GO 2.0 Expansion Plan

[Northern Light]

@crs1026 is on point above.

This list does not represent anything in the hopper or even close. Zero budget is attached to any of these, except Bolton has a trickle, it is being slow-walked forward.

Of projects not yet under construction, that will see provincial funding, Milton (the existing route), and Sheppard are there.

***

The internal discussion list on next items thereafter or in addition to those 2 doesn't look like this list either.

 

[Sunnyside]

(Bucket of cold water deployed)

It’s important to remember that these planning documents describe options worth studying and not things we have committed to build.

Their utility lies in the comparison on some presumed standard metric that tries to articulate potential value versus cost and feasibility.

No one should look on this map as a vision of a fully developed, fully integrated network that will be around in 2051. The original Big Move kind of hinted at being that, but we have only gotten so far. And so many of the underlying assumptions and priorities have shifted, such that it’s not valid to try to fulfil it all.

So let the new debate begin. It will he interesting to see which items generate a consensus. Just remember that none of this discussion indicates approval or funding - yet.

- Paul

Precisely. It says right there these were studied options. It is nonetheless a big leak for the RTP to be effectively complete, and for options such as these to be included in the horizon. As @Northern Light implies, the full planning documents (RTP + Technical reports) are necessary to see the full picture.

In any case…

Based on how these business case-type assessments go, and given what we already know, I would put money on Bolton happening soon, and the 407 line having a background increase in priority, unless we see a REM-style timeline and external funding.

A low score/projection confirms minimal interest in Brantford GO. True viability aside, it seems it ain’t worth the squeeze. Even the Cambridge projects do not forecast particularly well, though It is Interesting that this prefer Milton-Cambridge than from Guelph, given that has local demand, but I digress.

For the orbital line, I have said since the MTO mapped it that this is a high cost high reward project whose only downside is its own scale (and the unbuilt connections it needs). It will be an appropriate upgrade for the GO bus network, and is only a matter of time. Moreover, it really should have never left Metrolinx’s plans.

It is too soon to say the what’s and why’s for the other items- for instance, midtown works are always shown on these documents, so I’ll need to see more than lines on a map.

 

[ARG1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1990928758505890061

View attachment 696613

View attachment 696614

I want to point out how seemingly absurd these numbers are. Richmond Hill in particular raises a massive eyebrow. At 2500 peak riders (so ~5000 round trip) that's less riders than what the Line had back in 2019, and this is a 2051 forecast under the assumption that the line is electrified, the line takes a shorter route via the leaside spur, and much of the corridor is upzoned particularly around RHC. I get that the numbers are probably impacted by the existence of the YNSE, but there is frankly no way that ridership will be LOWER than 2019 - that's almost nonsensical.

I'm not going to flat out accuse them of sandbagging an idea that likely came from upstairs, but I can't help myself from raising an eyebrow.

 

[TossYourJacket]

I want to point out how seemingly absurd these numbers are. Richmond Hill in particular raises a massive eyebrow. At 2500 peak riders (so ~5000 round trip) that's less riders than what the Line had back in 2019, and this is a 2051 forecast under the assumption that the line is electrified, the line takes a shorter route via the leaside spur, and much of the corridor is upzoned particularly around RHC. I get that the numbers are probably impacted by the existence of the YNSE, but there is frankly no way that ridership will be LOWER than 2019 - that's almost nonsensical.

I'm not going to flat out accuse them of sandbagging an idea that likely came from upstairs, but I can't help myself from raising an eyebrow.

Oh yeah, there's definitely a resistance inside these agencies towards ideas that break with their existing plans. For example when the TTC/City Planning didn't want to grade separate the Eglinton West LRT they invented the most insane station designs possible to "prove" it was bad. Like, the stations were all insanely overbuilt and ugly as hell. And to be fair, it's not just a Toronto problem, Translink in Vancouver has repeatedly tried to insist street-running LRT is somehow equal or maybe even better than Skytrain when there has been a push to turn their LRT plans into Skytrain lines, even though obviously a grade-separated automated metro is going to do a better job than a train running down the middle of the road and crossing intersections at grade.

 

[urbanclient]

I want to point out how seemingly absurd these numbers are. Richmond Hill in particular raises a massive eyebrow. At 2500 peak riders (so ~5000 round trip) that's less riders than what the Line had back in 2019, and this is a 2051 forecast under the assumption that the line is electrified, the line takes a shorter route via the leaside spur, and much of the corridor is upzoned particularly around RHC. I get that the numbers are probably impacted by the existence of the YNSE, but there is frankly no way that ridership will be LOWER than 2019 - that's almost nonsensical.

I'm not going to flat out accuse them of sandbagging an idea that likely came from upstairs, but I can't help myself from raising an eyebrow.

I really appreciate that you actually broke down the numbers behind their nonsensical forecasts. Surprised you haven't been upvoted more.

 

[nfitz]

I really appreciate that you actually broke down the numbers behind their nonsensical forecasts. Surprised you haven't been upvoted more.

Because their numbers are wrong - I don't know where they are getting them. In 2019 there were only 5,800 riders for the ENTIRE day - not per hour. So that's 2,900 per direction - over a 2.5 hour window.

2,500 PPHPD is almost about double the current ridership.

The results are very consistent with the 25-year modelling in the Big Move. This had a 1,200 PPHPD in the AM.

Either way - does it matter? None of the scenarios justifies the kind of upgrade necessary to increase service. I'd argue that after the Line 1 extension opens to Richmond Hill, that any service south of the TTC Richmond Hill station is neither necessary nor a good use of funds.

I'm curious though if they modelled the existing route, or the realignment which should increase ridership, with faster travel times, and a better potential for additional stations within Toronto.

 

[ARG1]

Because their numbers are wrong - I don't know where they are getting them. In 2019 there were only 5,800 riders for the ENTIRE day - not per hour. So that's 2,900 per direction - over a 2.5 hour window.

2,500 PPHPD is almost about double the current ridership.

In my head I lumped that 2900 as being a per hour figure and for that I was wrong, I apologize. These numbers do effectively predict a 200% ridership bump.

However, I do think that's still a massive underestimate. Richmond Hill as it stands gets a fairly raw deal since for much of its catchment area as it gets overshadowed by its more popular brother the Barrie Line. Even if you live closer to the Richmond Hill Line (much closer even), the line takes about 15m longer to reach Downtown compared to the Barrie Line, so for most people it simply makes more sense to drive to Maple/Rutherford than to deal with the Richmond Hill Line, and that's before you add on the fact that the Barrie Line runs during the later hours giving commuters the opportunity to stay behind either to get more work done or go to the pub to get drinks. I don't think it can be stressed enough how much of a boon it would be for the line to receive a non-garbage alignment and all day service. This is on top of just how much density and intensification RHC will be receiving in the coming years.

That being said, I'm not ignoring the elephant in the room that is the YNSE, which significantly reduces the possible benefits this upgrade will provide. An upgraded Richmond Hill Line will be a massive benefit to downtown commuters, but that's also the only destination that will be improved with this project. There's a reason why I have argued in the past that the YNSE makes a lot more sense economically than an upgraded Richmond Hill Line, and that's not a claim I'm going to disown just because the government in charge is considering it. This project almost certainly doesn't make much sense on its own, and only really makes sense if its brought in as a relatively cheap add-on to a Missing Link project that frees up the Midtown Corridor, or equivalent. My point though is that whilst I generally agree this project probably won't meet the criteria for significant examination, I have trouble believing that it is THIS BAD.

 

[JasonParis]

Many people disagree with me, but I still believe a west-side-of-the-Don stop for Richmond Hill trains at East Harbour could make a lot of sense—especially if the area evolves into a major commuter district. It doesn’t need to be built anytime soon, but it would be wise to at least preserve the option through long-term planning protections.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Worth bringing up this cartoon to emphasize that point.

View attachment 694065

Clearly the issue is the cars aren't executing the zipper merge properly /S

#10, the east-west line would be completely transformational for the region and this seems to be saying it's the next project in line as it's the only one to exceed the performance criteria. Forget tunnels and more highways, build this and connect so many of the regional centres and GO lines!

I've been saying this for years. As much if not more than the midtown line. This line would make E-W travel insanely more convenient.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

***Merged consecutive posts into one***

 

[urbanclient]

Because their numbers are wrong - I don't know where they are getting them. In 2019 there were only 5,800 riders for the ENTIRE day - not per hour. So that's 2,900 per direction - over a 2.5 hour window.

2,500 PPHPD is almost about double the current ridership.

The results are very consistent with the 25-year modelling in the Big Move. This had a 1,200 PPHPD in the AM.

The numbers are not wrong, at the very least not as badly as you make it sound....As you said, Richmond Hill line had 5,800 riders per day in 2019, but it only runs in the peak direction one-way, and only during rush hour. No weekend service. 2500+ ridership during AM peak is what the Richmond Hill line already had in 2019 from just 5 trains in the morning over 2 hours. To say ridership would not grow beyond 2500 or even double for the AM peak by 2051, when service would be two-way would range from near impossible to unlikely. The 2051 leak also doesn't say AM peak ridership per hour. AFAIK in the context of GO trains with clockface scheduling it's usually understood to be AM peak ridership in general, but Metrolinx insiders, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Instead of getting so heated every time you think someone has said something untrue, try being patient, read and think about what your fellow forum users mean to say and find the underlying data. This is definitely not the first time, nor am I the first person seeing you gloss over what people say and get riled up. When others correct your erroneous statements, they don't get nearly as annoyed, nor do they get as bashful and fail to acknowledge when they themselves are corrected.

The phase "fully funded" was also falsely used.

The initial estimated was 2.2B when Miller revealed the Transit City plan. By 2009 as the EA progressed, it was revised to 4.6B. Then they realized that 4.6B can only cover Weston to Kennedy. By that time, Queen's Park decided they need to take over the project to control cost and convert the spending into an investment in the books to balance the budget. By the time ML was ready to tender the project, it was expected to cost 5.5B. They tendered it with the 30 year maintenance attached at 9.1B. At that time, ML thought they got a deal as it was expecting 11B. Fast forward to 2018, it was at 11.8B. In 2022, the cost is revised to 12.8B and we still don't know how much they spent.

The Richmond Hill line isn't going to be upgraded (in a meaningful way) before other more important projects and your second point is plausible.

Either way - does it matter? None of the scenarios justifies the kind of upgrade necessary to increase service. I'd argue that after the Line 1 extension opens to Richmond Hill, that any service south of the TTC Richmond Hill station is neither necessary nor a good use of funds.

Richmond Hill 2019 schedule:

https://transittoronto.ca/archives/flyers/go-61-richmond-hill-20190105.pdf

GO Ridership 2019, note: Richmond Hill, Stouffville, and Milton ridership is averaged over 130 weekdays only, Richmond Hill averaged 5,900 riders every weekday:

Metrolinx Board Meeting: November 22, 2019

The Metrolinx Board met on November 22, 2019 with its usual mixed agenda of private session and public items. This article deals with the following public reports and mainly with the Kitchener and …

stevemunro.ca

 

[kaptrice]

The numbers are not wrong, at the very least not as badly as you make it sound....As you said, Richmond Hill line had 5,800 riders per day in 2019, but it only runs in the peak direction one-way, and only during rush hour. No weekend service. 2500+ ridership during AM peak is what the Richmond Hill line already had in 2019 from just 5 trains in the morning over 2 hours. To say ridership would not grow beyond 2500 or even double for the AM peak by 2051, when service would be two-way would range from near impossible to unlikely. The 2051 leak also doesn't say AM peak ridership per hour. AFAIK in the context of GO trains with clockface scheduling it's usually understood to be AM peak ridership in general, but Metrolinx insiders, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Instead of getting so heated every time you think someone has said something untrue, try being patient, read and think about what your fellow forum users mean to say and find the underlying data. This is definitely not the first time, nor am I the first person seeing you gloss over what people say and get riled up. When others correct your erroneous statements, they don't get nearly as annoyed, nor do they get as bashful and fail to acknowledge when they themselves are corrected.


The Richmond Hill line isn't going to be upgraded (in a meaningful way) before other more important projects and your second point is plausible.


Richmond Hill 2019 schedule:

https://transittoronto.ca/archives/flyers/go-61-richmond-hill-20190105.pdf

GO Ridership 2019, note: Richmond Hill, Stouffville, and Milton ridership is averaged over 130 weekdays only, Richmond Hill averaged 5,900 riders every weekday:

Metrolinx Board Meeting: November 22, 2019

The Metrolinx Board met on November 22, 2019 with its usual mixed agenda of private session and public items. This article deals with the following public reports and mainly with the Kitchener and …

stevemunro.ca

AM peak hour means the peak hour.

 

[nfitz]

AM peak hour means the peak hour.

Exactly.

With the then (2019) 5 trains running every 30 minutes (2.5 hours of AM service), that would mean the highest total of two consecutive trains. Assuming that the ridership is the same in each train, that would be 580 people per train - 1160 total. Probably higher, as you'd be unlikely to get the same ridership on each train.

When I said the future "2,500 PPHPD is almost about double the current ridership." I thought I was being generous! It could me more than double the current ridership (it would be interesting to see the 2025 ridership rather than the 2019 ridership, given they've cut back to only 4 trains in the AM (from 5) and 5 in the PM (from 7).

As I said - there numbers are wrong. This estimate more than double the current ridership. The only way that this makes sense to me is if the peak point moves from approaching Union southbound to approaching TTC Richmond Hill.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

My GO Future Plan (GFP)

1. Electrification of all lines within the boundaries of the amalgamated city of Toronto
2. Addition of infill stations within the city of Toronto. I earmarked stop spacing of about 2-3 km per station within Toronto. This puts the stations conveniently at Toronto ~2km apart concession road system and it no further apart than the furthest apart stations on the subway. This would obviously require EMU's to maintain satisfactory acceleration/top speed/deceleration, hence the electrification in point 1
3. Addition of new lines in sort of specific order:
   1. Midtown line from Kipling in the W to Oshawa in the East. However it would use the Belleville sub through Northern Durham rather than veering down to the lakeshore line.
   2. North Crosstown line from Pearson Airport in the West to Pickering Station in the East
   3. Bolton line from Union station to Bolton using the Mactier sub
   4. Myrtle/Brooklyn line on the Havelock sub. As part of a Peterborough to Toronto passenger rail line
4. Additional lines outside of Toronto:
   1. Hamilton to Guelph/Kitchener
   2. Brantford to Hamilton

 

[crs1026]

My GO Future Plan (GFP)

1. Electrification of all lines within the boundaries of the amalgamated city of Toronto
2. Addition of infill stations within the city of Toronto. I earmarked stop spacing of about 2-3 km per station within Toronto. This puts the stations conveniently at Toronto ~2km apart concession road system and it no further apart than the furthest apart stations on the subway. This would obviously require EMU's to maintain satisfactory acceleration/top speed/deceleration, hence the electrification in point 1
3. Addition of new lines in sort of specific order:
   1. Midtown line from Kipling in the W to Oshawa in the East. However it would use the Belleville sub through Northern Durham rather than veering down to the lakeshore line.
   2. North Crosstown line from Pearson Airport in the West to Pickering Station in the East
   3. Bolton line from Union station to Bolton using the Mactier sub
   4. Myrtle/Brooklyn line on the Havelock sub. As part of a Peterborough to Toronto passenger rail line
4. Additional lines outside of Toronto:
   1. Hamilton to Guelph/Kitchener
   2. Brantford to Hamilton

We all have our favourites, but my general test of your plan is - how does this order compare to
- needs for reduction in highway congestion,
- matching to density and population growth
- a fair balance for spending between 416 and 905
- achievable cash flows for capital investment

I would defer both Bolton and Havelock, and move forward regional connections to Niagara, Kitchener, London, and east of Durham.

- Paul