GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[crs1026]

Another edition of Metrolinx being short-sighted clowns. Not building a four track wide Etobicoke Creek bridge today is just going to force us to build a more expensive bridge tomorrow. That or build a single track bridge, either way, costs will inevitably escalate in the future.

I don't know that this is fair. While many of us may feel that adding a fourth track to LSW is desirable (or even essential), it's a major project that ML has never really articulated any intention to pursue, or even plan. And I'm not sure that this particular bridge reconstruction is all that much of an opportunity, it's more a replace-in-kind than an enlargement task.

If they try to do everything at once, nothing will get done.

Putting money into one bridge, when the fourth track demands a whole number of other things things (eg multiple grade separations) that won't get done for a while, may not be the best use of the 2025 budget.Something elsewon't get done, and that puts other goals at risk.

Even if this one new bridge span coats more down the road, the campaign to do the fourth track may work better as a package.

-Paul

 

[Northern Light]

I don't know that this is fair. While many of us may feel that adding a fourth track to LSW is desirable (or even essential), it's a major project that ML has never really articulated any intention to pursue, or even plan. And I'm not sure that this particular bridge reconstruction is all that much of an opportunity, it's more a replace-in-kind than an enlargement task.

On timing, I have nothing to add; but I can say there have definitely been discussions inside Mx about 4 tracks from Exhibition to Oakville.

 

[crs1026]

On timing, I have nothing to add; but I can say there have definitely been discussions inside Mx about 4 tracks from Exhibition to Oakville.

The sooner the better, I would say....as it enables counter peak express which in turn enables better connectivity to Hamilton, Niagara, and perhaps Brantford.... and better VIA timings....but publicly at least, ML hasn't sounded like that is a front burner project.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

The sooner the better, I would say....as it enables counter peak express which in turn enables better connectivity to Hamilton, Niagara, and perhaps Brantford.... and better VIA timings....but publicly at least, ML hasn't sounded like that is a front burner project.

Yes and not proposing any plans (on any timescale) to extend the quad-track on their busiest line is short-sighted. Precisely because it results in situations like this, where they could have protected for a fourth track at minimal extra cost* and they just didn't.

*A quad-track layout with side platforms is cheaper than what they're currently building since it has fewer elevators and stairs; a quad-tracked bridge would be more expensive. Overall probably a minor increase in project cost.

 

[crs1026]

Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but did the current Long Branch platform rebuild leave room for a fourth track on the north side of the north platform?

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but did the current Long Branch platform rebuild leave room for a fourth track on the north side of the north platform?

It certainly looks like it - and perhaps even more, looking at this March 2025 air photo in Google Earth. It's unfortunate there isn't anything newer for that part of the city.

 

[Metroscapes]

The sooner the better, I would say....as it enables counter peak express which in turn enables better connectivity to Hamilton, Niagara, and perhaps Brantford.... and better VIA timings....but publicly at least, ML hasn't sounded like that is a front burner project.

- Paul

And maybe that's where the fed could play a better role. VIA is using a Metrolinx corridor. Maybe there should be an interprovincial agreement on what the ultimate form should be to enable 15 minute GO, and high-speed VIA (4+ GO and 2 VIA?)...

Ah, that sounds too hard though.

 

[drum118]

Yes and not proposing any plans (on any timescale) to extend the quad-track on their busiest line is short-sighted. Precisely because it results in situations like this, where they could have protected for a fourth track at minimal extra cost* and they just didn't.
View attachment 701563
*A quad-track layout with side platforms is cheaper than what they're currently building since it has fewer elevators and stairs; a quad-tracked bridge would be more expensive. Overall probably a minor increase in project cost.

No, it is not cheaper with fewer elevators. You need elevators for all platforms, as people live on the north side who need to get to the south side. You can have a ramp to both side platforms, but still need elevators for both, so people to use the tunnel without needing to use GO and for people using GO on both sides of the corridor.

How ML is planning on placing that 4th track for this area could see the north side platform becoming a centre platform with a new entrance on the north side of the new track 1. I know the plans since the early 2000's west of Etobicoke will see the 4th track going in on the southside all the way to Oakville. That track was proposed as the 3rd track from Port Credit to Oakville, along with the current track 1 in place now.

Even before the 4th track bridge can go in, there has to be a lot of retaining wall that has to be built from the Brown Line to the creek, along with expanding the pier supports, before the bridge can be installed. Then there is the issue what to do with the Brown Line's overpass.

 

[reaperexpress]

No, it is not cheaper with fewer elevators. You need elevators for all platforms, as people live on the north side who need to get to the south side. You can have a ramp to both side platforms, but still need elevators for both, so people to use the tunnel without needing to use GO and for people using GO on both sides of the corridor.

If you only build side platforms you need 2 elevators per tunnel. One on each side of the corridor.

If you build a centre platform as well, you need 3 elevators per tunnel. One on the north side / side platform, one for the island platform and one on the south side. If you add a 4th track on the north side of that platorm, then you need a 4th elevator so people can get to the north side!

How ML is planning on placing that 4th track for this area could see the north side platform becoming a centre platform with a new entrance on the north side of the new track 1. I know the plans since the early 2000's west of Etobicoke will see the 4th track going in on the southside all the way to Oakville. That track was proposed as the 3rd track from Port Credit to Oakville, along with the current track 1 in place now.

Even before the 4th track bridge can go in, there has to be a lot of retaining wall that has to be built from the Brown Line to the creek, along with expanding the pier supports, before the bridge can be installed. Then there is the issue what to do with the Brown Line's overpass.

Yeah all this retaining wall is also why it's so much cheaper to build side platforms than island platforms. Express trains don't stop at Long Branch anyway and frankly it's better for the trains passing through at 150 km/h to not be directly next to a platform. I heard second-hand about an incident at Long Branch station where a passenger's backpack was hit by a Via train passing by at high speed, shattering the laptop in the bag. Thankfully there were no injuries but similar incidents have led to fatalities elsewhere.

 

[nfitz]

How you don't need two adjacent elevators at all times, given the huge amount of time that one or other of the elevators is unavailable at a typical GO station.

 

[drum118]

If you only build side platforms you need 2 elevators per tunnel. One on each side of the corridor.

If you build a centre platform as well, you need 3 elevators per tunnel. One on the north side / side platform, one for the island platform and one on the south side. If you add a 4th track on the north side of that platorm, then you need a 4th elevator so people can get to the north side!

Yeah all this retaining wall is also why it's so much cheaper to build side platforms than island platforms. Express trains don't stop at Long Branch anyway and frankly it's better for the trains passing through at 150 km/h to not be directly next to a platform. I heard second-hand about an incident at Long Branch station where a passenger's backpack was hit by a Via train passing by at high speed, shattering the laptop in the bag. Thankfully there were no injuries but similar incidents have led to fatalities elsewhere.

You can talk about what should happen to side platforms with no centre platform, but that is not what ML is currently doing at Long Branch at this time. It is easier to make the north platform a centre platform than the south one, which will have some impact on riders.

If you have two elevators per platform, those who really need one have a 100% getting to/from that platform when an elevator goes down or has to be taken out of service for an overhaul.

Having a centre platform allows ML to use any platform if a track must be taken out of service for some reason. I have been on centre platforms when trains have passed it doing 150-200km with a warning that a high-speed train is about to pass and make sure you are well back of the line, which is very loud, not like the current PA system.

 

[PShells]

ST Line - West Highland Creek

It’s the second day in a row A&B Rail workers have been busy doing *something* in the staging area next to the creek during my morning commute.

Heavy equipment remains on site. Additional sandbags have been placed along the edge of the creek. A flatbed truck was unloading a large piece of metal. I doubt it was a pile as there wasn’t a pile driver on site…unless a standard excavator is expected to drive it into the ground.

 

[smallspy]

Another edition of Metrolinx being short-sighted clowns. Not building a four track wide Etobicoke Creek bridge today is just going to force us to build a more expensive bridge tomorrow. That or build a single track bridge, either way, costs will inevitably escalate in the future.

So you would rather they delay the replacement of the bridge in order for them to figure out where they can put the fourth track then?

That's a brilliant idea, let's deal with a 10mph slow order for 6 months or a year while they do the planning and engineering. Should we just wait until the bridge falls? It would make the clean-up easier.

Oh, and because of the restrictions elsewhere, the bridge's 4th deck wouldn't be able to be used for quite some time anyways. The Brown's Line overpass is in the way, and the Dixie overpass is too small..

Considering the emergency that this project was, replacing like-for-like is just fine.

I agree. Track doesnt need to be layed / ballasted but factoring in future expansions is what often saves so much money in the future. It was disappointing to me when I saw that Long Branch was being rebuild the same way (1 side + 1 island platform) which will mean it will also have to be rebuilt for 4 track service. It also confuses me because Long Branch does not need access to three tracks.

So, funny story about this kind of thinking......

There are a number of places where Metrolinx has prepped subgrade for additional tracks. Guelph, along the Barrie Line, east of Union, on the Stouffville Line, the Weston Sub.....

If it sits too long the subgrade gets fouled - stuff starts to grow on it. When that happens, it is wrecked and needs to be redone. There are already stretches of this happening in places, and have been noted so that when the crews come back to actually build the track (whenever that happens to be) that they need to schedule a different crew to rebuild the subgrade.

The bottom line is that building stuff too far out in advance doesn't net you nearly as much of a benefit as you think.

Dan

 

[urbanclient]

The bottom line is that building stuff too far out in advance doesn't net you nearly as much of a benefit as you think.

I would downvote this if possible. This type of mentality is what has kept Toronto so behind on rail transit versus smaller cities like Sydney, much less similar sized cities. We love to procrastinate, as shown by the broke province trying to save money in the short-term only to have costs balloon in the long-term: penny wise, pound foolish. The specific types of P3 funding models that Metrolinx have historically used have shafted the city, the province, and taxpayers of both.

I never said subgrade should be prepped, I merely said that the new bridge should be wide enough to accommodate a future fourth track; a fourth track which, by all accounts, is inevitable even if not immediately imminent. Nothing else needed to be done. You are presenting a false dichotomy of two extremes. In reality, there were other options beyond:

A, delaying the replacement and letting the bridge rot (which should have never reached this extent in the first place) even further to the point of failure.

B, kicking the can down the road to build a shortsighted, inevitably wasteful three track bridge.*

*which had to be rushed because bridge replacement was procrastinated to this point to begin with.


How about we choose option C next time?

C, build a marginally more expensive bridge with room for a fourth track, which would also require marginally more costs for the approach slab and abutments etc...


By your logic.... Should the Prince Edward Viaduct not have been built with provisions for a lower deck rail line? After all, the lower deck only became useful nearly 5 decades later and was therefore generating economic losses for that entire time.

"[bridge] spans included a lower deck for a potential future underground rapid transit line; controversial at the time because of its high additional cost. The bridge's designer and the commissioner of public works, R.C. Harris, were able to have their way and the lower deck eventually proved to save millions of dollars when the Toronto Transit Commission's Bloor–Danforth subway opened in 1966 [...]"

Prince Edward Viaduct - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[lastcommodore]

I never said subgrade should be prepped, I merely said that the new bridge should be wide enough to accommodate a future fourth track; a fourth track which, by all accounts, is inevitable even if not immediately imminent. Nothing else needed to be done. You are presenting a false dichotomy of two extremes. In reality, there were other options beyond:

A, delaying the replacement and letting the bridge rot (which should have never reached this extent in the first place) even further to the point of failure.

B, kicking the can down the road to build a shortsighted, inevitably wasteful three track bridge.*

*which had to be rushed because bridge replacement was procrastinated to this point to begin with.


How about we choose option C next time?

C, build a marginally more expensive bridge with room for a fourth track, which would also require marginally more costs for the approach slab and abutments etc...


By your logic.... Should the Prince Edward Viaduct not have been built with provisions for a lower deck rail line? After all, the lower deck only became useful nearly 5 decades later and was therefore generating economic losses for that entire time.

Of course you didn't say that. I said that, and I wasn't aware subgrading deteriorates.

I still think the bridge should be built with room for a fourth track. Many rail bridges still retain extra room for a few extra tracks. But he was not responding to that, he was specifically responding to my comment about subgrading without concrete plans to actually put in a rail. You can still leave extra room for new tracks and build wider bridges.