Toronto Regional Board of Trade Regional Rail Report

[sacred]

Munro's take:

Yet Another Fantasy Map Clouds Regional Planning

On March 29, 2021, the Toronto Region Board of Trade released a proposal Getting on the Right Track – Connecting Communities With Regional Rail as the second of a planned series that will eventuall…

stevemunro.ca

Update: report author responds.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1376917190591516674

SM’s response was hard to get through, to be honest. Points out way too many things which are non-issues with the report

 

[Northern Light]

Munro's take:

Yet Another Fantasy Map Clouds Regional Planning

On March 29, 2021, the Toronto Region Board of Trade released a proposal Getting on the Right Track – Connecting Communities With Regional Rail as the second of a planned series that will eventuall…

stevemunro.ca

Update: report author responds.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1376917190591516674

FWIW, my take, in brief:

The BOT report, has ambition, and some good ideas in it.

Steve is not wrong that it doesn't cover everything, address every issue, nor provide detailed costing etc.

I'm not sure Steve's critique is completely fair. No report or idea set encompasses everything.

Moreover, the report's principle author, Jonathan English, has written this as one of a series of reports, which needs to be taken in the context both of those that came before it, and those that will follow.

Steve isn't wrong to suggest there's an element of fantasy here, as there is in most grand plans. Its a scheme to aspire to, not one in which every detail is black-letter law and spelled out in schematic detail.

I don't think its a reasonable critique to say every 'i' isn't dotted and 't' crossed; when this is not an E.A., nor an operating plan for a service.

Its an idea of what a service could be; and is used both to suggest some worthwhile ambitions and to hold up to scrutiny existing under-achievement and questionable planning.

There are some details in the proposal I question; some omissions I'd love to see addressed; and some high-level costs and savings that could have been included to advance discussion.

But I think Steve's take was just too harsh.

 

[Towered]

Surely you jest!...........

Errr....

Niagara Falls, N.Y. mayor says he wants a GO Train across the border

But Metrolinx says it has no plans to extend service to the U.S. town.

www.thestar.com

Then again........we have an American Mayor who wants GO Service!

To be fair, his city needs all the help it can get!

 

[W. K. Lis]

I would not be surprised if in the near future, the mayor of Buffalo would demand GO Transit service.

Would be possible if there was a "Schengen" agreement between the United States of America and Canada (and maybe Mexico).

The "Schengen" agreement is a treaty of 26 European countries allowing to "abolish border checks at the signatories' common borders, including reduced-speed vehicle checks which allowed vehicles to cross borders without stopping, allowing residents in border areas freedom to cross borders away from fixed checkpoints, and the harmonization of visa policies." From link.

Can't see such an agreement in North America because of the "protectionism" of the Republicans in the USA and the Conservatives in Canada. Canada would worry about the flow of firearms from the States, while the Americans would worry about the flow of cheaper medicine from Canada.

 

[afransen]

That idea actually makes a lot of sense, connecting NY state with Toronto via regional rail.

Already quite common in border cities in places like southern China (recently opened HSR between HK and mainland China), EU countries (notably regional trains from Munich to Austria), etc. Only in North America do we think this is an "unthinkable" plan. And leave it up to Metrolinx to come up with some regulatory BS as a lazy excuse.

What is the travel demand, really, between NF, NY and GTA? Maybe some between Niagara Region and the US side, but not all that much. Not sure it makes sense to introduce all the customs complexity.

 

[ssiguy2]

I think the Toronto Board of Trade's proposal is nothing but great. It hits all the marks with fare integration, the right rolling stock, timetables, grade separations, spacing, added and simplified stations, Union, and clearly differentiates the service levels of RER as opposed to GO commuter. It was also very interesting how the report made specific references to battery trains and their potential on non-electrified portions both now and in the future.

The only thing I would like to see your comments on Reece, is what about the much higher frequencies and station locations for the different service's impact on VIA. If HFR {eventually} is realised from both Montreal and Windsor, will there be potential chock points on the GO service areas?

Of course this could all be just a pipe dream due to the ass-backwards way Metrolinx has put the project out to tender. If none of the 3 remaining bidders has any interest in single level trains then much of this excellent report cannot be realised. Due to the deadline of 2026 for RER, there is no time left to re-bid the tender.

 

[DKsan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1376917190591516674

This is Jonathon English’s response to Steve’s article. Can’t say I’m surprised, to be honest.

Here’s the article in question: https://stevemunro.ca/2021/03/30/yet-another-fantasy-map-clouds-regional-planning/

I think the point that just ruins Steve's take is that he concedes that:
- This is a series
- Local transit will be covered in the next paper
- But then complains that local transit isn't included in this paper.

 

[MisterF]

Would be possible if there was a "Schengen" agreement between the United States of America and Canada (and maybe Mexico).

The "Schengen" agreement is a treaty of 26 European countries allowing to "abolish border checks at the signatories' common borders, including reduced-speed vehicle checks which allowed vehicles to cross borders without stopping, allowing residents in border areas freedom to cross borders away from fixed checkpoints, and the harmonization of visa policies." From link.

Can't see such an agreement in North America because of the "protectionism" of the Republicans in the USA and the Conservatives in Canada. Canada would worry about the flow of firearms from the States, while the Americans would worry about the flow of cheaper medicine from Canada.

More than just those groups would oppose it. Any such arrangement in North America would be completely dominated by the United States, which has more people than the rest of North America combined. It has 67% of the population of the NAFTA countries and 57% of the continent as a whole. By contrast, Germany has only 19% of the population of the EU.

No thanks to anything like the EU in North America.

 

[allengeorge]

Yeah. I actually think Steve's take is particularly unfair. Specific problems I (personally) have:

1. His tone is unnecessarily denigrating. Almost all of his writing around plans from the TTC, the city, Metrolinx and the TRBOT has it, but this one seems particularly over the top. Maybe it's because I actually like the vision in the report and am more sensitive to it.
2. He complains about the fact that there aren't specific implementation steps. It's a vision document, not an implementation plan.
3. He ignores the fact that it's part of the series. Actually, sometimes states it - and then attacks the points the report is explicitly not covering.
4. I didn't think this report was overly 416-focused. I think it covered how we should utilize rail corridors more efficiently, and a lot of them are in Toronto.
5. He claims that the report does not outline goals (and then lists them immediately afterwards). He then points out that these goals do not cover funding.
6. He claims that the report was trying to push a higher fare model. The report did not try do that. It mentioned fare integration multiple times, and I swear it mentioned that people riding within Toronto should pay the TTC fare.
7. Seems to see this as a trojan horse for reducing local transit service. I...I mean, I get that he's upset about TTC operational funding (I am too), but seriously: not every report has to highlight every problem.

Sorry - I ran out of energy.

 

[W. K. Lis]

More than just those groups would oppose it. Any such arrangement in North America would be completely dominated by the United States, which has more people than the rest of North America combined. It has 67% of the population of the NAFTA countries and 57% of the continent as a whole. By contrast, Germany has only 19% of the population of the EU.

No thanks to anything like the EU in North America.

Isn't the "United States of America" a "European Union"? Since the original "states" were originally "colonies", even a sovereign country (Republic of Texas, March 2, 1836, to February 19, 1846)?

 

[aquateam]

Yeah. I actually think Steve's take is particularly unfair. Specific problems I (personally) have:

1. His tone is unnecessarily denigrating. Almost all of his writing around plans from the TTC, the city, Metrolinx and the TRBOT has it, but this one seems particularly over the top. Maybe it's because I actually like the vision in the report and am more sensitive to it.
2. He complains about the fact that there aren't specific implementation steps. It's a vision document, not an implementation plan.
3. He ignores the fact that it's part of the series. Actually, sometimes states it - and then attacks the points the report is explicitly not covering.
4. I didn't think this report was overly 416-focused. I think it covered how we should utilize rail corridors more efficiently, and a lot of them are in Toronto.
5. He claims that the report does not outline goals (and then lists them immediately afterwards). He then points out that these goals do not cover funding.
6. He claims that the report was trying to push a higher fare model. The report did not try do that. It mentioned fare integration multiple times, and I swear it mentioned that people riding within Toronto should pay the TTC fare.
7. Seems to see this as a trojan horse for reducing local transit service. I...I mean, I get that he's upset about TTC operational funding (I am too), but seriously: not every report has to highlight every problem.

Sorry - I ran out of energy.

There's another TBOT report that does mention a fare model. But I wouldn't say this qualifies as a fare increase, and it's not pay-by-distance strictly speaking.

Overall I think the TBOT report is a great step forward. Some comments, though.

1. The Neptis review of GO RER seemed to think that having a mixed fleet that gradually phased out improved the business case, whereas the TBOT report says we should design for a single vehicle type. This is contradictory and it's not clear to me which conclusion is correct.
2. It's nice to see an acknowledgement of all the international best practices that Metrolinx isn't following (through-running/pairing lines, garage-mahals instead of TOD/transit integration, lack of track consolidation at Union) and hopefully Metrolinx changes course (for another two decades of Union station construction.)
3. It would be nice to know what the gap is between the TBOT proposal and OnCorr. I think OnCorr just specifies TPH and doesn't have as many infill stations and leaves everything up to the (several) bidders, whereas this is a direct vision to how the tracks and services should be organized.
4. I was surprised to see the Milton line paired with the Stouffville line, since the Milton line is constrained by CP while Stouffville is GO-owned, so they are unbalanced in their possible service frequency. But I guess the idea is to double-track or missing-link our way to getting more capacity out of the Milton line.
5. There were some ideas in there that I've seen suggested on this forum before (like the "STC-spur".) In general, there are 3 diversions suggested which might have rubbed Steve the wrong way, since all of them would replace streetcar plans. Re-routing through Square One is an interesting idea.

 

[aquateam]

Would be possible if there was a "Schengen" agreement between the United States of America and Canada (and maybe Mexico).

The "Schengen" agreement is a treaty of 26 European countries allowing to "abolish border checks at the signatories' common borders, including reduced-speed vehicle checks which allowed vehicles to cross borders without stopping, allowing residents in border areas freedom to cross borders away from fixed checkpoints, and the harmonization of visa policies." From link.

Can't see such an agreement in North America because of the "protectionism" of the Republicans in the USA and the Conservatives in Canada. Canada would worry about the flow of firearms from the States, while the Americans would worry about the flow of cheaper medicine from Canada.

An interesting idea that is similar is called CANZUK. The proposal is for freedom of movement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. Many politicians in these countries have expressed support, and it has polled as a popular idea.

You seem to think Conservatives in Canada would be against it, but the idea was promoted by Andrew Scheer before he stepped down, and the Conservative party in Australia has also spoken in favour of it.

 

[Undead]

Would be possible if there was a "Schengen" agreement between the United States of America and Canada (and maybe Mexico).

The "Schengen" agreement is a treaty of 26 European countries allowing to "abolish border checks at the signatories' common borders, including reduced-speed vehicle checks which allowed vehicles to cross borders without stopping, allowing residents in border areas freedom to cross borders away from fixed checkpoints, and the harmonization of visa policies." From link.

Can't see such an agreement in North America because of the "protectionism" of the Republicans in the USA and the Conservatives in Canada. Canada would worry about the flow of firearms from the States, while the Americans would worry about the flow of cheaper medicine from Canada.

Another big problem is the American southern border and how those migration flows would shift to Canada with open borders. No thanks.

 

[ARG1]

6. He claims that the report was trying to push a higher fare model. The report did not try do that. It mentioned fare integration multiple times, and I swear it mentioned that people riding within Toronto should pay the TTC fare.

I think someone already answered this for me, but the fare system was outlined in the previous report that had a region wide zone system, with a base fare of 2 zones, and Toronto is divided into 2 zone chunks. This means that for Toronto to Toronto trips, you would pay the exact same fare you did before excluding any future fare hikes that may happen on all transit modes including this regional rail plan.

 

[sixrings]

I thought the Milton line couldn’t handle all day service. Has things changed?