GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[crs1026]

Reece is not wrong on this one, just a little late to the party. The tight curvature and related speed restriction is pretty desperate. I don't see this decision being reversed, however.

I would draw his lines a little differently, because one would likely want to retain the two existing platforms - so the new track would have to start further west in order to place the turnouts properly. And his green lines look a little short of the 1200 feet of relatively uncurved platform space required. Probably a little more land would be needed.

It sure seems like an elevated guideway might work here. Put the station platform on stilts and preserve the parking underneath. The construction of the "tight" curve must be costly and building anything over the 401 will be complicated. So not really that much more costly than the current plan.

But, likely a fantasy proposition given current procurement having already gone as far as it has.

- Paul

 

[Bojaxs]

Good on Reece! Keep pumping out the hit pieces on Metrolinx, and their inability to truly understand rapid transit. He should do another piece on the Hamilton LRT and how scrapping the 403 bridge for two tight turns on Dundurn st. is going to be a disaster for the line. Slowing down the trams and putting more stress on the wheels, etc.

The removal of a good chunk of the parking lot at the Oshawa Station during construction would not go over very well with the current users of the station.

Consolidate the parking. Construct a parking garage at Oshawa GO. Then we wouldn't lose as much parking with Reece's proposal.

 

[Sauga89]

Reece is not wrong on this one, just a little late to the party. The tight curvature and related speed restriction is pretty desperate. I don't see this decision being reversed, however.

I would draw his lines a little differently, because one would likely want to retain the two existing platforms - so the new track would have to start further west in order to place the turnouts properly. And his green lines look a little short of the 1200 feet of relatively uncurved platform space required. Probably a little more land would be needed.

It sure seems like an elevated guideway might work here. Put the station platform on stilts and preserve the parking underneath. The construction of the "tight" curve must be costly and building anything over the 401 will be complicated. So not really that much more costly than the current plan.

But, likely a fantasy proposition given current procurement having already gone as far as it has.

- Paul

With the caveat that this is fantasy now, why go to the expense of building and maintaining elevated platforms?

Wouldn't it be better/cheaper just to build a crossover from CN to CP somewhere farther east? Then you could close the current Oshawa GO completely. If it's poorly located for GO, it must be poorly located for VIA.

Apologies if this has been said before. I couldn't find anything in a UT search.

 

[crs1026]

With the caveat that this is fantasy now, why go to the expense of building and maintaining elevated platforms?

Wouldn't it be better/cheaper just to build a crossover from CN to CP somewhere farther east? Then you could close the current Oshawa GO completely. If it's poorly located for GO, it must be poorly located for VIA.

Apologies if this has been said before. I couldn't find anything in a UT search.

ML has a longstanding attachment to having a closer-to-downtown route in Oshawa. And (at least at the moment when the extension was being seriously planned "once and for all" after a lengthy routing debate) did not want to undermine the money spent to build the "new" Oshawa terminal.

All this after shelving the original route idea which would have bypassed the current Oshawa station location altogether.

Putting the crossover further east makes eminent sense, but would put an end to a considerable effort by ML to acquire land and engineer a route thru Central Oshawa while trying to preserve the current station locationl

I'm not trying to make logic out of any of this, but that's the history in a nutshell. The old adage: If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.

- Paul

 

[EnviroTO]

The route that goes diagonal rather than trying to use the auto plant rail bridge alignment was the original alignment. In that design the stop at Oshawa "WTF Durham College" station would not have been part of the GO route instead using a Thickson Corners station. It made sense because it was a more direct route that would allow trains to move at a normal speed. Having two GO stations basically serving opposite sides of the freeway in the same location is nuts. It is literally the same exit on the freeway. There are corridors in airports that take passengers further than 850m. It defies logic.

 

[Northern Light]

Let me suggest, on the subject above, @Reecemartin's issue w/the tight curvature.......

He's not wrong..........

But may be overlooking secondary motivations for the alignment.

I would suggest that development opportunity may be a consideration. Its easy to see why. Though, I would argue, that would still be ill considered even if that motivation were primary.

I think a faster line that hits key marks, near redevelopable lands could be found to the west and be at least as interesting if not more so.

To be clear, I don't expect the choice here to be revisited, for better or worse. But I'll throw this out anways:

Justification:

Shorter distance

Gentler curve.

Leaves existing Oshawa GO/VIA station where it is.

Allows for a Station at Simcoe, close to downtown.

Concentrates new development opportunity next to GO Station and Simcoe which is also likely a future higher-order transit corridor.

The routing is slightly sub optimal, but I was seeking to minimize adverse impact o the valley lands.

 

[Sauga89]

ML has a longstanding attachment to having a closer-to-downtown route in Oshawa. And (at least at the moment when the extension was being seriously planned "once and for all" after a lengthy routing debate) did not want to undermine the money spent to build the "new" Oshawa terminal.

All this after shelving the original route idea which would have bypassed the current Oshawa station location altogether.

Putting the crossover further east makes eminent sense, but would put an end to a considerable effort by ML to acquire land and engineer a route thru Central Oshawa while trying to preserve the current station locationl

I'm not trying to make logic out of any of this, but that's the history in a nutshell. The old adage: If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.

- Paul

I was actually referring to a second crossover just for VIA to use to access the new Ritson Rd GO, but I think you answered my question anyway. Much appreciated.
It sounds like a mess.

 

[Metroscapes]

New post by Reece. I'd be surprised if any changes happen at this point, given the design work taking place and the appetite for a larger budget.

Another Affront to Speed.

Another Slow Toronto Transit Project in the Works.

nextmetro.substack.com

In short, he wants to see this:



Instead of:

Reece is not wrong on this one, just a little late to the party. The tight curvature and related speed restriction is pretty desperate. I don't see this decision being reversed, however.

I would draw his lines a little differently, because one would likely want to retain the two existing platforms - so the new track would have to start further west in order to place the turnouts properly. And his green lines look a little short of the 1200 feet of relatively uncurved platform space required. Probably a little more land would be needed.

It sure seems like an elevated guideway might work here. Put the station platform on stilts and preserve the parking underneath. The construction of the "tight" curve must be costly and building anything over the 401 will be complicated. So not really that much more costly than the current plan.

But, likely a fantasy proposition given current procurement having already gone as far as it has.

- Paul

ML has a longstanding attachment to having a closer-to-downtown route in Oshawa. And (at least at the moment when the extension was being seriously planned "once and for all" after a lengthy routing debate) did not want to undermine the money spent to build the "new" Oshawa terminal.

All this after shelving the original route idea which would have bypassed the current Oshawa station location altogether.

Putting the crossover further east makes eminent sense, but would put an end to a considerable effort by ML to acquire land and engineer a route thru Central Oshawa while trying to preserve the current station locationl

I'm not trying to make logic out of any of this, but that's the history in a nutshell. The old adage: If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.

- Paul

Pulling from the 2011 EPR. Current Oshawa GO (or whatever its sponsored name is) was to be replaced immediately to the north. Way better curvature here.

 

[reaperexpress]

Let me suggest, on the subject above, @Reecemartin's issue w/the tight curvature.......

He's not wrong..........

But may be overlooking secondary motivations for the alignment.

I would suggest that development opportunity may be a consideration. Its easy to see why. Though, I would argue, that would still be ill considered even if that motivation were primary.

I think a faster line that hits key marks, near redevelopable lands could be found to the west and be at least as interesting if not more so.

To be clear, I don't expect the choice here to be revisited, for better or worse. But I'll throw this out anways:

View attachment 706808

Justification:

Shorter distance

Gentler curve.

Leaves existing Oshawa GO/VIA station where it is.

Allows for a Station at Simcoe, close to downtown.

Concentrates new development opportunity next to GO Station and Simcoe which is also likely a future higher-order transit corridor.

The routing is slightly sub optimal, but I was seeking to minimize adverse impact o the valley lands.

This alignment still has extremely tight curves. If we want to maintain any semblance of a comprable timeline, it probably makes more sense to promote the alignment that Metrolinx was going to use before going on their wild cost-cutting exercise that would also decimate the potential benefits of the project. Their previous alignment with a realignment west of Oshawa had much wider curves.

 

[crs1026]

The other vaccilation that (mis)informed this plan was the service plan for Bowmanville, which at times has on the one hand been only five or so peak direction only trains, and at other times has been presented as a full extension of LSE 2WAD with the minimum headways.

A bypass around the existing station makes a lot of sense if the peak only service is the end plan.... just interleave these trains with the Oshawa service and maybe make them express at some point towards Union.

A bypass also makes sense if you envision a 2WAD model where not all trains need to go all the way to Bowmanville, Maybe every second train terminates at Oshawa using the existing station. If headways reduce to 15 or 10 minutes, this is service as good or better than today to the "old" station and probably adequate service for downtown Oshawa and points east of there. Bowmanville-Newcastle is developing density but not to the extent of points further west.

Running the full build LSE around those tight curves and out to Bowmanville just seems like a desperate solution to fulfill all needs. And a desperate way to avoid the embarassment of having rebuilt Oshawa's depot only to move out of it.

Oh, and the whole idea was to have a transfer point to VIA....but Alto will not stop there, so that ship is sailing anyways.

- Paul

 

[Metroscapes]

Oh, and the whole idea was to have a transfer point to VIA....but Alto will not stop there, so that ship is sailing anyways.

VIA Corridor service will remain 𝖺̶𝖿̶𝗍̶𝖾̶𝗋̶ if Alto is built, but that's a minor quibble tangential to this discussion.

 

[crs1026]

VIA Corridor service will remain 𝖺̶𝖿̶𝗍̶𝖾̶𝗋̶ if Alto is built, but that's a minor quibble tangential to this discussion.

My not so minor quibble is whether we can trust the promise to maintain the corridor service if/when... but that's for another thread.

- Paul

 

[PShells]

https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/upload/Images/Metrolinx/Ontario%20Line/JC_LSE_Early_Works_CLC_Meeting_Dec11_2025_FINAL.pdf

Page 21

The Dundas and Logan bridges are expected to be complete by March.

At one point I was hopeful that 3rd and 4th tracks could be laid once the four bridges were completed while maintaining a safe work zone from OL construction, but I don't think these tracks can be laid until East Harbour station is completed.

 

[giantorangehead]

https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/upload/Images/Metrolinx/Ontario%20Line/JC_LSE_Early_Works_CLC_Meeting_Dec11_2025_FINAL.pdf

Page 21

The Dundas and Logan bridges are expected to be complete by March.

At one point I was hopeful that 3rd and 4th tracks could be laid once the four bridges were completed while maintaining a safe work zone from OL construction, but I don't think these tracks can be laid until East Harbour station is completed.

Any hope for just a third track in the meantime?

 

[crs1026]

Any hope for just a third track in the meantime?

No, once all the bridgework and sound walls are in place there will be enough separation to lay both tracks at the same time.

But, as noted, the choke point is East Harbour. Wouldn't surprise me if they will build in stages - ie build the north side first, then route the two active tracks through that side, and build the south side where the active tracks currently sit. In any event there will be displacement of the tracks with a new curvature.

I'm not so sure having 3 or 4 tracks west of Danforth even matters considering there will be only 2 tracks from Danforth to Scarborough Jct once work begins on Danforth station and the Birchmount overpass. It's going to be a long process.

- Paul