innsertnamehere
Superstar
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
Couple of key criticisms with it: it accounts for new riders only, and does not properly weigh service improvements for existing customers. It focuses on regional transit more than on local transit, often advocating for the removal of several stops on lines. He also seems to disregard existing political enviroments, and how deeply politicized transit planning is.
SHEPPARD LRT / SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY
I found this odd as it says that the Sheppard LRT is overkill, then goes on to suggest replacing it with the Scarborough Wye, an even higher order transit mode. Regardless, it is interesting. the report essentially says that the Sheppard LRT will attract few new riders upon its opening, and that it will offer little in terms of time savings. I can essentially agree with most points, though I believe it downplays time savings. Regardless, the trip time will still be too long. His advocation for ALRT technology is interesting. If the Wye is coupled with an ALRT Tech Crosstown, the transfer-to-downtown can still only be 1. He fails to mention this however, and treats the two lines as separate, suggesting a transfer will be required at Kennedy. As is predictable, he highly criticizes the Scarborough Subway, saying that commute times will still be too long for suburban commuters to switch from their cars and that it adds few riders to the system despite its huge costs.
EGLINTON CROSSTOWN:
Similar to Sheppard / Scarborough, The report advocates for Eglinton to be switched to ALRT and the surface portion be elevated. It also suggests dropping Chaplin, Oakwood, and Avenue stations due to little new ridership coming from them. This is a flawed approach however, as existing riders must be served as well. I'll touch on that later. The plan is interesting, but politically infeasible. The repercussions of significantly changing (and therefor delaying) the Crosstown will be large, and though the report argues otherwise, likely not worth the effort.
FINCH LRT
The report argues that little new ridership and a lack of significant speed increases on the Finch LRT leaves it at a low cost benefit ratio, and that it should be replaced with a BRT. Its essentially spot. BRT can serve customers just as well as LRT, is much cheaper, much more flexible, and can post much higher cost benefit ratios.
905 PROJECTS
The report spends little time on suburban projects, which are largely BRTs. It states that they all make sense and are fine for ridership growth. I contend this, the Davis BRT (though too late to cancel now) gives me serious doubts on its ability to attract new riders, or even serve a somewhat large amount of people.
DRL / GO SUBWAY RELIEF / SUBWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The report recommends complete removal of the DRL line. I DO NOT advocate for this. even if (which it should be) his GO relief is implemented, Bloor Yonge will be overloaded regardless, due to his planned 33% growth in the existing subway system. He doesn't account for this growth, and treats them as separate. The report states that 41,000 people use the Bloor-Danforth line in the east every morning peak. It suggests that with trains every 5-10 minutes departing from the Danforth (which will cost little due to the fact that these trains do not need to be purchased as they are otherwise peak GO trains that sit in a yard all day), it can relieve 5,000 of them from Bloor-Yonge. This is great and honourable and should be implemented, but it still leaves the system at great risk later down the line. The report also advocates for complete automation of the subway system, complete with platform doors and increased frequencies. This is also a great idea, as it will increase capacity by 35% but lower operating costs. It would push Bloor-Yonge to overload once again, with 35% more passengers capable of using the system at peak hours, far offsetting any savings the GO relief had done. (Capacity will increase by about 20,000 people over morning peak, but his preference for the DRL relieves only 5,000 people, meaning up to 15,000 more people will be using Bloor-Yonge in the peak period alone. He also discounts the DRL and gives it a relatively low benefit score (noticeably higher than some suburban schemes, which he had little qualms over) due to its lack of ability to attract new riders. The report seems to be unable to realizethat the DRL is and has never been meant to attract new riders but rather deal with existing ones. The report also inaccurately assumes that Metrolinx is planning to fund all 3 "phases" of the DRL, while in reality it is only planning to fund two, (the two south of Bloor) which leads to unnecessarily low benefit scores as the full line scores worse than the shorter, much less costly version that is currently being planned. another major issue I can forsee with this plan is issues of getting the "relief" trains into Union Station. Union station is already close to its maximum amount of trains in the peak hour, and the report seems to essentially be advocating for a near 50% increase in peak trains departing and arriving at Union.
YONGE SUBWAY EXTENSION
The report states that the yonge subway extension makes sense as long as several stations are removed. (4 of the 6 planned) It states that the remainder can be completed once a developer shows interest of developing around the delayed stations, and is willing to contribute a large sum to pay for it. This could likely occur from day one for Drewry, where a developer is planning a large redevelopment of a suburban shopping plaza. While this improves the cost benefit issue, it fails (as do most things in the report) to account for existing ridership and the fact that the scale of development to make a subway stop viable for a private developer is extremely large, on the scale of Concord Park place and Cityplace. (10+ towers, something that is infeasible on all but a few sites along the line) It also fails to account for existing ridership, which is what (much like the Eglinton Crosstown stops the report requests to remove) these smaller stations would largely serve.
GO ELECTRIFICATION
The report takes another look at how electrification can improve GO service on Lakeshore and possibly Georgetown. The report advocates for EMUs (Electric Multiple Units, trains where each car has a propulsion system, unlike current system where train cars act as dead weight to the locomotive) to be used for 15 minute off peak service, with existing train cars coupled with electric locomotives to deal with peak demand. It argues that EMUs, due to faster acceleration and braking, allow for higher speeds which is required to compete with a car in off peak times, but during the peak period, car travel is less competitive and high speeds aren't as important. Allowing for continued use of existing trainsets also keeps capital costs down, unlike a 100% EMU proposal that GO was previously looking at. This portion of the report seems fairly solid, though it focuses mainly on the Lakeshore corridor and doesn't provide significant information on the other 5 rail lines GO operates. Its possible the best portion for Metrolinx to implement itself.
GENERAL CRITICISM
As I have mentioned several times, the report accounts for new growth only with little to no regard for existing users. The DRL benefits existing users hugely, but the report completely ignore this and advocates for it to be eliminated. It is similar throughout the report, where it advocates for the removal of several stations due to their lack of growth in new riders, despite their significant use for existing ones. It seems to pretend that congestion exists only on roads, and that current transit loads in the city are a happy go lucky affair with little congestion.
The report also states that land use planning needs to be tied to transit planning more often, which is completely true. It then moves on the criticize the Transit City LRTs without barely a mention of how they are deeply tied to land use planning. Other than a couple of "token" inclusions, land use planning is largely ignored by the report.
The report fails to account for local transit, accounting for only regional transportation. This produces serious weak points in the reports plan, with stops on many of the lines being too far apart to truly be feasible.
The report fails to account for the politics behind planning, assuming that political repercussions are non-existent and that politics often plays a different game than the game of rationality.
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.
http://www.neptis.org/sites/default/files/metrolinx_review_2013/review_of_metrolinxs_big_move_neptis_foundation_schabas.pdf
Couple of key criticisms with it: it accounts for new riders only, and does not properly weigh service improvements for existing customers. It focuses on regional transit more than on local transit, often advocating for the removal of several stops on lines. He also seems to disregard existing political enviroments, and how deeply politicized transit planning is.
SHEPPARD LRT / SCARBOROUGH SUBWAY
I found this odd as it says that the Sheppard LRT is overkill, then goes on to suggest replacing it with the Scarborough Wye, an even higher order transit mode. Regardless, it is interesting. the report essentially says that the Sheppard LRT will attract few new riders upon its opening, and that it will offer little in terms of time savings. I can essentially agree with most points, though I believe it downplays time savings. Regardless, the trip time will still be too long. His advocation for ALRT technology is interesting. If the Wye is coupled with an ALRT Tech Crosstown, the transfer-to-downtown can still only be 1. He fails to mention this however, and treats the two lines as separate, suggesting a transfer will be required at Kennedy. As is predictable, he highly criticizes the Scarborough Subway, saying that commute times will still be too long for suburban commuters to switch from their cars and that it adds few riders to the system despite its huge costs.
EGLINTON CROSSTOWN:
Similar to Sheppard / Scarborough, The report advocates for Eglinton to be switched to ALRT and the surface portion be elevated. It also suggests dropping Chaplin, Oakwood, and Avenue stations due to little new ridership coming from them. This is a flawed approach however, as existing riders must be served as well. I'll touch on that later. The plan is interesting, but politically infeasible. The repercussions of significantly changing (and therefor delaying) the Crosstown will be large, and though the report argues otherwise, likely not worth the effort.
FINCH LRT
The report argues that little new ridership and a lack of significant speed increases on the Finch LRT leaves it at a low cost benefit ratio, and that it should be replaced with a BRT. Its essentially spot. BRT can serve customers just as well as LRT, is much cheaper, much more flexible, and can post much higher cost benefit ratios.
905 PROJECTS
The report spends little time on suburban projects, which are largely BRTs. It states that they all make sense and are fine for ridership growth. I contend this, the Davis BRT (though too late to cancel now) gives me serious doubts on its ability to attract new riders, or even serve a somewhat large amount of people.
DRL / GO SUBWAY RELIEF / SUBWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The report recommends complete removal of the DRL line. I DO NOT advocate for this. even if (which it should be) his GO relief is implemented, Bloor Yonge will be overloaded regardless, due to his planned 33% growth in the existing subway system. He doesn't account for this growth, and treats them as separate. The report states that 41,000 people use the Bloor-Danforth line in the east every morning peak. It suggests that with trains every 5-10 minutes departing from the Danforth (which will cost little due to the fact that these trains do not need to be purchased as they are otherwise peak GO trains that sit in a yard all day), it can relieve 5,000 of them from Bloor-Yonge. This is great and honourable and should be implemented, but it still leaves the system at great risk later down the line. The report also advocates for complete automation of the subway system, complete with platform doors and increased frequencies. This is also a great idea, as it will increase capacity by 35% but lower operating costs. It would push Bloor-Yonge to overload once again, with 35% more passengers capable of using the system at peak hours, far offsetting any savings the GO relief had done. (Capacity will increase by about 20,000 people over morning peak, but his preference for the DRL relieves only 5,000 people, meaning up to 15,000 more people will be using Bloor-Yonge in the peak period alone. He also discounts the DRL and gives it a relatively low benefit score (noticeably higher than some suburban schemes, which he had little qualms over) due to its lack of ability to attract new riders. The report seems to be unable to realizethat the DRL is and has never been meant to attract new riders but rather deal with existing ones. The report also inaccurately assumes that Metrolinx is planning to fund all 3 "phases" of the DRL, while in reality it is only planning to fund two, (the two south of Bloor) which leads to unnecessarily low benefit scores as the full line scores worse than the shorter, much less costly version that is currently being planned. another major issue I can forsee with this plan is issues of getting the "relief" trains into Union Station. Union station is already close to its maximum amount of trains in the peak hour, and the report seems to essentially be advocating for a near 50% increase in peak trains departing and arriving at Union.
YONGE SUBWAY EXTENSION
The report states that the yonge subway extension makes sense as long as several stations are removed. (4 of the 6 planned) It states that the remainder can be completed once a developer shows interest of developing around the delayed stations, and is willing to contribute a large sum to pay for it. This could likely occur from day one for Drewry, where a developer is planning a large redevelopment of a suburban shopping plaza. While this improves the cost benefit issue, it fails (as do most things in the report) to account for existing ridership and the fact that the scale of development to make a subway stop viable for a private developer is extremely large, on the scale of Concord Park place and Cityplace. (10+ towers, something that is infeasible on all but a few sites along the line) It also fails to account for existing ridership, which is what (much like the Eglinton Crosstown stops the report requests to remove) these smaller stations would largely serve.
GO ELECTRIFICATION
The report takes another look at how electrification can improve GO service on Lakeshore and possibly Georgetown. The report advocates for EMUs (Electric Multiple Units, trains where each car has a propulsion system, unlike current system where train cars act as dead weight to the locomotive) to be used for 15 minute off peak service, with existing train cars coupled with electric locomotives to deal with peak demand. It argues that EMUs, due to faster acceleration and braking, allow for higher speeds which is required to compete with a car in off peak times, but during the peak period, car travel is less competitive and high speeds aren't as important. Allowing for continued use of existing trainsets also keeps capital costs down, unlike a 100% EMU proposal that GO was previously looking at. This portion of the report seems fairly solid, though it focuses mainly on the Lakeshore corridor and doesn't provide significant information on the other 5 rail lines GO operates. Its possible the best portion for Metrolinx to implement itself.
GENERAL CRITICISM
As I have mentioned several times, the report accounts for new growth only with little to no regard for existing users. The DRL benefits existing users hugely, but the report completely ignore this and advocates for it to be eliminated. It is similar throughout the report, where it advocates for the removal of several stations due to their lack of growth in new riders, despite their significant use for existing ones. It seems to pretend that congestion exists only on roads, and that current transit loads in the city are a happy go lucky affair with little congestion.
The report also states that land use planning needs to be tied to transit planning more often, which is completely true. It then moves on the criticize the Transit City LRTs without barely a mention of how they are deeply tied to land use planning. Other than a couple of "token" inclusions, land use planning is largely ignored by the report.
The report fails to account for local transit, accounting for only regional transportation. This produces serious weak points in the reports plan, with stops on many of the lines being too far apart to truly be feasible.
The report fails to account for the politics behind planning, assuming that political repercussions are non-existent and that politics often plays a different game than the game of rationality.
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.
