Blog  November 13, 2011

MOVE Charrette: Making sense of the Mega-Metro

At the beginning of day two, the Mega-Metro team’s goal was to define the region by making a map and identifying the hubs, nodes, connections, etc. However, we still had some questions including: “What to do with the 401 and should we try to use the lake?”; “Do we need a high-speed train?”; “How do we incorporate the ecological system?”; “What are we moving—people, ideas, goods?”; or even “Could we keep freight on the ground rather than sending it by air (important impact on the GHG emissions)?” We also thought that looking at some “what if” scenarios could be a really interesting perspective.

These questions led us to identify the considerations for the project: using existing networks and infrastructures, enhancing connections, reducing congestion, removing bottlenecks, reducing  emissions, improving or removing the borders and using new technology. At the same time, we created maps that represent major roads, export/import with major urban centers and countries, etc. It was important for the team to develop these maps in order to explain why we chose that particular mega region.

It was also important that we frame the significant risks of not acting. And they are considerable:

• Growing pressure on agricultural lands, including the region’s greenbelt (due to the development of more highways);
• Reduced population density;
• Increased congestion and commute times;
• Deteriorating quality of life.

Then, we presented our work to our advisors.

(Pause: the Mega-Metro team really wants to thank our advisors and special guest for all their feedback, recommendations and advice; it was more than helpful, it was essential:

• Ken Greenberg, Greenberg Consultant Inc.
• Philip H. Masters, Head, ITS Program Section, Ontario Ministry of Transportation
• Gene Chartier, P.Eng, Senior Manager at Hatch Mott MacDonald
• Michael Sutherland, Manager, Investment Strategy & Project Evaluation, Metrolinx
• Craig Covil, ARUP.)

Using our esteemed advisors’ recommendations, we decided to separate the work into four categories: Air, Water, Rail and Road; and put into perspective these different modes of transportation with the considerations that we identified earlier in the day. And I have to say that at the beginning of the day we weren’t sure of where we were going or how we should work on the map and organize it, but at the end of the day the result was quite amazing and interesting for two days work.

By day’s end, we were able to articulate a vision for the mega region:

• Existing infrastructure and networks form the basis for future growth
• Boundaries are fluid and goods and people move with ease
• Transportation and infrastructure are flexible, adaptable and resilient
• New transit options take pressure off major urban centers and green spaces
• New hubs consolidate and streamline road, rail, air and water
• High speed train links major cities and supports a re-envisioned air network of long and short haul hubs
• Transportation efficiencies reduce costs, emissions and environmental impact
• Transportation and inter-modal transfers are seamless

During the evening, the Mega-Metro team worked hard on our concept’s presentation for the advisors on Sunday morning. We have decided to tell it from Jack’s perspective. Who’s that? Jack is the youngest member of the Mega-Metro team and at 15 (!) he’s the most likely to benefit from our 2040 vision.