Neptis' Review of Metrolinx's Big Move

[GenerationW]

Here, warning that it is a large PDF:

http://www.neptis.org/sites/default/files/metrolinx_review_2013/review_of_metrolinxs_big_move_neptis_foundation_schabas.pdf

SUGGESTED IMPLEMENTATION

While this report raises several important criticisms for the Big Move, it also has several flaws. My suggestion would be to take some of the suggestions, and leave many others behind.

What I would suggest Metrolinx implement:

Drop Finch and Sheppard LRTs, supplement with VIVA style BRT systems.

Continue with DRL as planned

Continue with Eglinton Crosstown as planned, possibly with the removal of Chaplin station, though that should undergo a proper review. return to previously planned underground line to Don Mills.

Implement GO electrification, purchase large amounts of DMU (Diesel Multiple Units, what is currently going to be used on the UPX) and EMUs to operate off peak service on all GO lines. 15 minute EMU service on Lakeshore and Kitchener, 30 minute DMU service on all other lines. Ensure this service reaches Hamilton. Peak service will operate with a mix of EMU and upgraded existing services to deal with increased demand. Express services would be served by existing coaches, with the collector routes that stop at all stations being served by EMUs. Similar style operations should occur on all GO lines, with full scale coaches offering express services and DMUs offer the collector runs. (for example, an Express train on Stouffville would likely start at Lincolnville, stopping at only Stouffville, Mount Joy, Centennial, and Unionville, with all other stations being served by the DMUs)

Continue with Scarborough Subway, but only due to political repercussions of a plan switch.

continue as planned with suburban BRT and LRT plans.

Good job on the analysis INH. Your efforts are appreciated.

How about sticking to the transit plans for once? It's never going to be perfect, but if we are going to continuously keep changing them then nothing will get build.

If that's what results from the political process, then so be it. I don't want transit to be controlled by a bunch of faceless bureaucrats, or, even worse, pushed through a mostly passive council as happened with Transit City.

No need. Metrolinx has committed another $7.4 Billion to DRL funding.

They might at some time in the future, but right now Metrolinx has nothing committed to the DRL. If it's possible for the city to free up some money and devote it to the DRL, we should. Let's not make the same mistake we made the last time we had free money.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Metrolix has said that once they get their revenue tools, they plan to commit $7.4 Billion to the relief line.

I'd rather not have the City commit $1.3 Billion in funding and then have ML decide to cover only $6.4 Biiom.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Metrolix has said that once they get their revenue tools, they plan to commit $7.4 Billion to the relief line.

I'd rather not have the City commit $1.3 Billion in funding and then have ML decide to cover only $6.4 Biiom.

The city needs to put in way more. Like 3 or 5 billion. That's enough to at least get to Eglinton on both sides. Or to Sheppard in phase 1.

 

[diminutive]

How about sticking to the transit plans for once? It's never going to be perfect, but if we are going to continuously keep changing them then nothing will get build.

So, this is actually a huge example of flawed reasoning, yet one which is strangely dominant throughout Toronto planning circles. It's the politician's syllogism. Something must be done (about transit) -> This plan is something (about transit) -> Therefore it must be done. It's akin to saying all fish live in water -> whales live in water -> whales are fish.

I get the understandable desire that Torontonians want to see transit improvements, but spending billions of dollars on do-nothing projects for the sake of doing something is actually much worse than doing nothing. It's a shame that Toronto hasn't been able to come up with a decent transit plan in the past few decades. Part of that is that transit itself is a lot less practical than many of its proponents assume, but the bigger issue is probably just how terrible the planning process is here.

 

[diminutive]

Kinda. Politics between the works department which handles signal priority could take a huge amount off potential BRT capacity unless it's 100% grade separated.

Their refusal to allow transit priority on routes with frequencies under 5 minutes already impacts Finch (today at 45 seconds in peak; 60 seconds with articulated buses). They have a proposal going through city hall to remove what little transit priority that exists today.

What BRT in a semi-private ROW can achieve in most cities would struggle to meet that here. One of the benefits of LRT is much much longer vehicles "allowing" the Works department to put in a proper transit priority.


Frankly, nearly every major street should have BRT on it already. Paint the pavement, install transit priority at all lights, and hire officers for lane enforcement (ticket the vehicle by their plates, not the driver) and POP fare enforcement.

The reason LRT was proposed was largely due to the works department favouring drivers. Miller certainly had no issues with BRT; he expended lots of political will to build York U's bus lanes.

This is the worst possible reason to embark on billion dollar infrastructure projects. It doesn't make any sense...

 

[Solid Snake]

but the bigger issue is probably just how terrible the planning process is here.

Which the report does an excellent job at demonstrating.


About Transit City planning

Although the schemes together will cost billions of dollars, and contracts are already being signed, there
seems to have been very little evaluation of the economic or financial impacts. TTC staff produced an 18-
page report, really just a memorandum, called “Evaluation and Comparison of Routes,” which simply lists
the proposed schemes, giving their length, capital cost, and annual ridership. There is no mention of
alternative routes or modes. There is no estimate of economic benefits. There is no information about
operating costs or revenues. While the report breaks riders down into “Existing” and “New – Projected
2021” it is not clear whether these number represent riders that are new because of the scheme, or merely
underlying growth; probably they include a bit of both. Background tables list potential populations and
specific traffic generators that will be served, but no information was published on whether the impact
would be worth the costs.

 

[Adjei]

So, this is actually a huge example of flawed reasoning, yet one which is strangely dominant throughout Toronto planning circles. It's the politician's syllogism. Something must be done (about transit) -> This plan is something (about transit) -> Therefore it must be done. It's akin to saying all fish live in water -> whales live in water -> whales are fish.

I get the understandable desire that Torontonians want to see transit improvements, but spending billions of dollars on do-nothing projects for the sake of doing something is actually much worse than doing anything. It's a shame that Toronto hasn't been able to come up with a decent transit plan in the past few decades. Part of that is that transit itself is a lot less practical than many of its proponents assume, but the bigger issue is probably just how terrible the planning process is here.

I don't get this type of reasoning. How is sitting around and waiting for the perfect transit plan going to solve anything. We sit around, try and start something, then someone comes along and changes it, nothing gets built. Then we are back to square one. No plan is perfect, we have a transit plan and we should stick to it instead of changing it around every couple of years ensuring nothing gets built and we waste hundreds of millions of dollars in cancellation fees.

 

[Solid Snake]

I don't get this type of reasoning. How is sitting around and waiting for the perfect transit plan going to solve anything. We sit around, try and start something, then someone comes along and changes it, nothing gets built. Then we are back to square one. No plan is perfect, we have a transit plan and we should stick to it instead of changing it around every couple of years ensuring nothing gets built and we waste hundreds of millions of dollars in cancellation fees.

And we'll waste billions on projects that shouldn't have been built in the first place

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Solid Snake:

FYI, a good chunk of our existing system probably shouldn't have been built based on that premise - I mean, look at it this way, I highly doubt that any of our transit lines (particularly the older ones) are that vigorously evaluated on an economic basis. At the end of the day, planning isn't a hard, evidence based science. Does it mean we should not bother to model? No - but does it meant we should just throw one study up the pedestal? Nope. The DRL aspect of the study is a very, very good example - according to the report, it isn't needed (and that all you need to do apparently build a GO/TTC connection at Main and run a few trains in between). Clearly there is something wrong with that approach as well.

AoD

 

[diminutive]

So, I'm quite a huge fan of this report. I'm sure with anything there are details to quibble with and numbers to change, but on the whole it seems completely on point. I'm glad civil society has finally (after, what, 3-4 years?) turned a critical eye to Metrolinx/TTC's transit planning process and results.

Specifically,

Finch/Sheppard LRTs: Thank god. These routes never really made sense. The projected speed increases were marginal (18-23km/h) when offset by higher operating headways and wider station spacing and almost entirely the result of practices which,inexplicably, haven't been applied to existing surface routes (e.g. all door boarding, wider stop spacing, TSP and reserved ROWs). Obviously the term BRT is vague (as is LRT..), so I would just call for a major improvement of surface operations throughout the 416 & 905 to reflect best-practices.

Eglinton-Crosstown: Getting rid of Avenue, Chaplain and Laird seem completely logical. Local demand here is nowhere near sufficient to justify stations and redevelopment is unlikely due to strong conservative desires the maintain established neighbourhood form. Laird may see more development, but probably not much. The 61/5 would be better to transfer at Y/Eg anyways, and the 14 could transfer at Bathurst.

As for elevating the portion along Eglinton East, it probably makes sense. Obviously there are caveats around need for more detailed studies, but the basic idea seems sound. The built environment can easily sustain elevated structures and it opens the door to line automation and smaller stations/higher headways elsewhere. When Vancouver was designing the Canada Line, some initial proposals had a similar set up with tunnelled sections through Vancouver and on-street LRT in Richmond. Paradoxically though, since LRT tunnels and stations had to be bigger and LRVs couldn't be automated, building the entire thing as a separated route ended up being cheaper to build and operate than the hybrid LRT/subway.

For LRT-subways to make sense it would seem they need to be highly branched to produce a higher ratio of surfaceROW:segregatedROW. Look at the Porto Metro, for instance. If it's just going to be mostly separated anyways, automated mini-metros operating at high headways are probably most efficient.

Yonge Subway Extension: This proposal actually makes me feel vindicated since I proposed reducing the route to Steeles and Richmond Hill Station back in October. The other stations see a trivial amount of walk-in ridership (even assuming substantial development) and connecting ridership could just as easily transfer at Steeles, Finch or Richmond Hill. Spending billions of dollars to benefit some developers is stupid and borderline corrupt. If development makes sense, have the developers build them and have them pass on costs to condo purchasers.

DRL: I'd reluctantly admit that the DRL as currently imagined probably doesn't make sense. Building any line to "relieve" Yonge is a waste of money. To begin with, TTC capacity estimates are conservative in terms of vehicle capacity. Even looking at the TTC's capacity estimates + YSE, vehicle capacity ratios are still only 1.03 or something, which is a very minor capacity gap. Even that only applies to the peak-iest part of the AM peak southbound, and doesn't represent a prolonged capacity gap. Spending billions to address such a minor capacity-gap isn't prudent.

Now, given how much of Toronto's transit market drains onto Yonge south of Bloor, building a line from pretty much anywhere-to-downtown will resolve capacity gaps. We can see this in the DTRES where even building a Lakeshore RT would reduce demand on Yonge sufficiently. My point here being, we shouldn't obsess about Yonge. Minor capacity gaps are a fact of life and as long as we provide new ways to access downtown capacity shortages will be abated. The priority in designing the "DRL" should be serving new transit customers and markets, not on relieving Yonge.

GO electrification: Yes, brilliant.

 

[diminutive]

I don't get this type of reasoning. How is sitting around and waiting for the perfect transit plan going to solve anything. We sit around, try and start something, then someone comes along and changes it, nothing gets built. Then we are back to square one. No plan is perfect, we have a transit plan and we should stick to it instead of changing it around every couple of years ensuring nothing gets built and we waste hundreds of millions of dollars in cancellation fees.

Because spending nothing and solving nothing is preferable to spending billions of dollars and solving nothing. Look at the Sheppard Subway, it's just drained operational funds from elsewhere in the system.

Obviously it's a given that all plans have tradeoffs and nothing will ever be perfect, but the point here is that many projects don't come close to addressing their goals (attracting new riders, reducing congestion, reducing GHGs...) despite substantial public investments.

 

[ShonTron]

This plan, while having a few decent ideas raised before (GO Electrification, fare integration and improved connections) it's otherwise garbage and can be deemed fit for the pit.

Shabas can't get the history of Main Street Station right. He has an unhealthy fixation on Bombardier's ICTS technology and completely ignores local needs (his plans to trash Oakwood, Chaplin, Avenue and Mount Pleasant Stations).

The DRL replacement plan makes no sense (besides assuming wrongly that the mezzanine at Main St. Station was built to accomodate a connection with Danforth GO).

- There's Union capacity issues that we see 4-8 extra trainsets passing through and terminating (wasn't GO/Metrolinx looking to build a new Bathurst Yard terminal station for the same Milton and Georgetown trains he wants to send to Danforth?)

- There's the need for a large new station at Danforth to turn back those extra trains (if rushed, GO can reverse and brake check a train in 5 minutes, but 10 minutes is more realistic).

- You'd have to provide a big incentive to encourage passengers to get of the subway at Main Street, a plain concrete tunnel won't do it.

- It's based on assumptions that GO wouldn't be affected by earlier delays on either the Milton, Kitchener/Georgetown, or Union Station corridors that you'd be able to reliably send trains up there.

- It completely ignores local travel that the DRL will provide (and transfers from nearby buses and streetcars)

- It does nothing for East York or most people already on the Yonge Line.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

DRL: I'd reluctantly admit that the DRL as currently imagined probably doesn't make sense. Building any line to "relieve" Yonge is a waste of money. To begin with, TTC capacity estimates are conservative in terms of vehicle capacity. Even looking at the TTC's capacity estimates + YSE, vehicle capacity ratios are still only 1.03 or something, which is a very minor capacity gap. Even that only applies to the peak-iest part of the AM peak southbound, and doesn't represent a prolonged capacity gap. Spending billions to address such a minor capacity-gap isn't prudent.

Now, given how much of Toronto's transit market drains onto Yonge south of Bloor, building a line from pretty much anywhere-to-downtown will resolve capacity gaps. We can see this in the DTRES where even building a Lakeshore RT would reduce demand on Yonge sufficiently. My point here being, we shouldn't obsess about Yonge. Minor capacity gaps are a fact of life and as long as we provide new ways to access downtown capacity shortages will be abated. The priority in designing the "DRL" should be serving new transit customers and markets, not on relieving Yonge.

I have commented on this issue awhile ago - DRL shouldn't be about relieving Yonge per se, but it should be about dealing with the saturated downtown transit network. That said, I think one has to be careful about equating new transit customers and markets to geography - in the case of downtown, they are individuals who would consider the existing network (an existing market) being too slow and unreliable for their purposes - and this is not a trival group, considering the mode split in the downtown area. It isn't some "minor capacity gap" but more like one that resolved itself by throwing up their hands and gave up.

More generally, I think we should adopt an incremental approach to transit planning and not default to the most (or even second most) expensive solution (i.e. subways) for loco-regional transit (unless there is a physical/operational limitations preventing these lower-order schemes)

AoD

 

[rbt]

This is the worst possible reason to embark on billion dollar infrastructure projects. It doesn't make any sense...

What is a politically achievable alternative? I know it sucks but spending tens of billions where hundreds of millions would otherwise do, seems to be what Toronto voters want.

Heck, the Bus Enhancement program which included jump-queue lanes, improve light timing, etc. was the one of the very first things Ford cut; even before he went after Sheppard LRT.

There will be a "war on cars" candidate running for the next few decades now that they know they can be elected on such simple slogans.

 

[diminutive]

What is a politically achievable alternative? I know it sucks but spending tens of billions where hundreds of millions would otherwise do, seems to be what Toronto voters want.

Heck, the Bus Enhancement program which included jump-queue lanes, improve light timing, etc. was the one of the very first things Ford cut; even before he went after Sheppard LRT.

There will be a "war on cars" candidate running for the next few decades now that they know they can be elected on such simple slogans.

Any political challenges to giving priority to buses would apply equally to LRT, though. It's not like the 'war on car' mantra hasn't been applied to Transit City with great success. WWLRT, Jane and Don Mills were killed pretty much right away. The only reason Sheppard and Finch seem to even exist at this point is so that Queen's Park and Metrolinx can claim they are doing "something."

So, what's "politically achievable"? Apparently not surface LRT in Toronto.