GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[crs1026]

^GO had to "play the ball where it lies" - the stations were placed where land was cheap and somewhat situated to be convenient (especially to motorists) - which tended to favour locations on the extremities. Station locations were seldom integrated with urban planning for the communities involved. So Brampton for instance sits right in the central area, but many do not.

While from an urban planning perspective I would like to enhance some of the old main-street "downtowns" in places like Milton, Whitby, Georgetown, Oakville, etc etc - the planners and town councils in those towns may not care about the old downtown, and might want GO closer to the malls.

Go has largely ignored the potential for GO stations to be developed as urban hubs, - but their original function was only to be commuter stops anyways. No one wants to go there other than to catch a train in the morning and get in their car in the evening. As the GTA fills in, this is no longer desirable. Hopefully the development based strategy fixes some of this, but I think GO and the communities may need to lead the way by defining what's needed and then letting private developers pick interesting opportunities for their investment.

- Paul

 

[robmausser]

Whats the latest status of the Stouffville and Barrie double tracking? Been kinda mum lately.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Sorry if this was posted before, but evidently the Woodbine GO Station TPAP started in November. I wasn't aware. Evidently it is slated to open in 2022.

Presentation here, and project site here.

Some slides of interest:

 

[Krypto98]

Bramalea Go this morning. Looks like they are putting up fencing on platform 4 as well as seating (not pictured) and a new accessible ramp.

On platform 2/3 it looks like a new accessible ramp will be placed east of the existing one and elevators. Not sure when all of this will be finished but fingers crossed for april???

 

[cplchanb]

Im still very surprised that they dont build platforms with a unified accessible height. Why do they insist on the dinosaur curb height if all their trains and most likely future trains will have doors at the accessible ramp height? Have they no
logical sense of passenger flows? Is it that much more money that they have to penny pinch or are they that out of touch with the rest of the world?

 

[Richard White]

Im still very surprised that they dont build platforms with a unified accessible height. Why do they insist on the dinosaur curb height if all their trains and most likely future trains will have doors at the accessible ramp height? Have they no
logical sense of passenger flows? Is it that much more money that they have to penny pinch or are they that out of touch with the rest of the world?

Because of the gap between the train and the platform. They need to deploy a ramp for handicap access which is impossible to do in every car at every stop.

The gap is large enough that wheelchairs, scooters and coffin carts need a ramp to enter or exit.

 

[cplchanb]

Because of the gap between the train and the platform. They need to deploy a ramp for handicap access which is impossible to do in every car at every stop.

The gap is large enough that wheelchairs, scooters and coffin carts need a ramp to enter or exit.

Not talking just about the accessible ramp, but the entire platform height where the gap is not an issue. They know what height the doors are at and they (hopefully) know that by making the platforms level they can significantly reduce dwell times.
Why do they still shrug their shoulders and not raise their new build platforms to be level with the doors? They have a golden opportunity to make their flows better yet they are oblivious to it. Other users of the bilevels have level

 

[Allandale25]

^ I think the issue is clearance for the freight railways who still use the tracks (except through the shed at Union). Also these pictures were at Bramalea and GO doesn't own the tracks at Bramalea, so they likely had to work with CN's requirements.

 

[cplchanb]

^ I think the issue is clearance for the freight railways who still use the tracks (except through the shed at Union). Also these pictures were at Bramalea and GO doesn't own the tracks at Bramalea, so they likely had to work with CN's requirements.

How do they make it work on the Richmond Hill line then when its owned by CN? Besides its not that much higher than the curb.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Sorry I misunderstood what you wrote. I thought where you said "Not talking just about the accessible ramp, but the entire platform height where the gap is not an issue" you were suggesting they make all platforms the same height of as the accessible ramps. My understanding is that it's not the platform height issue for freight trains rather it's the width clearance they need. That's why there's the ramp to close the gap.

From: https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/standards-tce05-233.htm

 

[Coolstar]

Not looking good for GO RER..

GO Expansion plans facing uncertainty as companies raise concerns over P3 procurement model, documents warn | The Star

www-thestar-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[asher__jo]

Not looking good for GO RER..

GO Expansion plans facing uncertainty as companies raise concerns over P3 procurement model, documents warn | The Star

www-thestar-com.cdn.ampproject.org

I think it's a little too sound the alarm. Hopefully this makes Metrolinx reevaluate their expectations/demands of the P3 model.

 

[crs1026]

Not looking good for GO RER..

GO Expansion plans facing uncertainty as companies raise concerns over P3 procurement model, documents warn | The Star

www-thestar-com.cdn.ampproject.org

RER (Hey, it's "GO Expansion" these days - RER is a Liberal brand) is still robust, but it won't get done as quick as everyone was pretending. That execution pace was always a fantasy anyways.

If this forces ML to reclassify some things as 'early works', to be procured and built outside of the master P3, that's actually constructive. As it stands, too much that could be gotten going is sitting still while they try to work out this global procurement.

I have absolutely no problem with a P3 that sets up a 25-30 year operating and maintenance contract. Nor do I have a problem with P3 for individual lines etc.

The issue has always been how to integrate all the parts. ML's approach has been to contract the whole thing out to one vendor or consortium and trust that they know how to integrate. Looked at from the other end of the glasses - it's an admission that ML doesn't know how to integrate it all. No executive capability, no managerial strength. They have pretty much diluted the value proposition for having a Board and an ML hierarchy at all. ML doesn't need an organization its current size to be "smart buyers".

Lots of organizations contract out the workers' jobs. ML may be the first organization to contract out its entire leadership function.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

Not talking just about the accessible ramp, but the entire platform height where the gap is not an issue. They know what height the doors are at and they (hopefully) know that by making the platforms level they can significantly reduce dwell times.
Why do they still shrug their shoulders and not raise their new build platforms to be level with the doors? They have a golden opportunity to make their flows better yet they are oblivious to it. Other users of the bilevels have level

And once again....what height do we build them at? The current standards are 8 inches above the top of the rail at a 4'7" centerline or 48" at a 5'7" centerline. Or do they build to the height of the floor of a BiLevel, which is 25" above the top of the rail - but needs to be about 5'3" away from the centerline?

And what if the next batch of equipment has a different floor height? Do we tear out all the old platforms and rebuild them again in a couple of years?

This is one of those situations where it pays to wait and see what form the equipment will take (Single level? Two levels? Drop floors?) before rushing out with a decision that will be expensive to fix.

Dan

 

[Richard White]

And once again....what height do we build them at? The current standards are 8 inches above the top of the rail at a 4'7" centerline or 48" at a 5'7" centerline. Or do they build to the height of the floor of a BiLevel, which is 25" above the top of the rail - but needs to be about 5'3" away from the centerline?

And what if the next batch of equipment has a different floor height? Do we tear out all the old platforms and rebuild them again in a couple of years?

This is one of those situations where it pays to wait and see what form the equipment will take (Single level? Two levels? Drop floors?) before rushing out with a decision that will be expensive to fix.

Dan

Hydraulic platforms anyone?