hw621
Senior Member
Is Ford taking the Hydro One approach here?
|
|
|
Metrolinx: Other Items (catch all)
- Thread starter TheTigerMaster
- Start date
drum118
Superstar
Now do some chopping/house cleaning under the CEO starting with Leslie Woo
drum118
Superstar
Metrolinx has fail on many fronts and it starts at the top.
The Chair and most of the board need to go and be replace by people who will not rubber stamp staff reports.
The CEO is the right person here now, but needs more control to take the system where it should be, not what taking place today.
Leslie Woo is a major problem to where we are today and should have been shown the door years ago.
Now lets see what happens next.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
No!
It's perhaps an opportunity to improve Metrolinx.
Improvements and efficiencies, yes.
Dismantling/privatization, no.
Keeping Metrolinx at arm's length will reduce the odds of a cascade of disastorous transit-related cancellations that occured in the 1990s.
Although many know me as a booster of certain Metrolinx projects, I'm sometimes highly critical (like the Turd Award I gave in the Vending Machine thread). I'll quote something fair and relevant from the masterplanning thread:
Metrolinx best thing ever to Toronto Transit despite scandals?
Under this POV, it feels like Metrolinx despite scandals, may have been the best-ever thing to happen to Toronto Transit scene. The jury is still out in many people's opinions and we need to see more of the "good" routes complete like the Crosstown, Relief Line, turning GO into a frequent metro (under whatever brand names people argue about), and more, to start finally "feeling" the true fruits of these persistently urgent 25-year masterplanning. Roughly two-thirds of elements of Metrolinx 2031 (or very roughly similar counterparts) are already in progress, funded, completed EA, have RFQs or RFPs.
Even if some of us are dissapointed at some inefficient spends or line-items, regardless of fault, political-wise, agency-wise, engineering-wise, contractor-wise or other reason). Even as we are late, behind schedule until it is finally built, fume about Presto glitches until we find we really love the convenience after all, some scream "boondoggle" at UP Express before their turnaround popularity, credit where credit due -- so many projects much further along in Toronto history than in any previous 25-year masterplanning cycle.
While less than a quarter is complete, many are in progress, funded, EA, RFP, RFQ, construction, delivery. Because we're early in the Big Move cycle, it does not feel like progress at all yet. The big the benefits don't appear until near the end of a 25-year cycle. The glass is figuratively more than half full. We haven't drank it yet (whether you view it as healthy water or unhealthy kool aid, is subject to debate). Regardless of your opinion of Metrolinx or TTC or both, a much more successful-percentage 25-year planning cycle is still fantastic for the whole of Ontario.
Ford would instead best expand Metrolinx to suit his needs, even if it means accelerating GO RER -- renaming "GO RER" into "GO Metro" instead -- and basically advertising it as a surface subway system.Under this POV, it feels like Metrolinx despite scandals, may have been the best-ever thing to happen to Toronto Transit scene. The jury is still out in many people's opinions and we need to see more of the "good" routes complete like the Crosstown, Relief Line, turning GO into a frequent metro (under whatever brand names people argue about), and more, to start finally "feeling" the true fruits of these persistently urgent 25-year masterplanning. Roughly two-thirds of elements of Metrolinx 2031 (or very roughly similar counterparts) are already in progress, funded, completed EA, have RFQs or RFPs.
Even if some of us are dissapointed at some inefficient spends or line-items, regardless of fault, political-wise, agency-wise, engineering-wise, contractor-wise or other reason). Even as we are late, behind schedule until it is finally built, fume about Presto glitches until we find we really love the convenience after all, some scream "boondoggle" at UP Express before their turnaround popularity, credit where credit due -- so many projects much further along in Toronto history than in any previous 25-year masterplanning cycle.
While less than a quarter is complete, many are in progress, funded, EA, RFP, RFQ, construction, delivery. Because we're early in the Big Move cycle, it does not feel like progress at all yet. The big the benefits don't appear until near the end of a 25-year cycle. The glass is figuratively more than half full. We haven't drank it yet (whether you view it as healthy water or unhealthy kool aid, is subject to debate). Regardless of your opinion of Metrolinx or TTC or both, a much more successful-percentage 25-year planning cycle is still fantastic for the whole of Ontario.
Ford, here's your subway to Pickering. Already an existing RER plan anyway. Just rebrand it if you must. Saves billions not having to dig tunnels!
Not all of us may like Ford (never voted Conservative myself) -- but let's do lemonade instead of lemons even if we have to compromise across the aisle.
Even many progressive conservatives would (for the most part) wholeheartedly agree in saving money with a cheaper surface subway.
Allday 2way frequent electric metro-like trains to level boarding platforms on Lakeshore East+West.
Instead of an expensive boondoggle of a tunnel to Pickering. The plan for a Pickering subway is already there -- it's called GO RER. Maybe it has to be optimized and rebranded to make Ford happy, but, it's the obviously cheaper method of doing a "subway" (metro) out to the suburbs. I can certainly be okay with that "compromise".
Last edited:
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
So I found a reference or two that describes what you are saying, albeit less scandalously:
Basically, Metrolinx only started studying capacity costraints at Union after the revitalization was underway. Some of the options they study (e.g. additional tracks under Union) are rendered unfeasible by the work ongoing with the revitalisation:
Interestingly, Metrolinx actually got pretty far on the design of additional tracks under Union. General station plans were produced along with renderings. Vision was for 4 tracks under Union, costing around $900 million.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
They may be necessary (Eventually).
But the tunnels don't have to go all the way to Pickering!
Union tunnels likely need to be roughed-in as engineering protection (i.e. don't make the Union revitalization incompatible with certain compatible variants of tunnel plans under Union). Some of the original tunnel plans are incompatible, but not all of them necessarily are.
I don't think they're necessary yet given a proper USRC resignalling + PTC/CBTC system. Those upgrades will allow twice as many trains through Union as today without a tunnel yet.
But the tunnels don't have to go all the way to Pickering!
Union tunnels likely need to be roughed-in as engineering protection (i.e. don't make the Union revitalization incompatible with certain compatible variants of tunnel plans under Union). Some of the original tunnel plans are incompatible, but not all of them necessarily are.
I don't think they're necessary yet given a proper USRC resignalling + PTC/CBTC system. Those upgrades will allow twice as many trains through Union as today without a tunnel yet.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
It's still part of their medium-term plans isn't it for RER? I thought they'd long ago concluded there wasn't enough capacity.
With the platforms mostly between Bay and Yonge - which is why the fuss about it not being co-ordinated with the Union Station renovations is a red herring.
Though I can't say I've seen much for a while.
Amare
Senior Member
Hopefully Prichard takes along Leslie Woo with him as well. I have nothing against him per se, but he did himself a favor because Ford would've given him the axe regardless, seeing as he's most likely going to do a clean sweep of all the executives at Government of Ontario's arms length agencies.
Woo on the other land needs to take a hike; her rationale on various planning decisions have been questionable to say the least.
Woo on the other land needs to take a hike; her rationale on various planning decisions have been questionable to say the least.
steveintoronto
Superstar
From what we've seen of Ford's actions so far, it's hard to believe he wouldn't swing the axe hard and deep at Metrolinx. He's referred to them as "Liberal Elites" a number of times...and I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more 'private' schemes to get things done. That could be a mixed blessing, depending on how it's handled, and by whom. I'd have faith that Mulroney could do it effectively if communication with Yakabuski is good.
Montreal has really swung behind REM, for all its faults, as it's now a 'world model' to do these things using P3 models (DBFOM, etc). The devil is in the details, however, and the Crosslinx suit with Metrolinx might render a lot of sensitive issues bare if it goes to court.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
When I said "NO!", I was referring specifically to complete privatization of Metrolinx (organization itself). That'd be a bad move.
For specific projects going P3, that's another story -- it can be workable if it is done well. And local worker rights are respected -- Hamilton worries about foreign workers replacing local union workers, for example. There's been a local debate in Hamilton about whether to go full Metrolinx "DBFOM" or do a split: Metrolinx "DBF", plus City "O&M" -- leaving operations and maintenance to Hamilton Street Railway. Opinions on that has been somewhat polarized on that. Things are now settling as DBFOM.
For specific projects going P3, that's another story -- it can be workable if it is done well. And local worker rights are respected -- Hamilton worries about foreign workers replacing local union workers, for example. There's been a local debate in Hamilton about whether to go full Metrolinx "DBFOM" or do a split: Metrolinx "DBF", plus City "O&M" -- leaving operations and maintenance to Hamilton Street Railway. Opinions on that has been somewhat polarized on that. Things are now settling as DBFOM.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Well can't be surprised that the heads are starting to roll at Metrolinx. Metrolinx is so political that it really was just a Liberal party make-work project. They got and kept their jobs because they towed the party line so can't bitch when the party leaders change.
Metrolinx has been so incompetent it's hard to know where to begin. Never before as so much money been spent achieving so little. They were a true reflection of the Liberal party...……..spend tons of money, make huge public announcements, but whether the money is well spent is completely irrelevant. They have botched RER totally along with the UPX and now the Eglinton problems are starting to arise...…...Metrolinx's head-honco quitting the same day the building consortium launches a las suit is not coincidence. The Transitway is the only good piece of infrastructure they have managed and that only because Miss put it's own money into it. If it was just a Metrolinx project they would still be building it and be hundreds of millions over-budget.
The entire Metrolinx board should be unceremoniously fired immediately.
Metrolinx has been so incompetent it's hard to know where to begin. Never before as so much money been spent achieving so little. They were a true reflection of the Liberal party...……..spend tons of money, make huge public announcements, but whether the money is well spent is completely irrelevant. They have botched RER totally along with the UPX and now the Eglinton problems are starting to arise...…...Metrolinx's head-honco quitting the same day the building consortium launches a las suit is not coincidence. The Transitway is the only good piece of infrastructure they have managed and that only because Miss put it's own money into it. If it was just a Metrolinx project they would still be building it and be hundreds of millions over-budget.
The entire Metrolinx board should be unceremoniously fired immediately.
aquateam
Active Member
(Please forgive me for lecturing, since I know I'm preaching to the choir)
As @steveintoronto and other posters have pointed out, Union station already has an abundance of tracks. Union was originally designed in the 1920s to handle freight traffic, intercity traffic (which was of a significantly greater volume than today) and mail,
which all required long dwells for loading/unloading. All that track/platform space could be put to better use now through modernisation of operations:
Through-Running
Toronto is very lucky in that its Union station literally does unite all its passenger lines, through a surface alignment. Other cities have spent collosal amounts of money to connect disjointed terminals through downtown (e.g. Paris with RER, London with Crossrail), or have proposals to do the same (e.g. Boston, NYC).
However, Toronto does not take advantage of this, instead using track space in the most space-constrained part of the corridor to turn around trains, requiring time-consuming brake checks. Instead of terminating the trains at Union, if they continued on east/west, you would need fewer platforms and be able to reach a greater range of destinations (e.g. direct from Oakville to Pickering) without an unnecessary transfer.
What is mindbogglingly shortsighted is that Metrolinx has actually proposed to truncate some GO lines just short of downtown, requiring users to transfer for the last two kilometers or so, spending millions of dollars to create a problem that more forward-thinking cities are spending billions to fix.
Reducing Dwell time
Metrolinx's extremely flawed electrification study assumed that they would run GO in the exact same way (with infrequent bilevels, just with a different mode of propulsion.) Rather than have enormous double decker trains that require long dwell times to board/alight passengers through their few doors and stairs, they should take a cue from the subway network (which handles many times the number of passengers despite smaller trains) and have more doors and level boarding.
Switching to single level trains and high platforms would significantly reduce dwell time, improve the reliability of the schedule, and allow GO to make significantly better use of limited platform space.
TLDR:
Instead of spending several billion dollars (let's be honest, there's no way they're building a four-track GO tunnel that deep below Union for less than a billion dollars) they would be better off investing in:
- Pairing up GO lines and through-routing them
- Rationalizing routes to avoid unnecessary track switching (with some flyovers)
- Moving from bi-levels to single level EMUs and level boarding
- Modernizing signalling
- Electrifying
I'm in complete agreement, given her signature on some documents that should have never been approved. But are there specific cases (e.g. Hydrail, Presto, Union revitalization, etc.) where she was the initiator of bad ideas? I'm just wondering what role she had specifically that merits her being singled out.
REM is a prime example of all the pitfalls of privatized transport:
- An invaluable existing public asset (Mont Royale tunnel) was more or less given away to a pension fund, which could be sold if the REM is not profitable.
- Transit routes will be gerrymandered to avoid competition because of the need to guarantee a profit (there is a non-competition clause will force bus routes to feed the REM instead of taking the most direct route to where people want to go
- The line tries do everything, even when the transport demand could be better met by other services (e.g. the city had already built a station shell and a corridor for an airport train, but instead the REM is building an indirect tunnel);
- Connections to the rest of the system are downplayed or even ignored (the original REM proposal did not have connections to any of the metro lines, despite crossing all three of them); and
- The performance of the system as a whole is sacrificed for the performance of a single line (e.g. the use of an uninteroperable technology cutting off direct access to downtown, the creation of new transfers)
crs1026
Senior Member
I’m uncomfortable discussing specific people by name, but in terms of functions I will say this - the long term plans and strategies ML has developed aren’t wrongheaded. Where ML has fallen down is in its failure to translate these plans into concrete and realistic implementation plans. I don’t know where this specific accountability sits in ML, so again I am uncomfortable attaching the blame to real people.
I do believe the Board needs to be sacked in entirety, but the issue is, what replaces it. If the new Board has no greater ability to separate wishful thinking from solid planning, or drill down to discern actual versus reported performance, or to deliver bad news forcefully to the political level and hold tough on fact based decision making, theres no reason to make changes. One group of syncophants is as good as another.
- Paul
steveintoronto
Superstar
"For all it's faults"...I'm absolutely no fan of REM, as anyone who reads the VIA sting would know. I've posted scathing articles and links, and used the term "seized" for the Mount Royal Tunnel, but I completely stand behind my gist: In the absence of government coffers financing (let alone being able to finance) the many begging needs of transit in this nation, private venture capital will have to fill the void. Whether one likes it or not, there's little choice on this.
And P3 in some manner or form (In Metrolinx's case, name me one new project that isn't DBFOM) is the only way these projects will get built. Again I state: 'The Devil is in the Details'.
Whether you or I feel that government can borrow any further to finance such projects is rapidly becoming moot. VIA HFR has yet to see anything serious from the Feds, and like it or not, QP is now in the grips of 'change'. And it won't be to finance projects out of tax coffers.
So how will it be done?
Agreed with all your other points. The term for a non-terminating station is "through running" and it goes exquisitely with 'RER'. ( Through-running - ReThinkNYC )
Btw: Not sure if my recent post is the one you reference, but I brought up the proposal of "fully privatizing Hydro" (something the average plebe knows extremely little about, thus my warning of 'manipulation' by the Ford-o-Matic stick shift fluid clutch. The kind of P3 they will try will need *even more examination* than what the Libs tried with the flawed Metrolinx models. Crosstown is about to be examined, whether it ends up in court or not, surely Average Plebe could find it possible to understand what they voted for? In 140 characters or less...
Like it or not, P3 is in the pipeline. It has worked very well in some instances in the world, many from Cdn Pension Fund investment (many of the Oz examples, for instance) but again *The Devil is in the Details*.
I leave it at that for now...
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
Totally agree with you, and I think Metrolinx does too since the Simcoe Station (tracks under Union) concept really hasn't gone anywhere.