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.
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.
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
For the past few months, Metrolinx has been rather quiet as Queen’s Park worked through the legislation abolishing the old board and merging GO Transit into Metrolinx. How is “Metrolinx 2” going to work? What are its priorities? The transitional board has been meeting informally, and signs of change have been obvious in recent announcements such as the GO Electrification Study.
On June 9 and 10, the new President and CEO of Metrolinx, J. Robert S. Prichard, more commonly known simply as “Rob”, gave similar speeches to the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance and the Building Industry and Land Development Association. These are available from the Presentations page on the Metrolinx site in both text and Powerpoint versions. (Both are saved as PDFs.)
Much of the content is in the “rah rah, we’re a new agency with a new mandate” cheerleading vein, but some points are worth noting.
Metrolinx has a mandate to actually do things, and do them quickly. In times past, this took on an aggressive, negative tone attacking NIMBYism and suggesting that anyone perceived to get in the way would be pushed aside. Today, the need for action remains, but it is presented as a widely supported, long overdue program to reverse the damage of lost decades of underinvestment in transit infrastructure.
Prichard cites priorities he has received from Premier McGuinty, and the focus is on results, not on process.
That list implies things were not happening under the old Metrolinx, and we’ve heard rumblings about unco-operative, foot-dragging politicians. More about them later.
Yes, we are all tired of announcements, and it’s refreshing to know that not only will money be pledged, it will actually be spent. (Earth to Ottawa: Are you listening?) I have shelves full of plans, but I can’t actually visit the sites or ride the lines because they remain only on paper. In a few cases, this is a blessing in disguise. Continue reading
Updated 11:25 am: Information about maximum gradients added as well as a comment about costing of the underground alignment north of Sheppard.
Last week, the TTC and City conducted an open house for the Scarborough RT extension project. As regular readers here know, I have long advocated that the RT technology be changed from ICTS to LRT, but there is little sign of a move in that direction in the materials on view at the open house. A single panel (page 32 in the presentation) says that the technology is yet to be determined, but the design clearly is based on an RT implementation.
This is rather odd considering that a rethink of the RT/LRT debate has been floating around since last fall when Metrolinx produced its report comparing the benefits and costs of various alternatives for the RT extension. If a real comparison were underway, we would see two designs that reflect the requirements specific to each technology and exploiting the advantages of each. Moreover, the keep/replace decision would be part of the larger context of the future of the existing RT and its place in the context of Transit City.
Back in 2006, after a study of the RT’s future, the TTC adopted a policy of retaining the ICTS technology. The context for that decision was very different from today:
In less than a decade, the RT will truly be a technology orphan, an ICTS line surrounded by a network of LRT lines. However, the 2006 policy decision has yet to be revisited.
The TTC, echoing a tactic used decades earlier, has created a scenario that demands complete grade separation of the RT extension by claiming an 10,000 per peak hour demand for the line. However, this only applies to the section between Scarborough Town Centre and Kennedy, not to the whole line. Demand north of Sheppard is projected to be only 2,500 by 2031. (During the original LRT scheme’s debates in the 1980s, TTC claimed that an elevated LRT would be needed through STC to avoid isolating property south of an LRT right-of-way. The LRT proposal took the hit of what was then considered an intrusive elevated structure thus paving the way for ICTS.)
The design shown at the open house was clearly prepared for an ICTS implementation. All of the illustrations show trains that look suspiciously like Mark II ICTS, and the route is integrated only with the existing RT, not with Transit City for vehicle maintenance.
Several questions remain unanswered:
Difficult though this may be, the TTC needs to address the technology issue for the entire RT line and do this in the larger Transit City context. Many design issues hinge on the technology choice notably the reconfiguration of Kennedy Station. If this will be a junction of three LRT lines (Eglinton, Scarborough-Malvern and “RT”), the layout will be very different from that with ICTS technology on the RT.
The short-sighted 2006 policy decision to retain ICTS must be reviewed. Too often, I hear rumours and comments suggesting that support for ICTS is dwindling among transit professionals in Toronto, but none of this surfaces in public debate. We need that debate now.
Tuesday, June 2 was a long day for members of Toronto Council’s Executive Committee. Many transportation issues were on the agenda including Union Station Revitalization, Western Waterfront Master Plan, Queen’s Quay redesign, and the Gardiner Expressway replacement EA.
As if that wasn’t enough, an open house for the Scarborough RT extension took me out for a ride on the Milner bus.
This transit blogging is harder than my pre-retirement work! Continue reading
Metrolinx has now released Part 2 of the Draft Environmental Report for the Georgetown South Service Expansion Project, and will hold a series of Open Houses over the next few weeks.
I will add more details to this post once I have a chance to digest several hundred pages of online information.
Updated 6:15 pm:
Mark Dowling sent along a note about a rather bizarre statement in the Metrolinx document:
Are Metrolinx trying to pull a fast one? Section 5.1.7 Page 204 (page 216 of the PDF):
“At present there are no electric double-deck commuter cars that can legally operate on North America railway lines.”
What would they call these then? Or has this fleet been retired by METRA since 02?
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metra_Electric_train.jpg
- Link to the photo used in the Wikipedia article
In any case, nobody said they had to be EMUs, did they? (Although EMU would have its advantages, obviously).
It’s this sort of thing that makes one wonder about the accuracy of so much else Metrolinx produces, or of the (possibly unintentional) bias in their studies.
Disclaimer: Although I am the Vice-Chair of Toronto’s Union Station Revitalization Public Advisory Group, this article represents my own opinions, not necessarily those of USRPAG who have not had a chance to discuss this matter since the release of the report linked below.
On June 2, Toronto’s Executive Committee will consider a staff report recommending that the Union Station Revitalization project proceed at a total cost of $640-million. This project is dependent on funding approvals from Queen’s Park and Ottawa which are expected to materialize over the coming months. Continue reading
