea on some trains. There are lots of GO trains with standees in the rush hour. I hate passengers who get on early and deposit their brief case or shopping on one seat and sit on the one next to it. I reach in pick it up, put it on the floor or their lap, step on their toes and sit in the seat.
LikeLike
The idea that GO operates on the assumption that ‘quality’ commuter service means ‘no standees’ is amusing given that their trains (in my humble experience) are often not on time, so the passengers end up standing (and waiting) at the station instead of on the train.
Aside from the AM peak hours, I stopped worrying about being at GO stations ‘on time’ and became more concerned that arriving at the station ‘on time’ (5 minutes early) meant that I would be ‘too early’ for the train.
Case in point – my last ride on GO (the Lakeshore West line from Port Credit into Toronto and back) was my first ride on GO in recent years (I live in Malaysia but am returning to Toronto in August) – and there was no difference in the service in 2009 as compared to 2003 when I was a student. I arrived ‘on time’ but the train didn’t.
Back in 2002 & 2003 (the last time I used GO regularly) I was able to walk down from U of T to Union Station, arrive 5 minutes after the scheduled departure time, and still have time to grab a coffee or some street meat and enjoy it slowly before going up to platform level.
My absolute worst GO experience was when I was escorting a group of students from Taiwan (in 2002) to Toronto for Caribana – we ended up waiting for 1 hour and 15 minutes after the scheduled departure time – and actually watched our train going west to Oakville, 45 minutes late, before it came back to Clarkson.
GO is going to have to accept that commuter ‘standards’ are not acceptable for the inner-GTA commuters – they are much more interested in having on-time, frequent service than having a seat for their trip.
I’m certainly glad to read about the improvements to infrastructure, but I certainly hope that the service improvements to GO will come soon.
Even here in Malaysia they managed to electrify their commuter (Komuter) service back in 1994. When I arrived here in 2005 they were running at 12 minute frequencies. Despite the service being on its ‘last legs’ today (with only 24 out of the original 60 trains still running, and passenger loads 3 times that of 1994), they can still offer 30 minute train service on all lines during the day.
My personal opinion is that electrification & EMUs cannot come soon enough for GO’s inner suburbs.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
PSC said: Karl, do you have a link to the Wynford report you mentioned?
Sorry for not posting this earlier; Don Valley Corridor Rail Connection
From project page (above link is “Appendix C Part 3”).
It was actually Steve that found it.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine GO/Metrolinx getting that corridor back up and running without a hell of a lot of squawking by the people who live next to it. It is an abandon rail line and they have a lot more political clout than Weston because they are more affluent, not fair, just reality. It would need to be in a subway to get through there.
LikeLike