A Grand Plan

by

What’s This Photo Doing on Metrolinx’ Website? (Updated)

Updated January 29, 2013 at 1:45pm:  Metrolinx’ response has been added at the end of this article.

A discussion has been running in the comment thread on another article about one of the photos used on the Metrolinx site.  The first of four photos in a rotating display is shown below.

metro_carousel1

This is clearly an Intermediate Capacity Transit System line (ICTS), and it has been identified by readers as part of the Kuala Lumpur system.

A strange choice considering that Metrolinx does not plan to build any ICTS in Toronto, or so they claim.  At one point, it was clear that Metrolinx had no interest in LRT, and my advocacy of it at an early public speech by the former Chair Rob MacIsacc was not well-received.  Simply “extending” the SRT to the airport was the preferred technology choice until the City of Toronto put its foot down with the Transit City LRT plan.

Why does Metrolinx use an ICTS photo to illustrate their home page when this is not supposed to be part of their plans?  (The other three photos showcase GO, Presto and the ARL.)

I asked about this last week and am still awaiting an answer.  Meanwhile the photo remains up on the site.

Metrolinx responds:

The image in question is stock photography from a website known as Shutterstock. While the image may resemble the Skytrain, it has been chosen through a creative selection process.

It should be noted that the image was also selected according to Metrolinx brand standards. Photography plays an important role in Metrolinx print and communication materials, which includes our website. Our images represent speed and action, giving the viewer a powerful sense of perpetual motion and transformation.

When shooting or selecting photography, we always try to add a touch of green, or at least, select and/or use colours that will complement the primary colour palette and add to the unique flavour of Metrolinx.

In particular, the image in question was chosen for its interesting perspective on city life, and has been blurred for use on the Metrolinx website as an artistic representation of rapid transit.

We plan on changing the images on our website soon to in order to keep it fresh, and avoid the appearance of a static site.

Well, that’s the longest “Ooops” I have read in some time.  The shot does not “resemble” Skytrain, it is the same technology in use in another city, Kuala Lumpur.

by

Resurrecting the Scarborough Subway

The coming TTC meeting agenda (which I will review in a separate article) includes a report on the technology choice for the Sheppard East and Scarborough RT lines.  No, TTC staff are not having second thoughts (it’s not their decision to make anyhow), but they wrote the report in response to a request from the Commission.

That Commission, frankly, should know better than to reopen this can of worms, especially when some Scarborough Councillors can’t get past the idea that somehow a subway is what their constituents deserve.  In a city that is trying to create an inclusive view of transit as something that benefits us all, this divisive approach is the last thing we need.

In any event, Metrolinx is basically telling Councillors advocating yet another technology change to get lost.

My full commentary on this is over at Torontoist.  Please leave comments there so that the thread is all in one place.

by

Metrolinx and the Auditor General (Updated)

Updated December 14, 2012 at 1:40pm:

Additional information regarding Presto and Metrolinx’ response to the Auditor General’s report has been added at the end of that section in this article.

Original post from December 13:

The Auditor General of Ontario released his Annual Report on December 12, 2012, and it includes a section on Metrolinx.  For those of us who have wrestled with the secrecy of Metrolinx, some of the information and recommendations in this report are a breath of fresh air.

Metrolinx’ overall reaction to the report is much of the same boilerplate about the wonderful job they are doing and how important they are to the region.  In some cases, Metrolinx dodges the questions raised by the Auditor in a way familiar to anyone who has ever attended one of their press conferences.

The report should be read in the context of March 31, 2012, the end of the period to which the audit applies.

Continue reading →

by

Metrolinx Meeting Wrapup — December 2012

The Metrolinx Board met on December 5, 2012.  Most of its business was conducted in private, an unfortunate habit of this provincial agency, but some items emerged on the public agenda.

I have already reported on the “Next Wave” of transit projects and the amendments proposed for The Big Move regional plan.  In other news …

Continue reading →

by

Metrolinx Updates The Big Move, Announces Priorities for Phase 2 Projects (Updated)

Updated December 6, 2012 at 11:20 am:

A warmed over version of the Board of Trade presentation was given to the Metrolinx Board by President & CEO Bruce McCuaig at the Board meeting on December 5.  There were a few clarifications of note:

  • The list of “Next Wave” projects will not be nailed down until the February 2013 Board meeting following a round of public consultation.
  • That consultation will also include a review of the proposed amendments to The Big Move and yet another round of talks about potential revenue tools.  The meetings will probably take place in January at 12 public round tables, as well as a 36-member “Residents’ Reference Panel” doing “deep dives” into the issues at weekend sessions.  This process will report back to the Board in spring 2013.  (There is no info about how the 36 “residents” will be selected for the panel.)
  • It is likely that construction of the Downtown Relief and Yonge Extension subway projects would take place concurrently with Yonge to Steeles opening at roughly the same time as the DRL from Downtown to Danforth.  “Phase 2” of each project would follow.  At this time there is no commitment to going north of Danforth or to any specific route either through downtown or through the east end of Toronto.  This will be the subject of an Environmental Assessment for the project.
  • The goal of TBM was described by McCuaig as having 75% of GTAH residents within 2km of rapid transit at their origin or destination.  That “or” is an important distinction I don’t remember hearing before.  It’s child’s play to have lots of people close to rapid transit at one end of their trip — anyone who works in major centres within Toronto or lives along a subway, LRT, BRT or GO line will qualify.  The more difficult target is to have such access at both ends of the trip because “convenience” is meaningless if only one end is well-served.
  • In an apparent contradiction to the implied 1/3 local funding described in the Star’s article about Mississauga having second thoughts on the LRT project, McCuaig said that we cannot look at traditional federal/provincial/municipal financing models.  Presumably the Investment Strategy will address this problem.

The actual timing of the Next Wave projects varies depending on which document one reads or how one parses the announcements.

  • In the Next Wave handout (linked later in this article), this is described as a 15-year, $34-billion project.
  • The spend rate implied by another part of the same handout is only $1.2b/year, and this translates to a 28+ year timeframe.
  • Metrolinx, in an email responding to this article and my concerns about the status of projects such as the Eglinton LRT to the Airport, said that there would be a “Third Wave” in 2025.
  • At the press briefing following the Board meeting, McCuaig confirmed that for the “15 year plan”, year zero has been reset to 2012.  This implies that TBM’s original 15 year timeframe is now stretched to roughly 20.  Moreover, McCuaig hinted that projects started within the next 15 years may not finish by then.
  • Despite all of the delays, the year 2031 is still the target for completing all of The Big Move.

In previous discussions of the Investment Strategy, Metrolinx has included an allowance for operating the new facilities as they come into service.  This is missing from the $34b of the Next Wave, but will have to be incorporated into the IS discussions.  Moreover operating costs are ongoing while capital are one-time.

In all of this discussion it was amusing to listen to Metrolinx talk about revenue tools, code for the very things some politicians in Toronto find utterly unacceptable preferring to imagine that pools of private capital are available at little or no cost.

The presentation materials from the Board meeting are not yet online, but the hard copy version comes under the unhappy title of “The Big Move In Action”.  Deleting only one space would give a good description of the treatment of project schedules for Transit City by Queen’s Park.  The presentation ends with a page titled “Keep the wheels moving” and a picture of a stone wheel and hammer.  Ontario makes a lot of claims for its triumphs in transportation technology, and I can’t help wondering if this is an early product of the Ontario Transportation Development Corporation.

I mention this because Metrolinx appears to have embraced a new, quaint graphic style for their Big Move and Union Pearson Express websites.

Continue reading →

by

TTC November 2012 Meeting Wrapup

At its November meeting, the TTC considered various matters other than the 2013 budgets on which I have already reported.

New Commissioners

The new “citizen” members of the TTC were sworn into office: Maureen Adamson, Nick Di Donato, Alan Heisey and Anju Virmani.  Ms. Adamson was elected Vice-Chair of the Commission under a new Council-approved structure where the Vice-Chair is chosen from the citizen member ranks.  At this point we know little of where the newcomers will take the Commission beyond background articles such as one in The Star.

Although they may claim to be focused on customer priorities, whether this will survive the political onslaught of budget constraints and the organizational morass of “TTC culture” remains to be seen.  Commissioners tend to catch a “TTC disease” when it becomes easier to defend what the TTC has done and the official management outlook than to ask difficult questions, publicly, about how things could be better.  At least there is a CEO in place whose goals lie in improvement, not in justifying more of the same.

Continue reading →

by

TTC 2013 Capital Budget Part I: Subway Fleet Plan

This is the first article in a series examining various aspects of the TTC’s Capital Budget for 2013 and the 10-year plan running through 2022.  The report linked here gives an overview, but I have now reviewed the roughly 1,300 pages of supporting information in the “Blue Books” which detail each capital project.

Those books are not available on line, but contain much valuable information.  When the Commission considered its Capital Budget, this material had not yet been assembled.

To avoid creating a post as long as the Blue Books, I will break this into separate articles for major topics.

The Subway Fleet Plan

Subway Fleet Plan 2012.10

This plan provides for additional trains on the Yonge-University-Spadina and Bloor-Danforth subways, but only on a limited basis.  The fleet of Toronto Rocket (TR) trains will be used exclusively on YUS and the T1 trains (now split between both major lines) will operate on BD and, in four-car sets, on Sheppard.

The TR fleet is just large enough to accommodate the extension to Vaughan with a short-turn operation to Wilson Station, but only at the current level of service.  The T1 fleet is larger than required for current schedules on the BD and Sheppard lines, and so the surplus is used up at the rate of about 2 trains every 3 years on BD with no additional service on Sheppard.

The projection presumes that the spare factor for TR trains can be held at 13%, and it is unclear today whether this can be achieved and maintained over the life of this fleet.

Those extra T1 trains have been counted as “free” on more than one occasion for subway expansions proposed for the near future, but obviously they can only be used once be it for extra BD service, or on extended Sheppard or Danforth subways, or on the first phase of a Downtown Relief Line (DRL). Continue reading →