This post is in response to Michael Schabas, who very kindly responded to my review of his report on Metrolinx's "Big Move" prepared for the Neptis Foundation.
I greatly
appreciate you taking the time to respond to my review. I found your study of
Metrolinx’s plans to be very informative and well thought-out. I also felt that
your inclusion of real regional rail in the study was an excellent choice.
I definitely
agree that loco-hauled trains have a purpose, but I think they’re best used on
longer distance, limited stop trips where their acceleration time penalty is
less important. That’s generally how they are used in Germany: Dostos operate many
RegioBahn and RegioExpress services, while S-Bahns in major cities are all-EMU.
I’m definitely a supporter of two distinct levels of service, like in Germany,
with CityRail providing rapid transit-style service roughly out to the inner
edge of the Greenbelt, and a Regional Express service, perhaps
locomotive-hauled, out to places like Barrie, Kitchener, and Niagara Falls. It could
make limited stops within the GTA and operate less frequently, perhaps hourly
or twice-hourly. Bilevels would be less of an issue on those trains as the
bilevel loading and unloading time penalty would be less problematic than on
the high-frequency CityRail services. They would be a good place to use the
existing GO rolling stock for the rest of its service life.
While I am
obviously a big supporter of real regional rail, I think that the DRL is a very
important project precisely because the corridor can’t be very well served by
regional rail. Connections from surface routes, including the Eglinton Crosstown,
to the Richmond Hill line, which is the closest parallel to the DRL, would be
extremely awkward given its deep valley location. Its winding route makes it
slower than other regional rail routes and the risk of flooding also poses
problems in an era of concerns about “resiliency.” I agree that connections at
Main Street could be designed to be as painless as possible, but it is still
not an ideal setup and would impose a time penalty. The DRL is a case where,
unlike the other regional rail corridors, the existing corridor isn’t adequate
to meet the area’s needs. A new corridor is needed.
The DRL is also
incredibly useful because it would be able to provide a very fine-grained
service to some of the fastest-developing parts of the city. It’s hard to argue
that stations in Leslieville, Liberty Village, Cityplace, the East Bayfront, or
the West Don Lands would not be very well used. While I agree that some of the DRL’s
future riders are currently be using the east-west streetcar routes, those
lines provide a pretty poor service over long distances, which is why their
ridership has been dropping steadily for two decades. Better service could
attract back many people who have given up on the 501. As it extends up Don
Mills, which wouldn’t be possible for a regional rail route, it would serve the
heavily developed area along that street as well as effectively connect to a
number of very busy bus routes. This would also dramatically improve service
for many existing riders and could attract people to transit who currently find
the car more attractive than a long bus ride to the Yonge subway. I am not
certain how well the TTC’s ridership modelling for the project accounts for all
of these potential new sources of ridership. Even if it would not necessarily
add as many new riders as other routes, as your report suggests, I think that
the dramatic improvement in service quality for thousands of existing transit
riders makes the project very worthwhile.
It makes perfect
sense that Bombardier would be much more receptive to a contract cancellation
if they got a comparably large contract as a replacement. That would be a very
good way to reduce the cost of cancellation, though this decision would need to
be made almost immediately.
