News   Nov 22, 2024
 655     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 1.2K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 3.1K     8 

GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

It's a shame Metrolinx didn't get the private sector involved with station development and construction from the very beginning. If they had been allowed to, all the stations would have been completed by now and they would be geared specifically for TOD development as the certainly wouldn't have built massive parking garages taking away land from potential TOD and if they were forced to build these Taj Mahal parking structure they sure as hell wouldn't be offering them free of charge.
 
Since this has come up on this thread and been discussed, comment by City of Brampton staff on a third track through downtown Brampton.

 
It's a shame Metrolinx didn't get the private sector involved with station development and construction from the very beginning. If they had been allowed to, all the stations would have been completed by now

About that...

The Record: Region taking on construction of transit terminal portion of hub in downtown Kitchener

But last November, regional council decided to part ways with the developer — the only one to put in a qualified submission — because its vision didn't align with the region's expectations. In a report presented to council on Tuesday, regional staff recommended breaking up the project into components and having the region get started immediately on building the transit infrastructure as the first phase.
 
It's a shame Metrolinx didn't get the private sector involved with station development and construction from the very beginning. If they had been allowed to, all the stations would have been completed by now and they would be geared specifically for TOD development as the certainly wouldn't have built massive parking garages taking away land from potential TOD and if they were forced to build these Taj Mahal parking structure they sure as hell wouldn't be offering them free of charge.

You mean like the first attempt to build a new station at Mimico? You know, the one where the development failed spectacularly and where the new station didn't end up getting built?

Dan
 
Since this has come up on this thread and been discussed, comment by City of Brampton staff on a third track through downtown Brampton.


Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V:

All Day 2 Way GO Transit:

All day, 2-way GO transit service in Brampton is important to the future growth of the downtown and City at large. To achieve all day 2-way go service, a 3rd rail track is required to be added to the existing rail infrastructure within the CN rail corridor. The proposed location and development of the CFI at 8 and 14 Nelson Street West will not preclude the ability to provide all day, 2-way GO transit service. While the relocation of Metrolinx buildings within the CN rail corridor may be required, the existing corridor appears sufficient to accommodate a 3rd rail track.

So something we already know. Yeah, you can shim a third track in there. It's just gonna be messy and expensive. The real question is if the province will bother. Given the petty vengence we've seen so far, not gonna happen while Brown is mayor.
 
The real question is if the province will bother. Given the petty vengeance we've seen so far, not gonna happen while Brown is mayor.
Even Brown aside, it wouldn't happen. It's clear that QP's agenda is to spend as little on anything possible, save for an advertising campaign against the Feds, and large sums to Con apparatchiks, and Metrolinx is running on inertia from the previous regime, not on anything it's received during or will receive later from this one...unless it's private investment. Even under Wynne, the mantra became DBFOM.
Union Station and GO RER: Metrolinx’s Phil Verster on the Future
Partners in Action: Expanding the GTHA Rapid Transit Network
Partners in Action: Expanding the GTHA Rapid Transit Network

The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships
presented:
WANTED:
Partners who can foster innovation, provide an exceptional customer experience and are performance and results driven.
One of the largest transit investment projects in the world is currently underway in Ontario. Driven by a variety of procurement models, including a Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain (DBFOM) procurement model for GO Transit and Light Rail, private sector partners will be needed to deliver an innovative approach to these world-class transit projects.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
11:30 AM - 2:00 PM
Sheraton Centre Toronto Hotel

123 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario
CCPPP Members: $89
Non-Members: $110
featuring

Ehren Cory Head Shot

Ehren Cory
President and CEO, Infrastructure Ontario
Phil Verster Head Shot

Phil Verster
President and CEO, Metrolinx


Ehren Cory Head Shot

Mark Romoff
President and CEO, The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships
https://www.pppcouncil.ca/web/Events/Event_Details.aspx?EventKey=RER
 
Last edited:
Cobourg and Port Hope already have half decent commuting options with VIA, that will be way faster and more usable than any 2+ hour GO ride would be.

Price-wise though, for a 100km distance would VIA be more usable than GO. Sure faster, but at what cost to the rider? Unless I've gotten the wrong impression and VIA does offer decent commuting fares comparable to GO.

^Cobourg is 60+ miles from Toronto. That really ought to be VIA’s domain. But for these intermediate distance commuting runs, perhaps GO ought to be partnering with VIA for regional service similar to American 403b services. London- Brantford- Toronto and London- Stratford- Toronto service is the same issue.

With HFR going nowhere, it would not be a bad thing if VIA/GO put some money into more triple track on CN between Belleville and Liverpool. Without adding track, CN will be as eager to host GO on the Kingston Sub as they are on the Halton Sub.

- Paul

PS - I have wondered if one agenda behind ML cancelling the LSE expansion was to put VIA’s feet to the fire for some federal funding for that. VIA will feel the effects of 15 minute service on LSE, and they are the tenant operator on the ML line.... and as GO ramps up its own service, VIA.becomes an unwanted guest. Perhaps ML has learned a thing or two from CN.

Maybe a bit o/t, but with the track talk and distance, got me thinking if the Prov ever considered asking CN and CP if they could be contracted GO partners. Their line, they operate it, but still under the GO banner. Mostly. Was looking at Metra and both their busiest and longest (100km) are operated by BNSF and UP respectively. Could similar work here, particularly if VIA doesn't up its game somewhat.
 
Price-wise though, for a 100km distance would VIA be more usable than GO. Sure faster, but at what cost to the rider? Unless I've gotten the wrong impression and VIA does offer decent commuting fares comparable to GO.

Reminds me of the old adage: "Sure we lose $1 a sale, but we make it up on volume". ;-)

Certainly, you can make the same money if you carry 100 passengers at $30 or 300 passengers at $10. Both price points would likely attract those volumes on routes 100 km from Toronto downtown. VIA's price point makes sense in relation to its available capacity .....VIA would lose its shirt if it ran the 300 seats all the way to Ottawa or Montreal, empty after Port Hope or Cobourg. And GO would not sell seats for the 100 km trip if the train stops every 6 kms along the way.
We need a hybrid for points over 50-60 kms from Union Station which makes the trip with minimal stops, offers a bit more in amenities and comfort than a GO coach, and has an end point that makes economic sense.

Maybe a bit o/t, but with the track talk and distance, got me thinking if the Prov ever considered asking CN and CP if they could be contracted GO partners. Their line, they operate it, but still under the GO banner. Mostly. Was looking at Metra and both their busiest and longest (100km) are operated by BNSF and UP respectively. Could similar work here, particularly if VIA doesn't up its game somewhat.

I'm not sure what you mean by "operate". CN and CP used to provide crews and supervise day to day execution of the GO service. Contracting that out has proved a better arrangement - GO was not well treated by CN, who could just pass any people problems back to GO. ML has contracted crew operations to Bombardier, and it's working not badly. ML is building a dispatching center to take that task away from CN and CP to the extent possible. Even that in-house dispatching may be contracted out in the big RFP procurement.

If you are meaning, why doesn't GO ask CN/CP to run the commuting train as a revenue business on a basis that is worth their while.... well, one freight train is 150 cars long and each car is generating thousands of dollars in revenue per car per trip. What would we have to charge as a fare to make a passenger train as profitable as that freight train? The only place that a passenger train does that is in the Rocky Mountains, with RMRT. Check out those fares.

- Paul
 
Price-wise though, for a 100km distance would VIA be more usable than GO. Sure faster, but at what cost to the rider? Unless I've gotten the wrong impression and VIA does offer decent commuting fares comparable to GO.

The cost of running a VIA train is not significantly different (per km) from a GO train; other than a few legacy head-office and union lineitems. If Ontario wants to subsidize that type of trip, it's likely much cheaper to pay part of a VIA fare for a few dozen individuals rather than running an entire train with 95% of seats empty.

20 1-way trips from Port Hope<->Union is $325. Boosting that to 44 trips (2 per weekday) for $450 would make it usable for a daily commute and be inline with GO fares (Oshawa<>Union is about $380 per month).

This would be an alternative to the typical GO Bus service which is used to grow ridership. If the number of VIA trips approaches 100 during peak periods then GO can start thinking about a train.
 
Last edited:
If the number of VIA trips approaches 100 during peak periods then GO can start thinking about a train.
Which begs the question of that Niagara Falls run. It seems to have disappeared off the radar of late. Note how that run is totally at odds with the convenient 'criteria' of "It must make a business case" for all other proposed expansion?

Edit: Just checked Google with a cursory search. Nada, nix, none on it. Anyone?
 
Which begs the question of that Niagara Falls run. It seems to have disappeared off the radar of late. Note how that run is totally at odds with the convenient 'criteria' of "It must make a business case" for all other proposed expansion?

Edit: Just checked Google with a cursory search. Nada, nix, none on it. Anyone?

There was a third party business case done for Niagara GO some years back. I will try to find it. I imagine that it tested value against a more marketable service than what Verster has put in place. The old Niagara Falls VIA commuter train filled 3-4 VIA coaches at a much higher fare than GO now charges, but it was moderately fast and had food/beverage service.

Certainly, the right kind of train would be competitive against a congested QEW... but what we have now is not that kind of train. Four years sooner but totally unusable is not something I would call a success.

- Paul
 
I was quoting line by line, only to realize I might as well post the whole thing, every line makes a worthy point.

I would normally support this 'toe in the water' as a fore-bearer of what could come, save that Metrolinx spins every which way whenever it wishes, apparently oblivious to what the other hand is saying at the same time.

I'm still trying to find some rationale in Verster's bafflegab on the LSE Bowmanville extension "peak service doesn't make a business case, all day 15 min does".???

I'm preaching to the many of the converted on this, so won't labour the bafflegab aspect, but will continue to look for how the Niagara Nighthawk is doing as per ridership. There were a few 'carefully chosen' local paper articles some months back, always the evening return, never the morning run. Can't find anything of late.

Addendum:
Found this one article, all the others (edit: That Google search shows) date back to early January or prior, at least this is only a month old:
Ontario budget: No GO news isn’t necessarily bad news, Niagara regional chair says
Provincial budget contained scant mention of GO service to Niagara but Bradley isn’t worried
NEWS Apr 12, 2019 by Bill Sawchuk The St. Catharines Standard

The 2019 Provincial Budget offered up $28-billion in public transit money for Toronto — and one line about GO transit in Niagara — but Regional Chair Jim Bradley says not to worry.
"It's true Niagara's GO expansion was not mentioned as part of the 2019 budget," Bradley said. "But we have no expectations that the established timelines in Niagara will not be met. There is nothing in there to cause alarm."
Bradley said the commitment to Niagara is already firmly established with the addition of daily GO train service.

"There was nothing in there that tells me ... the process will be slowed down."
Metrolinx, which runs the GO transportation system, added regular weekday service to Niagara Falls and St. Catharines on the Metro West Line back on Jan. 7 after years of lobbying by Niagara politicians.
The morning train starts in Niagara Falls at 5:19 a.m., and stops at St. Catharines before continuing to Toronto. In the evening, the train from Union Station leaves at 5:15 p.m. for West Harbour and continues to St. Catharines and Niagara Falls.
Niagara West Progressive Conservative MPP Sam Oosterhoff said he recognizes the importance of transit and the role government plays in it.
"I have always advocated for increased access to public transportation as well as expansions and improvements on the GO line," he said. "Right now, we only have a couple going in and out a day. We obviously would like to see more of that along the route."
While there were no budget announcements, work continues on the project.
Matt Llewellyn, a senior adviser for media relations with Metrolinx, said the customer feedback the agency receives has been good, and Metrolinx is negotiating with its rail partners to find ways to increase service to the Hamilton and Niagara regions.

Complicating matters is the fact Metrolinx provides trains but doesn't own the rail lines. Any increase in capacity for Niagara requires negotiations and service agreements with other carriers.

An example is Bayview Junction, which acts as a bottleneck in western Hamilton. The tracks there are squeezed by the Burlington Bay and the escarpment and shared by CP, VIA/Amtrak and GO. In addition, two of CN's busiest freight lines also converge there.

Working on those agreements is part of what Llewellyn says is Metrolinx's commitment to bringing "incremental increases" in service to Niagara every year.

Llewellyn listed a series of steps already completed. They include new track and all supporting infrastructure between Burlington and Bayview Junction; the completion of the West Harbour station; the expansion of a bridge over Centennial Parkway and another bridge over the Desjardins Canal; the replacement of the Valley Inn Road bridge and the completion of a new layover facility on Lewis Road.

Extending more service to Niagara will also require infrastructure upgrades further east along the line, including a new GO station in Grimsby.

The construction of that new station will now include efforts to find private-sector investors to take part in the process through what's known as a Transit-Oriented Development Program, Llewellyn said.

The program uses real estate assets associated with the station to attract third-party investment. The investment offsets capital expenditures in exchange for the opportunity to develop in and around the properties.

St. Catharines and Niagara will eventually see some new track and improvements along the rail corridor. The VIA stations in St. Catharines and Niagara Falls will also have to be retrofitted.
https://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca...ssarily-bad-news-niagara-regional-chair-says/

Notice not one mention of ridership, let alone "business case".

So is this the proverbial "Loss Leader" for GO to run up the flag-post?
Loss leader - Wikipedia
A loss leader is a pricing strategy where a product is sold at a price below its market cost to stimulate other sales of more profitable goods or services.
 
Last edited:
I'm still trying to find some rationale in Verster's bafflegab on the LSE Bowmanville extension "peak service doesn't make a business case, all day 15 min does".???

I agree he's prone to bafflegab, though I didn't find the above to necessarily stand out as that.

I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the case is based on the fact the cost of the infrastructure needed to support peak-period only service is the same as that which would support off-peak.

Off-peak would generate much higher rideship, both in the off peak itself but also in the peak as more people will take a service when they know they won't be stranded if they miss the 6:30pm train.

You then ammortize your costs over the larger number of riders which looks good in the business case as a lower cost per net new ride.

Not sure if it actually works out that way, but that was my impression.
 
I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the case is based on the fact the cost of the infrastructure needed to support peak-period only service is the same as that which would support off-peak.

Off-peak would generate much higher rideship, both in the off peak itself but also in the peak as more people will take a service when they know they won't be stranded if they miss the 6:30pm train.
I've listened to it time and again, and dismissed that take being applicable purely on the basis of it not answering the question posed. I've dismissed it later on other bases, and the only 'benefit of the doubt' I can find for his dissing doing a run(s) in peak is that he's applying a pre-practised spiel on business cases, all the time missing in how it applies or not to this case.

I'll listen yet again with a lean on your stance to see if it makes sense. From what I recall, he throws both scenarios out the window to spite the peak only one, since there's no sign that I can see of running 15 min service to Bowmanville.

In other words, his answer is based on false supposition. A strawman answer, not even an argument.

Edit to Add:

Here's the Engage page, approaching two weeks and still no written answers.
https://www.metrolinxengage.com/en/content/ask-metrolinx-may-2-2019

I'll try and face trying to follow Verster talking in circles later...again...but meantime, if someone wants to succinctly make his answer, please do so. What he distinctly didn't say is that "the fifteen minute frequency would encompass the peak services"....so if someone can clear that up, it would be a start. That he wouldn't explain, due to the other spiel on the number of tracks, if and how 'two way service would be suspended to accommodate peak service' would be the case or not with his (whatever it was) 'explanation' on how (gist) 'two tracks would be suffice' on the CP RoW, (ostensibly to continue hosting this 'two way 15 min service') in itself has me boggled. Not that it can't be done, it most certainly can, but not by the methodology Verster touts.
 
Last edited:
I agree he's prone to bafflegab, though I didn't find the above to necessarily stand out as that.

I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the case is based on the fact the cost of the infrastructure needed to support peak-period only service is the same as that which would support off-peak.

Off-peak would generate much higher rideship, both in the off peak itself but also in the peak as more people will take a service when they know they won't be stranded if they miss the 6:30pm train.

You then ammortize your costs over the larger number of riders which looks good in the business case as a lower cost per net new ride.

Not sure if it actually works out that way, but that was my impression.


^ We may find out more soon since there are public meetings on the 21st and 22nd as noted earlier in the tweet. It's also on the Expansion page.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/greaterregion/projects/bowmanville-expansion.aspx
 

Back
Top