This series works through the three-part presentation of the proposed Eglinton LRT design that appears on the project’s website. Part 1 brought us east from the Airport to Black Creek, and Part 2 covered most of the remainder east to Warden.
Part 3 of the presentation deals with the short section from Warden to Kennedy as well as various construction issues, notably an alternative scheme for tunnelling.
In Part 1 of this series, I discussed general issues about the Eglinton LRT and details of the proposed line between the airport and Black Creek.
In this section, I turn to Part 2 of the June 2009 TTC presentation concerning the line from Keele to Warden. Continue reading
My apologies to regular readers for the delay in posting news and comment on the last round of Eglinton LRT designs. Over the next few days, I hope to catch up on this and other topics.
June 2009 brought a major round of public meetings for the Eglinton LRT complete with a detailed look at how the line would be implemented. The display panels for the current proposals are available on the project website.
The Eglinton line is a huge project, and if it’s done right, will show off the capabilities of LRT versus other modes. The line will be partly on the surface, partly grade separated (mainly underground), and will be a real test of fitting infrastructure appropriate to demand levels across much of the city.
The comments below follow the display panels in the order presented by the TTC to save readers from jumping back and forth to locate various topics. Continue reading
Past studies of electrification together with information on the technology’s use in other cities and countries is now available on the Metrolinx website.
I will comment on this information once I have a chance to digest all of it.
Robert Wightman rode the GO service to and from Niagara Falls today (July 1), and sends the following comments.
I rode the second GO train to Niagara today — 650 passengers. The third train ran with 270. GO is running ten car trains so that they do not need to make and break train sets but they are only using the eight cars closest to the locomotive because St. Catharines appears to only have an eight car platform while Niagara only has a five car platform; they stop the train twice.
GO has put in proper platforms including handicap mini platform at St. Catharines and Niagara. There is room to lengthen the Niagara platform but there is some construction going on there. It appears that they are putting in a wayside power connection at Niagara, probably for VIA.
GO has not done a Mickey Mouse job at these two stations as they have put in new platform lighting and a proper and permanent mini platform. It appears as if GO wants to make this a permanent run. They were running a buy-one-get-one-free promotion today so you could buy a one way ticket and use it as a return ticket. Toronto to Niagara and return cost $15.90 instead of $35.80 on VIA.
GO pulled out all the stops as they had a GO crew and a CN crew in the engine because GO crews are not current on the Grimsby Sub. They also had two CSA’s (Customer Service Agents or door operators,) and two or three Special Constables to make sure everything ran smoothly. They did not check tickets in either direction on my two trains.
I was surprised at the number of people who got on both ways at St. Catharines. Considering the amount of money that GO has put into platforms and lighting at these two stations, I bet that they will start running two trains in from Niagara in the morning and out in the afternoon sometime this fall. The trains are in the new Lakeshore West timetable and will run on Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays until Oct. 12. It would not cost them any new equipment but they would probably need to put in a yard at Niagara to store the trains overnight.
Number 98 the 17:25 Amtrak/VIA train to Toronto was 1h45 minutes late as US homeland security decided to check what every one on the train was exporting from the US. It was probably a not so subtle hint to keep your vacation money in the US. This caused a 1h05 delay to the GO train into Niagara at 18:15 as it had to wait for the Amtrack train to clear Canadian Border Security Agency check. Amtrak/VIA did not pull into the second track even though one Niagara person who was apparently instrumental in setting up the GO excursion train said they were supposed to as part of the contingency set up for this scenario. The VIA agent said the Customs people had refused in the past to check trains on this track as they thought that it was dangerous to cross track one to get to track two even if the passengers had to do it.
I was pleasantly surprised to see how many people were riding the train. Once GO gets its operation down pat to the point where they can run three man crews this should be a money maker as well as a boon to tourism in Niagara and Toronto. Perhaps they could consider doing this for Stratford to improve tourism there as well as getting nameless transit commentators to their hotel before they go to the theatre.
Running this type of service has a low cost to GO as the equipment is sitting around all weekend doing nothing so they do not need a large passenger volume to cover their costs. With eight cars to carry 650 passengers the train was not crowded but it still carried enough to cover its marginal costs.
It was educational to compare the GO and the VIA Amtrak service as they loaded at Niagara. The VIA Amtrak trains loaded about 25 people through one narrow door for about 7 minutes. GO loaded close to 500 passenger through 10 double width doors, including a number of bicycles, in about two minutes and these were mainly people who do not ride any train normally. VIA and Amtrak should scrap their existing equipment and replace it with something like the Bombardier bi-levels that can load and unload so much faster with their low level double width doors.
If the US security folks want to see people spending money south of the border, they should be happy to see all sorts of US goodies in travellers’ arms going back across the border to Canada. Of course how much of that stuff was actually made in the USA and how much elsewhere is another problem. Conflicts in operations like this need to be worked out.
It’s good to hear that the train did well on its first day although the effect of full fares needs to be seen.
As for cultural events, it’s still a pain in the butt to get to Niagara-on-the-Lake. Stratford, for me, is a weekday jaunt. The city would love to see GO run service there regularly and has proposed the largely vacant yard at Stratford as a GO facility, but it’s quite a jaunt west of Kitchener.
The problem on that line is that the arrival time of the morning train is now just late enough that catching a matinee isn’t a sure thing. I doubt GO will be running midday trains that far from Toronto any day soon.
Kitchener-Waterloo has been working away at a Rapid Transit plan since 2004, almost entirely out of the Toronto media spotlight, including mine. (A large amount of background detail can be found in the “Reports” section.)
Earlier this week, on June 24, Waterloo Regional Council approved the line which will be built initially with LRT in the north (KW) end, and BRT to the south in Cambridge. The first big surprise came Friday in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record who reported that both Ottawa and Queen’s Park were planning to fund the project. News of this reached me while Toronto Council was wrangling over funding for the purchase of new streetcars.
No sooner had Waterloo approved the LRT line, but local Cambridge MP Gary Goodyear announced that Ottawa would contribute $160-million to the project whose total estimated cost is $790-million. This took Regional Chair Ken Seiling completely by surprise. Support also came from Kitchener MP Stephen Woodworth who pointed out that this money will come from the “Build Canada Fund”, not the “Stimulus Fund” and therefore the project is not constrained by the latter’s March 2011 cutoff.
Meanwhile, the Liberal MPP for Kitchener, John Milloy, announced that Queen’s Park will provide two-thirds funding for this project. If you do the math, this leaves Waterloo Region with a comparatively small cost, roughly 1/6 of the total. The project also has support from local Conservative MPP Elizabeth Witmer. Bipartisan enthusiasm for transit is a refreshing change from Toronto where transit projects are used to score political points by the right wing of Council. Continue reading
Updated 10:15 am, June 27: Metrolinx has decided to release GO’s electrification studies without a formal Freedom of Information request. They will be available online sometime in the next two weeks once they are converted to a suitable format.
Updated 12:30 am, June 23: A list of existing commuter rail operations including those with electrified operation has been added at the end in response to a bogus claim in a Metrolinx FAQ.
Updated 9:50 am, June 23: Another Caltrain newsletter shows the benefits of electrification and the benefits of EMU operation.
Much of the debate on the Weston corridor study, formally known as the Georgetown South Service Expansion (GSSE) Environmental Assessment, focuses on noise, vibration and pollution effects from the substantial addition to train traffic in the corridor. One major option, electrification, was not included in the EA on the premise that this conversion will, possibly, be done sometime in the future, but not now.
Responding to public pressure, Metrolinx will launch a detailed study of system-wide electrification for GO. The first step will be to strike a consultative committee of various interested members of the public to advise on the terms of reference for the study. The committee should be appointed by the Metrolinx Board in July 2009. Once the terms are nailed down, the study itself is expected to take until the end of 2010.
Alas, this is far enough in the future that it will have little outcome on what is actually built in the short term. Also, by looking at the full network, and having cited very high figures for a complete conversion, I can’t help wondering if Metrolinx hopes to derail support for a movement to electrify “now”.
Unfortunately for Metrolinx, GO has already studied electrification of the Lake Shore corridor first in 1992, then an update in 2001, and, I understand, another update in mid-2008. Do we really need another study for this most important of GO corridors? Can we estimate, broadly, the cost of converting the Georgetown corridor based on the Lake Shore study?
Metrolinx was asked to release the Lake Shore studies, but in a splendid example of contempt for the public, they require a Freedom of Information request to release documents we all know to exist in the first place. As of June 26, the requirement for an FOI request was dropped, and Metrolinx will post all of the GO studies online within the next two weeks once they have been formatted for that medium.
The FAQ for the electrification study (linked above) states:
Q. Hasn’t a study already been done?
A. Yes. A smaller study was done for the Lakeshore West line only.
Well, no, actually the April 2001 update covers Oshawa to Hamilton. Moreover, this may not be the entire system, but it is certainly the heart of GO’s network and information here gives order-of-magnitude values that can be used when looking at other lines. Continue reading
Updated June 27 at 10:10 am: The study of noise impacts is now available on the Metrolinx Site. I will review this and other reports in a future post.
Updated June 23 at 9:45 am: The detailed studies of air quality and health impacts are now available on the Metrolinx site. I have not had a chance to read through them yet, and will probably not be commenting on them for a few days.
On June 15, the Toronto Board of Health (an agency that operates independently of City Council but on which some members are Councillors) considered a report from the Medical Officer of Health concerning the impact on air quality of the proposed service expansion in the Weston rail corridor. The recommendations in this report were amended by the Board (see item 24.4 in the decisions of the Board).
The MOH had been asked by both the Board and by the Parks and Environment Committee of Council to review the potential health impacts associated with diesel fumes from the proposed increase in diesel train traffic in the corridor. Noise issues were not addressed by the MOH’s report although they are mentioned in the Metrolinx Part II document for the Environmental Assessment now in progress.
The full Part II document is available online. A much reduced version of the information is available via the consultation portal, but I don’t recommend it.
Many people from communities along the corridor appeared at the Board to make verbal presentations. A common theme in their submissions was that the large increase in diesel traffic in the corridor will have an adverse health impact on those who live, work and go to school nearby, especially children who are more sensitive to pollution effects. In particular, there was a concern that overall air pollution may be contributing to the rising rate of asthma among children, and that the levels expected in the rail corridor, although mostly within “standards” may disproportionately affect families living in the corridor.
Speakers asked that the Board strengthen the recommendations of the MOH which they did by inserting:
The Board of Health … requested Metrolinx to electrify the Georgetown South Service Expansion and the Union-Pearson Rail Link prior to implementing expanded service (Clause 3.a of the decision).
This decision does not bind Metrolinx, but indicates that the BOH considers this to be the preferred way of dealing with the corridor. Continue reading
Updated June 26 at 10:15 pm:
Today, Toronto Council voted 36-6 to proceed with funding of the purchase of 204 new streetcars as described in my original post (below the break).
During debate on the proposal, a few items of clarification were brought out that were not in the initial report.
From a financial point of view, all of this is a big shuffle. For the time being, the TTC defers work that was currently planned for funding via City borrowing. This is replaced in the capital budget with borrowing for the new streetcars. In parallel, the City will make application to Ottawa for over $600-million worth of projects that would have been financed by the City, and which can be completed within the timeframe to qualify under Ottawa’s rules for “stimulus”. On a 1/3 share basis, this will yield about $200-million in federal funding. Additional funding is expected to be available from other non-stimulus programs.
The net effect is that future City spending will be reduced by an amount roughly equal to the funding for the new streetcars.
Furthermore, the TTC will review its capital budgets for the coming years, and it is possible that parts of some deferred projects could reappear based on then-current funding availability and priorities.
This decision is even more important that the original 1972 move by Toronto Council to save the streetcar network. Not only does this ensure that network’s continued existence, it will expand the fleet and underpin the Transit City routes. Indeed, a suburban LRT network was the goal behind Streetcars for Toronto’s activism on behalf of the streetcar system.
We’re not quite at the end of a long road, but I would like to share today with the Streetcars for Toronto Committee, some of whom contribute in the comments on this site from time to time:
With luck, we will ride new streetcars and even a new line or two before the 40th anniversary of the decision to retain the streetcar network. Continue reading
Recent comments by Adam Giambrone, Chair of the TTC, suggest that 30 to 40 percent of the streetcar fleet is out of service in the shops, and that bus substitution will be required on some routes come the fall.
Those of us who follow the TTC have been waiting for a definitive fleet plan for some time, and hope to see one, finally, in the July Commission Meeting Agenda. Meanwhile, I thought that I would set the stage by reviewing the current scheduled service to see how it may evolve over coming months.
The fleet contains 195 CLRVs (one of the original 196 has been scrapped) and 52 ALRVs. The scheduled service beginning June 21 is 123 CLRVs and 38 ALRVs. This is 63% of the CLRV fleet and 73% of the ALRV fleet.
Peak AM requirements by route are: Bathurst (9), Carlton (32), Dundas (14), Queen (31 ALRV), Lake Shore (3), Downtowner and Kingston Road (11), King (27 CLRV + 7 ALRV), Spadina (15), Harbourfront (6), St. Clair (6).
What we don’t know is the number of cars that are permanently out of service with problems that cannot be or are too expensive to fix. In effect, we don’t know what the true size of the available fleet might be. A CLRV overhaul program is in progress (the affected cars are those with the new entrance layout and revised rear seating), but this is not as extensive as the original plans to replace major subsystems such as the electronics package. This program takes some number of cars out of the pool, but should gradually replenish the fleet. We don’t know how quickly this is happening, nor how reliable the “new” cars are.
In August, peak requirements will drop by another 11 cars when the 502/503 routes are converted to bus operation, although this will be offset in the fall when the 505/506 routes revert to their standard arrangement in the west end. The May schedules for these routes required 53 cars in the AM peak compared to 46 today. A further 9 cars will be needed to restore the 504 King line to its May schedule.
Late in 2009, the 512 St. Clair line’s service will be restored at least to Oakwood, later to Lansdowne. However, this route is now using a captive pool of cars trapped north of the underpass work at Dupont and Bathurst, and there are, I believe, enough cars in that pool to handle this extension (combined with appropriate schedules where cars spend more time in motion than laying over at terminals).
The TTC needs to explain how it plans to manage streetcar service over the next three years, not to mention service improvements for capacity and the commencement of service in the eastern waterfront. How long will new streetcars simply make up for failing CLRVs and ALRVs rather than contributing net new capacity to the network?
Steve Munro 