RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Commission:
1)
note that staff
concluded that after exhaustive research on the means
of making the current streetcar fleet accessible, and on consideration that the only
technically feasible lift device would cost approximately $80,000 per car, or $15.7
million dollars for the fleet of 196 CLRVs, the impact on customer service, the
significant safety concern in its operation on streetcars; and the increased
operating costs due to the deployment time required for lift operation, this is not a
practical objective and that this should not be pursued further;
2)
note
that,
in order to make TTC streetcar service accessible to people with mobility
difficulties, the most practical way is to accelerate the
procurement and introduction of new
streetcars which would be low floor and fully accessible;
3)
forward this report to the City
of Toronto, in satisfaction of one of the directives of the City
Council adopted at its December 14 and 16, 2005
meeting. At this meeting, the Council amended
Policy and Finance Committee Report 9, Clause 31b Streetcar
Fleet Plan, and requested that the Toronto Transit Commission
be requested to advise City Council on the additional costs
required to make streetcars accessible, and provide an opportunity for City
Council to consider these additional costs prior to a future
decision being made by the Toronto Transit
Commission on any refurbishing of current streetcars or purchase of new
streetcars.
FUNDING
Funding for this accessibility feature
on CLRVs has
not been included in the 2006-2010 budget.
BACKGROUND
The capital project to extend the life of the 196
Canadian Light Rail Vehicles (CLRVs) by 10 to 15 years was initially established
in the 1999-2003 Capital Program budget.
Scope of work and detail budget were further defined and submitted in
the 2006-2010 Capital
Program budget.
At the
December 14 and 16, 2005, City Council
meeting, on approving Capital Project 4.15 Streetcar Overhaul,
the Council directed that:
the Toronto Transit Commission
be requested to advise City Council on the additional costs required to make
streetcars accessible, and provide an opportunity for City Council to consider
these additional costs prior to a future decision being made by
the Toronto Transit Commission on
any refurbishing of current streetcars or purchase of new
streetcars.
This report addresses the above
mentioned
directive.
It is
recommended that the Commission authorize:
the award of a contract to Thermo King Europe
Manufacturing LTD. in the amount of $97,715.50 for the design and supply of 2
prototype air conditioning units; and
the award of a contract to Siemens Canada Limited for the design and supply of
102 propulsion control system units over a 5 year period commencing
in 2005 in the upset limit amount of $29,650,000 subject to confirmation of
receiving financing approval from the City of Toronto Council.
0.the conditional awarding of an upset limit contract
for an additional 100 air conditioning units to Thermo King Manufacturing LTD.
in the upset limit amount of $4,922,790.30, subject to satisfactory performance
of the prototypes during in-service testing of the prototypes and confirmation
of receiving additional financing approval from the City of Toronto Council,
which will be the subject of a separate Commission report.
FUNDING
Sufficient funds for these
expenditures are included in Project 4.15 pages 1035 to 1040 in the 2005 2009
Capital Program under the category of State of Good Repair as approved by the City
Council on February 23, 2005. Approval from Council is still required for the
Project Financing.Sufficient funds for these
expenditures are included in Project 4.15 (Streetcar Overhaul, under the Life
Extension Program (LEP) of Canadian Light Rail Vehicles) pages 1035 to 1040 in
the 2005 2009 Capital Program under the category of State of Good Repair as
approved by City Council on February 23, 2005. At its August 31, 2005 meeting,
the Commission approved the Commission Report entitled Request For
City Council Funding Approval CLRV Life
Extension Program Contract Commitments to
request the City of Toronto Council to approve funding commitment (estimated to be October 2005) for major equipment purchases, which include the
propulsion control system, for the CLRV LEP.
BACKGROUND
The capital project to extend
the life of the 196 Canadian Light Rail Vehicles (CLRVs) by 10 to 15 years was
initially established in the 1999-2003 Capital Program budget. One of the key objectives was to improve
on vehicle availability and reduce service delays.
The propulsion control system,
which modulates motoring and braking efforts in accordance with passenger load
and the operators pedal controller input, has become highly unreliable and
difficult to maintain due to parts obsolescence. The replacement of the propulsion control
system with a modern system was considered a critical system upgrade for the
life extension program. The new system would also include event logging and
diagnostic capabilities for trouble-shooting and reliability trend
investigation, as well as up-to-date componentry that would support maintenance
efforts more readily. The new control
system also provides trainline control functions for multiple unit operation,
which provides flexibility for coupled operation to enhance streetcar operation
and reduce mixed-traffic congestion due to bunching up of streetcars.
Over the years, several
heat stress studies had been conducted by Occupational Hygiene staff in
response to complaints from the Joint Health & Safety Committee of the
Streetcar Transportation department. Fogging up windshields and door glazing
has also been an on-going problem, with no real relief from the dash-mounted
fan on humid days.
In 2003, as the work scope
for the CLRV Life Extension Program (LEP) was being defined, staff brought to
the attention of Senior Management that equipping the CLRV fleet with
air-conditioning systems could be implemented during the LEP and that it would probably
be the most noticeable and appreciated feature on a rebuilt vehicle for both
the operators and the customers. Staff also noted that installation of an
air-conditioning system could adversely impact on overall vehicle reliability.
Staff received direction in
October 2003 to include air conditioning in the LEP and the Ccapital Bbudget
(Project 4.15) was adjusted accordingly.
On January 7, 2004On January 21, 2004 a Request
for Interest and Pre-Qualification Notice was issued to 10 7 potential
vendors in addition to an advertisement on the Commissions website. The
Pre-Qualification call resulted in 5 companies being identified as having the ability to
meet the commercial requirements and technical capabilities to
design, manufacture and supply a propulsion control system to meet the
Commissions specification requirements.
There were 5 responses to the Pre-Qualification
call and all 5 companies were determined to have the ability to meet the
commercial requirements and technical capabilities to design and supply a HVAC
system to the Commissions specification requirements.
OOn June 28August 26,
2004 a Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued to all 5 pre-qualified companies identified
as a result of the publicly advertised Request for Information, for the design
and supply of a propulsion
control system the HVAC system for the CLRVs,
out of which the following 4 companies
submitted Proposals on September 3, 2004March 17, 2005 as
summarized on Appendix A (i.e. :
Siemens
Canada Limited, Bombardier Inc., Vossloh Kiepe GmbH, and Brush Traction). 1. Air International Transit, (Huntingwood,
Australia)
2.
Sutrak Corporation, (Commerce
City, Colorado)
3.
Thermo King Europe
Manufacturing LTD. and (Mervue
Galway, Ireland)
4.
Faiveley Rail, Inc.) (Exton,
Pennsylvania).
The RFP required the delivery of 2
prototype units in 2006, which are to undergo in-service testing and evaluation by TTC for a period of up to one-year. The notice to proceed for the supply of the production units would be issued once the performance of the
prototypes is deemed successful during the testing period.
The RFP contained pricing options for
196, 169, 144, and 100 propulsion units as the Commission had not finalized
its requirements for the number of CLRVs to be refurbished prior to the issuance of the RFP. The RFP also requested pricing for optional
equipment, maintenance parts, tools, and spare propulsion units. At its meeting of June 22, 2005
the Commission received a presentation and a report entitled Future Streetcar Fleet Requirements and Plans and
approved the rebuilding of 100 CLRV streetcars to ensure that the TTCs
near-term streetcar service requirements are met. The Commission directed that
only 100 of the 196 CLRVs undergo the life-extension program, and that the remaining 96 vehicles be replaced
with new accessible low floor light rail vehicles. Therefore staffs analysis of
the proposals was based on the supply of 100 propulsion units.
The lowest priced bid was submitted by Siemens Canada Limited (Siemens), and they stated
one qualification regarding contract changes. However, as the RFP allowed staff to negotiate
terms and conditions, Siemens was contacted and agreed to a contract
change clause that is considered acceptable by staff. The RFP also allowed for adjustments to price based
on changes in foreign exchange rates and Siemens, Brush Traction, and Bombardier Inc. each
stated their price was subject to foreign exchange. Siemens stated no other exceptions or qualifications and their proposal was
considered commercially acceptable.
The proposals from Bombardier Inc. and Brush Traction were considered technically
acceptable, however they each stated a number of
exceptions which are considered unacceptable. (e.g. capping liquidated damages to
10% of the contract value, whereas TTCs specified 50%, they took
exception to the specified
warranty terms, and in
addition, neither company offered firm pricing). Vossloh Kiepe GmbH was
commercially and technically not acceptable as they offered an alternate system
and did not bid on TTCs specifications.
The pricing submitted by all of the
proponents for the 2 prototype units was
significantly higher compared to
their pricing for the production units. Staff
contacted the proponents, who indicated
this is attributed to the upfront
engineering work and manufacturing costs required for this project, and the
fact that the RFP stated the approval for the production units was subject to
future funding from the City of Toronto.
Although Siemens proposal was
commercially and technically acceptable, staff could not recommend awarding the
contract to Siemens, as the expenditure for the 2 prototypes (approximately
$8,784,000) would exceed the funds budgeted in 2005 and 2006.
Therefore, authorization was obtained from the Chief General
Manager on July 28,
2005 to cancel the RFP and commence negotiations with Siemens (the lowest
priced compliant proponent for the original RFP) in order to negotiate payment terms that would more evenly
distribute the expenditures for the propulsion units over the term of the contract. In addition, staff would seek
further clarification from Siemens regarding their technical proposal.
The only other pre-qualified proponent, Westcode
Inc. declined to bid as they specialize in heavy rail HVAC units and could not
be competitive with the other four light rail HVAC manufacturers.
A detailed evaluation was
performed and none of the four proposal submissions were considered acceptable
as submitted. (The details of the commercial and technical evaluation were
presented to the Committee of the Whole at its meeting of April 6, 2005). Three
submissions were considered commercially non-compliant and the lowest bid was
considered technically unacceptable. As a result of receiving no compliant submissions,
staff sought and received authorization from the Commission at its meeting of
April 6, 2005 to cancel the RFP and to negotiate on a sole source basis with
Thermo King Manufacturing LTD. (Thermo King) who had the lowest technically
acceptable price for the air conditioners.
DISCUSSION
The original RFP which was cancelled was issued on
the basis of supplying 196 HVAC units for
the entire fleet of CLRVs, with 2 prototype units to be provided for testing
and in-service evaluation for a one year period. The balance of the 194 HVAC
units were to be awarded after successful testing of the prototypes. ,
Hhowever at its
meeting of June 22, 2005 the Commission approved the total
vehicle rebuild quantity for the LEP has subsequently been revised from 196 vehicles
to 100 streetcars . This change in quantity was the
subject of a Commission report ( refer to Future Streetcar Fleet
Requirements and Plans report). at the June
22, 2005 meeting whereby staff received approval to proceed with the rebuilding
of 100 CLRVs and also proceeding with the process of procuring new streetcars
for the TTC.
During the
negotiations with Siemens, staff identified
the need for 2 spare propulsion units, resulting in
the original quantity of 100 being increased to 102 units. Siemens
indicated that there was no change to the unit price of the propulsion units as a result
of the additional 2 units.
Siemens provided two options that more evenly distribute the
expenditures over the duration of the
contract, compared to their original bid. The total
amount for 102 units is $26,146,639.20 for Option 1 and is $28,147,073.40 for
Option 2. (Refer to the attached Appendix
A for details). Staff
confirmed that there are sufficient funds budgeted in the 2005-2009 Capital Program to accommodate
either of these options.
Staff
performed a net present value (NPV) analysis to compare the two options, which revealed Option 1 has a NPV that is
approximately $807,000 lower
than Option 2.
Staff also compared the NPV of Siemens original bid amount
(adjusted to 102 units) to their Option 1 for 102 units, which
revealed the NPV of Option 1 is
approximately $21,000 lower than the NPV of Siemens original bid. This is a
result of a more favorable exchange rate offered by Siemens for the options
compared to the rate offered in their original bid.
Staff further reviewed and clarified Siemens technical proposal in detail, and it is
considered acceptable. Their proposal is also considered commercially
acceptable, and they are
recommended for award of contract based on the payment terms of Option 1.
The upset limit amount of $29,650,000 includes
$3,500,000 for spare
maintenance parts and optional equipment once
requirements have been determined, and to accommodate any change
orders which may arise during the design review phase of the
contract.
DISCUSSION
At its meeting of June 22, 2005, the Commission approved a staff report
entitled Future Streetcar Fleet Requirements and Plans. The report recommended that the Commission
approve proceeding immediately with the process of procuring new streetcars
for the TTC
. and note that, in order to make the TTC streetcar service
accessible to people with mobility difficulties, the most-practical approach is
to accelerate the procurement and introduction of new streetcars which would be
low-floor and fully accessible
At its meeting of November
28, 2005, the Commission approved a status report on Accessible Transit
Services Plan. In the report, staff
recognized that making the TTCs streetcar fleet accessible will likely be the
last component to be completed in the TTCs plans to make all its services and
facilities accessible. Staff also made
reference to the June 22, 2005
Commission approval which authorized staff to proceed immediately with the
process required to procure new accessible streetcars, while recognizing the
long-term funding for this initiative has not been secured.
Vehicle Modifications Required to Make CLRVs Accessible
Concurrently,
TTC
staff conducted extensive research, including
discussions with the Office of Accessibility at APTA, and the UITP Task Force
leader who chaired the Guideline for European Internal Market for Light Rail
System on Accessibility, into the means of
making the current streetcar fleet accessible. These measures have included construction of high-level
platforms comparable to that found at GO
train platforms, changing the grade of streetcar tracks at streetcar loading
platforms to equalize the streetcar floor level with the platform, the use of
low-floor wheelchair accessible trailers attached to streetcars, and the
retrofitting of the current streetcars with lifts. Preliminary studies suggested that investigative effort should focus
on on-board wheelchair lifts, in general, as a
potential device to overcome the many technical constraints
encountered in changing loading platforms or incorporating low floor trailers. A summary of the
research results on wheelchair
lifts is
attached in Appendix 1. It should be noted that all lift types
generated varying degrees of concerns, from economical units
requiring extensive manual manipulation of flaps and guards to larger systems
requiring substantial changes to both carbody and undercar structure, and
equipment case relocation. Three
possible lift installation locations were considered: front door, rear door and
a dedicated access door.
·
The Front Door Option
The front door location for
a wheelchair lift would result in the cleanest installation from a vehicle
interior aspect but a satisfactory lift could not be identified. The two
possible lift types that could be utilized at the front step entryway are a
step conversion lift or an undercar cartridge lift. The custom design of a 3-step
conversion lift would make it a very expensive and unreliable choice. The second
option, a cartridge style lift, is not possible due to the
presence of the centre sill for the coupler for multiple unit operation. Front door lift is therefore not an option;
·
Rear Door Option
Due to the presence of undercar equipment cases,
in-stair installation of lift equipment in the rear door is physically
impossible. A swing-out floor-mount lift as adopted by Southeastern
Philadelphia Transit Authority (SEPTA) on 18 PCC streetcars was reviewed by
Senior Management but discounted due to concerns about operational difficulty,
unacceptable time for deployment and retrieval, and potential occupational
hazards;
·
Dedicated Access
Door Option
The dedicated access door option is technically
feasible and affords acceptable reliability and maintainability, albeit being the most costly
and labour
intensive option as it requires an opening to be cut into the vehicle skin
and its structural carlines (ribs). Modifications
to the vehicle structure and the installation of a slide and plug door with the
necessary door operator mechanism can be made, although further
analysis to the structural integrity design needs to be conducted. A lift from Ricon or Maxon Mobility sometimes
used on highway coaches can be modified and fitted onto the interior floor
of the vehicle.
One major concern of
this option is the safety of persons on the lift, when deployed from a 920 mm
high car floor, reaching out to the ground level in the path of automobile
traffic, where no service stop island exists.
The attached two diagrams depict the location of the lift (immediately
behind the front entrance), and the general geometry of this style of
lift. A preliminary engineering
assessment of this modification is attached in Appendix 2.
The cost for on-vehicle
modification is estimated to be approximately $80,000 per car, or $15.7 million
dollars for the fleet of 196 CLRVs.
Maintenance cost and operational impact have not been evaluated.
Review by Independent
Consultant
To ensure
that staff have researched all reasonable and available venues, and taken the
necessary steps to assess their relative merits, an
independent consultant firm, Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., with special
expertise in accessibility issues was retained. The following is an excerpt of
the Executive Summary of the consultants report, along with its comparison
matrix.
Booz
Allen supports the comprehensive evaluation performed by TTC Surface Vehicle
Engineering. There are no regulatory
requirements mandating TTC convert its CLRVs to be accessible. However, the TTC has made commitments to
improving accessibility. It is
technically possible, albeit complex, to implement a wheelchair lift on the
CLRVs, however, the TTC must still address the concern of getting wheelchair
and non-ambulatory passengers to and from the CLRV in wayside traffic. After reviewing the internal documentation
provided and conducting an independent analysis of the alternatives, it is
apparent that there is no ideal solution to make the CLRV accessible.
The
TTC identified four on-vehicle mounted wheelchair lift alternatives, as well as
wayside improvements to implement wheelchair accessibility. Of the on-vehicle lift alternatives, the
floor mounted lift provides for safe and reliable wheelchair accessibility to
the CLRV. However it would require modification
to the CLRV for an additional access door, resulting in a permanent loss of
seating at the wheelchair lift location and does not fully address the safety
concerns of loading/unloading in wayside traffic, particularly at
non-platformed service stops.
Installation
of wayside wheelchair ramps improves wayside safety and provides level boarding
for wheelchair and non-ambulatory passengers.
Unfortunately not all streetcar stops can accommodate a wayside ramp,
and the logistics of implementing wayside improvements can be time consuming.
Wayside Changes
The majority of the TTCs
streetcar service stops do not have service islands. Deployment of a wheelchair lift on these
routes will require assurance that the person requiring the use of the lift can
be transported safely in the path of automobile traffic. Modifications to the curbside stop may also
be required to allow non-ambulatory persons to get down to the roadway, and to
the streetcar. Some form of demarcation
or signal system may be required.
Deployment of a wheelchair lift at service stops with service islands
would require significant widening and changes to the ramps.
The TTC has included in the
2006-2010 Capital Budget a project entitled Streetcar Network Upgrades for
LRT. This project is scheduled to commence this year to evaluate the
work required, and the cost estimates, to upgrade the streetcar network to
accommodate new low floor LRT cars. Most
of the civil work for routes with no service platform will be common to both
CLRVs with lift and low floor vehicles.
For routes with service platforms, the major difference will be that the
lateral reach (extension) of the platform on a low floor car is significantly
reduced due to the low floor height being only approximately 350 mm above the
top-of-rail, compared to 920 mm on a CLRV.
Workscope definition and cost
estimate for these changes will be prepared in 2007, with some
rough-order-magnitude estimates available in 2006.
Conclusion
Based on staffs research on the means
of making the current streetcar fleet accessible,
and discussions with the Office of Accessibility at
APTA, the UITP Task Force leader on Guideline for European Internal Market for
Light Rail System on Accessibility, and other transit properties in North
America, and on consideration that:
·
there exists a significant safety concern for people
in a wheelchair or on crutches on a 920 mm high lift while in the path of
automobile traffic, particularly at non-platformed stops;
·
the only technically feasible lift device would cost
approximately $80,000 per car, or 15.7 million dollars for the fleet of 196
CLRVs; and,
·
the increased operating costs due to increased headway
and higher demand for vehicles to maintain the same service level due to the
deployment time required for lift operation,
staff conclude that this is not a
practical objective and recommend that this not be pursued
further.
To improve vehicle availability and reliability,
replacement of the unreliable propulsion control system is necessary to meet
the main objective of CLRV Life Extension Program. The new system will also address
maintainability problems experienced on a 30-year old design and incorporate
provisions for multiple unit operation.
To improve
on customer
service, ridership attraction and operator
comfort, and to reduce fog-up of the
front windshield and entrance door glazing for safer operation on hot and humid
days, the installation of an air-conditioning system on
the life-extended CLRV is justified. The
incorporation of an air-conditioning system
on the CLRVs, rebuilt to extend their life by 10 to 15 years, is consistent
with the Commissions policy to furnish all new vehicles with an
air-conditioning system.
- - - - - - - - - - -
FebruaryAugust 15September
38, 20065
59-84
Attachments: Appendix 1
Preliminary Feasibility Assessment Wheelchair Lift
Appendix 2 Preliminary
Implementation Investigation Report
