GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[cplchanb]

Haven't been following this closely ... catenary wires on GO tracks - come on, is this really an issue?

Besides, isn't the whole electrification deferred for years with our current government's huge cuts to transit spending?

Seriously....given the huge upgrade potentials that catenary can give to GO, only Toronto has given such a huge whine about the itty bitty aesthetics. theres a reason why things are overbudget late and severely diluted from the concept or often cancelled. Too many people are just too sensitive to the smallest of things and the decision makers have no spine to draw a line. That and also our dysfunctional politicians. That is why rail should be a private company like MTR or JR. At least politicians wont get in the way at every election cycle and regardless of direction things will most likely get done.

 

[nfitz]

Seriously....given the huge upgrade potentials that catenary can give to GO, only Toronto has given such a huge whine about the itty bitty aesthetics

There's a reason I avoid public meetings - which neighbourhood are the Nimys beyhind this?

Let me guess ... the ones in Weston who were insisting on electrification!

 

[salsa]

I'm a pound short and a little too late with this post - but while researching something else I bumped into this old GO presentation (still on their web site) which points to some of the visual impacts of electrification as GO sees them.
Again, I am not arguing against electrification, but if you look at the bridge modifications and the multi-track "portal" structures shown in this presentation, I think one has to agree that there will be impacts. The tunnel - like views looking along multi track structures are particularly noticeable. If I were a better digital artist I would try to do a render of the view from the Sunnyside footbridge post electrification. It may not be awful but it will not be an improvement.

- Paul

Why are these tall barriers required for GO electrification, but not required for bridges that cross over TTC subway tracks?

 

[cplchanb]

Why are these tall barriers required for GO electrification, but not required for bridges that cross over TTC subway tracks?

I would imagine it would prevent people from throwing stuff over

 

[steveintoronto]

^What that pic portrays is two gen old catenary. Not only is modern cat far more gracious, it's also far more functional, with another layer of 'compliance' in the hung geometry.

@tayser posted examples of the most recent ones earlier in this string and has posted links to Youtube vids and static pics here:
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/australian-public-transport-projects-stuff.29966/#post-1447414

 

[steveintoronto]

I would imagine it would prevent people from throwing stuff over

It's required by Transport Canada regs.

 

[salsa]

I would imagine it would prevent people from throwing stuff over

It's required by Transport Canada regs.

Right, but why is there no such requirement across the outside portions of the TTC subway?

 

[steveintoronto]

Right, but why is there no such requirement across the outside portions of the TTC subway?

Not regulated by Transport Canada, regulated provincially, and less than a 30th of the voltage potential.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Right, but why is there no such requirement across the outside portions of the TTC subway?

Maybe because overhead wires are higher up than track level third rails, which make them easier to throw stuff at from a bridge. ?

 

[kEiThZ]

That is why rail should be a private company like MTR or JR.

Are you under the impression that private companies can build whatever they want, wherever they want? It could well be worse if Metrolinx were a private corporation. And that's aside from the fact that private transit would be unsustainable in North America.

 

[cplchanb]

Are you under the impression that private companies can build whatever they want, wherever they want? It could well be worse if Metrolinx were a private corporation. And that's aside from the fact that private transit would be unsustainable in North America.

No I am not, but at least private companies tend to flip flop much less than election vote driven politicians. I often allude to JR and MTR because they work and they work well. Why should we turn a cold shoulder to them and assume that the NA way is the only way? Why would it be unsustainable? No free taxpayers money that ebbs and flows with each election cycle? Please elaborate.

 

[kEiThZ]

Why would it be unsustainable?

You're kidding right? Are you unaware of the massive differences in ridership and property rights for JR and MTR? Or the bailouts (about half a trillion in CAD in 1987 dollars) that Japanese railways received? MTR and JR were/are heavily publicly financed property developers who happen to run rail networks. Go through their balance sheets and look at what happens if they were limited to running rail networks exclusively.

Put that much money (proportionally) into rail in Canada and give the rail operators the same property rights as Asia and they'd be successful too. Imagine, VIA, Metrolinx, AMT, etc being some of the largest developers in the country, and doing so on the backs of $110 billion (1987 dollars) of public investment. Nobody would ever need to own a car in Yellowknife, if that happened.

There's also the geographic context. In 1987 when JR was bailed out, the population of Japan was over 120 million, and the population of Tokyo was about 12 million. With Tokyo gaining another 2-3 million during the daytime. At the time the population of Canada was 26 million. In 1981, the population of the entire Toronto Census Metropolitan Area was just shy of 3 million, for an area of ~ 5905 km2. In the same year, Hong Kong had nearly 5.2 million residents, in an area of 1108 km2. I really don't get how people can think models that work for Japan and Hong Kong will easily translate to Canada, given the massive contextual differences.

It's become routine now. Every few months some new member joins and bemoans why we can't be like Asia, while being oblivious about everything from the difference in governance, geography and economics between Canada and those places. We cannot and will not ever be like Asia because the historical, social, economic and geographic contexts are entirely different. And insisting on comparing only to those places does more harm than good, in my opinion.

 

[cplchanb]

You're kidding right? Are you unaware of the massive differences in ridership and property rights for JR and MTR? Or the billions in bailouts that JR received? Put that much money (proportionally) into rail in Canada and give them the same property rights and they'd be successful too. Imagine, VIA, Metrolinx, AMT, etc being some of the largest developers in the country, and doing so on the backs of half a trillion dollars of public investment. Nobody would ever need to own a car in Yellowknife, if that happened.

Why cant VIA, ML, TTC etc also be developers too? Are they legally not allowed to sell their land for development? Don't they own property as well or will acquire them when they build their mausoleum stations?
If its simple legislation that is holding them back from being able make a conditional for developers to include the cost of building a station in their obligated scope of work, its some thing that in principle can be viable. .
While Im not insisting that should follow the JR/MTR method to the T clearly we need some inspiration on how to make things better from other sources. Are we just going to sit on our hands and pretend all the problems will
go away with the next govt? Clearly from the last 30 years that hasnt worked, and in the meantime other countries even in the third world have found other ways to get things going in much shorter timelines. What are they doing differently that is making it work for them? All we do is complain and shut our ears to new ideas. Are we just incompetent as a society to come up with a plan and action it within a competent timeframe? What would you do differently to stimulate the growth of our networks and expedite the modernisation of our draconian systems.

 

[kEiThZ]

Why cant VIA, ML, TTC etc also be developers too?

Because Canadian taxpayers generally aren't enthusiastic about the idea of funding public entities to compete with the private sector. That may change with what the Ford government is trying to do with some GO stations. But generally, this is not something that's very popular in Canada.

If its simple legislation that is holding them back from being able make a conditional for developers to include the cost of building a station in their obligated scope of work, its some thing that in principle can be viable. .

It's not a legal issue. It's one of government scope.

Let's imagine for example that a large developer went under because they kept having to compete with the TTC owning all the land near stations. How well do you think that would go down in an election with employees of said developer giving interviews in the Toronto Star about how they lost their jobs to a subsidized/protected TTC?

Or imagine Metrolinx builds condos on top of GO stations. And they have to raise rents on tenants. How do you think it's going to play when those tenants start campaigning for their MPPs to rein in that mean Metrolinx who wants to make the poor tenants pay more?

This is not some easy issue when there's no real history in Canada of public agencies working as developers, especially when they'd be in competition with private developers.

in the meantime other countries even in the third world have found other ways to get things going in much shorter timelines. What are they doing differently that is making it work for them?

Mandated higher population density. Cheap expropriation. Cheap labour. Lower construction standards. Lower worker safety standards. There's a lot you can do in the third world that you can't do in Canada. Costs and even timelines start looking similar when you look at developed countries and adjust for the difference in investment.

 

[cplchanb]

Because Canadian taxpayers generally aren't enthusiastic about the idea of funding public entities to compete with the private sector. That may change with what the Ford government is trying to do with some GO stations. But generally, this is not something that's very popular in Canada.



It's not a legal issue. It's one of government scope.

Let's imagine for example that a large developer went under because they kept having to compete with the TTC owning all the land near stations. How well do you think that would go down in an election with employees of said developer giving interviews in the Toronto Star about how they lost their jobs to a subsidized/protected TTC?

Or imagine Metrolinx builds condos on top of GO stations. And they have to raise rents on tenants. How do you think it's going to play when those tenants start campaigning for their MPPs to rein in that mean Metrolinx who wants to make the poor tenants pay more?

This is not some easy issue when there's no real history in Canada of public agencies working as developers, especially when they'd be in competition with private developers.




Mandated higher population density. Cheap expropriation. Cheap labour. Lower construction standards. Lower worker safety standards. There's a lot you can do in the third world that you can't do in Canada. Costs and even timelines start looking similar when you look at developed countries and adjust for the difference in investment.

Apart from the labour constraints which is a whole different animal, I think its possible to sell the idea of TTC and ML owning and developing. People in the end want transit and if Ford can sell his buck a beer idea with relative success I think it would be feasible to sell this idea.

We shall see with the fallout with Bondfield how this will affect our future infrastructure building. Although not a developer per say their failure has essentially screwed us over for the union station, vaughan terminal and other transit projects.

The biggest problem is that the execs at said agencies need to buy into those ideas themselves. Currently they seem to be content with the status quo and collect their paycheck and pension.

You still havent answered my question though: what would you do that can help improve the situation; that is more feasible and similarly effective as the items above?