2018 Provincial Election Transit Promises

[crs1026]

Been through these transitions before. The first thing they do is put a red light on everything. It’s not beyond defiant or fearful bureaucrats to let contracts, make commitments, etc to sneak things in on the doorstep of a comprehensive program review, and this cuts that temptation off.

We know that Ford has promised a line by line review of all spending, and nothing is sacred. Pretty standard when the party in power changes.

The freeze probably applies to contracts for sanding and snow removal on 400 highways, too. Doesn’t mean they won’t arrange something before November.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

...because enthusiasts (like Steve Munro) are sometimes more intimately acquainted with the inner workings of things and can get the fastest news, much more so than journalists, who in turn know more than the general public.

It would be more the domain of QP insiders. There's at least chatter in some quarters of Metrolinx staff, but unsubstantiated. Almost every QP journo I'm aware of is straining to get *anything* out of the Ford dealership on the subject.

Edit to Add: I just erased a few paragraphs, will post them later with exact quotes of the Metrolinx Bylaw and Tariff. The gist is that UPX must be folded *completely* into GO. That two separate fare regimes and systems still exist is the absolute height of folly. And it plays in to the hands of those who cater to "The People" and "Folks". And on this one, Ford would be right.

The premium fare to the Airport and not honouring transfering from the 40 bus (and others) onto UPX at that point, but doing so at Union is complete jabberwocky. And it states as much in the ML Bylaw and Tariff.

Malton, Brampton et al would fall at Ford's flat feet if he rationalized that. It's well past time for the UPX 'entitlement' to be available to those around the Airport, as well as Weston and Bloor, and those travelling in on GO bus to that region.

It would mean doubling the present service...make it so. And the present outrageous subsidy for airport passengers would dilute in the process. Tory would also be satiated in some regard, as the added rolling stock would stop at 'local' stations, and the airport "express" wouldn't, and that's where the premium fare could be charged. UPX is set-up to, and claims to be good to do 7.5 min intervals or better. Terminals might have to be bypassed to do this without overcrowding, or interfering with 'through-running' of the commuter three-four car trains.

Low hanging fruit!

I'll quote the Bylaw section later.

Addendum:

BY-LAW NO. 2A METROLINX (the “Corporation”)
[...]
4. When a passenger travels on the transit system from a point outside the City of Toronto to another point outside the City of Toronto, and can only do so by travelling through the City of Toronto by means of more than one transit service provided by the Corporation, the following rules apply in determining the total fare payable: (a) If there is more than one transit service available between the passenger’s point of departure and the City of Toronto or between the City of Toronto and the passenger’s destination point, the fare payable for each transit service shall be the lowest fare available for the trip, regardless of which transit service the passenger actually takes.
[...]

https://www.gotransit.com/static_files/gotransit/assets/pdf/Policies/By-Law_No2A.pdf

Discussed in more detail here:
https://skyrisecities.com/forum/threads/go-transit-service-thread-including-extensions.4952/page-815

 

[kEiThZ]

Been through these transitions before. The first thing they do is put a red light on everything. It’s not beyond defiant or fearful bureaucrats to let contracts, make commitments, etc to sneak things in on the doorstep of a comprehensive program review, and this cuts that temptation off.

We know that Ford has promised a line by line review of all spending, and nothing is sacred. Pretty standard when the party in power changes.

The freeze probably applies to contracts for sanding and snow removal on 400 highways, too. Doesn’t mean they won’t arrange something before November.

- Paul

I've been through government changes too. And had projects die and survive. Stop work orders while spending is reviewed are normal. It's no reason to panic yet.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Ford says Niagara GO Expansion going ahead, further announcement in a few weeks.

From a Niagara perspective, Ford said he remains committed to GO train extension to Niagara although he couldn’t provide a timetable. While he said it is a “high priority” and he hopes to have some type of announcement in the next couple of weeks, he admitted he still needs to be “100 per cent briefed” on Metrolinx and sit down with the minister of transportation.

“We’re going to get it done,” he said, crediting Oosterhoff for pushing full-day, two-way service as a priority. “During the election, I had one concern — I kept hearing rumours of people buying up the property, insider trading per se. We’re going to look into that, but it’s moving forward.”

 

[steveintoronto]

Ford says Niagara GO Expansion going ahead, further announcement in a few weeks.

Did he use every one of his clichés, or were there some left for later?

On the upside, the bubbles blowing from his mouth appeared to be real:

 

[ssiguy2]

You guys have to relax a little. There is one VERY big difference between normally reviewing transportation infrastructure and doing it today...……...Ottawa.

A few years ago cancelling a project meant just saving provincial dollars but with the feds now willing to pay 40% of the cost and up to $13 billion for Ontario much of it available strictly for transit, he is not about to refuse such largess. That kind of mega-bucks makes for too many ribbon cutting ceremonies and is a huge injection of free money into the provincial economy when Ontario needs it most with potential automotive tariffs on the horizon courtesy of Trump. That`s a lot of job creation and provincial income & sales tax revenue to say nothing of the fact that it helps the long-term economy to boot.

Whether Ford makes good decisions on what to do with those transit dollars is another matter but that is also up to the cities to set priorities. One good thing is that Ford will demand a new Metrolinx be more transparent and actually make decisions and get shovels in the ground and the trains up and running as opposed to the Liberal ML which still hasn`t even figured out what trains they will run, the technology, or even the bloody platform height. Ford won`t put up with that kind of crap so Torontonians may end up getting a RER-type system faster than they would have under the Liberals and Ford sure as hell won`t tolerate the standard Liberal `late & over budget` assumptions.

 

[JSF-1]

He also needs to be careful of not cutting corners and falling for the "Cheapest Option" trope. Just because it can be done for less and in less time doesn't automatically make it the best option; we need to thoroughly examine what we want to do, and how to do it. Using GO RER as an example the cheap and quick thing would be gambling on the gimmick of Hydrogen which may not be suitable for us. On the other hand stringing up electrical lines may be more expensive and time consuming but it is also guaranteed to work.

 

[steveintoronto]

On the other hand stringing up electrical lines may be more expensive and time consuming but it is also guaranteed to work.

I posit that once all things are considered, conventional catenary will prove the cheapest as well as the best when reliability, performance and the potential for P3 investment are weighed into the decision.

I can't possibly see how the Ford Differential can pivot corners of 'slashing the deficit' without outside investment, and electrification of RER helps ballast a complete sale of Hydro not only electrically, but also in guaranteeing stability in return per investment.

The only people investing in Hydrail are taxpayers by no choice of their own.

 

[JSF-1]

In the long run yes it can and likely will be the cheapest option, however we are talking $15 Billion today which is a hard pill to swallow and politicians aren't exactly the most well known group when it comes to long term thinking and planning. The idea of "Short term pain for Long term gain" hasn't really existed in the province since Davis. There is no doubt that $15B is worth every penny but are the folks at Queen's Park willing to accept that.

 

[crs1026]

Electrification could be spun as a win-win in the coming carbon tax dispute, although I suspect the parties will prefer to bicker at each other for political gain rather than solve the dispute.

To sell wires publicly, Ford would have to take the position that oil prices will rise, and electricity prices will not. Pretty risky for a guy who is promising to drive gasoline prices down and who is busy meddling in electricity on a purely optical, and non-economic, basis.

- Paul

 

[hw621]

^Ford doesn't have to sell anything. Average Ontarians have little idea what GO RER is, and they just got whatever they were given. Plus they were sold long time ago.

 

[steveintoronto]

In the long run yes it can and likely will be the cheapest option, however we are talking $15 Billion today which is a hard pill to swallow and politicians aren't exactly the most well known group when it comes to long term thinking and planning. The idea of "Short term pain for Long term gain" hasn't really existed in the province since Davis. There is no doubt that $15B is worth every penny but are the folks at Queen's Park willing to accept that.

That's for the entire system, and the more I dig on that, based on a faulty costing model. I'll detail more below.

To sell wires publicly, Ford would have to take the position that oil prices will rise, and electricity prices will not. Pretty risky for a guy who is promising to drive gasoline prices down and who is busy meddling in electricity on a purely optical, and non-economic, basis.

I can certainly see your point, but Ford is also 'Mr Nuclear Program Continuing'. Ford may give "The People" their tax break on gasoline (remains to be seen) but he certainly won't be building more roads in a hurry.

I've just done a good search to try and evaluate the comparative cost of RER electrification, and been getting some very odd results compared to what it costs other jurisdictions in the advanced world. There's a huge amount online on the costs and pros and cons of electrification, but first to look at Metrolinx' methods according to two established Cdn writers: (My intent at this time is to look at the UPX Corridor, and the electrification of it which has repeatedly been touted as the first to be electrified, and thus, very opportune to double in frequency of service, the airport service remaining pretty much as is, and an electric service serving the airport/Malton/Brampton region with a GO bus/UPX Commuter station permitting transfers at *regular GO prices*)

[...]
This brings us to a fundamental question about RER and electrification, regardless of the technology. At the risk of being accused of environmental insensitivity, it must be said that electrification is not a prerequisite for RER implementation at the service levels now planned. Indeed, electrification makes the system design more complex especially where GO services operate over other railways’ territory. The tradeoffs are between many issues including the increased intrusion of more frequent GO service in corridors now hemmed in by residential development rather than by industry. This brings noise and pollution from frequent service with diesel locomotives. Even electric trains are not silent.

Reading between the lines, one might well think that full electrification is now contemplated as something for the future, in the mid 2040s, not in the 2020s. This is fundamentally tied up with questions of implementation and roll out, none of which is addressed in the report because it assumes this is a matter for future study.

Although much discussion reads as if RER will appear overnight in January 2025, Metrolinx plans to begin building up service levels from current to the RER proposal on an incremental basis as infrastructure improvements are completed. This means that a substantial portion of “RER” based on existing technology would exist before electrification, by whatever scheme, actually is “turned on”.

An important part of any implementation plan will include the mechanism by which a DBFOM bidder will take over existing assets, and this necessarily must be spelled out as part of the tender process. This will lead to two huge transitions occurring in parallel: the move from direct Metrolinx capital and operating responsibility for the GO system to a separate provider, and the technology transition from diesel to electric on some or all of the network. Whether Metrolinx has the capability to manage something on this scale, or will simply dump the responsibility in the provider’s lap and hope for the best, remains to be seen.
[...]

https://stevemunro.ca/category/transit/a-grand-plan/commuter-rail-a-grand-plan/electrification/

The GO Electrification Study
GO tested four technologies, and the six network options, against a single “Reference Case” operating plan. Essentially this was an evolution of the existing plan, which has been optimized for diesel locomotives. Peak services would be increased as required to carry expected growth in demand. The off-peak service would be half-hourly, as it is today, and continue to run with trains of the same length as today.

The final electrification study shortlisted four options:

1. Continued operation as today, with diesel locomotives and 10-car bi-level trains
2. Use of electric locomotives to replace the diesels, with 10-car bi-level trains
3. Use of hybrid (dual-mode) locomotives to replace the diesels, capable of electric traction where there are wires and otherwise propelled by diesel traction, with 10-car bi-level trains
4. Electric-multiple unit (EMU) trains, also 10 cars long and bi-level

For all four technologies, GO assumed that peak service provides sufficient capacity to carry commuter demand. The non-peak services would operate every 30 minutes, as they do today on the Lakeshore route.

Overall, the GO study concluded that economic and financial benefits of electrifying the Lakeshore route only would just offset the incremental costs, with a benefit:cost ratio of about 1.11 (Figure 5 shows Table 12 from the GO Electrification Summary Report). In theory, this would be worth doing, provided one had high confidence in the forecasts. However, in financial terms, the project is not very attractive. GO would need to invest about a billion dollars ($855 million NPV in 2010) in infrastructure and rolling stock, but would get only about half of it back in operating cost savings and additional revenues. GO has a record of getting a much better return on its investments.

Accepting the findings of its study, Go Transit has decided to proceed slowly with electrification, perhaps converting the Union Pearson Express service to use it.
[...]

http://www.neptis.org/publications/...ail-network/chapters/go-electrification-study

It appears that Metrolinx have based their costing on faulty assumptions. RER as now promoted is none of the four options listed above.

Keeping the UPX Corridor (and an extension to it for commuter purposes) in mind, here's a Melbourne analog: (continues next pane)

 

[steveintoronto]

The Economics of Electrification
[...]
Costs

The main costs of electrification are in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure; as well as the need to purchase different rolling stock (or at least locomotives). Stringing up wires can be expensive – the recent Craigieburn electrification cost an exorbitant $115 million for 10km of works (thanks for the tip DB!). Whilst that price tag also included two new stations and re-signalling (as well as goodness knows what else – DoI often like to hide several years worth of operating costs in these numbers), we’re still talking about a fair bit of money. Even if we’re really optimistic and say that the actual electrification (consisting purely of wires, stanchions and substations) cost half that, the per kilometre cost is still $5.75 million.

Put into context, that would see the cost of electrifying 48km Geelong line as far as Marshall around the $276 million mark. Obviously, there are economies of scale for bigger projects and the Craigieburn project was outrageously expensive for what it was, but I’d already halved the per km Craigieburn figure to get $276 million for the Geelong line. To illustrate opportunity cost, it is worth noting that the original Vlocity order (for 38 2 car sets) cost $535 million.

Maintenance of the infrastructure is a crucial cost, but it is often more than offset by reduced maintenance levels required for electric trains. I’ll discuss this issue below.

Benefits
The potential benefits of electrification are fourfold – they consist of better acceleration, lower running costs when a large number of services are provided, the so called ’spark effect’ and lower carbon emissions (depending on the energy source).

Improved acceleration

Electric trains generally accelerate faster than their diesel counterparts, so for lines with closely spaced stations (like a metropolitan rail system), electrification is often a must for the sake of maintaining a reasonable average speed. However, as station spacing moves further apart – as it does in the country – the benefits of faster acceleration are reduced. Consequently, I’d argue they aren’t a significant factor for a line like Geelong. I should also point out that metropolitan railways also tend to have a high level of service – for the implications of this, see below.

Lower running costs for high frequency services

Amos and Galbraith suggest that while capital costs for electric traction are higher, operating costs can be lower. This is because of lower train maintenance and fuel costs for electric traction. Indeed, Electric and diesel services have very different supply curves. Electric trains have high initial fixed costs (because of the extra infrastructure required), but a low marginal cost. Conversely, diesels have low fixed costs but high marginal costs. These supply curves are represented graphically (and somewhat badly!) below:
[...continues at length...]

https://melbpt.wordpress.com/electrification-economics/

"Even if we’re really optimistic and say that the actual electrification (consisting purely of wires, stanchions and substations) cost half that, the per kilometre cost is still $5.75 million." Sold! That's an incredible bargain.

Forum software is buggy right now, but here's a list of links I've read which puts serious questions to the costs of electrifying RER, at least the UPX+ corridor, which is completely Metrolinx owned. More on this later.

http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-cost-to-benefit-analysis-of-railroad.html

https://melbpt.wordpress.com/electrification-economics/

https://www.railengineer.uk/2017/10/24/electrification-benefits/

http://www.neptis.org/publications/...ail-network/chapters/go-electrification-study

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tr...sible_in_10_years_confirms_metrolinx_ceo.html

https://stevemunro.ca/category/transit/a-grand-plan/commuter-rail-a-grand-plan/electrification/

Note: Aus$ and Cnd$ are roughly at par.

 

[hw621]

Not really transit related, but we'll...

 

[steveintoronto]

Not really transit related, but we'll...

Actually it does have implications for transit. This is just the beginning of the Big Slash.

A number of media have it up as a headline. There are some tenuous legal issues, however, and Ford might get trumped. By the SCC. (Edit: Initially by the Ontario Superior Court)

STAR EXCLUSIVE
Ford to slash Toronto city council to 25 councillors from 47, sources say
Ontario’s premier plans to make the change before the October election, and cancel the upcoming elections of regional chairs in Peel and York, the Star has learned.