The Metrolinx Board will meet on June 29. This article is a preview of the agenda, and I will report on the meeting itself later in the week.
LRT Projects
More New Streetcars For Toronto (Updated)
Updated on June 15 at 11:30 am: Thanks to “nfitz” for pointing out that the base prices for both the TTC and Metrolinx cars are available in Bombardier press releases.
Updated at 11:50 am: A link to Transit Ottawa’s website has been added.
We gathered at an odd, odd-of-the-way spot — the GO platform at Kennedy Station — a small band of media, government aides and friends of MPPs. In the background, SRT trains came and went from the upper level of the subway station.
The occasion? Metrolinx and the Government of Ontario announced Cabinet approval of the extended “Big 5 in 10” project funding and the purchase of 182 new Light Rail Vehicles for the Transit City network. The “Big 5” announcement was no surprise — an agency like Metrolinx doesn’t publish a plan like that without knowing approval is certain. The real news was that Ontario has embraced LRT by actually ordering vehicles.
The irony of the location, a site where we might have seen Toronto’s first LRT line three decades ago, made this event one I just had to attend even if I will have to wait almost a decade to see the new cars rolling out of Kennedy on a rebuilt, extended SRT.
This order builds on the already-approved TTC “legacy” order of 204 LRVs from Bombardier. That contract included an option for up to 400 additional cars of which 300 were assigned to Metrolinx and the remaining 100 stayed with the TTC. If Metrolinx wants to bump its order, it has six years to exercise the option for its remaining 118 cars. This lies well within the timeframe of announcements for another round of LRVs for Toronto or possibly other Ontario systems, but on the timescale of transit planning, is short enough to focus attention on the question “what’s next”.
The new cars (5MB pdf) are slightly longer and wider than the “legacy” LRVs, and the Transit City lines have been designed to match the specs of an “off the shelf” vehicle rather than the more restrictive TTC streetcar system. A comparison chart shows the major differences between the two new fleets as well as the existing CLRVs and ALRVs.
The contract price is $770-million not including taxes, spare parts and future change orders. This $4.23-million unit cost compares favourably with the TTC’s $1.2-billion contract for 204 cars (roughly $6-million each), but the actual difference will only be in the range of 5-10% according to Metrolinx CEO Rob Prichard. Much of the difference lies in the way the TTC and Metrolinx quote pricing and inflation (the TTC’s is an all-in price because as-spent dollars must be quoted in capital budget projections).
The TTC and Metrolinx would do well to present a price reconcilliation so that everyone can make an apples-to-apples comparison. The last thing we need is a bunch of ill-informed Mayoral candidates presenting the difference as an example of how streetcars are too expensive in Toronto.
Updated June 15:
The base price for each set of vehicles can be found in Bombardier press releasesThe first of the new cars will run on the Sheppard East LRT scheduled to open in 2014. The remainder of the fleet isn’t needed until 2019/20 when the Finch, Eglinton and (rebuilt/extended) SRT lines are scheduled to open. This puts much of the order at the back end of the TTC legacy car deliveries running to 2018. Bombardier and their workers in Thunder Bay are quite happy to see production continuing at their plant. They have committed to 25% Canadian content, and Bombardier hopes to improve on that figure.
Metrolinx order: 182 cars for $770-million, or $4.23-million each
TTC order: 204 cars for $851-million, or $4.17-million each
This order sets the technology pattern for other LRT projects in the GTA including Hamilton, Mississauga and Kitchener-Waterloo if any of these progresses beyond the planning stage. Less clear, however, is the relationship with Ottawa whose LRT scheme recently got back on track with announced 1/3 funding from the federal government. Siemens was the chosen supplier for the original Ottawa proposal, and will no doubt have a presence in any revival of that scheme.
So begins the long-overdue introduction of LRT to suburban Toronto, although much remains just lines on a plan. There are the “Phase 2” elements of the four LRT lines, the proposed Sheppard East extension south to University of Toronto Scarborough Campus, the rest of Transit City, and who knows what beyond the 416. The UTSC extension proposal will be on the Metrolinx Board agenda for its June 29, 2010, meeting, while the remainder awaits the “Investment Strategy” and discussions on how to fund a growing regional network.
Furious George Has A Plan (Update 2)
Updated June 8, 2010 at 11:00 pm:
The Smitherman campaign has posted a backgrounder to his transportation plan which has been updated to reflect the funding of inflation by Queen’s Park.
In a previous update, I noted that there was a bit over $1-billion still unaccounted for. This is explained in the backgrounder as follows:
Once the provincial government formally approves their contribution escalation the Smitherman construction cost increment is reduced to $3.87billion, or $5-billion once financed to 2021. [Page 3]
Although this issue has been addressed, the method of paying for transit investments has not been changed. Smitherman still depends on revenue from gas tax and dividends from City agencies, money that is already spoken for by existing budgets at the TTC and the City. He also depends on new tax revenue from developments along the routes to be built. However, those taxes traditionally have been at least partly spent to serve new residents and businesses these developments would bring.
While I applaud Smitherman for at least producing a detailed plan, I still do not agree with elements of it such as the Bloor-Danforth subway extensions or with his financing scheme. (For the record, at Council today TTC staff responded to a question from Councillor Thompson about a subway extension and explained that any subway extension could not be built along the existing SRT corridor.)
The original content of this post follows the break.
Metrolinx Board Wrapup for May 2010
The Metrolinx Board met on Wednesday, May 19 for an unusually long public session. Rather than post separate articles, herewith a compendium report. The major topics are:
- The Board Speaks!
- The Managing Director Reports
- We Have A Vision, We Just Don’t Know What It Is Yet
- Achieving 5 in 10, or Transit City Rescheduled
- GO Rail Service Expansion Benefits Cases
- A Question of Advocacy
The Board Speaks!
Probably the most astounding thing about this meeting, the first anniversary of the “new” Metrolinx, is that the Board members finally found their voices. I was beginning to wonder if they were ever going to show some indication of earning their keep and actually asking hard questions of staff in public. We’re not quite there yet, but at least the discussion gave an indication that the Board is thinking about its role.
As regular readers will know, I believe that organizations such as Metrolinx should be publicly accountable through an electoral process and through direct access to one’s representatives. Boards that answer to nobody but the government which appointed them, and entertain no criticism from the public, can leave much to be desired.
To be fair to Metrolinx, even when it had a political board, much of the “public participation” was managed to achieve concensus with, more or less, what Metrolinx planned to do anyhow. That other well-known transit board, the TTC, is elected, but has succumbed to the disease of being cheerleaders for the organization right-or-wrong.
Metrolinx has not had to actually do much (as opposed to GO Transit which was simply merged into its new “parent”), and we have yet to see how the Board and the Government will react if Metrolinx badly fouls up any of its projects.
Transit City: Half a Loaf? (Update 4)
Today, May 17, 2010, Metrolinx CEO Rob Prichard addressed the Toronto Board of Trade with an overview of plans for Transit City projects. The presentation slides are available on the Metrolinx website.
The final transcript version of the accompanying speech is also available online.
Updated May 18 at 6:20pm : An updated version of the Metrolinx plan is now online. This includes more information about the staging and cash flows for each of the five projects, and confirmation that Metrolinx will be ordering 182 LRVs for the four Transit City lines.
Queen’s Park announced the Ontario Budget in March 2010 including a $4-billion cut to the short-term funding for the “Big 5” Metrolinx projects — VIVA BRT, Sheppard East LRT, Eglinton LRT, Finch West LRT, and Scarborough RT to LRT conversion and extension. This triggered a vigorous debate between Provincial and Municipal politicians about the real effect of the cut and the true extent of Provincial commitment to transit funding.
The primary concern at Queen’s Park is constraining the growth of the Provincial debt. In the short term, the Metrolinx projects were seen as easy to shift into future years, beyond the point where debt would be a problem. However, in political circles, deferral can mean outright cancellation especially if the government changes or another portfolio takes precedence for spending.
Only half of Transit City has any funding commitment to date, and now half of that commitment is in question. Where does this leave the plan and, more generally, the growth of a robust transit network in the GTA?
Queen’s Park Commits to Transit City, Sort Of
Queen’s Park has announced that it will build the four previously funded Transit City lines (Sheppard East, Finch West, Eglinton and the SRT rebuild/extension) as well as the VIVA busway, but over a longer time than planned.
Tess Kalinowski writes about this in today’s Star.
The construction start dates will be adjusted:
- Sheppard and VIVA are already underway and will continue.
- Eglinton will not start until 2012 rather than the originally planned 2010
- Finch West will not start until 2013 rather than 2010
- The SRT will continue operating until after the Pan Am Games in 2015 at which point it will close for reconstruction. Second-hand Mark I ICTS cars will be purchased from Vancouver to supplement the existing fleet in the interim.
Also rumoured is a Metrolinx announcement regarding purchase of cars for these lines from Bombardier.
All of the details will come out at the Metrolinx Board meeting on May 19, 2010.
The City of Toronto has proposed that it would finance the projects starting on the original schedule as this would be cheaper than other capital expenses it would have to undertake (a larger bus fleet and a new garage) to handle system growth pending opening of the Transit City lines. One might argue that they should just “get by” if this would only be a short-term pressure, but if Queen’s Park’s new promise falls through (there might be a different party in power by the time in came to actually pay up), the TTC would be seriously behind in providing capacity.
Rob Prichard of Metrolinx argues that the financial goal is to minimize provincial debt, and starting the projects early would add to the debt regardless of who pays the interest costs in the short term. This is really the nub of the debate. Queen’s Park seeks to minimize its book debt, and must deal with accounting standards that no longer allow governments to hide debt through leases or third-party financing. Oddly enough, this also affects some privatization schemes because, ultimately, the government is still on the hook to pay for the lines.
There are much larger questions in play here.
Metrolinx “Big Move” plan includes over 50 projects, and we have no idea of how Queen’s Park will pay for them, much less operate the network once it is built. If the first five projects are stretched over the next decade, when will work begin on the others? Will any new revenues (tolls, taxes, the Tooth Fairy) be used to fund additional projects, or will they backfill the original five?
Metrolinx’ mandate for a financial plan was explicitly set up to keep funding issues off the radar until after the 2011 provincial election, but that idea (a triumph of politics over good planning) fell apart when the 2010 budget cut funding for transit.
On top of this, there is no word on a provincial role in funding operating costs of local transit systems. In a best-case scenario, this might show up in the 2011 budget as a pre-election goodie, but Toronto and the TTC will go into their own budget cycle (which is largely complete by the time Queen’s Park announces its own plans) facing a TTC operating subsidy of about half a billion dollars. Mayoral candidates have a lot to be worried about, and they won’t solve the problem by counting the pencils.
Saving Transit City
Just over two weeks ago, the wheels came off Transit City and many more plans for new transit routes in the GTA. Queen’s Park, feeling poorly after bailing out the auto industry and promissing tidy sums for non-transit portfolios, decided to defer $4-billion of spending on The Big Move, the GTA’s transit master plan. The effect was felt most by Transit City whose projects were those already prepared, out the door and ready to build. Whether the work on VIVA that is also part of the first batch of funded projects will be affected, we don’t yet know.
Metrolinx has been handed the thankless task of figuring out what to do, and they’re being very quiet about it. Word on the street is that nothing is to be annouced until the May 19, 2010 Metrolinx board meeting.
For months, it was no secret that Metrolinx was working with the TTC to rein in costs on Transit City so that the projects would stay within the funding envelope, and some trimming was expected (if only by way of creating a “phase II” for some projects). As long as the total stayed within the announced funding, all would be well, or so everyone thought.
Now, Queen’s park wants to push spending (and associated debt) out into future years, and wants to “defer” about half of their previously committed funding. Reaction at the municipl level was predictable with the Miller administration openly attacking Queen’s Park for renegging on a promise. Would-be mayors are thrilled with the opportunity to have someone else delay Transit City so that candidates don’t seem obstructionist. Meanwhile, such bastions of anti-Miller sentiment as the Toronto Star and the Board of Trade have both criticised the transit cutbacks.
The unhappiness does not stop at the 416 border. Politicians who were expecting funding for transit improvements including BRT and LRT now wonder openly whether their projects will ever see the light of day.
Service Changes Effective May 9, 2010
Construction diversions on several routes will begin or continue in May.
504 King and 508 Lake Shore:
King cars will continue turning back at Roncesvalles and Queen, but will reach there via Shaw and Queen Streets. Watermain construction which last year caused Roncesvalles to be torn up last year moves to King between Ronces and Jameson.
The 504 shuttle bus will be rerouted and extended to run between Shaw and Dundas West Station bothways via Roncesvalles looping via Strachan, Douro and Shaw.
No date has been set yet for resumption of streetcar service on Roncesvalles, but this is expected to be in the late fall. The diversion via Queen and Shaw is expected to last to the end of August 2010.
502 Downtowner and 503 Kingston Road Tripper
The reconstruction of Bingham Loop, deferred from 2009, will occur this summer. Buses will replace streetcars over both routes until mid-August.
Replacement bus services will loop via Victoria Park, Meadow and Blantyre to Kingston Road. The peak service on both routes will be improved from 7’30” to 6’00”, but offpeak service on the 502 will remain at 20′.
22 Coxwell and 70 O’Connor
Reconstruction of the bus loop at Coxwell station requires the removal of all bus service. Routes 22 and 70 will interline, and all of the “O’Connor” service will run through to Queen or to Victoria Park depending on the time of day.
Existing interlines between the O’Connor, Gerrard and McCowan routes will be discontinued during this period.
72 Pape
Construction at Pape Station requires that the Pape bus be rerouted to loop at Donlands Station. Passengers transferring to this route from the subway at Pape will do so using on street stops. This diversion will last until the end of 2010.
The seasonal extension to Cherry Beach will operate during the evenings Monday to Friday, and all day on weekends and holidays. This will run until Labour Day.
512 St. Clair
The mixed streetcar and bus operation on St. Clair is expected to last until the latter part of June 2010 at which point the TTC hopes to restore streetcar service to Gunn’s Loop.
509 Harbourfront and 510 Spadina
The seasonal fare collection scheme on Queen’s Quay will be in effect until Labour Day. No fares will be collected eastbound on Queen’s Quay between Bathurst and Union Station on weekends after 3 pm, and there will be collectors stationed in the tunnel linking the Union Station Loop to the subway.
One PCC car will operate on the Harbourfront route on Sundays until September 5, 2010 between 1130 and 1930. This will run as an extra, and will be subject to availability of both a car and an operator.
Seasonal Route Extensions
- 72 Pape to Cherry Beach (see above)
- 28 Davisville to the Brick Works
- 29 Dufferin to Ontario Place (service south of Dufferin Loop will be split between the 29B Ontario Place and 29D Princes Gate branches)
- 86 Scarborough to the Zoo
- 85 Sheppard East to the Zoo
- 510 Spadina King short turn extended to Queen’s Quay on weekends
- 165 Weston Road North to Wonderland
Other Route Changes
- 25 Don Mills service north of Steeles removed (York Region request)
- 29 Dufferin trial service in Exhibition Place rerouted to operate via Manitoba Drive, Canada Drive, Princes’ Blvd., Nunavut Rd., and Nova Scotia Ave to Manitoba Drive.
- 224 Victoria Park North service extended to Elgin Mills (York Region request)
- 96B Wilson route changed via Claireville Drive
- 96C Wilson service removed from Thistledown Blvd. early mornings and late evenings
Service Level Changes
Many route have new schedules starting on May 9 primarily for seasonal changes in demand. The details are in a spreadsheet linked below.
S(L)RT Open Houses Announced
Two open houses for the conversion of the SRT to LRT and its extension to Malvern have been announced:
March 8, 2010 6:30pm – 9:00pm
Jean Vanier Catholic Secondary School, 959 Midland Avenue (north of Eglinton)
March 11, 2010 6:30pm – 9:00pm
Chinese Cultural Centre, 5183 Sheppard Avenue East (at Progress Ave)
These meetings will discuss the conversion and extension plans, as well as the Kennedy Station changes needed to accommodate all of the new LRT lines.
Eglinton LRT: Trouble Brewing in Mt. Dennis (Update 2)
Updated February 17 at 11:00 pm: At today’s TTC meeting, despite a very long series of deputations from residents of the Mt. Dennis area and a number of local political representatives, the Commission decided to proceed with the staff’s recommended alignment for the Eglinton LRT.
Although I have supported this project and Transit City, today’s meeting ranks among the worst travesties of “public participation” I have ever seen. This fell on the same day as the launch of the TTC’s vaunted “Customer Service” project showing just how threadbare that scheme already is.
Deputations at the TTC are to begin at 2 pm, but there were many presentations early in the meeting, and the Eglinton item didn’t really get underway until nearly 3. Staff began with a presentation that completely ignored the specifics of the objections raised by the community, and presented the situation as a choice between two options:
- An all-surface option with a station at the intersection of Black Creek Drive, and an island-platform station west of the Weston/Eglinton intersection.
- An all-underground option with a station under Eglinton west of Black Creek, and a station under Eglinton west of Weston Road.
One critical point about both designs is that they require a wide tunnel structure around Weston Station and the demolition of a row of houses at Pearen Road. The TTC did not address the question of moving the station east of Weston Road to reduce or possibly eliminate conflict with the houses and to improve a future connection to GO Transit at the rail corridor.
After the deputations, during which Chair Giambrone had to be reminded by one speaker to pay attention to the public and stop playing with his Blackberry, came a brief discussion between Commissioners and staff. A few amendments were proposed to the recommendations including a scheme to seek supplementary funding (this might be called the “faint hope clause” for transit projects), but these failed.
In his concluding remarks Giambrone told the assembled crowd, many of whom had been in the meeting room for well over four hours, that in fact the TTC could not change the selected alignment because it had already been approved by Council and was sitting at Queen’s Park for review. In effect, Giambrone said that all of the public consultation since early December, 2009, when Council approved the Transit Project Assessment, was for naught because the decision had already been taken.
In fact, the TPA process includes an option for amendment, and the TTC plans to use this once they finalize the alignment at Pearson Airport. Why isn’t this option available for a change elsewhere in the design? Why was the TTC still holding public meetings on details of project design when there was no intention of entertaining changes?
Some speakers addressed the use of the Kodak lands for the proposed carhouse, and asked that alternative schemes be considered. Part of this relates to a proposed “big box” development on the land. However, Council approved the acquisition of this property, by expropriation if necessary, in December.
I could understand the TTC simply saying “look, Council has decided, there’s only enough money for the recommended option, sorry, but that’s how it’s going to be”. At least that would be honest. It would not string the community and their Councillors along with the idea that the design might be altered.
This is a classic abuse of process by a public organization, and shows all too clearly the problems introduced by the new “speedy” TPA. Although there is an appeal mechanism, the grounds for an appeal are very limited. This is not Transit City’s finest hour, and it damages the credibility of the TPA process generally.
Councillors would be well-advised to be less quick in granting approval to TPA reports lest they give away their last chance to modify a project proposal.
The earlier information in this article follows the break.
Steve Munro 