Metrolinx: Other Items (catch all)

[Amare]

That assertion isn't really backed up by my personal experiences. Customer service in the North America gives away gobs of free stuff simply to not make a commotion in their store (chasing down shoplifters for example); and caving to irrational customer demands increases where marginal cost is negligible (cost is incurred whether you take non-paying customer or not). Crappy customers with good publicity might get you good customers.

This type of "shrinkage" for Metrolinx is incredibly cheap; they don't get revenue but they also don't incur any expenses. Compared to the Wholefoods cheese table (a well-known popular item from grocery stores) they're down right lucky.

It should be fixed because it's government. Canadian retail raised prices 20 years ago and looks the other way.

I have numerous stories for Internet firms too since I spent a fair amount of time working on financial databases for a career (billing systems). Branding was often considered far more important than increasing revenue or preventing losses.

Completely understand what you're saying and it's true, but let's say a private operator were running operations and were in direct control of the revenues and expenses of this operation. Do you think they would allow a loophole as big as this exist for 5 years and allow people to exploit it the the fullest? I highly, highly doubt it.

Metrolinx is lucky not many people knew about the loophole but now that they do, let's see if they continue to get lucky with their 2% evasion rate.

 

[Allandale25]

In Doug Ford's transportation budget, delays are counted as savings

The government has a $38-billion transit spending plan over the next five years, but is only allocating $29 billion.

www.nationalobserver.com

Doesn't mention Metrolinx directly but does mention MTO.

 

[raptor]

For those who are interested, the Nov 22 Metrolinx board meeting materials have been posted:

Board Meetings

Meetings of the Metrolinx Board of Directors.

www.metrolinx.com

Once again, I'm appalled at how they're keeping all of the juicy info in the closed session. The public session includes no real updates.

 

[W. K. Lis]

For those who are interested, the Nov 22 Metrolinx board meeting materials have been posted:

Board Meetings

Meetings of the Metrolinx Board of Directors.

www.metrolinx.com

Once again, I'm appalled at how they're keeping all of the juicy info in the closed session. The public session includes no real updates.

Do we have to hunt for links to the reports themselves?

 

[raptor]

Do we have to hunt for links to the reports themselves?

Simply scroll down to the public session part

 

[Northern Light]

For those who are interested, the Nov 22 Metrolinx board meeting materials have been posted:

Board Meetings

Meetings of the Metrolinx Board of Directors.

www.metrolinx.com

Once again, I'm appalled at how they're keeping all of the juicy info in the closed session. The public session includes no real updates.

Not true, the IBCs for Niagara and K-W have some good tidbits in them.

Do we have to hunt for links to the reports themselves?

See below:

So the Initial Business Case for the extension to Niagara is done, report here:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20191122/20191122_BoardMtg_Niagara_IBC.pdf

Option 2 is recommended to go forward to the preliminary business case.

Option 2:
Operation of four extension trains per peak period with two trains beginning/terminating in Niagara Falls GO Station and two beginning/terminating at Confederation GO Station to/from Union.
GO’s seasonal summer rail service would be extended to year-round daily operations of seven trips to provide service during off-peak hour.
In addition, GO Rail would operate up to hourly all day between Confederation GO Station and Union week round

Kitchener Business Case report here:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20191122/20191122_BoardMtg_Kitchener_IBC.pdf

Here again, option 2 is recommended to move forward:

Option 2 is the Halton Sub, with minimal infrastructure investments in order to enable 2-way, all-day service to KW.

The representative service pattern used for the recommendation was as follows:

Peak Period:
10 minute frequency (6 trains per hour) two-way electricservice, between Bramalea GO station and Union Station
20 minute frequency (3 trains per hour) two-way diesel service between Georgetown GO station and Union Station
30 minute frequency (2 trains per hour) two-way diesel service between Kitchener GO station and Union Station.

Weekday Off-Peak Period:
10 minute frequency (6 trains per hour) two-way electricservice, between Bramalea GO station and Union Station
20 minute frequency (3 trains per hour) two-way diesel service between Georgetown GO station and Union Station
60 minute frequency (1 train per hour) two-way diesel service between Kitchener GO station and Union Station.

Weekends:
10 minute frequency (6 trains per hour) two-way electricservice, between Bramalea GO station and Union Station
combined 24 minute frequency (2.5 trains per hour) two-way diesel service between Georgetown GO station and Union Station
120 minute frequency (0.5 trains per hour) two-way diesel service between Kitchener GO station and Union Station.

I'm particularly intrigued at 20m 2WAD service to Georgetown apparently getting the thumbs up from CN.

One might be forgiven for being under the impression that was a non-started until recently.

 

[raptor]

Not true, the IBCs for Niagara and K-W have some good tidbits in them.



See below:

So the Initial Business Case for the extension to Niagara is done, report here:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20191122/20191122_BoardMtg_Niagara_IBC.pdf

Option 2 is recommended to go forward to the preliminary business case.

Option 2:
Operation of four extension trains per peak period with two trains beginning/terminating in Niagara Falls GO Station and two beginning/terminating at Confederation GO Station to/from Union.
GO’s seasonal summer rail service would be extended to year-round daily operations of seven trips to provide service during off-peak hour.
In addition, GO Rail would operate up to hourly all day between Confederation GO Station and Union week round

Kitchener Business Case report here:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20191122/20191122_BoardMtg_Kitchener_IBC.pdf

Here again, option 2 is recommended to move forward:

Option 2 is the Halton Sub, with minimal infrastructure investments in order to enable 2-way, all-day service to KW.

The representative service pattern used for the recommendation was as follows:

Peak Period:
10 minute frequency (6 trains per hour) two-way electricservice, between Bramalea GO station and Union Station
20 minute frequency (3 trains per hour) two-way diesel service between Georgetown GO station and Union Station
30 minute frequency (2 trains per hour) two-way diesel service between Kitchener GO station and Union Station.

Weekday Off-Peak Period:
10 minute frequency (6 trains per hour) two-way electricservice, between Bramalea GO station and Union Station
20 minute frequency (3 trains per hour) two-way diesel service between Georgetown GO station and Union Station
60 minute frequency (1 train per hour) two-way diesel service between Kitchener GO station and Union Station.

Weekends:
10 minute frequency (6 trains per hour) two-way electricservice, between Bramalea GO station and Union Station
combined 24 minute frequency (2.5 trains per hour) two-way diesel service between Georgetown GO station and Union Station
120 minute frequency (0.5 trains per hour) two-way diesel service between Kitchener GO station and Union Station.

I'm particularly intrigued at 20m 2WAD service to Georgetown apparently getting the thumbs up from CN.

One might be forgiven for being under the impression that was a non-started until recently.

With all due respect, there are no dates attached. Allow me to place these on the "studies" shelf. Consultants must have great lobbyists.

 

[mdrejhon]

When this begins construction 2020, this change alone:

-- should speed up weekday Niagara service by almost 15 minutes, when combined with the new Desjardins canal track
-- should make the weekend Niagara service stop in Hamilton (finally!), enabling weekend excursions for Hamilton/Niagara residents to each other's cities.

 

[crs1026]

So far I have digested only the Kitchener IBC. The key points that struck me were

- The report positions negotiations with CN as ongoing - albeit with considerable confidence that CN will cooperate - no big news here.
- Travel time to Kitchener of 1:39 with the new proposed option, as opposed to 1:59 under the "business as usual" expansion scenario. Express only east of Bramalea. That's a fairly unambitious service standard, frequency is quite impressive but they are clearly not leaning towards semi express trains to Kitchener. One has to wonder how appeal that timing will have especially for business travellers - sure, driving is no picnic, but the timing is not a selling point especially if you add in first/last mile times.
- Precious little mention of VIA.... in fact the comments about having options for improving VIA under the Bypass scenario do not appear in the Option 2 scenario, even though there is no difference west of Silver. The absence of any mention of integration/collaboration with VIA is striking, and one wonders if the proposed option in fact throws VIA under the bus, or positions towards asking VIA for money for expansion east of Silver.
- Diesel operation west of Bramalea is emphasised.
- No specifics of the infrastructure expansion, particularly in the CN owned zone. I notice how they ducked that question at the last town hall also. I'd bet they are still in discussions with CN.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

^ re diesel operation emphasized - does it mention the TPAP for electrification between Georgetown and Kitchener?

 

[crs1026]

I went to the Capital Projects Report next. As usual, it's presented in a "Dear Diary" format which presents recent actvities or milestones, but is mute on describing overall progress or how well this period's activity advances GO towards defined goals or project deadlines.

This level of reporting would have attracted immediate piercing interrogation from higher management anyplace I worked. Reporting baseline is good, stating cost this period also good, but no indication about amount completed. Did we spend what we forecast/budgeted to spend this period? Did our spending accomplish the intended results? Are we projecting to be over/under at project end? Schedule adherence? Funny how ML guards this level of information.

I compared the financials to those in the last Board report, which (finally) shed some light on what is actually being spent and where. Here's my quarter-over-quarter analysis, using the report's figures in $M:

My highlights in yellow. The Hurontario LRT has suddenly shot up in baseline cost - so much that I almost wonder if this is just a typo. ML apparently found some savings in the Crosstown project and made a minor adjustment to the GO Early Works baseline.

A considerable amount was spent on GO Early Works and on the LRT/Bus projects which we know have shovels in the ground. One can't say the money isn't flowing. If you look at the GO Expansion numbers, it's obvious that we are still at a very early point in this whole program.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

^ re diesel operation emphasized - does it mention the TPAP for electrification between Georgetown and Kitchener?

It is very clear that the service plan it assessed for west of Bramalea would be diesel.

As noted, it's just a study, so all one conclude is that electrification costs were not studied and we don't know if that would change the cost/benefit considerations.

It sure is a left hand-right hand thing, however.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

^On reading again, it's interesting the difference in wording around electrification. - pages 52-53

Option 1 (Bypass)

Option 1 also provides flexibility for Metrolinx to implement further infrastructure improvements, such as new stations, electrification or additional track capacity; as well as passenger rail service enhancements, such as improved VIA Rail service, alternate express train service patterns, or enhanced passenger rail service to southwestern Ontario.

Option 2 (No Bypass)

Under Option 2, CN will continue to own and operate the Halton Subdivision. Existing potential for delays will remain, due to train crossover movements, freight servicing of local customers and may increase due to the overall higher rail volume on the corridor. In addition, opportunities for future expansion of the Halton Subdivision will be constrained, especially within the urban areas of the City of Brampton. CN has also expressed concerns regarding electrification of a shared rail corridor.

I read that as the BCI not wasting time on an electrification scenario or assessment of capital/operating costs for same.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

The interesting thing for me in the Niagara BCI is ML's apparent reluctance to favour St Catharines over Niagara Falls. The ridership at Grimsby and St Catharines in the half-hourly scenario is huge, and ought to be appealing of its own right. But with operations over the Seaway extremely difficult, the preferred option is pared back to Confederation with only peak trains from Niagara Falls.

The stated capital cost of the Niagara all-day scenario is not much greater than the other scenarios.... it's the operational challenges posed by the Seaway that makes the hourly Niagara Falls scenario so difficult.

To my eyes, the IBC makes a case that best option in terms of ridership (for that fairly fixed investment value) is to run intensive service to St Catharines and then have a connecting shuttle bus to Niagara Falls. That would no doubt lead to whines from Niagara Fallians about being second class citizens. So ML just retreated from the whole issue and is happy with stopping at Confederation? That abdicates service to a huge number of people west of the Seaway. A case of politics overriding good business sense IMHO.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

^On reading again, it's interesting the difference in wording around electrification. - pages 52-53

Option 1 (Bypass)



Option 2 (No Bypass)



I read that as the BCI not wasting time on an electrification scenario or assessment of capital/operating costs for same.

- Paul

"train cross over movements" - so no mention of a rail over rail grade separation at Mount Pt that was referenced in the IBC for GO RER? I think it's still.up on Metrolink's website in an appendix.