GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[TOareaFan]

It's in no way an optimal solution, and I wasn't necessarily convincing myself it would work, but it would form the basis for a joint use agreement short of exchanging title to any land. It was more in the spirit of how one might increase the leverage on CN to get past whatever objections they have - which seem a little petty in the context of hourly night and weekend service.

what are their objections? how can you call them petty if we don't know what they are?....and, since they own the track, I am not sure that they have to justify their objections.

 

[crs1026]

I don't know what the objections are, but the amount of disruption to their operations by routing GO trains into the Platform 4 stub track at Bramalea on a half hourly basis is very minimal. Their use of Track 3 from Peel to Bramalea is also pretty minimal. I can't imagine what GO is impacting there.

You are correct, since they own the line they can say whatever they like. ML is the ones who don't seem to have moved this very far.

https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2007/06/moveontario-2020-projects.html

http://www.newswire.ca/news-release...d-rail-link-to-pearson-airport-537011401.html

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

Forget about 2024.....in their April 2016 budget document they promised pretty significant service improvements to be in place prior to March 31, 2017.....and those promises were made knowing exactly where they were in negotiations...and the budget page did not place any conditions or caveats about the CN negotiations ( http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2016/bk2.html ). Obviously that date has passed.

Haven't forgot about offpeak. That's why I referenced in the next sentence beginning with "As discussed". Also, I'm not sure why the Minister of Finance staff/Ministry/whoever decided to do this, but the link you provided to a HTML version of the promise (which can be downloaded as a PDF) doesn't list the caveats but the longer and complete version of the budget in the PDF does list them where it says "dependent" and then "negotiations". I'm sure some would argue that the Ministry/political staff did this on purpose to bury the extra text.

It certainly creates communication confusion when one document/webpage/flyer thing has information but the actual budget book/pdf/"all_papers" has more information. Since we know CN had to be involved, the Ministry should have listed that on everything. I also don't see what the harm would be in naming the specific company involved, CN Rail, to add great clarity.

 

[johntauren]

I don't know what the objections are, but the amount of disruption to their operations by routing GO trains into the Platform 4 stub track at Bramalea on a half hourly basis is very minimal. Their use of Track 3 from Peel to Bramalea is also pretty minimal. I can't imagine what GO is impacting there.

- Paul

Speaking of platform four, there hasn't really been much work at all on it since last summer.
I mean, they probably couldn't do much over winter, but it's virtually in the same state as it was on Labour Day.

So, what exactly are they doing?

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

It may be "on ML" but since none of us know what conditions CN is looking to impose to allow additional service I am not sure how you/we/I can say that.

What I have said in the past, and will repeat now, is that it seems to be a very poor negotiating strategy to take a line...most of it CN has no/little use for anymore and agree to pay hundreds of millons of taxpayer dollars for those parts that CN wants to sell but allow them to keep the bit in the middle...the bit that they have a very large use for and very little incentive to sell. To do that is akin to playing poker but once you see that you have 3 aces in your hand volunteering to hand them over the table to your counterpart.

All the power in this negotiation sits with CN......and it should be no surprise that it is hard for them to reach an agreement....they got the money they wanted (while retaining running rights even on those sections they sold) and now have ML held for ransom because the section with the most riders on the line....the middle bit (without which the eastern and western portions have very little value) remain firmly in their control.

So, no, we do not know what CN is demanding of ML to allow more trains on more days for more hours....but it is very sad that we got to this point in the first place.

It is like Metrolinx bought a house.....but left the driveway and walkway in the hands of the previous owner....who parked a truck on them!

You're right. But the fact is like you said, this should have been done.

And paid to widen the driveway to make it wide enough to park the truck on, based on the vendor's promise that the driveway would be shared "equitably".

ML apparently paid to widen the Credit River bridge, the single track section through Brampton, and the trackage from Peel to Bramalea without securing rights to make full use of these additions. And they arranged the new interlockings in such a way that CN controls how the new track is operated.

A fairly obvious modification to the trackage at Halwest would allow GO to have exclusive use of the stub-end platform track at Bramalea without treading on CN trackage. Three new crossovers - one at Peel, and one at Brampton, one at Georgetown - would put CN's track back to the way it was before GO came on the scene. Go takes exclusive use of the Track 3 Halwest to Peel, the south track through Brampton, the south track over the Credit, and completes the third span of the Credit bridge, tieing it into Track 3 at either end. That would give GO a single track with unfettered use as far as Georgetown plus a passing siding at the Credit River. The only fly in the ointment would be crossing over to the north side for acces to the GO yard and the Guelph Sub. Frankly, CN does not have enough freight trains on the line for that to create more than short periods of delay even if GO had no rights over freights at that crossover.

CN would likely refuse, but that court case would probably have a better chance of success than say cancelling an LRT procurement, and ML has no hesitation to that one. Far, far cheaper than building a bypass.

Just spitballing.

- Paul

I think another bypass would be a big cost. If we don't need to do it then don't imo.

Forget about 2024.....in their April 2016 budget document they promised pretty significant service improvements to be in place prior to March 31, 2017.....and those promises were made knowing exactly where they were in negotiations...and the budget page did not place any conditions or caveats about the CN negotiations ( http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2016/bk2.html ). Obviously that date has passed.

Haven't forgot about offpeak. That's why I referenced in the next sentence beginning with "As discussed". Also, I'm not sure why the Minister of Finance staff/Ministry/whoever decided to do this, but the link you provided to a HTML version of the promise (which can be downloaded as a PDF) doesn't list the caveats but the longer and complete version of the budget in the PDF does list them where it says "dependent" and then "negotiations". I'm sure some would argue that the Ministry/political staff did this on purpose to bury the extra text.

It certainly creates communication confusion when one document/webpage/flyer thing has information but the actual budget book/pdf/"all_papers" has more information. Since we know CN had to be involved, the Ministry should have listed that on everything. I also don't see what the harm would be in naming the specific company involved, CN Rail, to add great clarity.

I think we need some serious clarity. If Metrolinx wasn't going to meet the deadlines, why make them public.

 

[Allandale25]

You're right. But the fact is like you said, this should have been done.


I think another bypass would be a big cost. If we don't need to do it then don't imo.


I think we need some serious clarity. If Metrolinx wasn't going to meet the deadlines, why make them public.

It's my view that the budget was written by the politicians/political staff and not Metrolinx staff. Even if Metrolinx had concerns and said, "we're not sure we can get far with CN in the coming year", the political folks have the ability to veto/ignore that advice. Just like when they set the UP Express fares and directed that UP provide full cost recovery - something no other transit agency in Ontario is asked to do. So it's my view that the language in Budget 2016 and any subsequent comms on this is the responsibility of the elected government and not the agency staff. Without being on the inside or having anything else public I put the onus on the government/political staff (IE staff provided unrealistic information to the political folks and they put the language in the budget).

 

[TOareaFan]

Haven't forgot about offpeak. That's why I referenced in the next sentence beginning with "As discussed". Also, I'm not sure why the Minister of Finance staff/Ministry/whoever decided to do this, but the link you provided to a HTML version of the promise (which can be downloaded as a PDF) doesn't list the caveats but the longer and complete version of the budget in the PDF does list them where it says "dependent" and then "negotiations". I'm sure some would argue that the Ministry/political staff did this on purpose to bury the extra text.

If the population of Ontario is 100......I would bet less than 20 of them ever went to the budget web page (so the only knowledge of the promise is what they heard Sousa say/read in the house that day)....of those 20 that might have gone to the web page....I bet no more than 1 read the actual budget...they would have no reason to suspect their government would slip in an asterisk in one document that was not in the most accessible form of the information.

 

[Allandale25]

If the population of Ontario is 100......I would bet less than 20 of them ever went to the budget web page (so the only knowledge of the promise is what they heard Sousa say/read in the house that day)....of those 20 that might have gone to the web page....I bet no more than 1 read the actual budget...they would have no reason to suspect their government would slip in an asterisk in one document that was not in the most accessible form of the information.

Fully agree that a very, very small percentage of people would have downloaded the complete budget PDF, or looked at the complete HMLRT version (which is a third link for this topic). That's why I said it's a comms issue that should not have happened. It's also why GO stations themselves could become much better at providing a source for communication. It wouldn't be that hard to have one dedicate board that had all the information in one place.

I'll certainly keep my eye peeled for any future transit-related differences in the docs when Budget 2017 comes out.

The next Metrolinx Board meeting isn't until June, so that unfortunately might be the next opportunity to hear news on Kitchener-related construction/studies, or the other lines.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

It's my view that the budget was written by the politicians/political staff and not Metrolinx staff. Even if Metrolinx had concerns and said, "we're not sure we can get far with CN in the coming year", the political folks have the ability to veto/ignore that advice. Just like when they set the UP Express fares and directed that UP provide full cost recovery - something no other transit agency in Ontario is asked to do. So it's my view that the language in Budget 2016 and any subsequent comms on this is the responsibility of the elected government and not the agency staff. Without being on the inside or having anything else public I put the onus on the government/political staff (IE staff provided unrealistic information to the political folks and they put the language in the budget).

It's weird to me because they got from hourly to half hour service on lakeshore pretty quickly. I know they own that, but they own most of the Brampton Corridor, except for that one part. Given that there is enough to run hourly service between Mt Pleasant and Toronto, I am only left to speculate what the hold up is like @TOareaFan has said.

 

[salsa]

 

[Megaton327]

View attachment 104992

Wow, it's been at least a day or two since the last one, I was starting to worry about the minister!

 

[salsa]

Wow, it's been at least a day or two since the last one, I was starting to worry about the minister!

Yes what a relief. I really wonder what already-announced thing he wants to re-announce.

 

[crs1026]

It's weird to me because they got from hourly to half hour service on lakeshore pretty quickly. I know they own that, but they own most of the Brampton Corridor, except for that one part. Given that there is enough to run hourly service between Mt Pleasant and Toronto, I am only left to speculate what the hold up is like @TOareaFan has said.

To get to half hourly, there was plenty of heavy lifting done to complete a third track from Union to Scarboro Jct and from Port Credit to Aldershot. The difference is that there was no interference to CN freight. It was not cheap but there was far less political grandstanding.....it quietly got done. Back then, GO was a very competent organization that benefitted from being smaller, more austere, and more focussed. It was the creation of the larger ML organization with its mandate to be all things and know all that has made things much less effective.

- Paul

 

[wopchop]

He is almost certainly going to announce that they are approaching 1/3 of the way complete for the new GO Transit Control Centre, right?

 

[Amare]

^That's exactly what my assumption was. That, or he'll announce they will be adding parking spaces to serve the new GO Transit Control Centre. This minister is a joke.