Note: The University of Toronto Transportation Engineering department has appeared to endorse this plan fully, with renowned expert Dr. Eric Miller giving the project his own personal blessing. The below thoughts are my own and do not represent the University in any way, shape or form.
These are just some thoughts I have about Tory's proposed SmartTrack plan. You can see it yourself here: SmartTrack 2015-2016 Work Plan
So what is it? Tory proposes to utilise existing rail lines under GO Transit control to run a new, 15-minute minimum headway service between Unionville GO and close to Lester B. Pearson International Airport. From the work plan:
In addition to using the lines, Tory also proposes to have the line operate with TTC fares, and completely integrate in with the TTC system such that transfers to/from connecting routes would be free. Lastly, from the work plan, it appears that the project would be undertaken by Metrolinx/GO Transit under the guise of the Regional Express Rail (RER) plan. The route is proposed to run on the GO Uxbridge Subdivision, GO Kingston Subdivision, through the Union Station Rail Corridor, up the Weston Subdivision, and across a new line on Eglinton Avenue.
Looks good. So what's the deal?
There are significant gripes with this plan. Firstly, with Toronto fare policy on the line, there will be capacity issues locally at stations and along the line, due to the extremely high value proposition of the service.
Additionally, this line will be difficult to operate in conjunction with current and future GO services.
Lastly, the leg on Eglinton is better served by an extension of the Crosstown LRT.
Fare Policy and Route Competitiveness
So what? These people are currently paying the GO fare for this service. Using the TTC fare will significantly increase utilization, and with the SmartTrack service in place, there is absolutely no reason to use the GO service from these two stations any longer (especially for Markham commuters), and this can even be extended to Agincourt, Kennedy, and Danforth GO stations.
One knows that living in Markham is coupled with a significant dependence on the private automobile. The only alternate is York Region Transit, where service is operated at unattractive levels and is coupled with a hefty transit fare (though if you are going to a GO station, you can get away with the co-fare). The inconvenience of such is a significant deterrent to transit access to a GO station.
Those who currently drive to Centennial, Markham, Mount Joy are well within a comfortable driving distance to Unionville GO station, and would be willing to drive into the station just to take advantage of the TTC fare over the GO fare. This essentially kills the Stouffville line.
The current day GO service is designed with a fare system to penalize Toronto transit riders, where it is clearly more expensive to use the GO service within Toronto borders. Some may argue this is extremely unfair as the role of transit is to provide fast transportation services to everybody within the region equitably.
However, transit systems are very alike roads. Both make the main transportation arteries of the region, and in recent years the idea of road pricing has continued to gain traction, where you pay if you want faster travel times. Why does the same not apply to transit? For example, from Kennedy GO it may take you about 40-50 mins to downtown by TTC, but about 15-20 by GO Transit. You pay for speed - is it fair to apply this to roads but not transit?
This is where SmartTrack goes wrong - you pay a cheap fare for high speed. The value proposition is too great, and any competition is no longer viable as an alternative option. In fact, like the car, I would argue it spoils people - take York Region, where car is king because it is the fastest way around, and transit is simply not competitive.
Demand may eventually level itself out, but is met again with growth and thus capacity issues - this is what happens to roads, and it is very possible that this can happen to transit as well. This is where land use interaction comes into play, but that's a whole other story.
It will be interesting to say the least to see how this line impacts the idea of the Scarborough subway as well, where I believe that the value proposition of SmartTrack will essentially kill the subway as well. This could very well be mediated if every service is priced for speed.
Operations
For the purposes of this section, I assume electric multiple units (EMUs) will be procured within the project timeline for GO RER, SmartTrack, and UP Express. Metrolinx has put out a request for information for the provision of EMUs, dual mode locomotives, and electric locomotives. Additionally, positive train control is assumed to be equipped on all trains, including freight services that may utilise these lines, such as the three properties just north of Lawrence East RT station.
The current day Metrolinx plan for the Weston subdivision is four tracks through up to Mount Dennis where the SmartTrack line is expected to wye off onto Eglinton Avenue somehow. Trains will run on average every 7.5 mins on any track on the Weston subdivision, with UP Express, SmartTrack, and GO RER running. That's doable, but the real concern is when you get into Union Station.
Where will it go? GO today is having significant trouble with Union Station, with all seven of its lines converging at the this point. Add an eighth - SmartTrack - and remember all of VIA's services as well. There are a couple of options to go from here such as through-routing to reduce the need for continuity/brake tests (see Transport Canada - Part II: Brake Test Requirements) which apply to push-pull trains. EMUs (and DMUs) are technically locomotives according to Transport Canada so any train controlled from one end requires a continuity test to change ends.
More issues arise with infrastructure requirements on the Stouffville line, where triple tracking will be needed, potentially at strategic locations to minimize capital costs, to operate SmartTrack and RER services that do not interfere with each other. The Stouffville environmental assessment currently allows for double tracking of the line, which may not be enough to run SmartTrack and RER services in conjunction - trains would be on average every 7.5 minutes. Throw in Lakeshore services on the Kingston subdivision, envisioned to be four tracks through to at least Scarborough GO, and you have some more trouble. Headways could be down to 3.5 minutes, and this presents operational requirements that need to be strictly enforced. Again, this is possible, but it will take a significant amount of effort to completely change GO Transit's operating model. Any delay can very easily disrupt the entire system as a result.
A new corridor along Eglinton is very odd, and is better served, in my opinion, by an extension of the Crosstown LRT.
Eglinton Spur
An environmental assessment for a Crosstown LRT extension west to Pearson Airport is complete. Use it. Stop wasting time - you can fund that instead of pumping more money into studying how a Class 5 (minimum) tracks would fit on Eglinton Avenue. With some of the Richview Expressway lands being developed, the line has no choice but to either a) go underground or b) elevated, both of which are costly options to undertake. Additionally, a new junction at Mount Dennis off of the Weston Subdivision presents significant challenges that can be addressed by money, but a Crosstown LRT extension is much more sensible as it is designed to continue along the corridor. Why build a junction and a whole new rail line when you can extend the LRT line?
Conclusion
It is obvious that this line does bring many benefits to the Toronto region, increasing land value around the line, providing fast service, and alleviating (somewhat) congestion issues on the existing TTC services. But is this the best way to do it? We must be careful not to provide an overly dominant service, like the car, for transit services. Time is indeed money, and while I respect that it would be nice to have faster services, it will result in a very lopsided transit system where we may end up with a road-style solution of throwing capacity on the Uxbridge subdivision due to the immense popularity of the route. Certainly a reason to worry.
Are there alternatives? Certainly. Some infrastructure, some policy, some land use - there is a plethora of options, and if politicians of today and tomorrow keep focusing on the obvious, expensive options, I don't expect transportation to improve in Toronto.
No comments:
Post a Comment