John Tory’s election campaign had a single focus: his SmartTrack plan for service on GO Transit lines to link Markham, Scarborough, Union Station, the Weston corridor and the Airport. With the election over, Tory has been briefed by senior staff in various agencies including the TTC, and to his credit is now looking beyond SmartTrack at the larger system.
In his State of the City address today (November 27), Tory spoke quite openly about the damage to the transit system through funding cuts imposed during the Ford era in 2011 and 2012. (Full video of Tory’s remarks is available from CP24.)
To his credit, he wants those cuts reversed, subject to the usual caveat of whether Toronto can afford to spend more. That, of course, is as much a question of what Toronto wants to afford as we have seen through both the elimination of the Vehicle Registration Tax and the levying of the Scarborough Subway Tax.
I wrote recently about the crisis in service capacity, but for the benefit of the Mayor Elect and the incoming Council, a refresher course about what might be done with transit service.
Links to previous articles:
- The crisis in service capacity (August 2014)
- Service changes for February 2012
- Original proposals for service changes in January 2012 (revised in February)
- Service changes for May 2011
It’s a joy to hear those service cuts — proposed by Rob Ford and implemented by his puppet TTC under Karen Stintz — described as damaging the quality of transit for riders. The problem now is how to restore service quality. The debate needs more detailed background than we have heard from Tory and from the TTC. This is not the time for half-measures, for giving away what we might have for fear of terrifying the Mayor Elect and Council about the cost of repairing the system.
Myth: We cannot improve service because we have no spare vehicles.
The bus and streetcar shortage applies only to peak services when everything that runs is pushed out onto the street. However, many of the 2011 and 2012 cuts affected off-peak services and there is no constraint on the fleet outside of the peak.
The problem for the TTC lies with the budget they are given to operate service including the “headcount” for staff. Some budget hawks have a fetish for headcount and ignore the fact that you cannot run a bus without a driver. More service needs more drivers even if the vehicles are sitting available in yards. There are problems today because of a shortage not just of working vehicles but of operators to drive them.
If the debate is hobbled by the assumption that “we can’t do it”, the question of staffing levels and appropriate budget never gets on the table. This must change.
Going back to the Ridership Growth Strategy’s (RGS) loading standards affects various types of service in different ways. For example, there was little effect on streetcars from the Miller-era standards because there were no streetcars available then for better peak service. Only off peak services saw an improvement, and even then, only services that ran infrequently.
On the bus network, the off peak changes varied depending on whether a route had “frequent service” (better than every 10 minutes). Infrequent routes moved from a standard of “seated load plus 25%” to “seated load”. When this was reversed in 2012, the change was more drastic because, by then, the fleet was mainly comprised of low floor buses that have comparatively little standing room. The off-peak standard for frequent bus service today is only slightly lower than the peak period standard, and buses are crowded all of the time.
Another management problem for the TTC is that the size of vehicles operated does not always match the schedule. On streetcar lines, one may find a standard sized “CLRV” attempting to carry the load of the 50% larger “ALRV”. On bus routes with 18m articulated buses scheduled, one may find a 12m standard bus filling in for an artic. This is a question of vehicle availability, and transit operations are compromised by these inconsistencies.
Peak service improvements will be a bigger challenge because of the need for more buses and streetcars. On the bus fleet, Toronto hobbled itself by delaying a bus purchase a few years ago as well as start of construction on a new garage in Scarborough, a project that is now subject to complaints by abutting residents and could be further delayed.
On the streetcar fleet, deliveries of new cars are well behind the original schedule, even allowing for Bombarier’s strike. Toronto is long overdue for a clear report and strategy from the TTC on just when and how quickly the 204 car order will actually arrive. Andy Byford’s now talks about a transitional plan to keep more old cars in service to beef up capacity on routes as new cars are received, but a detailed proposal has yet to appear. This plan and its budget implications are an essential part of responding to service pressures. We should not hear something like “we would love to run more cars, but we don’t have enough budget room for drivers”. Shortages should not be planned into the budget.
Restoring Hours of Service
The 2011 changes affected lightly used services on 41 routes. These had received 18 hour/day service as part of RGS on the premise that the network should exist all day, not just when the TTC thought a critical number of riders could be found. Some of the cuts encountered opposition both because of disputes about actual riding levels, and because of the effect on neighbourhoods that became quite distant from transit service.
By definition, these were off-peak changes and fleet availability has no bearing on the ability to operate these routes.
Revising the Blue Night Network
One of the August 2014 TTC proposals involved a review of the Blue Night bus and streetcar network for additional service on existing lines and some new routes. One very badly needed change is the implementation of strict time points for night routes so that riders know when to expect vehicles and can even plan connections. (A similar change is required for infrequent off-peak services in general.)
Night services are now among the lowest ranked for headway reliability of TTC routes, a difficult situation to understand during periods when that TTC touchstone, traffic congestion, has little effect on most routes.
The Unmet Need
While the TTC and Toronto have spent four years arguing about the best place to put new subway lines, what has been lost is any continuity in planning for general ridership growth. The system as a whole is gaining riders at about 3% annually with more of this falling to surface, off peak riding, the very service we have strangled in the name of “efficiency”.
Peak demand exists as well, but the TTC barely keeps up with demand and already has deferred or rolled back some improvements because it lacks the resources to serve that demand. This is not going to be fixed with one bus order or one new garage, and Council must face up to a realistic plan to expand surface operations on the TTC.
How many more buses and streetcars do we need, and when should they be operating? What are the implications for operating and capital budgets?
A further complication is the declining reliability of the “hybrid” bus fleet that could force premature retirement of hundreds of buses just when the system needs to be expanding.
No News is Bad News
The Karen Stintz era at the TTC was all about good news, something to smile about, to bring cheer to a system that was falling apart around us, and, eventually, to prop up a mayoral campaign.
That should not be the function of one of our most important civic agencies.
John Tory, as Mayor Elect, has already told Toronto some hard facts about the situation we are in, and he has the opportunity, early in his term, to correct the sins of the Ford years. This is the time for laying out all of the problems, embarrassing though they might be, and looking hard at the budgets — real budgets, not fictions designed to hide future costs “below the line” of beyond the 10-year planning window. We will not like what we see, and Tory may be tempted to settle for much less than we need in the name of restraining growth in taxes and fees.
That would be the wrong approach. At a very minimum, Toronto must see just how bad the problem is (and the TTC isn’t the only agency with big problems). Only then can we decide how quickly we wish to address the situation, and what tactics we might use. If we choose to “go slow”, then accept what this means for services and recognize just how bad transit will become before it gets visibly better.
Steve Munro 
There are many AZ license holders in Ontario. These people are more than qualified to operate a bus safely. Recruiting these people is not hard as the TTC offers work close to home and more stable hours. Many AZ license holders are switching over to drive motorcoaches like casino shuttles.
What boils my blood is that it will be 2019 before the McNicoll garage is operational. It is in the middle of an industrial area. Even if there are workers there 24 hours a day, no one’s sleep will be affected. Toronto is choking in traffic, clearly there is a need to use guest workers to quickly build out the infrastructure. Taking 4 years to build a bus garage is ridiculous. Fukushima Daiichi was built in just 4 years, there were six reactors there.
Steve: Although the garage site is zoned industrial, there is a senior’s home across the street which is the source of opposition to the garage.
LikeLike
(I can only hope it’s not premature, but…) Hallelujah, we’re having an adult conversation about taxes and fixing the city!!! Did the rest of City Council get the memo? I know my councillor could a copy, along with his brother.
I was pleasantly surprised by the turnaround Mr. Tory showed today. Given his comments in August, I can only hope Mr. Byford et al actually took him to the garages and showed him just how bad of “cut 10%” looks like (I’m sure Toronto Water wasn’t any picnic either). For that matter, will we see Mr. Byford with a bit more teeth?
The bets are still on the table as to whether Mr. Tory, and more importantly, the rest of council come budget time, feel the squeeze harder from commuters frustrated with what passes for service, or from those who complain that the bus takes up to much space.
Steve, as an aside, is there a date by which the new commission members will be announced, and their make-up between elected and unelected members?
Steve: At the outside, we will know the new Commission’s councillor makeup by December 3 when Council makes all appointments. The situation with the citizen members is a bit more cloudy because there is a recruitment process, and the previous set of members remains in office until they are replaced.
LikeLike
True for many reasons, the most important from a practical point of view possibly being the fact that anything bad Tory “discovers” now can be blamed (mostly correctly, for once!) on his predecessor and he can then proceed to do his best, whatever that may be, to resolve the situation. If he says it’s all great now and then doesn’t fix it, however, then he owns the existing failures which in reality are not his fault.
I hope we see a fair and honest explanation of everything that ought to be done, along with some rough costing, and the beginning of a political conversation about just what should actually be included in the budget for each of the next several years. I doubt there is the political will to do everything, but at least the choice should be an explicit tradeoff between service levels and taxation levels.
It’s probably too much to hope that the Scarborough Subway be put on the list explicitly only as a possibility rather than as part of the base case, but an honest set of cost information would make many more people wonder about its viability. $1000000000 would buy an awful lot of buses for the whole city, and the Scarborough LRT network could still be built.
LikeLike
Yes, it is true that we can improve off peak service, but to what extent before it conflicts with maintenance and repairs?
Many of TTC’s older vehicles like the RTS and Orion V buses are restricted in the duty they perform to ensure they will be available for service in peak periods. It is also good to note that a vehicle has a higher chance of breaking down when they are in use than sitting in the garage. I believe increasing off peak service significant will have an effect on vehicle ability in peak hours. Thus the TTC will need more buses to improve service overall.
We can take the new articulated fleet as an example. Artics on Bathurst and Dufferin are in use 24/7 oppose to the ones in Scarborough which are used mostly in peak periods with no weekend service. The ones in Scarborough are always available for service while some units that services Bathurst and Dufferin break down and misses service ranging form a few days to weeks.
The TTC also needs to improve on their maintenance. They either don’t have enough equipment or workers to perform the necessary work to keep the bus fleet up to standard.
Steve: I’m not talking about pushing a huge additional chunk of the fleet out onto the street in the off peak. Considering that there are 600 more buses in service in the AM peak than the midday, there’s room for some of them to get out without affecting maintenance schedules. The situation is even more favourable evenings and weekends.
On a side note:
By the way, artics are 18m and standard buses are 12m.
Steve: Will fix. Thanks for catching that.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree fully. The best CEOs do a simple thing when they discover real trouble. Get all the bad news (and then some) out there. John Tory has the chance, to look at the current ridership levels, fleet size and actual loading and say, we are in trouble, and it is deep.
He also has the chance to go to the TTC and say, OK, I have some problems here
1-Why can’t you run service to headway or schedule? How much can we actually do in terms of meeting demand now in fixing this?
2-What are you proposing to do to fix it? What do you need from other city services? I will give you a get out of jail card today, but I better hear it all now!!
3-What do you need to put a realistic fleet on the street?
Then he can basically treat the entire thing as a disaster that he has inherited, and be a hero by moving on it, like it is a massive bleed for the city (which it is). If he puts his nose in, pushes the issue with other city departments (and I mean all the time), perhaps things like the signal priority on the 509 would be fixed. Maybe some more intersections with all day no left turns are in order? Maybe some additional parking restrictions? Maybe 300-400 extra buses are required? Maybe all of the above?
Toronto, needs to 1-have an adult conversation with regards to rapid transit, and remind itself that the province (to whose budget it voters are a major contributor) is $300 billion and counting in debt. So perhaps an adult conversation is in order there as well, in terms of projects going forward, and an ordered list of which projects will dollar for dollar have the most benefit, for the most riders, and have the largest impact on congestion. Tory can help lead this conversation as well, for a relatively small capital construction budget, where can I get the biggest service impact, with the smallest operating budget increase.
LikeLike
This is what I assumed worth Tory. With so many uneducated voters in Toronto he campaigned smartly & kept slightly toward the Ford ideology to ensure he was voted in.
Now that he’s in as Mayor he is ready to work with the Province to move some projects forward & try to provide some much needed sanity & calm to future planning while still being mindful of budget limitations.
I still believe the Scarborough subway will be a very good investment for the future of Toronto politically as an amalgamated City. But also believe an LRT loop should not be scrapped & built on Finch west & around Sheppard-Morningside & Eglinton.
Smart track… We’ll have to see. Sounds like he made a backroom deal with the Liberals so obviously funding sacrifices will come from somewhere else to fast track this project.
LikeLike
I have to chuckle a little. During the campaign Olivia Chow presented close to this scenario as the first step for transit improvements. Good for John Tory to actually try to do that. Now if only he would also look at the other candidates ideas, such as Ari Goldkind. He can ignore Doug Ford’s transit ideas.
LikeLike
There is no shortage of operators right now. A good number of divisions currently have spareboard lists hovering around or over 100 operators. The normal number, depending on the size of the division, is usually around 30.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Steve: From time to time, it is put about that service does not operate due to a shortage of operators.
LikeLike
The concern, I would have, is that as dictated by our current fiscal situation provincially, the projects that can have the most substantial impact for the largest number of riders, need to be placed in front of those that will provide hoped for much longer term improvements. I would suggest instead that we look hard at how the LRTs are planned, and perhaps removing the least used stops is in order, and a review of stop spacing. It strikes me that stop spacing was focused on providing shortest walking access, and it would appear that at least initially many seem to be placing speed in front of that, so a reduction in the number of stops may be order.
Also an open full frank and complete discussion around transfers is required. A cross platform transfer on a couple of reliable 2 minute headway services should not be a big deal, however, a convoluted one with an unreliable service that is in excess of 5, is a much larger deal.
However, to begin to scratch the surface of the problem, especially now that the province is going to have to look again at the Drummond report, means getting biggest bang for each and every capital dollar, and designing a service that does not create a large increase in operating costs, while providing much improved service.
Steve: One has to be careful with “little used stops”. On that basis, Bessarion Station would never have been built, and we would probably close a few existing stations. I’ve never heard anyone complain that their trip on the Danforth subway is too intolerably slow because they have to stop to let a few folks on at Chester. If we are going to embrace LRT, then recognize that as a centre median operation it cannot be as fast as a subway. There are trade-offs that have far more to do with crossing major arterials with traffic signals than stopping more frequently in between them.
LikeLike
I was thinking more in terms of the SRT route, however, you have a very good point. I was trying to compromise, something I am not generally good at! However, along those lines, I suspect the travel time differences (especially in the SRT where the arterial issues are not) will not be great enough to actually make the total trip any longer (from subway, including additional access time) for most riders.
On the in-median routes, I wonder myself how great the operating cost difference will be between running bus, LRT and subway will be. On the busier routes, I think LRT could improve the TTC financial operating position while hugely improving service.
The other issue of course with removing stops to all those who push the development impacts of running subway, is that all rapid transit makes the areas well served (meaning close to station, not line) more attractive, and that little used stop today, might just have 6 massive condo complexes built on top of it.
LikeLike
Randy Ford came to clean out Rob’s office, and in the process they pulled out the version of Byford who has bite. Plus we got the nice tidbit: Tory wants an activist TTC board. RGS Mk II?
LikeLike
I got a taste of that last week with a pair of CLRV’s running behind a 20 minute gap in service on Queen around 9pm. How these end up on Queen when every third car on King is an ALRV I doubt the TTC could even tell you.
LikeLike
I would like to know if you will be discussing the potential effects of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) currently being negotiated on travel patterns and potential future transit development considerations.
Steve: No.
LikeLike
Tory needs to support the remainder of the GO electrification plans, and abandon the weird GO trains on Eglinton proposal.
Tory needs to support the downtown relief line.
These are by far the most important transit priorities in the GTA and no new projects should be built until these are completed.
LikeLike
Actually, John Tory discovered buses long ago only he did not bring it up in the campaign as it is part of his hidden agenda to quietly replace streetcars with buses. He wants to avoid having to purchase additional expensive new streetcars so that he can cut taxes and make streets more car friendly. Already he is questioning provincial policies like HOV lanes and he is not even mayor yet let alone premier who is supposed to be responsible for provincial policies and not the mayor of Toronto as the vast majority of the people in Ontario are not from Toronto (I know that it is very hard for Torontonians to swallow this but there is much more to Ontario than just Toronto). Also why is Tory delivering State of the City speeches when he is not even mayor yet? Mayor Ford should be doing that and if he is too sick with cancer to fulfill his duties, then he should resign and Deputy Mayor Norm Kelly sworn in as interim mayor (that’s not just my opinion but that is the norm in most cities).
Steve: Do you honestly expect us to believe that had Doug Ford been elected Mayor he would have kept silent until he was sworn in? He has already been pontificating about city business and he’s only a retiring council member, not mayor. Rob Ford has my sympathy for his health problems, but at least he is an elected councillor for the new term with the privileges that grants. He does not, however, as Doug Ford seems to think, have the right to act as an alternate or second mayor.
LikeLike
Now if only Tory would discover Light Rail and commit to building Sheppard East and Finch West LRTs.
Steve: In his State of the City address, Tory said:
The real test will be when members of Council pose motions to stop these projects — will Tory side with them, or stick to a position that these LRT lines should be built? Time to get off of the fence.
LikeLike
Kevin’s comment:
Why do I have a strong suspicion that the root cause of this is TTC management’s failure to say “no” to too many vacation requests at popular vacation times of the year?
Oh yes. That would be because this is the same management that can’t even make the buses run on time in the middle of the night. No congestion then.
The TTC does a moderately lousy job of nitty-gritty low-level management. Yes, this means being unpopular and not saying “yes” to everyone’s vacation requests whenever they want to go. Yes, this means getting up in the middle of the night and coming down hard on the people responsible for the failure of the buses to run on time.
Steve: The distribution of vacation time is a matter for contract negotiations, and vacation time is allocated in a seniority-based signup. It is self-evident that even if your claim were true, it cannot possibly be true every week of the year.
LikeLike
Moaz: the 10m and 13m caught my attention too. Then I thought about how much space inside a low floor 12m standard and 18m artic bus can actually be used comfortably by passengers….
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
It sure sounds like the backroom deal with the Liberal was to take the money from the LRT’s (at least Sheppard) and move it into GO Electrification & this Smart track planning.
I’m sure when they do vote the media megaphone will be given to the councilors in the western most wards along the Sheppard East route & the message of “Scarborough doesn’t want LRT ” Tory will use that message to end the funding.
I really hope the Pan Am Games wakes up some people from the inner City to see just how inefficient, unpleasant and unattractive it is to commute to Eastern Scarborough on TTC.
Steve: It is of course entirely possible that people from the inner city and elsewhere may treat the whole games as a big yawn, but we’re supposed to be games boosters according to Tory, so I won’t mention how many people I know who just want to be as far away from them as possible.
LikeLike
A perfect example is the 70 B and C, O’Connor bus route. It’s great service until St. Clair Ave East. Once it splits up and does not meet the needs of the ppl who love on O’Connor. The restoration of bus service request would be a huge help for many areas who has similar route formation.
Not sure if there any operational internal assessments being down to stabalize the organization of services. There are far to many redundancies and I could point out many, but what I want to discuss is how Tory will be able to achieve his plans without impacting other city services or increase taxes. He is banking a lot that the provincial and federal govt will give him the funds required.
Lastly, please Steeve, why is thre such a long wait for the Queen car at the Russell carhouse when they switch drivers? They have GPS, and know where the drivers are located. It makes no sense (even at Coxwell for subways) to have the drivers ready to start that shift segment. They can provide a heads up and they must be ready when the car is 2 min away.
LikeLike
I would hope that this would instead be a reordering of RER priority. I would think that there would be more opportunity to have an impact in Stouffville (in terms of more land closer to Core) than Lakeshore East, and an excuse to re-task UPX. The real money is in building (or not) subway. Since the 2 lines that most directly compete in Scarborough are the subway extension and RER I would think it more likely that the money and planning would move from subway to RER for Scarborough.
LikeLike
Kennedy Road is on the west side of Scarborough & Scarborough is no small potato in terms of land mass. This generalization is frustrating to say the least.
The subway will at least serve the Central/North central core & in this transit building climate that’s all we can really ask for. The idea you suggest will never fly with the majority of Scarborough voters & is political suicide. Won’t happen and shouldn’t happen.
Steve: It is refreshing to hear someone talk about SmartTrack recognize that it cannot be the magic solution to Scarborough’s transit problems. Whatever we call it, substantially improved service in the Stouffville corridor has its benefits, but much more for regional travel than as a local Scarborough route. As to whether a subway is needed as well, that’s another discussion.
LikeLike
The most heavily used stops on TransSee are around Roncesvalles because many of the operators there use it to see when thier vehicles are arriving. TransSee is popular because it can show the run number, if enabled in the settings. I used to often wait at Roncesvalles for the next operator, but I haven’t needed to in recent years. I guess it isn’t widely used in other divisions.
Steve: It is frustrating the degree to which information available in the NextBus feed is not made available to operating staff in a standard feed to simplify crew changes and day-to-day operation of their vehicles. Ops should not have to depend on a pro bono external website.
LikeLike
Yes, however, it is only 2 km away from the subway proposal, about the same distance as the subway stops are apart. I would agree it serves fewer people, and only serves one trip well, i.e. the core bound one. However, it does provide a way around Yonge/Bloor.
I would suggest that the actual cost of implementing all these proposals will likely now find its way to the front of the debate. The province would seem to be about to come to a conclusion with regards to its financial limits, and I am afraid that Toronto may be about to find it has wasted the opportunity it had to actually get something real built. The politics being played to get most locally favored solutions may turn out to sink all solutions.
I also believe that SmartTrack is not the answer, and I would agree that doing this instead of anything would be a political mistake. I would also suggest that looking to it as a solution to Scarborough transit woes, is a mistake. However, RER as originally proposed, does offer a direct way to the core, using existing GO stations, and a couple should be well connected by TTC.
The thing is that scrapping LRT (SRT or Sheppard) does not free the funds to build SmartTrack. The much larger money, is in the subway. Much larger operating money would also be there. The subway budget would build Sheppard LRT and SRT LRT replacement, and the balance of the loop in Scarborough. Or it would likely be enough to also build the eastern side of SmartTrack. However, cancelling one LRT project does not get a big enough chunk of money to make a dent to build SmartTrack or the subway. Cancelling all would mean not just pissing off Scarborough but other areas as well.
The problem now is Toronto needs huge areas covered by transit. Ontario is now a have not province with 276 billion in debt or 20K per person. If Toronto and the rest of the GTA are to get real help, it needs to be in the most cost effective, growth enabling way. Oh, that Vaughan had been built as LRT (and would be freeing buses now) and would have left more construction and operating money on the table.
The job of transit is to get people where they need to go, quickly and effectively. It seems to have been used for the last 30+ years to win elections instead. The cost of operating the system needs to be on the table as well. If Ford had left LRT alone, it would be in place, now, I fear it will be hard to build anything, and Toronto will have squandered another opportunity.
LikeLike
When Olivia Chow proposed reversing the Ford cuts, Tory’s riposte was “where is the money for that coming from?” Has Tory answered his own question in respect of these proposals of his?
Steve: Tory is now advocating better transit, but subject to funding. He still is talking somewhat like an outsider, not as a Mayor whose job is to advocate for solutions to problems. Funding is a generic problem for Toronto and not just for transit. Our unwillingness to tax ourselves, or at least to do so only when it suits a political agenda, is responsible for a good deal of our problem, and until we take our own funding capabilities seriously, other governments can legitimately look on us as asking for a free ride.
LikeLike
I think certain routes could just run later and that wouldn’t have an impact on not having enough buses. I’m hopeful we can restore all the service that the previous government took away.
LikeLike
I think we can get Toronto moving again if we elect smart councillors who understand transit and who will speak up for more and better transit. I think if we had other councillors the list to cut service and increase loading standards wouldn’t happen. I think the decision of which councillors are on the commission will play a role in getting some service back. What’s your input?
Steve: Although Mayor Tory has talked about having an activist TTC, his choices so far for senior positions on city committees hardly shows much of a shift in political alignment (including the carry-over of some people from the Ford era). What remains to be seen is the political balance of the remaining appointments. If Tory freezes out the left on bodies like the TTC, his words will ring hollow.
Although the appointments are technically Council’s to make, Tory certainly has a working majority and if we see a concerted effort to block appointments, we will know that his “one city” excludes some wards.
LikeLike
Bottom line is it does little to change the issues with TTC in Scarborough. I’m on the subway side of the Scarborough LRT/Subway debate. But also believe LRT should be implemented as a loop around the Eglinton/Sheppard perimeter to provide efficiency & fairness for the majority.
This SmartTrack does more for the future Markham & their rich consultant corridor than it will for Toronto and 75% of Scarborough. If this is the main priority over DRL & all other Metrolinx projects in the next 4 years we will likely see another Ford type Mayor as the “Elitist” Mayor title may actually have some credibility this time.
LikeLike
RER being subverted for SmartTrack is also a mistake. It seems to be a bit of a kludge. If it were to actually do what Tory suggests it would overwhelm Union, or requires a different destination.
LikeLike
Is the curve west of the 427 that UP Express uses actually too sharp for regular GO trains to use, or just very close to the minimum curve radius? The curve at the south end of the Richmond Hill line near Cherry Street is also pretty sharp but regular GO trains can use it. I would have thought that a curve that is too sharp for regular GO train rolling stock to use would be dangerous if it would cause regular GO trains to derail if the switch is set incorrectly and this would violate railway safety regulations. If it is possible for regular GO trains to use this line (except for the fact that the Pearson station’s platforms are too short), then perhaps you could rebuilt part of this spur to be underground, build an underground station under terminal 1 which regular sized GO trains can use, build a tunnel under runway 06L/24R and 06R/24L, and build an underground station at Airport Corporate Centre, and this would be used instead of the Eglinton West alignment for SmartTrack. This is assuming that there is enough space to build a 2% gradient to an underground station there, not sure if this the case.
LikeLike
If they followed the original SNC Lavalin design then the grades are too steep for locomotives. It requires MU cars with 50% of the axles powered. I am not sure if the bridge structure would support the weight of locomotives. Since the DMU cars for the line are the same length as the GO bi-levels the curves should support bi-levels if they were to be converted to EMUs. The question then becomes would the puny stations work because they are high platform, doors would need to be moved to the end of the car over the trucks, and would the bi-levels clear the station platform canopies? As was demonstrated in Vancouver uncontrolled PPPs tend to build the minimum to serve the present rather than investing a bit to allow for future expansion.
LikeLike
I would argue Robert, that PPPs tend to be built to serve the specification required by the public sector partner, or that which will maximize profit or rate of return, whichever requires the larger investment (so the specification would have to be horribly obviously hopelessly, under for it to be exceeded). Since something like a subway or airport express is likely to make more money while nearly full than 1/2 full, it would likely be built to the minimum specification provided by the public partner. From the private provider perspective, extra capacity serves what purpose? I would be fairly sure as the private partner, that if they were going to change the scope that much (multi stop – 18k as oppose to sub 1K 2 stop) they are also re-opening the contract, and well, extra flexibility helps the private money how?
Steve: In Vancouver, the PPP took advantage of loopholes in the spec to build something different from what was anticipated. This saved the private builder on capital costs.
LikeLike
What we really need is for some one to lay out the entire history of this line but I believe that it started as a federal initiative that gave a private contract to SNC Lavalin to build and operate the line as a for profit operations. Since the railways are federally regulated they could force this system onto the GO right of way through Weston. SNC Lavalin essentially got most of the right of way provided at very little cost to them by the province. They had to build the line into the airport and the station at Union. Even given this they walked from the contract after much of the planning had been done.
The province was stuck with the option of abandoning the line and losing face even though it started out as a federal initiative or finishing it which they did with a couple of extra stations. The initial PPP was between the federal government and SNC Lavalin and there were very few controls on that, not even costs for walking out of the contract. Hopefully after the Pan Am games and the introduction of RER/SmartTrack something can be done to change it.
LikeLike
I thought the air rail link spur was changed to have 2% grades but am not sure about the curve radius. Somehow I would think that a curve so sharp that regular GO rolling stock would derail or an elevated structure that can’t hold regular GO rolling stock would be unsafe if the switch were accidentally set incorrectly and a regular GO train went on the line by mistake. I went by there the other day (Mississauga bus route 107 passes underneath the sharp curve) and it doesn’t look all that different from the curve at the south end of the Richmond Hill line, and the railway signalling on the spur looks identical to the new signalling on the rest of the GO train system. I am just trying to think how “SmartTrack” can be fixed given that running GO trains on Eglinton Avenue West is obviously impossible/prohibitively expensive and basically LRT is the only option on Eglinton West now because of selling off land along the Richview corridor. Aside from simply extending the Eglinton LRT to the airport and removing the western part of SmartTrack, the only other option is to go south from the 427 to Airport Corporate Centre via Terminal 1, but I hate to think about the wasted money if the air rail link spur has to be completely rebuilt to do this.
LikeLike
I would have thought there would be enough width in the main rail corridor to and beyond the Malton GO, to the Bramalea to allow RER to simply continue straight through. The airport portion would then have to be revisited, but this being a relatively low capacity portion, doing so should be simpler than the balance. I believe that the airport should be served, but the airport itself (as opposed to the airport employment area) should not subvert the transit corridors to the area entirely.
LikeLike
To me I am fairly convinced that the issues are with the federal agreement, and the lack of controls. I think that in some instances PPPs can be made to work, however, it is critical to be very (extremely) clear in the contract with regards to what you are trying to achieve and protect, and also in terms of the interests and incentives that are faced by the private partner.
The idea of the private partner frankly would seem to be about keeping grandiose excess out, however, that means that they are clearly intended to lean strongly the other way, as such the public partner, needs to be clear about build standards, capacity, and service minimums. Otherwise options that are costly to keep open will not be. Thinking that extreme clarity of planning is not required because there is a private partner, is extremely dangerous.
LikeLike
From what I remember about the line through Malton is that it is being built for two main tracks with a freight feed along the north side. At the north track through Malton Station the centre platform has a fence on the north side so it is not usable from the north track. As of the last time I rode the line in June the south track had still not been put into GO service though the platform is built. There are still some industrial feeds that need to be accommodated probably as far as Woodbine. I also do not know if the new signalling is fully operational.
The line has some narrow spots west of the Airport cutoff especially under the 400 series roads that might make segregating the tracks from conflict with main line trains difficult or at least expensive. Given that the only way Metrolinx can implement the RER or SmarTrack service on the Weston Sub is to use the tracks used by UPX, something will need to change after the Pan Am games.
Metrolinx could eliminate conflicts with existing freight customers on the tracks it owns by taking over responsibility for switching from CN and hiring a short line to do it overnight when there are no GO trains. CN would probably not complain about this because switching small industry is expensive. There is still the problem that CN has the right to run trains on them when needed and the Newmarket sub Union Station Rail Corridor is the only way to get to Montreal when you lose the York Sub. Similarily CN has been known to use the Bala sub and USRC to get freights to and from MacMillan Yard when they lose the Halton sub. The Uxbridge sub only connects at the south end now so nothing could be diverted using it.
These residual trackage rights to run freights will continue to cause problems for running RER SmartTrack until Metrolinx can come up with a way to eliminate conflicts between freights and GO, RER or SmartTrack trains that satisfies Transport Canada. Perhaps Tory has some influence with the federal Tory party.
LikeLike
There is no need to free funds to build RER or the Crosstown extension but the $2.7 billion the City would need to pay for SmartTrack matches closely with the estimated $2.6 billion cost of the Eglinton West spur.
At this point any changes to transit projects in Toronto are only going to cost Toronto residents more money and likely delay the construction even longer.
Minister Del Duca and so many people have the right idea … it is long past time to get transit built.
Cheers, Moaz
PS. ICYMI the newly elected councilor for Ward 5 in Mississauga (all points east of Hurontario and north of Eglinton Avenue) yesterday called for the City of Mississauga to build a subway extension from Kipling to Square One rather than the proposed Hurontario-Main LRT.
Steve: The problem with Del Duca is that he wants to “build it now” whether a plan makes sense or not. Indeed, those who argue that ad hoc “plans” deserve better review, if only to improve them, are accused of being naysayers who just want to block progress. That does not address the question of whether we would be wasting billions of dollars plus the time needed to discover that the “solution” was less effective than expected.
LikeLike
w.r.t SmartTrack – is there any form of estimate where the $2.7B came from?
The way I understand it is from Weston to Kennedy, there should be $0 cost to the city, as long as they can convince Metrolinx/the Province to do this leg first for GO-RER. Or is there further upgrade required to get this from 15-min RER service down to a reasonable 5 minutes for true RT ops.?
If we don’t proceed with the stretch west towards the Corporate Centre (because it’s almost impossible), then there is no more money spent there (unless Xtown is extended, which I’m guessing would be a mix province + city + maybe Federal project)…
Finally for the East leg, is there no assumption that York Region should contribute (as they are with the TYSSE), as this is of huge benefit to them?
I’m thinking I’m going to get a Steve “back of the napkin” design/costing answer, but want to make sure I didn’t miss something crucial..
Steve: The Tory campaign folks claim that they used costs from “comparable projects in London and Berlin” although it is unclear just what they were comparing to given that they did not understand some of the technical issues of their own project. There is no detailed explanation.
LikeLike
I was assuming that this would be the case, and that UPX should just basically go away … other than perhaps as a Malton-Peason or Mt Dennis-Pearson run. The line needs to serve a larger demand, and if it can also serve the airport great. Run rapid transit through the airport, by the airport, under the airport … Rapid transit for the airport absolutely, a scarce highly valuable railway space used exclusively to serve a small handful of passengers, that is entirely another matter. Robert as you mentioned previously the Lyon idea (passing track using tracks that are shared with another service), or a RER with an airport stop.
Track space in the GTA is a rare and highly valuable commodity, with many important competing uses. It should not be tied to a single use that uses only a small fraction of the capacity. The conflict with mainline rail makes the use of a painfully small train all the worse, as you are extremely limited in the number of trains you can run. If you can only run 4 or 6 trains per hour – (assuming one through platform at Union) they should not be wasted on a train that has only 3 cars of 60 passengers max each. Better to make at least make an allowance for 6 trains of 12 cars at 160 passengers per car.
LikeLike