Metrolinx Board Meeting Followup: October 26, 2017

Updated Nov. 2, 2017 at 2:50 pm: Typos corrected, notably “DBFOM”.

The Metrolinx Board met on October 26 with an agenda that was largely discussed in private. This article is a follow-up to the preview published before the meeting.

A major item on the confidential agenda concerned “Benefits Management and Realization”. Why this was handled at such great length in private is a mystery, and I attempted without success to clarify the topic of discussion with Metrolinx.

I asked:

Is this the issue of identifying, encouraging and capturing some of the benefits of transit expansion?

In a thoroughly opaque reply, Metrolinx stated:

Benefits management is a process to help us maximize project value as Metrolinx plans, builds, operates and connects transit projects in order to provide benefits to the region. [Email of Oct. 23 from Scott Money in Metrolinx Communications]

A major problem for Metrolinx and for the Regional Plan in general is the propensity to build stations surrounded by parking lots and structures (GO) or free-standing architectural sculptures that make integration with future development quite difficult. On a smaller scale, Metrolinx will have to get used to thinking smaller, in the sense that stops on BRT and LRT lines should not be planned around massive growth but depend on medium density locally plus intersecting feeder routes.

Metrolinx has committed to publishing information about its private sessions in the future, and it will be interesting to see how much we actually learn about evolving thoughts on this issue. After all, this meeting was billed as a “strategy session”.

The New CEO Introduces Himself

Metrolinx’ new CEO, Phil Verster, made a few remarks most of which were predictable as so much at Metrolinx meetings can be.

His focus since joining the agency has been on talking to customers and front line staff, especially those who do the invisible tasks that keep the system running. He has also been consulting with Metrolinx staff and management about the importance of positioning the agency to get the most out of the investment in the RER (Regional Express Rail) program over the coming years.

Among many projects, Verster spoke of the Kipling mobility hub (recently announced with a media event by sundry politicians), a project that has been brewing for over a decade.

Fare integration was another topic Verster focused on with the recently announced GO-TTC co-fare arrangement being the first step to region-wide integration. This will affect business case analyses, travel behaviours and patterns. New travel, of course, will depend not only on fares, but also on service, a topic on which Verster was silent.

In a telling comment, Verster observed that while Metrolinx has a lot of capital improvements underway, it is important to remember “the soft stuff” of organizational improvement, transparency to the community, and becoming an organization that represents transit in an objective and positive manner.

Being “objective” is a topic that returned in other discussions as the meeting went on.

Regional Transportation Plan Update

Antoine Belaieff presented an overview of the RTP consultations to date. He reported that reception to the draft plan as been generally positive, but that there is continued impatience for system improvements. Riders want seamless fares and service, have diverse opinions on parking and station access, and are interested in seeing how the plan will be staged and implemented. At the municipal level there were few surprises because local planners have been involved in developing the draft, although there is some interest in adding projects to the plan. Stakeholders want clarity about the first/last mile problem and how the growth in travel with RER will affect station access. There is continued interest in long and short haul goods movement by truck and rail.

There have been “fairly technical” discussions about roles and responsibilities for Metrolinx vs the provincial government, especially with respect to the provincial Growth Plan, and a desire for “crisp and concrete” language.

Phil Verster observed that the plan should not be “final” but should be open to changes. It should not be an “event” but an ongoing process.

Board member Upkar Arora asked whether people have been flagging omissions in the plan, have concerns about the environment and sustainability, or are split between an urban/suburban view of the plan.

Belaieff replied that, if anything, people are having to digest a “rich” plan that has a great deal to absorb. Feedback on environment issues has been supportive because of the plan’s “call to action”. Suburban areas tend to focus on how the plan will support growth both through new stations and with expansion that is timely relative to development.

Board member Rahul Bhardwaj asked whether “we hearing from the right people” or just those who are usually engaged, and using an unfortunate phrase, referred to the “silent majority”. Belaieff replied that he was pleased to see audiences not just of his planning friends, but that there was genuine input from “everyday” people. Getting attendees to meetings is hard, and Metrolinx is counting on local networks to help with this, but both “planning intellectuals” and “real people” were present. Leslie Woo, Chief Planning Officer, noted the need to reach marginalized communities.

Woo advised that there will be a report in December on the feedback Metrolinx has received and how it will affect the next version of the document. In parallel staff are working on economic information and will propose “a way forward” with the plan and its implementation. She proposed that the plan not be considered as finite, but as a generator of more specific studies.

One statement caught my ear, namely that this is a plan for ten years, after which there will be a new plan. That is technically correct, in that there is a legal mandate to review the plan every decade (the current review is triggered by that), but the RTP is intended to look forward a quarter century and given the lead time for the most complex projects, a ten year outlook simply won’t do.

As for the comments about “real people” at meetings, this cuts two ways. On one hand, it is vital that the plan be shaped by genuine public opinion as opposed to the “usual suspects” be they those of us who always comment on anything, or politicians who warp transit plans to suit their electoral goals. On the other hand, public opinion can be skewed by biased presentations, and some of the activism so familiar in transit circles arises directly from the need to provide contrary views to the official versions. Being “engaged” should not disqualify one from providing input to a vital plan, and engagement does not necessarily translate to agreement.

The finality of a plan, or its openness to change, is always a tug of war at the planning and political levels. Plans that are open to constant change can leave us with a situation where changing priorities and limited funding guarantee that nothing actually happens. On the other hand, the lack of published details behind many parts of the plan, specifically ridership projections, land use assumptions, project costs and priorities leave us with a full network for 2041 but no sense of how we will get there, or how subsets of the plan would perform.

Hydrogen Trains

Phil Verster introduced this report as an examination of an alternative “green” way to implement non-diesel propulsion for GO saying that there will be a very important feasibility study of the technology this fall. Mark Ciavarro, VP of RER Implementation, took the Board through the presentation (linked above) together with Peter Zuk, Chief Capital Officer.

Ciavarro noted that interest in hydrogen as a fuel goes back to 2012 when it was still a relatively new technology and, at the time, not worth further pursuit. In September 2016, Alstom unveiled a pilot and the vehicle is now in testing, although in a different, much smaller form than trains GO would use. The test train reaches a maximum speed of 140 km/h, and 60 trains are on order. Chief Operating Officer Greg Percy noted that GO’s top speed now is 90m/h or 150km/h. Greg Verster stated that speeds of 180-200km/h and up lie in High Speed Rail territory.

Chair Rob Prichard noted that there is a terminology issue in that all locomotives are electric, but the question is where the energy comes from. [Diesel locos generate their power on board while “electric” locos obtain power from an overhead wire. In both cases the actual propulsion is provided by an electric motor. However, truly electric trains give the option of powering all cars, not just the locomotive, and this changes a train’s performance.]

Zuk stated that GO is electrifying its network and the question is how this would be done. They are doing a feasibility study of hydrogen and other potential technologies. In Germany, commercial uses of hydrogen goes back to 2002, but there is a question here of the scale and applicability to large commuter rail operations.

Verster observed that the application of hydrogen trains in Germany would be to rural lines where electrification infrastructure is not cost effective. The train is small, and the issue is whether the technology can be scaled up. There will be challenges and that is why Metrolinx is conducting the feasibility study. There are hydrogen fuel cell applications in LRT and buses, but this is the first train. Surplus electricity can be used to create hydrogen, and that first stage is always expensive. This is a key part of the study.

Board member Carl Zehr asked whether the study will look at the transition to and integration of hydrogen technology. Verster replied only the technical feasibility is  being studied in the immediate future. His main objective is to deliver RER at the best cost and time. With respect to using the technology on track that GO does not own [portions of some corridors are owned by CN and CP which operate freight traffic over them], hydrogen trains could avoid the need for overhead contact systems (OCS) on non-GO trackage but there is no regulatory framework for this yet in Canada.

Zuk noted that each component of hydrogen fuel cell technology has been around for years. What is new is their integration into a rail system. Metrolinx needs to determine if and how fuel delivery will work, and how the technology would fit into EMU (electric multiple unit) trains.

There will be a symposium to assess the state of the technology on November 16, 2017 (see p. 13 in the presentation deck) and this will be open to outside parties. Whether this means media and the general public is as yet uncertain.

Rob Prichard wondered whether GO Transit would be the last system to build an overhead based system. The obvious rejoinder is that the whole world is building these systems. Verster replied that Metrolinx should not engage in delivering a program that is dependent on research and development.

The study will likely be done by the end of 2017 with a report for the February 2018 Board meeting.

During the press scrum after the meeting, the Star’s Ben Spurr asked Chair Prichard and CEO Phil Verster what made them think hydrogen technology is even possible. Verster replied unambiguously that there are significant community ridership benefits in RER, and Metrolinx will not jeopardize this based on a technology that is not ready to market. He observed that the study will affect RER procurement – under a DBFOM scheme (where a bidder does everything from designing to operating and maintaining the system) there is a question of what technologies a provide might bid.

Spurr also asked about Metrolinx attempting to position Ontario as a global leader, and whether this is a transit agency’s role. Verster replied that Metrolinx should “scan the horizon” to know what is available.

The DBFOM reference raises the question of whether Metrolinx is planning to outsource its RER operations completely on a turnkey basis. I attempted to obtain clarification of this from Metrolinx later on (the scrum ran out of time), but replies yielded no information at all. As for hydrogen itself, it is clear that there is a tension between the basic action of getting an update on the technology, and a political stance that would provide Ontario (and its politicians) with yet another chance to show off advanced technology. Our experience in that regard is less than stellar.

GO/TTC Discounted Double Fare

This report is substantially the same as the one presented at the recent TTC Board meeting. It deals with the proposed agreement between Metrolinx and the City of Toronto/TTC to implement the first stage in a planned four-stage evolution of regional fares:

a) Discounts on double fares (GO-TTC)
b) Discounts on double fares (905-TTC)
c) Adjustments to GO’s fare structure
d) Fare Policy Harmonization

Leslie Woo expects to report to the December Board meeting on all of these.

During the scrum, Rob Prichard observed that although the GO-TTC co-fare is a three year agreement, he feels that unwinding it is unlikely because it is so clearly the right policy direction. If anything, it will be rolled into a more extensive set of integrated fares.

We can only hope that Metrolinx has moved beyond regarding the matter of time-based fares (the two-hour transfer) as a matter of local policy rather than as a potential key part of regional integration for non-GO services. All systems outside of Toronto now use this scheme, and York Region recently eliminated its zone fares. Only the TTC remains as an exception, and there will be a proposal in the coming Ridership Growth Strategy that Toronto move to the two-hour transfer.

This could leave Metrolinx in the position of trying to foist fare by distance, their long-favoured scheme, on local systems that have already standardized on a flat, time-based fare.

Governance

The agenda included a private session item on governance which will be public at the December meeting. This may deal with the issue of which items and reports are dealt with in private session, and which are made public, especially before rather than after they are massaged to fit political reaction.

Rob Prichard, after much prodding in the media scrum, allowed that the controversy over Kirby and Lawrence East Stations was a “catalyst for discussion”. Phil Verster took a shot at the issue by saying that there are four phases to the benefits case process and the station review is at stage 1. There will be more information later in the cycle. Ben Spurr challenged him on the sequence of a Ministerial announcement that appears to seal the decision. Verster replied that communities should get a sense of direction, but that Metrolinx has a long way to go in the maturity of how they work with benefits cases. These are not an absolute science but have strategic overlays leading to a policy decision.

The Globe’s Oliver Moore asked if the Ministerial intervention was appropriate. Verster replied that he cannot comment, but wants to look forward. Metrolinx will give informed advice and options, but it is up to the politicians to make decisions.

These statements dip and dive around the issue, and the comments about the uncertain nature of benefits cases beg the question of the value of the degree to which Metrolinx has relied on these in the past as definitive studies. Either they can hide behind studies as the work of “experts”, or they can recognize them as works in progress that might not be “mature”.

49 thoughts on “Metrolinx Board Meeting Followup: October 26, 2017

  1. Malcolm N said: It is time for the voter to take responsibility. Vote for what can be done and makes sense for the entire city not just their backyard.

    At the federal government level, we need political party that legislates an upgrade of the signal system of the railroads. Apparently this was done in the US. The obsolete signal system is a needless barrier to improving the GO system in Ontario.

    At the provincial government level, we need intelligent politicians. Brad Duguid, (who is retiring) is responsible for the Scarborough Subway Extension (SSE) and reducing Eglinton East to 4 lanes on the Crosstown LRT. Mike Harris eliminated the operating subsidies to the TTC. The Montreal Metro network is a full grid, thanks to co-operation between the Provincial and city governments.

    For Toronto, we need to eliminate the politicians who believe they are transportation planners, public transit is not a political issue. They have wasted so much money on the Sheppard subway, SmartTrack and the LRT/SSE. We have to get real about identifying demand flows. This is also problematic because demand flows are only good for 10 years but let’s establish long term trends.

    I feel that Toronto needs a grid of rapid transit. For me this means two more east/west rapid transit lines, one south of Bloor (subway, surface or elevated on King) and the other at Sheppard or possibly Finch. I live in Scarborough and can honestly say Scarborough and Don Mills truly need rapid transit. Both lack north/south rapid transit. I see the high rises along the Lakeshore West and have heard enough about Liberty Village to support their need for rapid transit. Like it or not, Toronto needs a master plan but the problem is that it is too big for anyone to see the big picture, worse to sell the plan to a fragmented population.

    I also feel Metrolinx has some of the best corridors for rapid transit. The Lakeshore and north west corridor are well established. I believe the Don Valley route to Richmond Hill and the Stouffville line should be fully expanded. For me, these routes will have to be triple tracked to allow for frequent local service and high capacity express service to Richmond Hill and Markham. The frequent local surface trains run on King (high platforms, many doors) while the express goes on to Union Station.

    Like

  2. For Toronto, we need to eliminate the politicians who believe they are transportation planners, public transit is not a political issue.

    Yes, like MPP Yvan Baker, who writes in a constituency update:

    I believe that an LRT down the middle of Eglinton would be unacceptable and I have been fighting on your behalf, along with our local city councillors John Campbell and Stephen Holyday, to tunnel the LRT.

    Tunnelling the LRT makes sense for many reasons.

    * Tunnelling the LRT is better for drivers. Eglinton Avenue is already gridlocked. It is a major artery in Etobicoke. An at-grade, (meaning on the surface of the road) LRT would make traffic worse.

    First reason to tunnel, better for drivers.

    It’s about 6.25 km from Weston Road to Martin Grove. Given the number of stations that are planned, this will cost more than the Scarborough one-stop tunnel.

    Steve: Well, Brad Duguid screwed Scarborough’s chance for LRT, and Yvan Baker seems to be working against it in Etobicoke. There are days I simply wish gridlock and chaos on the suburbs, but it’s costing the city as a whole.

    Like

  3. Ed quoted Yvan Baker saying: Tunnelling the LRT is better for drivers. Eglinton Avenue is already gridlocked. It is a major artery in Etobicoke. An at-grade, (meaning on the surface of the road) LRT would make traffic worse.

    Yes exactly, so we are completely focused on moving cars not people as usual. The worst of it is of course, is the reality that the constant stupid expenditure of money being required is exactly why lost time due to congestion cannot be improved. Also is not Eglinton both wide and open to expansion across most of Etobicoke? Would drivers not be helped more by making the ride for potential transit users better, hence pulling more of them off the road? Are the politicians really that stupid? Or is this rather that the voter is really that misguided and narrow in their focus, and the politician is actually really being smart in terms of keeping his job.

    Like

  4. Oh yeah! Yvan Baker. Got one of those flyers in my mailbox some time ago, but there’s wasn’t an appropriate thread of discussion here at the time to post it. I wish I had been there when the MPP’s activists had come to the door, to tell them that previously I was indifferent to Mr. Baker, but that because of this transit ideas I will make a point of NOT voting for him in the next election, and instead will vote for someone else … someone who doesn’t want to destroy the Eglinton West LRT.

    Not to mention that afaik, the LRT along Eglinton in Etobicoke will not take away any traffic lanes, but will be built at the expense of the space now taken up by a wide 2-lane bike path and trees. (I expect Baker’s next pamphlet to scream trees! Will someone think of treeees…!?)

    Like

  5. Malcom N said Are the politicians really that stupid?

    I would venture to say, unfortunately, yes. Or rather ignorant and misinformed, and not at all focused on trying to educate voters and presenting them with viable alternatives, but instead on reacting to their most obvious/basest instincts.

    Like

  6. Andre S. “I would venture to say, unfortunately, yes. Or rather ignorant and misinformed, and not at all focused on trying to educate voters and presenting them with viable alternatives, but instead on reacting to their most obvious/basest instincts.”

    I would suggest that really the politicians are simply that cynical. I do not think the politicians are reacting on instinct at all, but instead informed understanding of what will win them the seat. They understand that it is easier to figure out where people are and want to go, and appeal to the basest instincts than it is to try and lead them anywhere. That is the issue we have: sometime in the 1970s we made a clear choice to consistently vote for the guy who told us what we wanted to hear, instead of what needed to be done, and now there are very few politicians that will tell us what needs to be done, instead of what we want to hear. Note the finishing order in the last mayoral race and transit, the candidate with the least viable plan finished first, the one with the most viable plan that essentially focused on what best recommendations suggested had to drop out of the race. Tell people that they are going to need to pay, to solve issues, is electoral suicide. Suggesting, that LRT in Scarborough makes sense appears also to be suicide. That downtown, East Bayfront LRT that would be a net tax positive, and even staff insisted needed being done, in an environment that made this very dangerous, has been electoral suicide. The issue is that we as voters reward the Fords and punish the Soknackis of the world. Wong [Steve: I think you mean Chow] was much more realistic than Tory, but we know how that ended. Worse Tory’s most important promise was transparently ridiculous on Eglinton west for anyone who had actually looked at it, yet it was popular as heck.

    We as the voters of Toronto and Region need to take ownership. This is us. Want working transit, face some essential realities. It will not be free: if it feels too good, it probably is. If it appeals to your baser instincts, better think hard on it. This is like candy, tastes great, not healthy.

    Like

  7. Oh I know about the costs and limitations of dual mode locomotives. But why can’t I indulge in throwing around obscene money on unworkable or unviable fantasy plans? Why should the politicians get to have all the fun? The only thing I left out was finding a way to slide cash to SNC Lavalin and Bondfield Construction in that tentative plan.

    Anyhow, on a serious note, I saw a sign yesterday that said propane vehicles weren’t allowed in an underground parking garage and I realized it’s because of the compressed gas and enclosed space which in turn made me think about the hydrogen powered train idea. Is a hydrogen powered train something that would be prohibited from passing through the Hunter St. tunnel on the way to the Hamilton Go Centre for the same reasons?

    Are there any other tunnels on the Go train system that would present a similar problem? Or any other structures that would place limits on “hydrogen territory” as it were?

    Like

  8. TTC Passenger asks Are there any other tunnels on the Go train system that would present a similar problem? Or any other structures that would place limits on “hydrogen territory” as it were?

    Propane is much heavier than air, molecular mass of 44 vs 28 for nitrogen and 32 for oxygen, and tends to collect in low spots. Hydrogen’s mm is 2, much lighter than anything. If there were vents at the high points it would tend to rise and dissipate quickly, but then everyone has seen the movie of the Hindenburg disaster.

    Like

  9. TTC Passenger said: Is a hydrogen powered train something that would be prohibited from passing through the Hunter St. tunnel on the way to the Hamilton Go Centre for the same reasons? Are there any other tunnels on the Go train system that would present a similar problem? Or any other structures that would place limits on “hydrogen territory” as it were?

    How about all CN/CP tracks? There is little reason to suppose they would permit hydrogen-powered passenger service without a FRA exemption/classification. If you are looking for “tunnel” type structures, you have the West Toronto Grade Separation, the “Weston Depression”, and passing Highway 401/409 on the Kitchener line. Depending on how you classify a “tunnel” many of the 400-series bridges would met it. Then on the Barrie line, they are moving towards full corridor enclosures at stations, so 300m of roof and side walls. You have the Weston fly-under in the USRC West that doesn’t seem like much, but is over 100m enclosed. There is the rail park concept that would cover all the USRC West in the same area, and there is the 81-121 Bay “Overbuild” that will cover the USRC East.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s