The agenda for November 23rd’s meeting of the Metrolinx Board is now online and it includes several reports of interest. Here I will deal with GO transit performance and capacity issues. In a future article, I will turn to Presto (and the proposed TTC implementation which is also on the TTC’s agenda for November 23), the Air Rail Link, and planning issues at “Mobility Hubs”.
GO Transit
No, We’re Not There Yet
Many recent reports and proposals talk about the problems of long commuting trips, of the futility of attempting to move quickly around our increasingly congested city.
Back on August 24, Statistics Canada published their commuting study based on 2010 data. The study reviews not only comparative commuting times by mode, but also the attitudes of motorists to the transit alternative.
The average commuting time for all of Canada was 26 minutes, but this rises to 30 minutes for CMAs (“Census Metropolitan Areas” which are generally larger than actual municipalities) of 1-million or more population. Toronto and Montreal average 33 and 31 minutes, but this doesn’t tell the entire story as any Toronto commuter will tell. 27% of Toronto commutes take over 45 minutes, and 29% are caught in traffic jams.
When the data are subdivided by car and transit, the transit trips take longer, and this difference is heightened in lower density areas. That’s no surprise because low density areas tend to have poor transit service as a direct result of lower demand. Waiting times are an important part of transit trips when service is poor, and this is compounded by any need to change between routes that may not directly serve all travel patterns. The average transit commute in large CMAs is 44 minutes while the average car trip is 27 minutes. The figures are even worse for Toronto. Missing from this is any discussion of the length of the trip or the differences caused by trip location and density of demand.
Neither transit nor car users like traffic congestion, but the presence of rapid transit networks means that some trips are congestion-free (even though they may be subject to transit delays that were not part of this study). The proportion of commuters who were satisfied with their commute times is understandably high where these times are short and congestion is comparatively rare. Transit riders put up with longer commute times better than car drivers, but those with short trips tended to be less happy with transit than motorists were with their cars. This is easy to understand when one considers that a short transit trip is more likely to have a relatively large proportion of wait time, while at least some of the longer trips (notably commuter rail) allow the commuter to relax enroute.
The vast majority of motorists view public transit unfavourably, but this statistic is not broken down by region, let alone by sub-region where variations might be seen due to the availability and quality of the public transit option.
Media reaction to this report was quite predictable with stories about how bad Toronto’s commuting times are. Less clear is the question of what, if anything, can be done about the situation. Indeed, the most simplistic analysis might suggest that car trips are inherently faster and “better” than transit trips based on their average length. This would completely mask the effect of averaging together trips over a wide variety of roads and transit lines and the cost, broadly speaking, of increasing capacity for either mode.
How Many Trains Will Fit Through Union Station?
During the Metrolinx Electrification Study, those of us who attended various workshops became aware that there was a parallel study of capacity issues at Union Station. The electrification plans are, among other things, in support of operating better service on GO generally, but if that service won’t physically fit through Union Station and its approach corridors, there’s a big problem.
That problem is independent of electrification per se because The Big Move from Metrolinx depends on substantially improved commuter rail service. No capacity, no additional service.
At the recent Metrolinx Board meeting, GO’s President, Gary McNeil, presented an update on GO operations and construction activity.
GO President’s Report & Presentation Deck
The report includes a reference to Union Station capacity:
… Retaining wall construction is well underway to allow for an additional track in this corridor. The Union Station capacity study has been completed, with the result that in the near term, there is capacity at this station to meet needs. With the start of design of double berthing and new south platform, this will provide access required for service expansions. This work is anticipated to be completed in the next five years. [Page 8]
After the meeting, I requested a copy of the study to learn what conclusions it might have reached. Various working papers from the study had been leaked, but they were neither definitive nor entirely coherent on how to deal with the problem.
Metrolinx has now replied that:
At this time, a detailed public component of the Union Station study is premature as we are undertaking on-going research. Specific information will most likely be available for the public when future potential projects develop from this study.
The purpose of the study is to assess the Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) train capacity at four time points:
- existing;
- completion of planned infrastructure in 2015 and implementation for service improvements, including the ARL;
- Electrification Reference Case (ERC);
- and 2031 (Big Move planning document).
In doing so, we hope to identify opportunities to increase capacity by making more effective use of existing and planned infrastructure. We also hope to identify the infrastructure needed to address any capacity shortfalls. This study provided only a technical analysis, and Metrolinx will consider its opportunities after further assessment.
However, there is a good deal of material to get started on.
Metrolinx Meeting Wrapup April 2011
The Metrolinx board met on Thursday, April 28 and there were a few items of note on the public agenda.
- Toronto Transit Plan Update
- PRESTO Update
- 2011-12 Operating and Capital Budgets
- GO Quarterly Report for 1Q11
- Union Station Update
Finally! A Dundas West GO Connection (Updated)
Updated March 24 at 9:00 pm: Metrolinx has published the materials from the Open House. Of particular interest is the presentation which shows the proposed changes to the area around Bloor GO Station and Dundas West TTC Station.
In the first phase, the north sidewalk of Bloor Street would be redesigned to widen and otherwise beautify the access to the GO level from the sidewalk in the underpass. Also, a connection from Dundas West Station would be added at the east end of the platform. (Page 33 of the presentation shows details of the subway to GO link.)
In later phases, the streetcar loop at Dundas West would be redesigned so that all access was from Edna Avenue with traffic signals. This could be a mixed blessing given the level of transit service at this location.
Original post below:
Metrolinx has announced an open house for the Dundas West-Bloor Mobility Hub Study.
Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Time: 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Venue: Lithuanian House
1573 Bloor Street West
Further background can be found in The Star.
Dundas West Station was built before GO existed, much less had service on the Weston corridor, but a connection could be built from the east end of the platform to what is now Bloor Station on the rail line. However, a major development, the Crossways, was not on top of the subway when it opened in 1966, and any connection must deal with this building.
Liberty Village Planning Studies
The City of Toronto has three planning studies underway that will affect Liberty Village, and they will hold a combined open house on March 1 for the next stage of the public consultation.
Dufferin Street Bridges
The south end of Dufferin Street has two bridges — one over the rail corridor, and one over the Gardiner Expressway. Both are in need of replacement, and future plans require a new design. This project had its first meeting last year, and now the City is back to discuss alternative schemes.
Projects related to this include expansion of the GO Lake Shore corridor, provision of clearance for electrification and connection of the streetcar system from Exhibition (East) Loop west to Dufferin. The streetcar extension is part of the proposed Waterfront West LRT line, although it is far from clear whether any of the alignments shown on the drawings for the bridge project would actually be built. The WWLRT is not exactly at the top of anyone’s list of transit projects, but whatever is decided for the new Dufferin bridges may preclude some of the WWLRT options.
New King-Liberty Pedestrian/Cyclist Link
The Georgetown rail corridor creates a long barrier between Strachan Avenue and the west end of the King Street underpass at Atlantic Avenue. With the redevelopment of lands to the north, current and future plans for lands to the south, this barrier isolates the two neighbourhoods from each other. Some crossings are now made illegally, but plans to increase the number of active tracks and the frequency of GO service will make this much more dangerous.
At the first open house last year, various alternatives were presented, and two of these were carried forward for detailed study. The results will presented at the March 1 open house.
Liberty Village New Street
A new street is proposed along the south edge of Liberty Village from just west of Strachan Avenue to Dufferin Street. This road would occupy what was originally planned to be the Front Street Extension, but as a purely local street.
The March 1 meeting will launch this project for comment.
Not Quite Greased Lightning: GO Transit to Electrify, Eventually
Today, Metrolinx released its long-awaited study of GO Transit electrification. I will comment on this in more detail over the next day or so, but here are preliminary observations while the news is fresh.
Updated 4:30 pm: The study appendices are now available online. I have not incorporated any information from them in the article below.
The study finds that electrification is a worthwhile venture on selected, well-used corridors, and that it is an important foundation for the growth of GO Transit into its regional role proposed in Metrolinx’ Big Move.
The proposed staging of the electrification project (all times are estimates) is:
- Preliminary design and Environmental Assessments (3-4 yrs)
- Union to Pearson Airport, and Union to Mimico (Willowbrook Shops) (4-5 years)
- Pearson Airport spur to Brampton (Mt. Pleasant) (2 years)
- Union to Oshawa (including access to a new eastern maintenance shops) (4 years)
- Mimico to Oakville (2 years)
- Oakville to Hamilton (James Street Station) (2 years)
- Oshawa to Bowmanville (2 years)
- Brampton to Kitchener (2-3 years)
Other corridors were studied, but the best benefit-cost ratio was found to be the combination of Georgetown and Lake Shore. Events over the next decades may prove this to be short-sighted, but that’s today’s plan.
The implementation is rather leisurely, and if all of its phases take place sequentially, it will be the early 2030s before this scheme is completed. The Environmental Assessments will use the expedited process most recently seen on the Transit City projects. This will avoid the need for “alternatives analysis” on projects where the alignment and technology selections are a foregone conclusion, and the “terms of reference” will be much simpler than a full EA.
No individual benefit is cited for electrification, but rather the combined effect of contributions to travel time savings, operating costs, reliability, environmental concerns and long-term capacity of the GO system.
A Grand Plan: 2011 Edition
Back in the early days of this blog, I wrote a long paper about the role of transit and what a truly regional plan would look like. To avoid extensively quoting myself, I suggest that any newcomers to this site read that as a starting point as it contains not just a list of routes, but a philosophy of how one should look at transit.
Since 2006, we have seen Transit City, MoveOntario2020 and The Big Move. The GTA appeared well on its way to real progress in transit although problems, notably the question of local service funding, remained.
Now we have a new Mayor in Toronto, and plans that came from years of work and debate lie in pieces on the floor. Metrolinx and Queen’s Park seem content to “plan” by carving up funding that’s already committed and redrawing their map to suit the whims of a new regime at City Hall.
The fundamental problem in this exercise is the phrase “funding that’s already committed”. When you draw a map with a half empty pen, you make compromises, and you run out of ink leaving huge areas bereft of service.
If redraw we must, then let us do so with a view to a transit network and to a view beyond the end of next year. What does Toronto and the GTA need? How much will that cost? How do we pay for it? If we start with the premise that we cannot afford anything, we should stop wasting our time on planners, engineers and the myth that transit can actually transform travel for the next generation.
The discussion below is Toronto centric because this is a Toronto blog, and that’s where most of the GTA’s transit riders are. All the same, the philosophy of what transit should be affects everyone, especially in those areas where so much transit growth is needed just to catch up with the population.
Some of the info here will be familiar to those who read my commentaries regularly, but I wanted to pull it all together as a starting point. My comments are not intended as the one, definitive “solution”, but to show the need for debate on a large scale, integrating considerations from many parts of various schemes.
[While I was writing this article, the Pembina Institute published its own critique of the Ford transit plan. I do not intend to comment on that document here because it addresses only one part of a much larger collection of transit issues.]
Three Views of Customer Service
Customer Service was a big issue in Toronto’s transit discussions over the past year. Transit touches a wide group of users, and even those who drive listen to horror stories about bad transit trips if only to reinforce their own choice. “Choice” is an important word for transit, and as with any business, customers are hard-won and easily lost. The “product” isn’t just “getting there”, but doing so dependably in reasonable comfort. Everyone knows that real products often fail to live up to the glossy brochure, and the beautiful merchandise in the shop window or online may not match personal experience.
Three different reactions were published in past months, and the contrast between them says a lot about their origins.
- TTC’s Customer Service Advisory Panel produced a long, if not particularly well-edited report full of recommendations, but ending with an injunction to riders that they should mind their P’s & Q’s if they expect good service.
- GO Transit announced its Passenger Charter, a much simpler set of goals developed in cooperation with GO’s Customer Service Advisory Committee and employees. This charter is supported by a number of web pages where riders can track GO’s delivery of what it has promised.
- The RCCAO (Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario) funded a report by Dr. Richard Soberman which recommends, among other things, a strong customer service focus in the provision of transit.
GO Electrification & Air Rail Link Updates (Update 2)
Updated Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 5:10 pm: Metrolinx today announced that it will be ordering DMUs from Sumitomo, piggy backing on the Sonoma-Marin order. The statement, which is available in full on the Metrolinx site, includes:
Metrolinx will be entering into formal negotiations with Sumitomo Corporation of America to exercise an option from the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (California) procurement contract to purchase up to eighteen (18) highly efficient Diesel Multiple Units (DMU’s). These vehicles will meet stringent Tier 4 emissions standards and will be convertible to electric for the Air Rail Link.
Updated Sunday, November 14, 2010 at 3:30 pm: Information on the proposed Sonoma-Marin “SMART” Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) acquisition has been linked from this article and the price per unit cited by me in the original text has been corrected. See the section on the ARL for updates.
The original article (as amended) from November 12 follows below.
On Tuesday, November 16, the Metrolinx Board will receive updates on the GO Transit Electrification Study and on the status of the Air Rail Link to Pearson from Union Station.
The Electrification Study has been underway through 2010 and it has produced a number of background reports. I will leave the truly keen readers to plough through all of this, but a few high points deserve mention.
- Electric locomotives are the most cost-effective option for GO services
- The most value-for-money comes from electrifying entire corridors
That electric operations are better for GO is no surprise to anyone who has watched the growth of electric railways worldwide. Sadly, GO has decades of saying “no” to electrics on the grounds that investment in better service trumped investment in technology at the service levels then in effect. With the proposals found in The Big Move, this position is no longer valid.
The study workshops have seen vigourous debate on the issue of locomotives vs a fleet of electric multiple units (EMUs). It is cheaper to haul longer trains of coaches with one electric locomotive than to power each car in a train. However, this places a limitation on acceleration and speed between stations because the locomotive must do all of the work. (Only the locomotive’s wheels provide the power for acceleration, and there are limits to the forces that can be transmitted in this manner.)
The finding that full corridor electrification is most cost-effective comes from the high cost of dual-mode locomotives and the operational constraints that would probably exist if only some units had this capability. Only trains with “off-wire” capability could be dispatched to outer, peak-only parts of corridors. The study does not review a configuration with a mix of pure diesel-hauled trains with electric trains, although these would have effectively the same operational constraints.
Steve Munro 