The Metrolinx Board met on June 27 with a full agenda.
There is a great deal of duplication between various reports, and I have consolidated information to keep like items together. Some reports are omitted entirely from this article either because the important info is included elsewhere, or because they simply rehash status updates with no real news. Metrolinx has a love for “good news” to the point that each manager stuffs their presentations with information that is already well known, or which parallels other presentations.
Among the more important items in these reports are the following:
- Metrolinx is now conducting various studies all of which bear on the problem of north-south capacity into downtown Toronto. This involves the (Downtown) Relief Line, the north-south GO corridors and the Richmond Hill subway expansion. A related study involves fare and service integration across the GTHA. It is refreshing to see Metrolinx taking a network approach to planning, rather than looking at projects in isolation, and recognizing that some of their own, existing routes can be part of an overall approach to solving this capacity problem.
- The Metrolinx Five-Year Strategy includes dates for the beginning of service on various projects including the LRT replacement for the Scarborough RT. Previous versions of these dates cited “by 2020”, and Metrolinx has indicated a desire for as short a construction/shutdown period of under three years. However, the new strategy paper talks of an “in service date” of 2020. Metrolinx is aiming for a three year shutdown at most, but the SRT might continue operating beyond the originally planned September 2015 date, possibly for one additional year. This could lead to an earlier reopening than 2020. (Correspondence from Metrolinx on this issue is included later in the article.)
Go Transit Report
Board Presentation Quarterly Update
Gary McNeil, the President of GO Transit, reported that on time performance (defined as peak period trains running within 5 minutes of schedule) continues to run above the 92% target. It should be remembered that GO adjusted its schedules some time ago to reflect actual operating conditions, but with that done, has managed to stay at 94-95% over the past two years. Rider satisfaction with communications (such as delay and service change announcements) fell from 74% to 71% (probably within the survey margin of error), and still sits below the 77% target, itself not particularly impressive. This suggests that although the trains may run more or less on time, passengers are disgruntled about events often enough to affect their approval of communications.
Passenger satisfaction with cleanliness of stations sits at 80%, slightly below the 82% target (again this is likely within the margin of error). The state of Union Station probably spills over into how riders rate the system, and it will be interesting to see if this changes when GO shifts its operations to the west wing of Union Station and the new York Concourse.
Construction continues at Union with the new glass canopy working its way north across the train shed. Metrolinx will move part of its corporate office into the renovated west wing in fall 2013. (I understand that a full transfer from 20 Bay Street will not be possible until the Bank of Nova Scotia vacates the east wing and renovations there are completed.)
Construction on other parts of the network is at various states of completion. The new Strachan underpass on the Georgetown-Kitchener corridor will open in October removing most train operation from this busy level crossing. (Freights, which are comparatively rare, will continue to operate at grade because the underpass is too steep for them.)
GO’s target for the ratio of passengers to seats is that 80% of peak period trips should seat every passenger. With demand growing at 5% per annum, this is not possible and today only 2/3 of peak trains have seats for all riders. (It is unclear just what proportion of riders are standees as this is not what GO measures.) TTC riders who must suffer through overcrowding and reductions in service standards could only dream of such a generous policy. GO expects system ridership for 2013/14 to be 69.5m.
The big change for GO on June 29 was the move to half-hourly service all day, every day, on the Lake Shore line. This does not require any more equipment because it is an off-peak adjustment. We will have to wait until later in 2013 to see how much additional riding this generates by improving the convenience of GO rail service. There are not yet any plans for all day service on other corridors, and even when this is introduced, the frequency will not necessarily be as good as on the Lake Shore.
GO continues to tout the construction of new parking garages notably at Erindale, Ajax, Pickering and Clarkson. This service model cannot hold up forever, and at some point, GO will face the challenge of growth without being able to serve auto-based trips for the home-to-train link.
On May 29 a major storm washed out part of the Richmond Hill line near Pottery Road in the Don Valley. In discussion of this event, there was mention that as part of eventual double-tracking to upgrade service in this corridor, the rail structure may be both improved and raised to make it less vulnerable to flooding.
As I complete this article on the evening of July 8, the Richmond Hill line across the Don Valley from me at Bloor Street is not just under water, but under a wide and fast-moving branch of the Don River that has flooded Bayview south of Bloor Street and the DVP at Dundas, among other places. Clearly the review of this and other lines will be more extensive in the wake of this near-record storm.
Union Pearson Express
Board Presentation Quarterly Update
There is little to report here beyond the fact that construction continues at many locations and all contracts for this project have now been awarded. The first two UPX cars will be delivered in spring 2014 with the remainder following by year-end.
There is no word yet on fares for the service, especially for trips that do not travel end-to-end.
Metrolinx is proud that the UPX was named “Project of the Year” at the Global AirRail Awards. I cannot help wondering just how important this might be when VIA, of all organizations, beat them out for “Concept of the Year” for its intermodal trip booking. If only VIA could actually run more trains, the award might be credible.
PRESTO
Board Presentation Quarterly Update
PRESTO finally gained official acceptance in Ottawa in April with approval by the OC Transpo Board for a full roll out. What remains to be seen will be both the robustness and reliability of the technology, and the proportion of market share especially among the crucial frequent user community. The July 2013 fare structure strongly encourages a shift from existing tickets and cash to the PRESTO card.
New software implemented in June eliminated or modified some system limitations that fell into “the computer can’t do that” category and belied poor or incomplete design of earlier versions.
The real trial will come in 2014 as the TTC rolls out PRESTO as part of the new Low Floor LRV implementation with the ominous target date of April 1.
“Open Payment” using credit and debit cards is still in the pilot stage and can only handle single fare payments. Discounted and multiple-fare options are only available through the PRESTO card itself.
Rapid Transit Implementation
Board Presentation Quarterly Report
Construction of the western tunnel from Black Creek to Eglinton West Station is finally underway. Meanwhile over at Brentcliffe, there is a subtle change in the alleged reason for bringing the line to the surface, as originally proposed, in the centre of Eglinton Avenue.
After the completion of three public meetings and extensive discussions with the City of Toronto on the eastern terminus of the Crosstown tunnel, we have decided to proceed with the original plan approved in the 2010 EA which includes a surface alignment in the median of Eglinton Avenue east of Brentcliffe Avenue and a surface stop at Leslie. We believe the extended tunnel option would have resulted in improvements to construction impacts, traffic staging and long term operations. However, in consultations with the local community, City of Toronto and local city councilors, it was clear that there was a strong preference for a stop at Leslie Street and for a station at Laird Avenue. [P1]
The desire to avoid a potentially difficult Council debate about an EA amendment for the underground alignment has disappeared.
Three bids were received for the maintenance shops and yard to be built at Sheppard and Conlins Road. These are being evaluated with the intent of signing an agreement by October 2013. This is a “DBFM” project which will see the bidder design, build, finance and maintain the facility. Metrolinx has not discussed where the boundary for “maintenance” lies and whether this applies only to the building and related services.
Bids have been received for the Eglinton-Crosstown and Scarborough LRT projects (the exact number is unclear), but as discussed in another post, the uncertainty regarding the status of the Scarborough project has complicated matters considerably. Metrolinx has announced that all work on that project will stop at the beginning of August in absence of clear support by Council for the LRT proposal.
Designs for the Eglinton line are not yet complete in some areas:
- The change back to a surface alignment on the eastern segment affects design work at Laird and Don Mills, and requires that details of the surface portion be nailed down.
- Eglinton station’s design is still a matter of debate between Metrolinx, the City of Toronto and the TTC (privately muttering about an inferior connection between the Eglinton line and the subway). This debate needs to come out into the open so that we know what options are available and are not stuck with a poor connection at a major transfer point.
- A storage track originally planned for Eglinton has been moved to Avenue Road station.
- The design for Kennedy station will be completed this month (July 2013).
Portions of the VivaNext busway network are nearing completion, some well ahead of schedule, while others are in the design or procurement stages. As the proportion of reserved running expands on Viva, it will be fascinating to watch the effect of reduced trip times on ridership and how York Region responds to any increased demand. Will improved running times translate into more frequent service, or will they be used as an opportunity to cut operating costs? This is a debate with which TTC riders are familiar.
Investment Strategy & Project Evaluation
This report did not receive any discussion time of its own, although some parts were referred to elsewhere. The most important part is the update on “Next Wave” project evaluation.
Brampton Queen Street Rapid Transit
A Benefits Case Analysis (BCA)
“… suggests that options including LRT and/or BRT should be advanced to the Planning, Design and Engineering stage of work.” [P2]
The BCA will be published by Metrolinx before the September 10, 2013 Board meeting.
Hurontario-Main LRT
The Cities of Mississauga and Brampton have led the work on this project. An Environmental Assessment should be completed in spring 2014 with 30% design following late in the year.
Hamilton LRT
The City of Hamilton has completed the 30% design for this project which, recently, has re-acquired the “L” in its acronym after a period of uncertainty about the planned technology.
Hamilton’s report to Metrolinx is on the city’s rapid transit site.
Yonge North Subway Extension / (Downtown) Relief Line / Regional Relief Operations Study / Fare & Service Integration Study
An updated BCA for the Yonge North project (a 2009 version is on the Metrolinx website) will be published for the September 10 Board meeting. This includes a staging option to build first to Steeles, later to Richmond Hill Centre. Although not mentioned in the Metrolinx report, this may help to address storage problems the TTC has with most of its fleet concentrated at Wilson Yard as one proposed storage option is a three track section running from Finch to Cummer Station. Whenever it is built, Steeles Station will shift the majority of the bus operations on Yonge Street away from Finch.
Related studies include a BCA for the “Relief Line” (which has lost its “Downtown” appellation in recognition of a wider role). Further study will be done on a network basis with a Regional Relief Operations Study looking at the role of the GO rail corridors to siphon demand off of the subway network.
A Fare & Service Integration study, not due until early 2014, will also bear on this because the attractiveness of various services is affected both by the fare structure and the degree to which artificial boundaries between transit systems are eliminated. Both of these issues will involve new funding schemes to overcome the current double-fare arrangements between the 905 and 416 regions, and to address service level issues.
The shift from route-based studies to network studies is an important one for Metrolinx. Although they were charged with construction of a regional network with regional benefits, much planning has occurred on isolated segments and at times with competing views of the importance and goals for these segments. Riders do not travel on individual routes, but on the network which should be organized to provide the best service at reasonable cost and on a timely basis.
Terms of Reference for the Relief Line network study are to be released in July 2013.
For years, the TTC has concentrated on stuffing more riders onto the Yonge-University subway, while GO’s foot-dragging on improvements to its north-south services left no alternative. The Relief Line, long on many plans to increase capacity into the core, was an orphan unloved for its cost, complexity and diversion of resources from the TTC’s plans for the YUS.
With the recent issues of signal system reliability, it’s worth remembering that funding for the new system only came through as part of a scheme to upgrade capacity. Capital maintenance isn’t sexy, and the TTC has been starved for funding to rebuild major parts of its aging subway network. Shifting the focus of new capacity building to GO or the DRL could also divert funding for much-needed renewal. All agencies and governments involved must recognize the need to maintain and improve existing infrastructure as a necessary and separate cost from construction of new lines. The Metrolinx Infrastructure Strategy is still far too concentrated on the latter.
Five-Year Strategy
The Five-Year Strategy is an update of a previous version of this plan. Parts of it are corporate puffery and duplicate the Annual Report, but the important issues are down in the details.
Quite notable by its almost total absence is any word on the electrification of GO Transit operations even though the first stage is supposed to fall within the period 2013-18. The sole reference, itself almost an afterthought is:
[8c] Complete the UP Express electrification Environmental Assessment and advance planning, design, engineering, and construction as per programming of Next Wave investments. [P21]
This does not sound like an organization poised to operate electric trains in 2017 as touted by Transportation Minister Glen Murray.
Metrolinx is an organization resembling the TTC just at the point it lost its way as a respected provider of transit — when it became more interested in winning awards (to the point of seeking out such opportunities) than actually providing quality service. A list of awards appears in the strategy (page 7) including an erroneous reference to “Concept of the Year” for the UPX when that award went to VIA. The UPX actually won “Project of the Year” for whatever that award is worth.
In the course of conducting round table sessions in all parts of the GTHA, Metrolinx heard what people want from the agency and the issues that are critical to its future:
1. Residents are impatient for improved mobility
2. Thinking like a region
3. We are in times of fiscal constraint
4. Limits to capacity
5. Customer attitudes are growing and changing
6. Keeping pace with a dynamic business environment
7. Metrolinx is a rapidly evolving organization
Public expectation for all of the planning work now underway is strong, but a counterpart to this is the danger of lost credibility through non-delivery. This is a political issue, but public bodies like Metrolinx can aid or hinder the political dialogue with insufficient information and a clear discussion of the implication of alternative strategies.
The importance of a regional view will strongly affect not just planning for major corridors such as GO or the subway network, but the many local systems, their separate fiefdoms of service and fares, and the policy environment in which local spending priorities on transit may not align with the regional view Metrolinx seeks. The absence of strong central funding support for local services makes each system hostage to local political concerns. This shows up as a bullet within Metrolinx’ priority for stable funding:
The expanded transportation network envisioned in The Big Move will also require complementary investments for municipal infrastructure, and increased operating support to services once the infrastructure has been completed. [p13]
Limits on funding and capacity will not be easily overcome. There is great hostility to any new taxes or fees, and distrust that any government agency will spend them wisely. When this is coupled with the very long lead time for delivery of visible relief on a network scale, not to mention the political need for “quick wins”, selling the big picture can be very challenging.
Shifting attitudes regarding transit and auto travel will gradually work their way through society as a demographic change, but this can only be sustained if transit, seen as a single entity, responds with better service and greater scope to accommodate travel. There will always be severe problems (and attendant congestion) from the many-to-many suburban travel pattern, and this is almost beyond the reach of transit. Accepting that has implications for selling transit to the community at large some of whom will never be able to see transit as even a tolerable, let alone acceptable, choice for their travels.
Yes, Metrolinx is a rapidly evolving organization, but the sense of disconnection, of separate parts not working as a whole, will interfere with its credibility and program delivery. Partly this can be explained, if not justified, by the fact that Metrolinx has acquired divisions as it went along — first GO, a major operating agency, and later UPX and PRESTO.
There is a long list of “deliverables” beginning on page 17, although most of these do not have specific dates associated with them. Generally speaking, Metrolinx and GO have been constrained by not knowing well in advance what funding they will receive and hence are unable to commit to some projects very far in advance.
On GO, for example, there is an objective of 58 rail consists (i.e. enough locomotives and cars to field 58 trains including spares) and 500 buses by 2018, but this has little context in the sense of what it will mean for service. Rail plans include some service extensions or reroutings (Gormley and Hamilton James Street in 2015), signalization of the Barrie line to allow more trains to operate (2013), and sundry improvements to allow for more service on the northern and northwestern corridors. Some service improvements will depend on funding from the Investment Strategy which is now hostage to provincial political dynamics.
Another GO objective, buried in the list, is:
11c. Evaluate new GO Transit fare structures to encourage efficient use of existing and new service capacity midday and weekend travel and implement as recommended by 2016. [p23]
This is an intriguing view of GO trying to stimulate off-peak demand, and how this will mesh with the regional fare and service integration study will bear watching.
Within Toronto, availability dates of the LRT lines have shifted from “by xxxx” to “in service xxxx”, a subtle but important change that quashes hope for project speedups. Specific components of the LRT network are all now targeted for 2020 except for Sheppard East in 2021. Ironically, this line was to be the first of the Transit City lines and would have nearly been complete by now under the original schedule.
I have written before about the fluctuating target dates and shutdown periods for the Scarborough RT/LRT conversion. The Five Year Strategy talks of 2020 as the in-service date, but also of construction beginning immediately after the Pan Am Games in 2015. This does not line up with Metrolinx claims that the shutdown for conversion would be at most three years. This has been clarified today in an email from Metrolinx.
You state that; “there has been a subtle change in the wording of when projects will be completed.” The use of “by 2020” in Investment Strategy versus, “for an in-service date of 2020” in the Metrolinx Five-Year Strategy: 2013-2018.
In the “5 in 10 Plan” presentation to the Metrolinx Board in May 2010, we deferred the light rail delivery dates for all projects and Eglinton LRT and Scarborough LRT were shown as completing in November 2020.
Since May 2010 there have been additional changes to LRT schedules that were a result of an MOU and the Sheppard East subway debate and those changes have impacted Sheppard East and Finch LRT in-service dates, but we have held to the original November 2020 dates for Eglinton and Scarborough LRT. The wording “in-service date of 2020” is perhaps more precise, although it does not give a month in 2020 and I am not sure “by 2020” is any more or less definitive.
To be clearer, the project team is working towards a goal of being in-revenue service during the month of November 2020 for both the Eglinton Crosstown LRT and Scarborough LRT. That said, there is still a chance that Scarborough LRT can be opened earlier. As I have previously indicated to you, Metrolinx will limit the SRT shut-down period to no more than 3 years. Assuming a contract award for the combined Crosstown and Scarborough LRT Design, Build, Finance, Maintain contract in early 2015, the successful proponent will need to complete enough design during the balance of 2015 to allow construction to start in 2016. We anticipate that construction could start between McCowan Station and Sheppard and on the new loop for SLRT into the new Kennedy LRT station. We will be asking the proponents to identify a construction staging plan that minimizes the SRT “shut-down”. The plan is to open Scarborough LRT as soon as feasible, but until we have a contractor on-board with an approved contract schedule and staging plan, it is bit difficult to pin down the exact dates on when the SRT will be shut-down and the new line opened.
On the Scarborough/Sheppard Maintenance and Storage Facility Design, Build, Finance and Maintain contract we hope to award the contract in October 2013. Early construction works for drainage and site leveling was completed last year and design should start in 2014 with construction going about 2.5 years from late 2014 through early 2017. This date is tied to Light Rail Vehicle delivery and having LRV’s available for final building and systems acceptance testing.
[Email from Jack Collins, Metrolinx Executive VP of Rapid Transit Implementation, July 8, 2013]
Implicit in this description is that although construction of new facilities will begin after the Pan Am Games, the SRT will not actually shut down in September 2015, possibly not until as late as 2017. I wrote to Collins to clarify this, and he replied:
Plan is to start work in late 2015 but in areas that do not require a shut-down of SRT. Metrolinx will also review proponents plans to limit the shut-down to 3 years or less. That may delay the shut-down until late 2016, but still makes an earlier opening than November 2020 possible for Scarborough LRT.
We do not want to start a shut-down until all the other elements like TTC final design approvals, supply of traction power substations and signaling systems etc. are advanced enough to limit the shut-down duration.
[Email from Jack Collins]
Metrolinx will have a carhouse in which to accept new LRVs for acceptance testing in 2017, but may not have any lines to run them on until 2020. Such is the cost of the dithering that besets planning for the LRT network.
For more information about Metrolinx’ goals for the coming years, read the full report linked above.
Annual Report & Business Plan
Annual Report Business, Capital & Operating Plan
A great deal of the Annual Report is a rehash of events of the past year. The Financial Report begins on p34 of the pdf. Fare revenue was down from the budget target by 2.4% although it was up 5.6% over 2011-12. Provincial subsidy was down from budget by 7.6%.
Ridership grew 5.1%, slightly less than fare revenue at 5.6%. Normally there would be a compounding effect of more riders and higher fares, but this did not happen in 2012-13. The effect of the shift to Presto on fare revenue was noted in that Metrolinx no longer receives money for trips it does not actually provide (monthly passes used for less than a month’s worth of trips), and lower than projected revenue growth was attributed to this.
The net loss for the year was smaller than projected, but the largest component of this is a non-cash item, depreciation, that was $22.6m below budget. In reading the report, it is important to distinguish between transactions on the capital side of the books (capital contributions, ongoing costs of construction and procurement projects, depreciation) and the day-to-day operation of the system.
Total operating costs were less than 1% above budget. The largest component of this is for diesel fuel with about $1.9m due to higher than projected cost, and $2.3m from increased fuel consumption.
One unfortunate point in the Financial Report is the touting of a high farebox recovery ratio as a measure of efficiency and effectiveness. Yes, from a financial point of view, the more people you can carry for the same (or less) money, the better you are doing. However, if one of your goals is passenger comfort, that “efficiency” comes at a cost of more standees and lower (or no) off peak service. As long as financial performance is praised with no reference to its effect on service quality or customer satisfaction, it will be clear where Metrolinx’ real priorities lie. As with the TTC’s Ridership Growth Strategy debates, we have yet to hear from Metrolinx what the options are — how much would it cost either in higher fares or subsidy to provide a better, policy-based level of service?
Risk Management is emerging as an important part of Metrolinx planning. This includes basic operational issues such as the vulnerability of infrastructure to major events such as floods, but also corporate issues such as the credibility of Metrolinx plans and the ability to deliver visible results. This affects projects such as PRESTO and many factors affecting customer satisfaction. Parallels with the TTC are obvious: if you can’t run the system you already have, why should we trust you with money to build an even bigger one. The need for credibility is essential in the debate over transit funding.
As I write this (July 8), the financial statements have not yet been published on the Metrolinx site although they were approved by the Board at its meeting.
The Business Plan duplicates a lot of material in the five year strategy and is organized around the same set of objectives. However, this is a one-year plan and so its content is more granular and short term. I leave it to interested readers to browse for details. (The 2013-14 objectives begin on page 32.)
Steve Munro 
Any comments on the RL study launched by Metrolinx…or their claim that the project could start in 2014?
It seems to me that the study will find that the Metrolinx proposal for a ‘RL’ linking Don Mills to the Exhibition via downtown is the way to go. This will raise a whole host of complaints from the City and TTC as attempts are made to connect ‘RL’ to either the need for ‘downtown,’ ‘King St.,’ or ‘Union Station’ relief.
Fortunately there may be an opportunity for compromise if both the City & Metrolinx can agree that relieving Yonge & Bloor is the absolute priority.
Cheers, Moaz
PS. Incidentally, why does Metrolinx always seem to compromise by removing the first letter of an acronym? The Hamilton LRT became the Hamilton ‘RT’, the Queen St. BRT for Brampton became the Queen St. RT and now the DRL has become the RL.
Steve: The “L” has returned for Hamilton. The DRL was shorn of its “D” in an attempt to make it more palatable to people living north of Bloor Street.
LikeLike
Ironically, I was wondering this morning if a short-term expansion of N-S GO train service (to two-way, all-day service) would help take pressure off of the TTC system during the upcoming 9 day closure in October.
My thought was that a temporary acceptance of TTC tickets/metropasses … or even just letting passengers board for free for some of those days … would encourage subway users from the suburbs who were bound for areas south of Queen St to take the GO train to Union instead, which would help by reducing the congestion at Queen and other temporary terminal stations.
After the events of this evening, it is quite clear that Toronto and the GTA are going to have to seriously reconsider some aspects of our transport network … especially the Richmond Hill line.
My wife, who is from Malaysia, (where torrential rains have clockface scheduling and flash flooding is a common occurrence … and where they had to build a combination floodwater diversion+highway tunnel under the city to divert water from the city centre) was surprised by the amount of water and the flash flooding we saw this evening.
I do note that she was also amazed to see that there were no collisions or problems at intersections … despite there being no power in most of Mississauga from 6:00-10:30.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Oh boy. I can only imagine how many more reports will be triggered by today’s events.
LikeLike
The next logical step would be for Metrolinx to acquire the Toronto Transit Commission and all the other GTHA transit authorities. This would require an act of the Ontario Parliament, I presume.
This would solve a lot of the problems regarding integration and fares, and would be a great inducement for suburbanites to switch to public transit (in the long run).
It would simplify the finances of the municipalities, and would greatly reduce political interference from municipal politicians like Toronto’s anti-transit Mayor Rob Ford.
However, the concept is a bit scary, is it not?
Steve: Only to be replaced by political interference from provincial politicians like Mike Harris and Tim Hudak. A Metrolinx takeover of the TTC is laughable in the sense that a minnow (actually a family of minnows) would be attempting to dine on a whale. Metrolinx has shown that it has difficulty managing the internal groups it has already, let alone something on the scale of the TTC.
Queen’s Park has no interest in taking over the TTC because it would then be responsible for costs it has managed to dump on the City of Toronto.
From a more cynical point of view, we are a long way from the province taking responsibility for local transit in general. Metrolinx has finally acknowledged that the growth of its own system will drive requirements for more transit in 905 municipalities.
LikeLike
On the news this morning, that GO passengers needed to be rescued from a stranded train, also that the Bloor-Danforth subway is closed from Keele to Jane due to flooding.
LikeLike
Good news on a “network” approach to planning. If Martian urban planners were to land in the GTA I’m sure they would point at the map and say “those rail lines” they are a big part of your solution to congestion.
LikeLike
There’s one service that could be very useful: Trip Consulting.
When I lived in the Junction, the most direct commute was via St. Clair, but the faster route was across Bloor. (This was before the St. Clair ROW, so I don’t know how that affects travel time now.)
My point is that people should be educated about alternate routes and that sometimes it pays to take a longer trip (Distance) that may even include doubling back in order to save time.
It is also good to have a plan “B” when parts of the system are down.
LikeLike
It may have been posted before, but with the to and fro I think I’ve lost track of what is going on at Eglinton Station. My understanding is that the connection would be at the north end of the subway station structure with a mezzanine level between the subway platforms and LRT platforms. Has this dramatically changed? I really hope we are not in for a Paris style rabbit warren transfer. Transfers/interchanges with and between the rapid transit network are one of the great things about the TTC and a component of its design heritage that it should be proud of.
Steve: The current design (which you can see starting at page 49 of the Central Station Reference Concept Presentation) uses the northeast corner of the old bus terminal. The LRT station lies mainly to the west of Yonge Street and its fare control area and entrance are just west of the existing BMO branch. This will be an easy design to integrate with any future development of the site.
What is unclear at this point is how passengers will get from that area (having come up two sets of escalators from the LRT) to the subway. There is the existing north-south passage under the west side of the intersection, but it is in the unpaid area of the station and would funnel all transfer traffic through an already congested area. A better connection would be south from the LRT’s paid area into the old bus terminal mezzanine and thence to the central part of the subway station (just as the bus-to-subway transfers used to work). I prefer the latter scheme, but don’t know which way Metrolinx is headed right now, and the drawings in the presentation give no clue.
On another note, the GO expansion website used to be rather useful. Now it seems projects have completely dropped off the radar. Specifically the Davenport and Doncaster grade separations. I’ve not been able to find any updated material in quite some time, and all official references to these projects have disappeared. Were these not originally approved and funded in 2004 under GO Trip? Do you know the status or why they seem to have fallen off the radar?
Steve: This project appears to have gone into hibernation. I suspect it will re-emerge as part of any talks of all-day frequent service on the Barrie line.
One final question – there will be an at grade freight crossing at Strachan? I was there on Friday night at a friends condo on the 14th floor looking south over the work area, were will they place it? The caisson cut-off wall on the south side is against a rip-rap abutment wall, it did not look as though there is space. The north side looked very constrained as well.
Steve: Yes, you appear to be correct. Originally there was talk of leaving freight on the surface, but the drawing of the new crossing arrangement on the project site does not show one. I will update the article.
LikeLike
Thanks for this thorough analysis, site, and facilitating of perspectives Steve. We’re quite lucky that you’re so keen, with decades of files for backups.
Overall, we need to focus more on how well cars and trucks are subsidized. That should mean bringing to bear the costs of climate change, and adaptations, and other forms of pollution, health costs, and yes, congestion too. Etc.
That avoidance of cost is substantial, and should put spending billions on transit more palatable, though there will be many denialists, including a few “Carservatives”, often of more suburban viewpoints, though votorists exist everywhere.
So when will GO then start charging for parking at suburban parking lots, or those rather costly parking garages? How many bike lanes would we get for those millions?
It’d also be nice to get a bit more honesty in the labelling. The “Light” is not light, it’s really heavy – look at the track beds required to support them? The Downtown Relief Line isn’t about fixing up the problems of the core; but seems far more of a way to get more suburban services paid for, whilst sucking in urban areas thinking we’re getting more useful transit.
A true transit relief line would be a Front St. transitway – though in some ways, our civic politicians have been on the “blindp” side in not seeing its potential, and yes, it would cost money and have some disruptions. Given the floodings, maybe we need to keep things above grade? Resiliency is important.
Another effective thing for core transit would be to allow the competition, the bike, a single, safe, smooth east-west route, though it would take political will and some $. So the odds are slim.
LikeLike
As for the Richmond Hill line, I think that the only viable solution (despite the high cost) is a subway on Don Mills going up to Finch and a northern extension of the Yonge line. The alignment of the Richmond Hill line is poor and does not serve most of the densely populated areas along Don Mills/Overlea/Pape, does not connect to the Bloor-Danforth subway, and the south end of it is vulnerable to flooding.
As for the Sheppard carhouse, I worry that we might be building a carhouse that ends up being unused. Now that we are again debating replacing the Scarborough RT with a subway, and the Sheppard LRT is a political hot potato (it could easily be cancelled again in the 2014 election, as Rob Ford is not the only potential candidate against it), it seems that this should be delayed to late 2014 to avoid a potential “gas plant scandal”. The only other potential use for this carhouse would be the Scarborough-Malvern LRT, unfuneded but probably far less controversial than the Eglinton/Sheppard/Scarborough LRTs.
LikeLike
Originally there was talk of leaving freight on the surface, but the drawing of the new crossing arrangement on the project site does not show one.
Why didn’t they bury or cover it? It’s an ugly wall bound to worsen with graffiti.
Steve: It has to be left open for ventilation of the diesel fumes.
LikeLike
Steve, this morning’s GO service update said that the Richmond Hill line trains would board passengers at Richmond Hill and Langstaff only, then use an alternative route to Union Station, adding 30-45 minutes to the trip.
Do you or someone on the list know about this alternative routing?
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: Typically it is via the York Subdivision west to the Newmarket Subdivision, then south into Toronto.
LikeLike
To the contrary, what LRT needs is facts on the ground. This is the reason why the funding-induced delay was especially reprehensible, over and above it just being bad planning. If it were up to me I would have shut down the SRT concurrent with starting the launch box for the Eglinton tunnel (or earlier), and the very first task would have been to scrap the cars and rip out the induction plate.
Under a functional political process, of course, LRT does not need facts on the ground because it can stand on its own. But under the actual political process it needs circumstantial inevitability.
LikeLike
Moaz,
I don’t know whether it was a planner from Metrolinx or a planner from Brampton who told me this recently, but the Queen Street RT is named like that because there may be a serious consideration / ridership projection that would warrant the line to not be BRT as long planned, but LRT. Essentially, right now, they’re deciding what it should be.
LikeLike
In light of the events of Monday evening in Toronto, Swanboats are without question the way to go!
LikeLike
Yes, I’ve heard/read similarly, that the Queen BRT might become an LRT. In contrast, the Hamilton LRT went to ‘RT’ because Metrolinx was unsure about whether they should build an LRT line or BRT lines.
I suppose it helps that the Mayor of Brampton wants an LRT and the Mayor of Hamilton was apparently indifferent.
Honestly I’m starting to wonder how long it will be before York Region decides that the Yonge rapidway should be an LRT … achieving that long planned dream of rapid transit up to Lake Simcoe.
Seriously though … this back and forth speaks to an inconsistency in local public transit planning which Metrolinx is trying to quietly address but so far hasn’t. While Queen Street may have the long term ridership to justify an LRT line, there are many heavily used routes in Toronto (Jane & Don Mills among others) and ‘missing links’ (Eglinton Crosstown to the airport, and the extension of the Finch West LRT to Yonge) that probably should be built much sooner based on ridership projections and the importance of network connections.
The question of whether it would be better to have one suburban LRT line or a network of BRT lines … or in the case of Mississauga and Brampton, a pseudo-network of LRT lines and BRT lines is also a very tough one to answer, given the municipal and regional politics as well as the funding limitations that the GTHA is facing.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
In reference to an at grade freight crossing at Strachan, is this possible any longer since the roadway is no longer at ground level?
Steve: Yes that makes sense. The road goes up making the depth (and grade) of the underpass less.
LikeLike
It’s interesting that they are thinking of double tracking and raising the line that got flooded last night … if they are doing this, why not do it similar to what they are doing at Pearson and build it high enough so that it could connect with the Bloor line underneath the viaduct … in theory they could triple track it from Bloor to Union and have a frequent Bloor->Union express … given that Pearson is only $500 million and had some grade separations, the distance and the height is similar, wouldn’t this be cheaper than a DRL … (maybe not as useful … granted) – a side benefit of raising it would be easier pedestrian and bike access to paths on the west side of the river.
Steve: A huge elevated through the Don Valley? That would be a challenge not least because of intrusion in the valley, but also because the location is constrained by a hydro transmission line.
Remember that you would need a station structure at Bloor and that would be at least double the width of the UPX structure, not to mention the structure for a connecting passageway east to Broadview or west to Castle Frank. And you want three tracks! The El would need to be strong enough to support full-size GO trains including their locomotives, not just a short train of self-propelled cars, unless you plan to electrify the entire corridor.
From a gradient point of view, the airport El is needed because the ground falls away to the south of the rail corridor. In the Don, you would have to get up to that height from the level of downtown Toronto, and that’s quite a grade.
Finally, a “relief” line should intercept the BD line further east so that the overhead of making the transfer does not outweight the benefit of the alternate path to downtown.
Note to readers: Please do not launch yet another string of DRL alignment debates. We have been around that topic a few times before.
LikeLike
With regards to the Richmond Hill line, could CP’s bridge structure and sub be used? I don’t think the connection from York Mills would be converted from a trail, but I vaguely remember a city study about bringing the line up through Don Mills/Eglinton(?) I think that these are the only options if Metrolinx was seriously concerned about the flooding of the line. Climate change is here … time to start dealing with the consequences.
Steve: There is a scheme to build a connection from the CP line to the Bala sub north of the area where it floods, but the problem remains that trains would have to cross from the south to the north side of the CP mainline. This would be an even bigger problem with frequent service.
The CP Don Branch (now owned by GO) is only single track. One idea was to use the former CP track on the east side of the valley for one direction of service and the existing track on the west side for the other. This would avoid the need for double track south of the junction north of Eglinton, but not beyond, and it would not avoid the flooding of the west side of the valley.
As and when GO operates service northeast via the CP through Agincourt, the Don Branch will be needed for this service to reach Union. Using its capacity as part of the Richmond Hill service sould preclude future expansion for other services.
LikeLike
Andrew wrote,
So the answer is to extend a line that does serve most of the densely populated areas so that the train will be packed full when it gets to those densely populated areas?
To me, it makes more sense to provide a somewhat express service for those north of the city to reach the core instead of having them take up space on a line that can better serve the intermediate areas.
Moaz Yusuf Ahmad wrote:
Stop wondering – that happened back in 2005 when VIVA was born. Phase 1 was the implementation of buses in mixed traffic, phase 2 is the creation of rapidways for the buses with protection for LRT conversion, and phase 3 is the conversion to LRT.
I have argued that the cost of the Yonge extension from Steeles to Highway 7 could pay for VIVA Phase 3 from Steeles (with an across-the-platform transfer to the subway) to Elgin Mills (including just over 1km of tunnel from just south of Major Mac to just north of Crosby) PLUS an east branch along Highway 7 to Woodbine. This would provide a faster commute for more people than the subway extension would.
LikeLike
Steve:
As and when GO operates service northeast via the CP through Agincourt, the Don Branch will be needed for this service to reach Union. Using its capacity as part of the Richmond Hill service sould preclude future expansion for other services.
You know, most talk about using the CP line involves dreams of a Crosstown GO line rather than a northeast line connecting Union Station to Agincourt GO (and travelling beyond to North Pickering).
I suppose that if the Pickering Airport was ever built (and I’m not saying it should be) the ARL would run along this line? In that case, I wonder which MP will bring up the grandiose scheme to connect both airports via a through-running ARL.
If electrified and built properly (as in, not a high-cost, limited service line with a premium fare) the CP route could serve a lot of areas in Don Mills and Northeast Scarborough.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Another way to help deal with flooding is to start right now with building the planned flood channel connecting the mouth of the Don River to the Ship Channel…indeed, a connection to the Outer Harbour would also help.
Instead of the 90 degree right turn into the Keating Channel, there would 3 outlets for the mouth of the Don. I expect that Don River water would spoil Cherry Beach for a few years but that would be a small price to pay if we can renaturalize the Don River from Bloor south.
And as I think about it, a concrete elevated railway that was somewhat hidden at the side of the valley (the CP line is already elevated north of Bloor to Governor’s Bridge) wouldn’t be too bad if it meant fewer drivers on the DVP.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Steve said: A huge elevated through the Don Valley? That would be a challenge not least because of intrusion in the valley, but also because the location is constrained by a hydro transmission line.
Wouldn’t the bigger problem be the Don Mills and DVP bridges since the elevated would have to start to the east of them?
LikeLike
Hang on for one moment. If the TTC is rolling out Presto on April 1 2014, does that mean the new streetcars will be rolling out and running without Presto for the first quarter of 2014?
TTC plans a “big bang” rollout for Spadina and will have to accumulate enough cars to pull this off. I suspect April 1 is the date both organizations are aiming at. The bigger challenge for TTC is to be poised to shift to proof of payment fare collection.
LikeLike
From what I understand, freights will run in the tunnel as well. We’re not talking about the 1 to 2 mile long kind of course, as the only freights that run down there right now have at most a dozen cars to service the Portlands. Speed restricted, with full train brakes and with a low limit on maximum tonnage it shouldn’t be an issue for such short trains to both go down and up the grade, which while steep is relatively short.
Steve: I have already corrected the post in response to an earlier comment to reflect freight use of the underpass.
LikeLike
Does the TTC have any hope of being ready with converted overhead for the entire 510 line in time for April 1 2014? This sounds like a really early April Fools’ Day joke. Will we see the LFLRVs running with poles and no AC next summer in a low-performance mode that would make the ALRVs look like sports cars?
Steve: They claim that they will. Given the TTC’s track record on detailed plans for this sort of thing, some skepticism is in order.
This is the same outfit that installs new overhead the wrong way on one-way streets.
LikeLike
Re John Lorinc on spacing.ca:
My comment is probably not connected to this thread, though in a way it is because it is about Metrolinx and the City. I can’t believe that buffoonery has captured the Agenda and another “subway to nowhere” is on the horizon – at the cost to Torontonians of a Billion Dollars. How this City has suffered under the current Mayor as worthy funding is deprived of as little as $500,000 (High Park Zoo) in order to freeze taxes – and then 80 million in LRT development can be wasted at the drop of a hat. Then there is a plan to build a subway that will keep on giving – operating losses year after year forever. After the disgraceful gas plant performance, I can’t believe that the “new Wynne government” is prepared to squander a Billion dollars to win a by-election.
The real transit priority – The Downtown Relief Line is relegated to the back burner for a subway that will have 40% of subway volumes and will require operating subsidies forever.
The Minister calls this “Bumper Sticker” politics, but he appears ready to give in for one by-election seat.
In the next provincial election, I, who have voted in every election since I was 18, may not vote. None of these jerks are worthy of my support. (As a Social Democrat it is especially upsetting to see the silly populist Andrea Horwath. Based on her socialist credentials I voted for her as leader. It is very upsetting to see her spouting populist nonsense.)
Steve: Either it’s “bumper sticker politics”, or we are doing “evidence-based” planning and project approvals. Murray is incoherent on the subject and has no credibility. He will cave in to whatever position Council adopts.
LikeLike
If the Bloor Danforth subway is extended past Kennedy, one of the interesting side effects is a situation where Toronto could end up with a short subway extension plus three separate light rail installations that are separate from each other, where there are no connections between Eglinton, Finch, and Sheppard. The total rises to four if you add the existing streetcar system. If people thought the two separate trolley bus systems were an awkward mess, then this is a total basketcase. I’m surprised that TTC, the city, Queen’s Park, Metrolinx and company would consider building of a two stop subway extension with all the identified shortcomings and cost increases associated with it and then litter the city with three separate light rail lines that can’t function as a network with all the duplication of infrastructure and costs that would entail.
There are other things including the non-416 projects like the Hurontario LRT and Hamilton B line LRT that could be done fairly quickly that shouldn’t be delayed for lack of funding while the city of Toronto goes back and forth on what it wants to do, when it can self-fund whatever projects it wants to using the revenue tools that it has at its disposal, that the other municipalities don’t have.
LikeLike