News   Jul 16, 2024
 102     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
 462     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
 572     2 

Transit expert says Toronto must recognize transportation is a business, not just a service

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1,061
Transit expert Michael Schabas says Toronto must recognize transportation is a business, not just a service


January 11, 2017

By Romi Levine

Read More: https://www.utoronto.ca/news/transi...st-recognize-transportation-business-not-just

.....

Transit consultant Michael Schabas, an alumnus of U of T's John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design, played an important role in making the London transportation system what it is today. He is sharing his insights from the United Kingdom in a new book, The Railway Metropolis: How planners, politicians, and developers shaped Modern London.

- “The book is about how London learned to build railways that were worth having that attracted passengers, that operated efficiently, that were affordable and efficient,” says Schabas. Schabas, who has worked on transportation projects all over the world, is currently in Toronto helping Metrolinx implement the Regional Express Rail project, a large scale transformation of the GO Rail network. He spoke with U of T News about what Toronto can learn from London’s successes and missteps.

- "You have to learn from other cities. You can't just learn from your own city because it's probably too long ago. London learned from Vancouver when it built the SkyTrain. I worked on the first line in the early 1980s, and London copied it with the Docklands Light Railway, an automated, elevated system that other cities around the world have also copied. But Toronto still learns only from itself so it only wants to build subways and streetcar lines."

- "Toronto only thinks about the capital costs. It assumes that a railway always loses money and doesn't do analysis of business cases – so you have plans like the Scarborough subway, which is supposed to replace the Scarborough RT but obviously won't attract any more passengers because it's going to do pretty much exactly the same thing as the existing line. And, it may actually cost more to operate than the RT it will replace."

- "The London Overground is a new service created by knitting together and electrifying surface railways. That's the lesson Toronto is learning with the Regional Express Rail project that's now going ahead. I'm a Toronto boy. I grew up in Toronto. I left Toronto in 1979 because I didn't think Toronto would do anything clever with railways for the next 30 years. I went to Vancouver and then London and built a lot of railways. Most of which have been successful but also a lot of mistakes were made."

- "Toronto needs to learn that transport is a business as well as a social service. You need to offer a better service quality – faster and more frequent trains, all day and on weekends. There's a line I use as a title of one of my chapters, which is credited to the mayor of Bogotá: the successful city isn't a place where the poor people have cars, but it's a city where the rich people use public transit."

- "Toronto is a potential railway metropolis. It's very dense, even in the suburbs. Even Scarborough and Mississauga are much denser than American suburbs. People don't realize that. Toronto has six freeway lanes in to the downtown. Houston has 43. Toronto has very little in the way of a freeway system. Rail is the only way to make Toronto keep growing, and luckily for Toronto, it's not too late – the corridors are there for the RER, and Toronto never had the problems American cities had that made “rich” people stop using transit."

.....




iJ7Qfru.jpg
 
Good article.

A big difference between the DLR and SRT is that the DLR is a network in itself. You can take it all the way into the Financial District. It's not just a shuttle between two places like the SRT, which feels more like a cut-rate subway extension into Scarborough.

Something I wish the author would mention though is elevated subway lines. They're used in other big cities - London, Paris New York and Chicago for example. We could get a lot more transit built if people were willing to have that here, but for some reason, I feel like people would consider it "not world-class enough", especially in the east and west end of the core where it's most useful.
 
Whoa! Incredible link. I just read the first few lines, and I have to read the entire article, he's hitting a lot of the buttons I see comparing London (and other conurbations) to Toronto. Want to read the entire thing before posting further on that. It looks like his comments are highly applicable to a number of strings at this site, not least the the 're-acquisition' of not only the Underground routes, but the surface heavy rail commuter lines coming into London, and integrating them into the Overground. This has profound political implications as well as operational. Many thanks for that link! As to why that hasn't appeared in the wider press is damn good question.

Something I wish the author would mention though is elevated subway lines.

Might be the only way of expanding Union, by flying RER into and out of either the shed or adjacent to it, on elevated guideways as per Pearson. City Council doesn't like it? Whisper "Rail Deck Park" in their ears, and then stroke them when they're aroused. Double stack tracks would be criminal *not to do* if they envision decking over the USRC. Flown tracks would also intrinsically be the 'flyovers' to allow RER to branch into/onto the northern legs east and west of Union, without the flat junctions necessary otherwise. Once the legs had been reached clear of 'the flyover', RER would return to prevailing grade.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Schabas must recognize that Toronto transportation is only about suburban identity politics. It's not a business, and calling it a service is laughable. As for Toronto learning from other cities, good luck with all that.
 
I love elevated. Trains going by in the sky, so pretty. Wish it got more affection around here.
 
Smart Track was just Toronto asking for Regional Rail to help Toronto, and not just the 905. The Liberals didn't want to give credit for the whole RER to Tory, so they stripped the plan and made Toronto pay for common parts.
Essentially, in the political game of transit, Wynne won by punishing Toronto.
 
Schabas brought us LaughTrack so he can eff right off
Politics aside, the original proper vision of SmartTrack was the outlandish concept of turning a peak commuter route into a bona-fide convenient 5-minute metro, far beyond what GO planned. All using mostly existing corridor. Totally sensible from a macro/academic perspective.

The problem is whatever politics, branding and butchering, "GO was doing it anyway" factor, all of this happened to SmartTrack, is resulting in a hugely imperfect vision/implementation that seems to have defacto mostly incremental GO improvements.
 
The problem is whatever politics, branding and butchering, "GO was doing it anyway" factor, all of this happened to SmartTrack, is resulting in a hugely imperfect vision/implementation that seems to have defacto mostly incremental GO improvements.

The main restriction of that vision is the lack of a 4th track on Lake Shore east so there would be 2 tracks for each corridor, and the express trains.

Install that 4th track (Metrolinx has a basic design and plans an EA for it) and have every train make all stops (no express) and 6 minute frequencies are quite doable.


Local service + express service + 2 tracks only = poor service for both local and express
 
Politics aside, the original proper vision of SmartTrack was the outlandish concept of turning a peak commuter route into a bona-fide convenient 5-minute metro, far beyond what GO planned.

Why is it outlandish? Other cities have done exactly that. Paris, for example, has train service at subway-like frequencies (every 3-4 minutes all day) on some two-track lines. You can't expect subway-like stop spacing, but it's not crazy to ask for Go RER to work like Paris' RER does, where you can take it within the subway's fare zone as if it were a part of the subway system, and where the system is actually intended to serve people living in the city, not just its surrounding suburbs.
 
It's not outlandish by progressive city terms, London also does it on some routes and Crossrail is planned every two and half minutes!
By Metrolinx and Ontario standards though, it's outlandish.

Edit to Add:
We are using a Siemens communications based train control signalling system which will be capable of delivering what Crossrail needs – which is 24 trains an hour through the centre. Technically the system should be able to do 30.
http://www.infrastructure-intelligence.com/article/jan-2015/crossrail-time-think-about-train-service

We'll be delighted at fifteen, when and if it happens...and then the protestations that to expect any more, or mix UPX and RER on the same tracks, let alone UPX, RER and GO is just not possible.

Even Lionel solved that problem half a century ago...
 
Last edited:
Crossrail presumably will have level platform and passenger flow capacity for 24tph.
 
New expressways, tolled and underground, incorporating subway or other rail should be part of the solution. I'm so sick of hearing that somehow our horrible traffic is a virtue because it turns people towards transit. Congestion is idling, which is terrible for the environment, business, and quality of life. Really, what transit options do these people have? RER will help, but the cost has to moderate and have some tranferability to the TTC. That's the virtue of Smart Track, if it's implemented as intended, to provide frequent, affordable, subway like service along existing rail corridors.

There's far too much left versus right politicking going on. The right don't see the value in making transit a public spending priority. The left don't see that building all forms of transportation, highways included, where there are users demanding service and willing to pay user fees, is an equally important means of delivering the transportation system we need.
 
Crossrail presumably will have level platform and passenger flow capacity for 24tph.
Absolutely. These stations are in every way state-of-the-art 'subway' stations.

You are correct to tie single platform, albeit very well designed stations to load flow, that is a discussion in itself, but even lacking that, multi-platforms of a lower level can serve as much throughput, the point being that one pair of tracks with rolling stock using an off-the-shelf (in this case, Siemens) CBTC system can run 2 minute headways. Now consider what four can do, and yet the claim for much of Toronto is for the need of six tracks.

Edit to Add: To continue Dowling's line of question, which is an excellent one, I've quickly tried to Google for written analyses on that, will try again later, but for now, this promotes the discussion, because it's absolutely true that one of the challenges, even with cross platform loading and unloading of GO trains, station dwell time is a challenge: (One answer might be low floor RER stock)
Video | Crossrail station platform construction
22 March, 2016 By Katherine Smale

Full screen
3014166_Crossrail-108m-long-sections-of-rail-in-thames-tunnels-3-2.jpg

Crossrail’s Chief Engineer gives an overview of the work to construct the new platforms under central London.
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...tation-platform-construction/10004454.article
 
Last edited:

Back
Top