Thoughts on ye olde iron plateway
The mayor of Stratford is calling on GO Transit to
bring the proposed service extension to Kitchener to his city to support tourism (particularly to the Stratford Festival), provide alternatives to a potential highway expansion, and to deal with opposition associated with the extension. The preferred alternative for the Kitchener extension is to build a layover yard between the hamlets of Baden and New Hamburg in Wilmot Township, just west of Kitchener. While the area residents do not want the yard, politicians in Stratford are willing to accept the yard provided it come with a station.
Read more »Labels: GO Transit, railways
Dispatches from Vancouver: A Canada Line for Toronto - Torontoist
Over at Torontoist, you'll
find an article on Vancouver's rapid transit line connecting the airport with the downtown core. In the comment section, though, I wasn't surprised to find comments that oppose our under-construction airport link, the Union-Pearson Rail Link (UPRL).
It's easy to rally against the project, but lets not forget that the corridor upgrades necessary to accommodate the line will give us frequent GO Trains that will eventually stop at a station near Woodbine Racetrack. From there, the Finch West LRT is to provide the last leg of the trip to the airport. This combination could adequately serve those who aren't served by the UPRL.
Personally, I'm indifferent to the UPRL. I might not want to pay a premium fare to get to the airport, but I can think of many people who will. It has been argued that airport employees won't be able to afford it, but what's stopping the Greater Toronto Airport Authority from negotiating a discount rate for the workers? Either way, one under-performer shouldn't torpedo the implementation of improvements to a handful of well-used corridors.
Labels: politics, railways
Visions for the GTTA: Regional Rail
As the price of gasoline climbs ever higher, the citizens of every community in Ontario will be affected. Businesses will begin to relocate closer to their markets to reduce shipping costs, which means that many one-industry town in the province may lose their only employer. As the businesses move, employees will follow. Since they will be unable to afford the commute, employees will likely move with the companies and settle in the cities where sustainable transit is available. While intensification is a good thing, cities like Windsor, Kitchener, Kingston, Ottawa or even Toronto could not possibly accommodate every single citizen from the hinterland. Something will have to be done to prevent the wholesale dismantling of rural Ontario.
Once upon a time, railways crisscrossed Ontario and moved freight and passengers between almost every city, village and town. But, as roads were improved and automobiles and trucks became more popular, passengers and shippers migrated to other means of travel. Railways were gradually abandoned and quickly torn up. Today, passenger rail service in Ontario is limited to the GO Transit regional services in the Toronto area, Ontario Northland's services in the far north, and VIA Rail Canada inter-city service, rural and transcontinental service.. The freight railway network isn't much bigger, limiting the potential to construct new railway routes. But, what if we hadn't abandoned those lines? What if we could undo the past?
Read more »Labels: GO Transit, GTTA plan, railways
Georgetown South Service Expansion Approved
As you may have heard, the Georgetown South Service Expansion project has received environmental assessment approval, subject to conditions that are strict but reasonable. I've made my position on this controversial project quite clear in the past so I won't repeat it, but I do believe that moving forward on this project will improve transit for much of the west end of the GTA. Love it or hate it, it will give us multiple local trains every hour, express trains serving the highest ridership stations, a doubling of VIA rail service to London via Kitchener, a much-needed rail link to the airport, and it will get some of those services moving sooner rather than later. The bottom line is that, in the opinion of this transit user and resident of the corridor, getting people out of their cars and onto trains is a good thing.
Labels: GO Transit, GTTA plan, railways
Rail Ontario
Once upon a time, railways crisscrossed Ontario and moved freight and passengers between almost every city, village and town. But, as roads were improved and automobiles and trucks became more popular, passengers and shippers migrated to other means of travel and railways were gradually abandoned and, in many cases, torn up. Today, passenger rail service in Ontario is limited to commuter trains in the Toronto area, VIA Rail Canada inter-city service, and rural services in the far north - a relatively small network. The freight railway network isn't much bigger, limited the potential to expand passenger rail service to additional communities. But, what if we hadn't abandoned those lines?
Using GIS technology to display data created by myself and by the
Southern Ontario Railway Map project, this is one concept of what an Ontario passenger railway network could look like:
View Larger MapThis railway network, which I call Rail Ontario, could stretches to all corners of the province with connections to Detroit in the west, Buffalo in the south, Quebec City in the east and Winnipeg in the north. Many of these lines use could use existing fright railway lines, but the vast majority run in corridors which have been abandoned for decades. In some cases, these corridors have become trails, and a trust fund should be established to ensure that every kilometre of reconverted trail is replaced. In some cases, development has obscured the old rights-of-way. In these cases, street railway alignments should be used with
tram-trains - vehicles that can operate safely on the street and at high-speed on the mainline. Electric rail infrastructure should be installed on high ridership routes with frequent departures, and other routes should use diesel-electric equipment which meets the most forward-looking emission standards. Stations should be built as close to the central business districts of the cities and towns that they serve, and local transit, taxis and bicycle rental stations should be available to for the last mile of the trip.
A Rail Ontario network would offer several different brands of service, depending on the line.
Regional service would be the evolution of the VIA Rail service we have today and would operate on the high-ridership routes passing through major cities in southern Ontario. Standard
locomotive-and-coach trains would call at the larger centres similar in size to those that VIA Rail and Ontario Northland currently stop at. However, service will be much faster and more frequent than the service operated today.
Express service would use
european-style high speed trains between Toronto and Quebec City. This service would be designed to compete with airlines, so trains should offer premium amenities, only make intermediate stops in Ottawa and Montreal, and be able to reach top speeds of 300 km/h.
Local service would call at all the towns and villages along the line to ensure that everyone has access to the railway network. The major transcontinental lines, mostly connecting northern and southern Ontario, would use
more traditional train sets with baggage cars, coaches, sleepers, dining cars and observation coaches, while shorter lines would use
multiple-unit trains which are more efficient to operate. At minimum, all lines will see service under the Local brand.
Suburban Metro service would only operate in built up areas, and would be the evolution of the current GO Transit network to provide both a peak-hour commuter service and a frequent regional rail service. Peak-hour equipment should include
locomotive-hauled trains of bi-level coaches and
european-style multiple-unit trains. Unlike the GO Transit network of today, Suburban Metro service would operate the multiple-unit trains every ten minutes or better to provide a quality of service similar to that of a subway line.
These distinct brands will serve different markets and travel patterns, but will complement each other to ensure seamless travel between many communities in Ontario. Today, the mainline between Toronto and London has 11 GO Transit stations and 6 VIA Rail stations. Under a Rail Ontario network, there could be 11 Suburban Metro stations, 16 Local stations, 6 Regional stations and 2 Express stations. In addition, numerous other lines could connect with the mainline to serve other communities that have gone without rail service for decades. Potentially, the service map could look like this:
Each brand would use its own method of calculating cost, as some services would be faster and offer more amenities. However, the pricing would be consistent within the brand (i.e, an express Metro train from Burlington to Toronto would cost the same as a stopping Metro train). An integrated ticketing system would allow each brand to complement each other for seamless travel across the province.
As the price of gasoline climbs ever higher, every community in Ontario will be affected. There will be pressures to relocate businesses closer to large markets as the cost of shipping increases, and potentially, the only employer in one-industry towns will close. As the businesses move, people will follow, leading to increased development pressure on cities. While we will always need to intensify our urban spaces, the large urban centres of the province cannot possibly accommodate the citizens of every town and village in the their hinterlands without resorting to allowing urban sprawl (even if it is better designed sprawl). By expanding railway service to these communities and providing convenient links between large urban centres we can reduce automobile dependency, build more sustainable cities and towns and prevent the sacking of Ontario's small towns. As an added bonus, these railway links will allow industries in the hinterland to survive by shifting goods movement from trucks to trains.
Once upon a time, the train was the only way to travel quickly between cities and towns in Ontario. A second renaissance is long overdue, and when it arrives, almost every community in the province could be just a convenient train ride away.
Labels: railways
Much ado about a bridge 2
In my post "
Much ado about a bridge" (which was published in the Toronto Sun best of blogs section) I talked about the showdown over the railway grade separation at Strachan Avenue, between East Liberty and Douro, just south of King.
Biking Toronto is reporting that the City of Toronto's preferred option will be carried forward. Much more expensive than raising Strachan above the railway corridor, the new plan calls for the tracks to be lowered below their current alignment and pass under Strachan. This option is the optimal solution according to the planning matrix, but it does cost $100 million more. Carrying this option forward is a sign that citizens are willing to spend more on a project when the urban design benefits will be greater, but I still wonder what would have happened if this project was being paid for entirely from the City of Toronto's capital budget. Would they have pushed for this option with as much zeal, or is this just reckless speculation?
Labels: GO Transit, municipal sillyness, politics, railways
Metrolectric
Today, Metrolinx
announced that they will be studying the costs and benefits of electrifying the GO Transit rail network, a move which could allow for faster and more frequent regional trains, as well as addressing the concerns of many people who live near rail lines which are expected to receive service expansions in the coming years. While most modern diesel electric locomotives max out at around 4000 horsepower, the most modern north american electric locomotives are pushing between 7000 and 8000 horsepower, allowing them to accelerate faster. This means faster trips or more stops in the same amount of time. In addition, electric locomotives have fewer moving parts and can last upwards of 75 years in service. The lowered local emissions are obvious.
When it comes to electrifying rail lines, my stance has always been to view tracks and wires as two separate projects that should not depend on each other. Of course I would prefer wires to be strung up sooner rather than later, but if there is an opportunity to expand service sooner using modern diesel equipment then we should seize that opportunity. Transport for London, one of the agencies everyone aspires for the TTC or Metrolinx to become, for example, will introduce new Bombardier Class 172 Turbostar diesel multiple unit (DMU) trains on the Gospel Oak - Barking Line (GOBLIN) next year. If they are doing it then I don't think it's a step backwards if we do so here. That being said, the start of this study is welcomed and the first step in better service across the region. You can't build a house without blueprints, just as you can't embark on a capital project without knowing the costs and benefits.
Since electrification and electric locomotives or electric multiple unit trains isn't exactly cheap in the initial investment, I anticipate that this study will set out the minimum number of trains per hour required to justify the cost. At the frequencies planned in the next 15 years I can only see the Georgetown and Lakeshore lines meeting this bar, but if there's no reason not to continue to add service to justify it on lines that don't quite make the cut. If four trains per hour is found to be the minimum but the Bradford line only warrants three then I doubt anyone will complain if the fourth train magically appears.
Labels: GO Transit, GTTA plan, railways
Does cynicism trump?
I've been having a debate recently over the commitment to electrify the Georgetown corridor, and I think it boils down to this question:
Is "I don't believe they can pull it off on time/on budget/at all" a valid criticism of the Metrolinx RTP?
I don't think it is a reasonable criticism, because such a statement could be used to argue against anything at any time. I am curious to see what others feel about this line of reasoning. Please comment.
Labels: GTTA plan, politics, railways
Apples & Oranges
There's been a fair bit of debate in the forums lately about the best way to move people from the future growth centre at Richmond Hill Centre / Langstaff Gateway into the downtown core. The Yonge subway will be extended serve this new growth centre, essentially replacing VIVA Blue below Highway 7, but the Richmond Hill GO line will also be improved with 15 minute, high speed service. The issues I've had, however, is that the comparison between these two lines has been between apples and oranges - mainly comparing the future subway to the present day GO service. Doing this skews the results and is generally a poor way to decide which projects to advocate for. So, let's look at the future conditions of both lines:
Subway:In the future, it will be 22.5 kilometres straight down Yonge Street from Richmond Hill Centre to Union Station. Subways have an average speed of about 40 kilometres per hour, so this trip will take between 30 and 35 minutes. Since service on opening day is expected to be a train every 15 minutes (every 3rd train), a person who wants to go from Richmond Hill Centre to Union Station will spend between 30 minutes traveling (best case) and 50 minutes traveling (just missed the train case).
Train:The GO line between Langstaff station and Union station is 29.5 kilometres long, and since upgraded regional express trains are expected to average 80 kilometres per hour, the trip will take between 20 and 25 minutes. Since service is expected to run every 15 minutes, travel times could range between 20 and 40 minutes. If the train is rerouted along the CP Belleville subdivision through Leaside, we cut 2 kilometres from the route length, cut travel times to 20 minutes exactly and reduce the curves on the line that could slow the train down. Of course, this would put the line closer to houses and could be a more contentious proposal.
In order to come to these projections I've had to assume that the numbers forecasted by the RTP can be achieved. There will always be some uncertainty and cynicism here, but this has to be ignored because a) as-built conditions are beyond my technical expertise to forecast, and b) one can use the uncertainty argument to disprove anything. I believe it undermines the discussion almost as much as the "you don't live here so you don't understand" argument. I'm also making the assumption that a fare integration model is used which does not discriminate between taking the GO and taking the subway.
So what does this mean? On the surface, it means that the GO train will be 10 minutes faster than the subway from end to end. While the end-to-end trip only applies to a small percentage of subway riders, it means that it may be advantageous for someone coming from the terminus to take the GO and backtrack. From union station, this could potentially put the entire financial district within reach. Based on this, we can use the Richmond Hill GO line as one more tool to address the anticipated overcrowding on the subway extension, in addition to a DRL, higher capacity trains and automatic train control systems.
I guess what I've been trying to show here is that we have to remember to compare apples to apples when we're looking at alternatives to projects. It makes no sense to compare the future subway with the present-day GO train, especially when the same package that funds the subway improvements also funds the GO improvements. Secondly, we can't count out the Richmond Hill GO train as a tool for improving capacity in the Yonge Street corridor - possibly the most important transit corridor in the GTHA.
Labels: GO Transit, railways, subways, ttc, york region transit
New Airport Rail Link Proposal
Metrolinx, which took over the Union-Pearson Air Link file from GO Transit a few weeks ago, has made a new proposal to improve service in the Weston corridor between Union Station, Brampton and points west. As you might recall, the residents of Weston were generally opposed to this project because the original proposal would see a massive increase in rail traffic but no benefit to the community, as the trains would not stop in Weston, In addition, the rail traffic increase would have resulted in the closure of several key roads which connect the main residential areas with the business district on Weston Road. Also, the community was opposed to the use of diesel trains, which was the only part of their platform which I didn't agree with. The new proposal addresses most of the concerns, and will pave the way for frequent GO service to Brampton and beyond, and a fast airport link layered on top of that.
The details of the proposal include:
- Adding 3 new tracks from the airport spur to Dundas Street and 4 new tracks to east of Strachan Avenue in the 25 kilometre rail corridor [between] Malton and Union Station
- Widening of 14 bridges and eliminating all level road crossings on the CN line in the Georgetown South Corridor, including new grade separations at Strachan Avenue, Denison Road and Carlingview Drive
- A covered depressed rail corridor through Weston that maintains Church and King streets at their present grade and a pedestrian overpass at John Street
- Relocating the GO Weston Stop from John Street to Lawrence Avenue and the construction of a Weston Station to accommodate GO trains and Union-Pearson rail link trains
- Modifications to the Bloor GO/Dundas TTC station to accommodate GO and Union-Pearson rail link trains
- Consideration for the Gateway Hub proposed in the Metrolinx Regional Transportation at the proposed Eglinton Light Rail Transit crossing line for GO trains
- Designing for a potential future GO/Union-Pearson rail link station at Woodbine
- Adding a new 3.3 kilometre rail spur from the GO Georgetown Line to Terminal 1 at the Pearson Airport with 7 grade separations
- Opening a new passenger station at Terminal 1 at Pearson Airport with additional stops in Weston, the Bloor GO/Dundas TTC station and at Union Station
- Introducing fully modernized clean-diesel rail passenger cars with stringent emission controls
- A potential new Union-Pearson rail link train repair and maintenance yard
From my perspective, this seems to be the best possible outcome, but a few things must be said. Firstly, a depressed corridor through Weston, and the potential for the same at Strachan Avenue will make this proposal significantly more expensive than the previous one. Of course, this is an example of more inclusive planning. The effects on how governments respond to community groups may be well worth the cost. Secondly, if the trains must go onto airport property, then a VIA-GO-Express-Finch LRT hub must be built at Woodbine Racetrack to connect passengers with the airport. Finally, we should think very carefully about where to put the Express stop in Weston. A stop Eglinton (though not technically in Weston) would connect to higher order transit and serve more people, but a stop at Lawrence may preclude a future stop at Eglinton.
All in all I'm happy to see this proposal move forward in a much better way. It will leave to better transit not only between the core and the airport, but for VIA Rail, the entire Georgetown corridor, the Barrie corridor and the future Bolton corridor.
Labels: GO Transit, politics, railways
2020 - A fine year for wine and GO Transit
Yesterday, GO Transit unveiled their service targets for 2020, giving us an indication oh how service will evolve to meet the regional transportation plan. While there are some differences between the GO vision and the Metrolinx vision, this document shows us in a practical way how the lofty targets we've set will be achieved.
According to GO Transit:
By 2010, off-peak service on the Lakeshore line will increase to two trains per hour, and off peak service on portions of the Stouffville and Barrie lines will be introduced at one train per hour.
By 2016, all rail and bus services will be accessible - while many train stations and bus stops still need to be made accessible, the bus and train fleet is already accessible.
By 2020, off-peak service will come to all corridors in GO's core network (more or less the network we have now) at two trains per hour, and peak hour service on the core network running at four trains per hour in the commuter direction. If high ridership requires more trains than this, then an express/local service profile will be introduced. The bus network will run just as frequently, and service on the 407 corridor will run as frequent as many of the local bus routes in Toronto. The proposed lines, like the Bolton, Seaton and Midtown corridors will offer peak service only with off-peak train buses. Electrification will be considered for high-frequency lines, and new service to the long mentioned expansion areas (Niagara, Guelph/Kitchener/Waterloo and Peterborough) will be introduced. To facilitate these service levels, GO will purchase railway corridors from the freight railways and lease them back if necessary.
When you look at the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan, the only real differences are that the Lakeshore and portions of the Georgetown corridor will see four trains per hour or better by 2023. There are budgetary differences, but capital expansion for GO and Metrolinx are currently coming from two different provincial funds (Metrolinx from the MoveOntario 2020 commitment, GO from the general budget) and it may be too soon to guess at what will happen when Metrolinx and GO are merged in the future. The way I see it (and yes I do have a pro-Metrolinx bias), this document is a statement of how GO plans to work towards the RTP's vision. I think that it's a bit of a stretch to call it an alternative plan (sorry Steve).
GO has always been the arms that tie the different municipalities of this region together, and it's very refreshing to see them planning for a future of high-quality regional travel. Not everyone can live in the 416, so we'll need a strong regional network to move people long distances quickly and in comfort. In addition, these trains will have a transformative effect on the suburbs, making it more likely for the areas around stations to redevelop into the types of destinations only found around a TTC subway station.
Now that the TTC and GO have plans in place to meet the regional goals, I can't wait to see how the other transit agencies plan to improve service to support the rapid transit network just over the horizon.
Labels: GO Transit, GTTA plan, railways
Council should take another look at whistle plans - Innisfil Scope
Here's an example of a
letter to the editor which makes an eloquent argument for eliminating train whistles on the Barrie GO line through Innisfil. If the crossings are indeed up to Transport Canada requirements, then I fully support the writer's position. But, the letter goes off the rails (pardon the pun) in one paragraph towards the end.
"And finally, we must remember that train whistles are like police and fire sirens that cannot be heard at a distance because the sound is travelling either at the same speed, or slower, than the vehicle giving the warning blasts."Never in my life have I ever seen a supersonic police car. Perhaps it was travelling so fast that I could not see it.
Make sure you check your letters for spelling, grammar and, of course, factual correctness.
Labels: GO Transit, municipal sillyness, railways
Metronauts: Continuing the conversation (Part 2)
Metronauts (powered by Transit Camp) was a whirlwind of good ideas, interesting conversations and networking with industry professionals and transit advocates. Here, the second in a series of posts, I will try to continue some of the conversations started on that interesting day. In this post, I'll be taking about regional rail.
Regional rail is not a radical concept by any means. But, it could radically change how suburban riders interact with the transit system. Simply put, regional rail is the result of increasing GO train frequency to headways of every 15 minutes or better. At this level of service, the "I don't know when it runs" argument tends to vanish, as does the "I'll either get there 45 minutes early or 15 minutes late" argument. This is pretty much how VIVA works. It runs so frequently that you'll know you won't be waiting long for the next trip to arrive.
Regional rail, in the Toronto context, requires several changes to the way the GO network works. Firstly, we would require two dedicated tracks on each railway corridor exclusively for GO's use. I believe that the best way to do this is to build a
freight by-pass line, but as long as we can have two tracks which will never be blocked by freight trains, regional rail can be implemented. Secondly, we need to think about vehicles. It is technically possible to use traditional GO trains in this application, but it might be capacity overkill and an inefficient use of fuel. Self-propelled diesel multiple unit (DMU) or electric multiple unit (EMU) trains - something similar to the
London Overground stock - could be used to solve the efficiency gap. Finally, we need to think about station spacing. DMU and EMU trains can accelerate and brake much quicker than a heavy rail train (as anyone who rides the subway knows), allowing us to add stations without increasing travel times. There wouldn't be a doubling of stations along the line, but on the Georgetown Line, for example, we could see new stations at Eglinton & Queen - where connections with other lines would be located.
The final - and most exciting - part of the concept is the possibility of branch lines. If we'll be using subway-sized trains, we can build subway lines to serve destinations which are located just off the existing corridor. The airport could be served by a branch of the Georgetown line, downtown Oshawa by the Lakeshore East line and the Mississauga City Centre by the Milton line - the latter becoming the elusive subway to Square One and the former being the compromise on the airport connection that Weston residents have fought so hard for.
Regional rail is also known as REX by Metrolinx, S-Bahn in Germany, Overground or National Rail in London and Pendeltåg in Sweden. But, regardless of what you call it, it offers a way to reduce traffic on the highways, a way to increase the capacity on the Yonge corridor, and provide the impromptus for the suburban municipalities to offer more connecting bus service - and that means better service for areas across the GTA.
Labels: GO Transit, railways, subways
Where do freight trains belong?
Sometimes an idea isn't very well received, but when you feel very strongly about it, you cannot let it die.
On one of the online message boards I post on, one might see a thread of conversation where I asked two fundamental questions:
- Is it wise to route non-stop freight trains through built up areas and downtowns, or is it better to send them through dedicated transportation corridors?
- Is building a second or third track for passenger trains enough to prevent delays and facilitate expansion?
After some careful thought (although many believe that it was no more than a knee-jerk reaction to the derailment last week), I floated the idea of building a dedicated freight railway corridor which would remove freight trains from the Georgetown and Milton GO train lines and place them in the 407 corridor - far from residences and far from passenger trains.
I was almost run out of town.
But, is it really such a bad idea? Cost is an obvious issue which cannot be ignored, and while I'm not qualified to estimate the cost, I can offer some benefits to such a proposal.
- We won't have to widen railway rights-of-ways to four or more tracks in order to run effective passenger rail service. This would create less of a physical barrier and prevent a "wrong side of the tracks" effect. This can be clearly seen in the Summerhill neighbourhood of Toronto, where the CP rail corridor effectively isolates the community from the next neighbourhood to the south.
- Freight trains would be able to take the most efficient route between the large train yards in Toronto and Vaughan and destinations in southwestern Ontario and the USA. This would save money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly for CN Rail. Currently, their trains must travel west to Georgetown, south to Burlington, then west again towards Windsor or Niagara Falls. Using the 407 corridor would offer a beeline to Burlington.
- Freight trains would be able to move at their own speed, which is often very different than the speed of passenger rail. CN has often argued that the speed of VIA Rail trains on the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto route requires them to set aside a block of track-space equivalent to 3 freight trains. This would ease their burden on scheduling freight around passenger trains.
- The vast majority of freight trains wouldn't have to travel through the downtown areas of Brampton, Georgetown and Milton. This could help revitalize these growth centres and shift some of the development from sprawl to intensification. Removing the freight trains from downtown Toronto was caused by increasing value of the land the yards sat upon, but the result has been an improved urban environment. If this could be achieved in Toronto, why cant it be achieved in Brampton, Georgetown or Milton?
The Metrolinx green paper on Moving Goods & Services touches upon this concept, but I think it presents us with an opportunity to rationalize our land uses and improve the quality of life for people who brave urban-style living in incredibly suburban areas.
Labels: GO Transit, railways
News Roundup
Siemens Canada has been awarded the contract to upgrade the signaling system around Union Station - a system which remains largely unchanged since the station opened. The project itself, $281 million over 8 years, will install a sophisticated computer controlled signaling system which will allow for increased train frequency into the station, which is already due to receive new platforms and a new train-shed roof. Hopefully, when the City realizes that it best to hand over the rest of the station to GO, the building itself will receive the same treatment.
Meanwhile, new signals are causing grief in the east end. Leona Adam, a resident of the Danforth & Greenwood area is upset with the sound of trains and the location of a new signal bridge along the rail line passing near her home. Since the main line was completed in 1855, and since the overall frequency of trains has dropped since the golden age of railroading, I'm not sure she has a valid complaint. Living near a rail line means living with planes, just as living near an airport means living with planes.
The metal poles in the centre of the double-wide front doors of streetcars will be removed to increase passenger flow. Tests show that the change was well received without any problems, so it will be rolled out across the system.
You'll be able to buy metropasses online in the new year, which is a no brainer, but isn't the social interaction of standing in line worth anything anymore?
The TTC's new Mount Dennis bus garage is six weeks from completion, but do to the budget crisis this past summer (which, make no mistake, is far from being solved), likely won't open until summer 2008. According to the TTC chair, we can expect massive service improvements this February (the ones deferred from fall 2007), and more massive improvements in fall 2008.
Vossloh Kiepe Corp., a supplier of electrical equipment for transit vehicles has commented that the TTC's decision to go to a 100% low floor design for the next generation Light Rail Vehicle will cause unnecessary increases in cost. While a 100% low floor design will increase passenger flow through the car (no one likes to stand in the high-floor areas of Orion VII buses), it means that the 70% low floor, off-the-shelf designs that were initially proposed and displayed are no longer representative of what Toronto will get. It appears that a more expensive car will have to be designed, but it means that it will be perfectly suited to Toronto's network.
Last week, the concept plans for the redevelopment of Islington and Kipling Stations were presented. Mississauga Transit will move to a new regional terminal at Kipling, paving a way for a redevelopment that will eventually straddle Bloor and Dundas from Islington to the Mississauga border.
Finally, the TTC chair will hold a press conference today to detail the technological improvements due to be implemented in the coming months and years. Expected to be on the agenda are the automated station announcements on all vehicles, an online trip planner, service updates by email and better passenger information displays on subway platforms.
Labels: GO Transit, railways, ttc
All aboard the GO hydrogen express - Toronto Star
All aboard the GO hydrogen express
In the run-up to this month's election, the premier unveiled a plan to build a clean commuter train for GO Transit. Let's hope it wasn't political smoke
October 21, 2007
Tyler Hamilton
Business Reporter
Now that the provincial Liberals have secured another four years in office, it's fair to ask whether Premier Dalton McGuinty's recent talk of locally manufactured, hydrogen-powered GO trains was just election rhetoric or a serious, forward-looking strategy to nurture innovation and create jobs.
McGuinty revealed last month that his government was in early-stage talks with Bombardier to design and develop an emission-free commuter train propelled by hydrogen-powered fuel cells and used by GO Transit.
"It's our goal to get a prototype on the rails here in Ontario within three years of the project launch," McGuinty announced during a visit to a Bombardier manufacturing plant in Thunder Bay.
The idea, while ambitious, carries a certain attraction. Job creation. Export potential. There's also the vision of clean trains being showcased to the world as they run through Canada's largest city.
But for every wide-eyed person in the room who got giddy at the thought of building a hydrogen economy in southern Ontario, there were also skeptics in the crowd who dismissed such a vision as political theatre.
After all, we've been here before with promises of hydrogen-powered cars (see "The Hype" below).
We don't have affordable, mass-produced hydrogen cars on the road today, but from an industrial perspective hydrogen is a $282 billion global market. The world relies heavily on hydrogen for fertilizer production, fuel upgrading, food processing and a number of other applications where demand for the zero-emission gas is growing.
Niche fuel-cell markets have also emerged, costs are slowly falling, and storage technologies are improving, even if profitability remains elusive. Fuel cells running on hydrogen are gaining traction for back-up power, while micro fuel cells are poised to appear in portable commercial electronics. Ballard Power and several other companies, meanwhile, have made a strong business case for using fuel cells to power forklifts.
And then there are trains, or "hydrails," as some call them.
"Hydrogen fuel cells as an application for passenger trains is very real," says Mike Hardt, vice-president of North American services for Bombardier.
In fact, Ontario may have some catching up to do if it's serious about being a world leader in hydrails. A European consortium called The Hydrogen Train concluded a study last year that looked at what it would take to demonstrate a hydrogen train in Denmark by 2010. It has approached all major train manufacturers, including Bombardier, and negotiations are ongoing.
Back in 2001, Bombardier also applied to the European Union for funding as part of a project to develop a hydrogen-powered "Green Train," but the funding request was denied. Activity is also going on in Japan and parts of the United States, such as North Carolina.
Momentum appears to be building, as an international hydrail conference started in 2005 will regroup next June for a fourth gathering in Spain.
"A hydrogen train makes a lot of sense because, unlike a car, fuel volume isn't a problem," says Greg Naterer, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, which is studying the benefits and barriers to establishing a hydrogen rail corridor in southern Ontario.
Hydrogen and cars aren't an ideal marriage because passenger vehicles have limited space for hydrogen storage. To help save space, hydrogen gas can be pressurized in special tanks at up to 10,000 pounds per square inch, but this adds unwanted weight to a vehicle and, because hydrogen has a much lower energy density than gasoline, still provides only 300 kilometres or so of travel on a single fill.
Liquefying hydrogen through a cryogenic process is another option for saving space and extending travel distance, but weight remains a problem and the energy required to liquefy the gas adds to the cost of the fuel.
Trains, however, don't suffer from the same space and weight restrictions. It's also easier to establish fuelling infrastructure, because a train needs only a handful of filling stations along a predictable corridor. Filling stations for vehicles, on the other hand, are far more numerous and scattered.
David Scott, a former engineering professor at the University of Victoria who recently penned Smelling Land: The Hydrogen Defense Against Climate Catastrophe, says Toronto is an ideal place to demonstrate and deploy hydrogen trains.
"There is no other city in the world that's as well positioned," Scott says. "You'd be cleaning up Toronto, because the current trains run on diesel, and you'd be showing the world how to clean up their transportation."
Toronto is home to Hydrogenics, one of the world's leading fuel-cell developers and an active promoter of turning the GTA into a "hydrogen village." Bombardier also manufactures trains in Ontario, including the GO commuter trains that run past Pickering generating station and close to Darlington station, both of which could become valuable sources of clean hydrogen production.
Scott says he envisions a day when the side of every GO train reads: "GO Hydrogen!" or "H2 GO!" But it won't happen quickly, and that could be the biggest showstopper.
As more train systems are electrified, as battery technologies and hybrid designs mature, and as biofuels become more prevalent, the question is whether Ontario, even if it became a leader in hydrogen trains, could convince the rest of the world that it makes sense to follow.
And if hydrogen trains aren't the future of rail transportation, you can bet hydrogen-powered cars will never evolve beyond million-dollar prototypes.
Sometimes, it takes the words of a foul-mouthed, yet hilarious comedian in order to describe a project like this:
"Now what you do, is build a big f***ing thing. I don't care what it is! As long as it's big and it's a f***ing thing! And then the economy will explode, because people would say "I want to see the Big F***ing Thing!". Then there'll be a Big F***ing Thing restaurant, a Big F***ing Thing hotel and casino, a Big F***ing Thing SPA!" - Lewis Black on stimulating the economy.
This project, if successful, will serve as a world landmark. It will prove that hydrogen technology can be used on a large scale, and will make Ontario a leader in clean transportation. If it fails, it will find a way to remain around forever, the province mandating that we maintain it in hopes that someone will buy the technology in hopes of improving it.
The stakes are high, and failure could result in a large, expensive pet. From what I hear, veterinarians who specialize in white elephants don't come cheap.
But in all the hype, we cannot forget one key question:
Does this improve the transit network?
Not really - Hydrogen powered locomotives only seek to improve the environmental friendliness and reliability of the current network.
So is the current locomotive technology broken?
GO's F59PH locomotives are aging, and while diesel is a fossil fuel, trains are a much more efficient use of fuel than cars or trucks. Electric locomotives have been promised, and these are more powerful than any conventional diesel technology. Going back to 1934 reveals Pennsyvania Railroad GG1 electric locomotives producing over 4000 horsepower (out-powering GO's new 600-series fleet), while AEM-7's run by several transit agencies in the northeastern US are putting out 7000 horsepower.
So why is the government moving to develop hydrogen powered locomotive technology?
Perhaps they are chasing a dream, or perhaps they are trying to stimulate the economy with "a big f***ing thing." Either way, we cannot forget what the GTA truly needs - a reliable, efficient transit network that gives every resident the opportunity to leave their cars at home and take transit to and from their destination, no matter what the technology.
Labels: GO Transit, politics, railways
"It's Just Overkill..."
Overkill is when you attempt to solve a problem by proposing a solution that is far more elaborate and expensive than is necessary. Building a highway to solve congestion at a single intersection is overkill. Remember this definition, because I will come back to it.
One of the popular proposals floating around the internet concerns to best way to get passengers from Square One, Mississauga Transit's main hub, to Cooksville GO Station, the nearest GO station. Under the proposal, the entire Milton line, and eventually any other line, would be converted to a light rail-type line using shorter EMU trains running as frequently as every 15 minutes. Further, these trains would leave the current Milton line, run up Hurontario to Square One, run west along the 403 corridor before re-joining the line north of Erindale Station.
As ambitious as this plan is, it reeks of overkill.
- In my opinion, the problem isn't getting people to the GO station from Square One, its getting people out of their cars, period. I feel resources should be better spent strengthening neighbourhood and arterial routes. The streets are designed in a car friendly, transit unfriendly way, and in order to bring transit to the people, we'll need an expensive network of local buses. Money should be spent there.
- With the Mississauga busway under construction (assuming the speeds are as promised), a lot of off-peak ridership from Square One will use that service to get into the city. While more transit options is better than none, I wonder if, realistically, ridership at Square One can support two rapid transit lines, both going towards Kipling.
- The transit network is an instrument of development, and we're better off encouraging development around the GO stations. I fear that connecting the line to Square One will only serve to continue the development of that area in particular.
- The Hurontario Street LRT should provide a five minute connection between Cooksville Station and Square One, which is more than adequate, and will have a larger catchment area than this single stop diversion.
I am not opposed to more connections to Square One and I'm not opposed to frequent service on the GO rail network. I applaud the authors of this idea for thinking big - which we must do - but if we want to win over the public support, we must keep our ideas grounded in reason-ability - if that is even a word.
Labels: GO Transit, GTTA plan, mississauga transit, railways
High speed rail
With VIA Rail's new funding came renewed calls for high speed rail in the Windsor to Quebec corridor, and in-particular, between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. It would not be cheap, at upwards of $11 billion for TGV style service, but reports going as far back as 1991 say that such a service would make a profit. That's right, a profit!
But alas, many suspect the usual suspects killed the proposal. And they, the airline industry, appear to be at it again. Governments don't subsidize airports, they say, so why should they subsidize train stations and railway lines?
But, if you believe Transport 2000, then there is no way that any government will let Pearson or Trudeau or YVR close. Essentially, any investment made is guaranteed. Based on that, which amounts to a type of subsidy, why shouldn't the government subsidize high speed rail?
The airline industry has all the signs of an industry without a working business plan. Like telecommunications and the recording industry, they lobby, complain, sue and use hostile takeovers to ensure that there is no competition. Maybe that's why I'm more willing to spend five hours on a bus than a single hour in the air.
Labels: railways
Foot-in-mouth disease
So I guess $700 million over five years isn't chump change. It's exactly what was promised under Chrétien and un-promised by Martin, but its not the legislation necessary for VIA to borrow cash from the private sector. Still, my foot is placed firmly in my mouth for jumping to partisan conclusions before the announcement was made.
Labels: politics, railways
We can rebuilt them again. The technology hasn't changed since the last time we rebuilt them
Word on the street is that VIA Rail Canada will receive a long needed funding injection later today, but analysts think this will only cover the rebuilding of the HEP and LRC class coaches and the F40PH-2 locomotives - far from what VIA Rail needs to become a true player in the intercity transit mix.
While the announcement is being made in the name of environmental policy, the conservatives have always had an eye to privatize the service. I doubt we'll see anything other than maintaining the status quo unless the liberals take power in the next election.
Speaking of elections...
Labels: politics, railways
