News   Sep 18, 2020
 837     1 
News   Sep 18, 2020
 599     0 
News   Sep 18, 2020
 7.1K     2 

GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,126
Reaction score
3,547
The GO lines pretty well all originated as freight lines, not passenger rail. The freight lines were built to serve industrial areas (or industrial areas sprung up around the freight lines), not urban centres, which generally do not want freight trains passing through. Most of the GTA's municipalities also grew up in the post-war boom, and so they were built around cars and highways, not rail.
On top of that GO has long prioritized automotive access to its stations, often to the detriment of public transit or active transportation. This has required stations located on large tracts of land allowing them to build massive parking lots.

Dan
 

robmausser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
2,850
Reaction score
3,212
The GO lines pretty well all originated as freight lines, not passenger rail. The freight lines were built to serve industrial areas (or industrial areas sprung up around the freight lines), not urban centres, which generally do not want freight trains passing through. Most of the GTA's municipalities also grew up in the post-war boom, and so they were built around cars and highways, not rail.
Wow this is demonstrably false.

While some parts of the lines do go through industrial areas, like a portion of the Georgetown South line, many GO train stations serve downtown and areas like Brampton, Hamilton, Kitchener, Aurora, Langstaff, Bradford, Guelph, Richmond Hill, and not to mention residential areas.

Passenger rail was just as important as freight in the 19th century when the rail network was built, and many towns still have these downtown areas situated around a train station that has now been converted to a GO train station. (or one nearby)
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,245
Reaction score
7,675
^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
 

Krypto98

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
132
Reaction score
198
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???
20200120_075044.jpg
20200120_075019.jpg
20200120_075632.jpg
20200120_075531.jpg
20200120_075651.jpg
20200120_075634.jpg
 

cplchanb

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
1,903
Reaction score
870
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

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
2,758
Reaction score
1,435
Location
Scarborough, Ontario
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

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
1,903
Reaction score
870
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

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,848
Reaction score
4,493
^ 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

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
1,903
Reaction score
870
^ 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

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,848
Reaction score
4,493
^ 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

1579536882713.png
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,245
Reaction score
7,675
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
 

Top