GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[AHK]

One solution to the TO Transit Welland Canal crossing I have not seen mentioned is that of the Victoria rail bridge over the St Lawrence Seaway. The rail line has two paths over the seaway lock, one at each. When a ship is entering or leaving the lock at one end, trains take the path over the other end of the lock - and vice versa. The result is only limited, if any, disruption to rail service - a combination of CN freight, VIA Montreal to / from both Quebec City and the Maritimes, as well as EXO local commuter trains

From an initial look at the area of the CN rail line crossing the Welland Canal, it appears that this might be a feasible approach, with maybe only limited acquisition any already improved property.

 

[Sauga89]

One solution to the TO Transit Welland Canal crossing I have not seen mentioned is that of the Victoria rail bridge over the St Lawrence Seaway. The rail line has two paths over the seaway lock, one at each. When a ship is entering or leaving the lock at one end, trains take the path over the other end of the lock - and vice versa. The result is only limited, if any, disruption to rail service - a combination of CN freight, VIA Montreal to / from both Quebec City and the Maritimes, as well as EXO local commuter trains

View attachment 627689


From an initial look at the area of the CN rail line crossing the Welland Canal, it appears that this might be a feasible approach, with maybe only limited acquisition any already improved property.

I don't think that would work for GO service the way you intend. Locks 4 to 6 of the Canal are twinned, unlike the St. Lambert lock. The locks are half the width of the canal, and so that stretch has two sets of locks, side by side, to allow ships to pass. There are actually 6 locks in that stretch technically, so under your plan, a northbound ship could keep one bridge raised, while a southbound ship kept the other bridge raised.

(EDIT: A second bridge would help though if there was only one ship passing at the time you wanted to run a train. I'd have to look more deeply into canal traffic to see how often ships use both sets of locks simultaneously.)

 

[ShonTron]

I thought the idea of a Merritton Station would make sense, with limited trains beyond across the canal.

Merritton has a lot of space (it’s an old yard) for parking and a bus terminal for NRT local and regional buses to places like Niagara College, Welland, and Thorold, perhaps even NOTL. The road connections to major trip generators are much better there than at the St. Catharines station.

It’d be an easy run to Niagara Falls itself if there are ever any bridge issues, and if is close to the Niagara Circle Route bike path.

An idea with merit

Restoring Merritton Station in St. Catharines can only benefit Niagara-bound travelers

seanmarshall.ca

 

[nfitz]

One solution to the TO Transit Welland Canal crossing I have not seen mentioned is that of the Victoria rail bridge over the St Lawrence Seaway. The rail line has two paths over the seaway lock, one at each. When a ship is entering or leaving the lock at one end, trains take the path over the other end of the lock - and vice versa.

Wow, I've been over that bridge as a driver, and occasionally by rail, and I'd never realized that was what was going on. I guess that explains the extra car lanes too.

I guess I've never driven across when the bridge is open. Or considered this possibility.

Thanks for posting, I can't believe I missed that! Looks like a plausible option for Welland. The land is available. It would be interesting to see the business case for tunnel versus bridge versus this kind of option (is there a word for this?).

 

[reaperexpress]

Even if Metrolinx owned the whole corridor, without significant track bed upgrades (and the resulting heighted speeds they would permit), I don't think hourly service to Niagara is in any way worth it. It's a 2 hour trip one way so you're still eliminating St. Catherine's commuters and I'd say the number of tourists going to the falls mid-week is minimal.

Track bed upgrades are a pretty minor cost when it comes to establishing a new rapid rail service. The biggest costs would normally be ROW acquisition and building structures, neither of which is necessary on the Grimsby sub because it's dead straight and already has the structures for full double track. I agree that hourly service would be predicated on bringing the line up to the standard of other mainlines in Southern Ontario, which generally have track speeds between 80 mph (129 km/h) and 100 mph (161 km/h). In fact, given that the current track configuration can already support hourly service (as GO demonstrated during the eclipse), the track speed is the main issue with the line.

The notion that Niagara is too far for hourly service is contingent on the assumption that everyone in Ontario is travelling to or from Toronto, which is not true. The Lakeshore West corridor serves many other cities along the way from Niagara Falls to Toronto, including notably Hamilton which is a city of half a million people right in the middle of the route. The travel time from Hamilton West Harbour to St Catharines is currently 59 minutes, which should decrease to 49 minutes* in a few months when the new West Harbour track connection enters service.

And that's with the notorious 30 mph (48 km/h) slow zone all the way across Hamilton, and a top speed of only 65 mph (105 km/h) east of there. The distance from Hamilton to St. Catharines is 52 km, which is exactly the same as the distance from Cobourg to Trenton.

So if upgraded to typical mainline standards, Hamilton Harbour to St Catharines would take about 25 minutes. Of course if we add intermediate stops at Confederation and Grimsby the travel time would increase again, but based on my observations of countless rail schedules, adding a stop on a ~90mph line costs about 3 minutes per stop. So with track upgrades and two additional stops, the travel time from Hamilton Harbour to St Catharines would be about 31 minutes for GO trains. So there's 18 minutes saved already without even talking about the brutal slow zones within Niagara Falls that could be resolved simply by doing ordinary track maintenance.

Further to Paul's point, the heavy traffic volume along the QEW indicates that there is plenty of travel demand. The Escarpment concentrates development in the peninsula around the railway so with increased frequency, reduced travel time and additional stations, it should be fairly easy to capture a large amount of travel demand to and within the Niagara peninsula.
__

*The 20-minute time savings Metrolinx advertises for the new West Harbour connection is deliberately misleading, because that's the time savings per day assuming you do a round trip. The actual savings is 10 minutes per trip for trains that stop at both St Catharines and West Harbour, which is currently only one train per weekday. So actually the main benefit of the track connection is an increase in coverage (adding Hamilton to off-peak Niagara train services) rather than end-to-end time savings.

 

[Metroscapes]

One solution to the TO Transit Welland Canal crossing I have not seen mentioned is that of the Victoria rail bridge over the St Lawrence Seaway. The rail line has two paths over the seaway lock, one at each. When a ship is entering or leaving the lock at one end, trains take the path over the other end of the lock - and vice versa. The result is only limited, if any, disruption to rail service - a combination of CN freight, VIA Montreal to / from both Quebec City and the Maritimes, as well as EXO local commuter trains

View attachment 627689


From an initial look at the area of the CN rail line crossing the Welland Canal, it appears that this might be a feasible approach, with maybe only limited acquisition any already improved property.

This is a unique solution, thank you for posting. But I think its benefit is limited in the St Catharines context, given it's twin-flight locks, i.e. two points of shipping disruption. I still think a tunnel is a way to go because...

Without looking at specific numbers.....If we can't design a regional service that draws ridership off a congested six-lane expressway, there is something wrong with what we are doing.

My gut says that a Niagara 2WAD line with improved feeder transit would be a real gamechanger for the region

I think this is the crux of the problem for Niagara. We could go on and on about the ridership potential from locals, in a city dominated by single-family housing, but the tourism ridership is hampered by the lack of higher order transit to the main tourist destination.

The simple solution IMO would be an elevated rapid transit that a) takes you there, and b) offers breathtaking views of the river and falls.

The pipe dream solution that's long been in my mind is a tunnel and fresh right-of-way to a station on the escarpment, right by the falls. Unfortunately:

• A big capital cost here
• Involves expropriation of some houses for sure
• While this could be paired with a new expressway linking the Thorold Tunnel to Highway 420, some of the pathway for extending 420 west has been sold for housing.
• I can imagine the Niagara Escarpment Commission shrieking about it.

 

[6ixGod]

I’ve always been of the opinion that the train to Niagara Falls is shortsighted….

Ideally (and if logistically possible), I’d cross the border into Niagara Falls, NY and down all the way to Buffalo Exchange Street Station. The likelihood of this happening is slim to none, but it would be a convenient link to have and would justify year round service.

The summer months would be filled with tourists to Niagara Falls, while the winter months could be used for people wanting to access Buffalo Airport for cheaper flights to Florida, Mexico and the Caribbean. Up until the COVID pandemic I think around 47% of all passengers using Buffalo Niagara Int’l Airport were from Canada (ie. Southern Ontario). That and transporting the horde of Leafs fans for the twice annual invasion and Bills fans from southern Ontario.

EDIT: This is assuming NFTA builds their airport extension.

I mean it’s a no brainer….with Trump now in office and the border being put into question, I realize this is practically impossible.

But I recall in 2019 the Niagara Falls, NY mayor even publicly stating he’d like GO to expand into NF, NY.

Travel from Niagara Falls, N.Y. to Toronto in 90 minutes

Niagara Falls, N.Y. is trying to bring Canada's Go Train across the border to offer service from the falls to the largest city in Canada.

www.wkbw.com

 

[reaperexpress]

I’ve always been of the opinion that the train to Niagara Falls is shortsighted….

Ideally (and if logistically possible), I’d cross the border into Niagara Falls, NY and down all the way to Buffalo Exchange Street Station. The likelihood of this happening is slim to none, but it would be a convenient link to have and would justify year round service.

The summer months would be filled with tourists to Niagara Falls, while the winter months could be used for people wanting to access Buffalo Airport for cheaper flights to Florida, Mexico and the Caribbean. Up until the COVID pandemic I think around 47% of all passengers using Buffalo Niagara Int’l Airport were from Canada (ie. Southern Ontario). That and transporting the horde of Leafs fans for the twice annual invasion and Bills fans from southern Ontario.

EDIT: This is assuming NFTA builds their airport extension.

I mean it’s a no brainer….with Trump now in office and the border being put into question, I realize this is practically impossible.

But I recall in 2019 the Niagara Falls, NY mayor even publicly stating he’d like GO to expand into NF, NY.

Travel from Niagara Falls, N.Y. to Toronto in 90 minutes

Niagara Falls, N.Y. is trying to bring Canada's Go Train across the border to offer service from the falls to the largest city in Canada.

www.wkbw.com

In what way does improving tracks and service to Niagara preclude future service to Buffalo? If you want better service to Buffalo then you need to upgrade the line through Niagara, which is what the plan is.

 

[Krypto98]

5 days to the election call and this is on my social media..........again:

View attachment 627646

When exactly?

I dont know how, especially since they froze hiring indefinitely since last fall

 

[Aplus23]

Sorry as I don't take go much, but all go lines should be two way 15minute service at minimum. Are there any lines that currently achieve that? Are there any lines that beat 15minute service ?

Is this what GO RER trying to accomplish?

 

[crs1026]

Border crossings by rail seem to raise a million logistical issues (which ought to be simple to solve, but never seem to be).

If one wanted more direct connections to Buffalo in less than a decade, I wonder if a bus from St Catherines GO would work better.

The border facilities seem to accommodate busloads of travellers just fine. Multiple bus departures per day connecting to hourly GO would probably be more marketable and easier to operate than a rationed number of trains.

The added bonus would be the ability to serve multiple stops in Niagara Falls/Buffalo eg both downtown Buffalo and the airport.

Far lower startup and operating costs. Build the clientele and then the demand for a rail replacement might become more compelling.

- Paul

 

[rdaner]

I wonder if all of the TOD happening at many (most?) stations is beginning to have an effect on ridership patterns?

 

[Northern Light]

Sorry as I don't take go much, but all go lines should be two way 15minute service at minimum. Are there any lines that currently achieve that?

No.

LSE/LSW achieve this from mid-day on weekends through the evening service period.

When considered with express, there are rush hour periods that hit that number on some lines.

There are no lines achieving this in weekday off-peak.

Are there any lines that beat 15minute service ?

No.

Is this what GO RER trying to accomplish?

More or less that was an initially stated goal for all off-peak periods. (with express, Lakeshore was expected to be every 7.5M in rush hours in the initial models).

GO 2.O, in theory is even more ambitious..........but ....a very long way from achieving its not yet publicly stated objectives. I believe it was @Willybru21 that first gave clear hints of what is now envisioned, some time back. While some of the details have changed since......his posts are probably the closest thing in the public domain.

 

[WB62]

GO 2.O, in theory is even more ambitious..........but ....a very long way from achieving its not yet publicly stated objectives. I believe it was @Willybru21 that first gave clear hints of what is now envisioned, some time back. While some of the details have changed since......his posts are probably the closest thing in the public domain

At the end of the day nothing is ever official until it’s announced, which goes for GO Expansion service too; every public service plan is extremely outdated. GO Expansion service levels could be much more ambitious than what was promised back in 2018, or it could be what everyone expects.

 

[Northern Light]

At the end of the day nothing is ever official until it’s announced, which goes for GO Expansion service too; every public service plan is extremely outdated. GO Expansion service levels could be much more ambitious than what was promised back in 2018, or it could be what everyone expects.

While I've always said nothing is every official til after its already implemented.........

I do think we need to be clear that the models Mx and Ontario are working with for GO's medium term future are now very ambitious.

Whether the current government has the ability to deliver that ......given how Crosstown, among other projects have gone.......is a different matter.