GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[crs1026]

^Let’s see how the Rail Deck Park expropriation goes before we think about ejecting CP from the North Toronto line. Once we see what it costs to buy air rights over a half mile of railway, then we will know what the sticker shock will be for buying a dozen miles of right of way....and building a new bypass for CP north of the city.

The CP line is wide enough for at least four tracks throughout most of its length, however, and one wonders why something can’t be worked out to share the space. So long as CP’s freight capacity is preserved, it’s likely just a matter of money.

The suggestion of a rapid transit line thru Mississauga along the CP line is intriguing... I can see the logic, But how would the existing downtown-bound ridership feel about riding something that feels (and stops) more like a subway all the way into the city? TTC Line 2 might reach Cooksville some day, but the Milton Line ought to retain a Regional format with integration and linkage to local Mississauga transit. I can’t see the value in applying anything esoteric to the design when there will be a vanilla RER template. The challenge would be to convince CP to tolerate a high frequency EMU style RER operation alongside the freight line.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

I believe the ability for Metrolinx to add more trackage to the CP mainline is DOA.

I don't agree with that at all, and the people I know within the industry don't believe that to be the case, either.

An EA and everything was prepared, and it basically went nowhere. Especially after the auditors general finding out that CP was overcharging Metrolinx up to 800% for various track work.

An EA was started, that much is true. But it was cancelled within a couple of months of it starting, and this all happened well before the AG's report.

Basically anything on CPs Corridor must be done by CP. That includes building additional track, and even operating the trains. All GO trains on the Milton line are driven by CP crews.

While CP is quite guarded about their track standards and who is capable of meeting them, the comment about the crews is absolutely incorrect. Milton Line trains have been entirely staffed by Bombardier employees for over 5 years now.

Ontop of that they reserve the right to use the track.

Of course they do. But considering that CP has already allowed for two exclusive 3+ hour windows for GO to operate each day, why wouldn't they work with them to change those into a system that is better for both parties?

For the record, they seemed to have no problems with working with GO on a bunch of different projects that benefited them both in the past. No reason for them to continue to do so, right?

Electrification is not possible while CP own the line.

Oddly enough, CP has never explicitly said that.

The only option is to move CP north and buy off the line, which is prohibitively expensive, as I outlined above. There is no middle ground option.

While I don't disagree that the "Missing Link" makes sense for a whole host of different reasons, I don't think that it's necessary that it needs to be the only option on the table.

Dan

 

[Allandale25]

^ the "continue to do so" would include the Bowmanville Extension.

 

[rbt]

The suggestion of a rapid transit line thru Mississauga along the CP line is intriguing... I can see the logic, But how would the existing downtown-bound ridership feel about riding something that feels (and stops) more like a subway all the way into the city?

I wouldn't add any many additional stops; 3km spacing through Toronto/Peel is enough as the target market isn't walk-ins at those low densities, it's transfers (same as 70% of TTC subway customers). What would change is integration at stations to ensure capture of transfers; bus loops (electric buses only to minimize ventilation requirements) below the tracks with banks of escalators leading directly up to the platforms.

I suspect downtown-bound ridership would enjoy shorter waits on the platform, significantly extended service hours, and a trip time roughly the same as they have today due to electrification; perhaps even lower fares enabled by much higher ridership and reduced per-train operating costs.


My point was, the public demands TTC extensions at huge cost largely because GO hasn't shown themselves able to build & operate something considered equal to it on their existing corridors.

Also, when you build a TTC improvement you know what you will get at the end; when you build a GO improvement (say Georgetown South) you really have no idea how the day-to-day service will operate.

 

[reaperexpress]

^ ML stated a target trip time improvement in one of the town halls, but I can’t recall the exact number off the top of my head.

On 4 March 2019 at the Kitchener town hall, Greg Percy stated that the (long-term) target is to achieve a 1h30 travel time from Toronto to Kitchener.

The current construction project was expected to reduce the travel time by 10 minutes. Of that, 5 minutes has already been achieved, so relative to the current schedule we can expect another 5-minute improvement once the work is completed. For example, the fastest AM Peak train has been improved from 1h51 to 1h46, and should improve further to 1h41 at the conclusion of the project. VIA's schedule was 1h35 minutes before the project, so they should be able to do about 1h30 once it's done. VIA won't experience the full 10-minute savings since they aren't currently affected by the yard-speed restriction at Georgetown that the project will allow GO trains to bypass.

Video is here: (see 57:35), and my summary of that meeting is in this post earlier in this thread.

 

[gweed123]

The suggestion of a rapid transit line thru Mississauga along the CP line is intriguing... I can see the logic, But how would the existing downtown-bound ridership feel about riding something that feels (and stops) more like a subway all the way into the city? TTC Line 2 might reach Cooksville some day, but the Milton Line ought to retain a Regional format with integration and linkage to local Mississauga transit. I can’t see the value in applying anything esoteric to the design when there will be a vanilla RER template. The challenge would be to convince CP to tolerate a high frequency EMU style RER operation alongside the freight line.

- Paul

If Metrolinx gets ownership of the Milton Line via some kind of track swap arrangement (i.e. Metrolinx funding the CP tracks in the York Sub) then an express-over-local setup is completely doable.

Here's the route pattern I envision:
1) Local from Milton to Cooksville, express to Union (maybe a stop at Bloor)
2) Local from Cooksville to Union, with maybe a tunnelled extension to Mississauga Centre

 

[crs1026]

If Metrolinx gets ownership of the Milton Line via some kind of track swap arrangement (i.e. Metrolinx funding the CP tracks in the York Sub) then an express-over-local setup is completely doable.
Here's the route pattern I envision:
1) Local from Milton to Cooksville, express to Union (maybe a stop at Bloor)
2) Local from Cooksville to Union, with maybe a tunnelled extension to Mississauga Centre

I like it, for the very long term.

It's not inconceivable that, with the right assumptions about rolling stock, the line could be tunneled from east of Cooksville, up to Mississauga Center, and then continue west along, say, Burnhamthorpe or 403, to rejoin the ROW around Erindale. It would not be cheap, but I suspect the business case would be pretty decent, especially with a 1- or 2 stop semi express from MC to Union.

I wonder though how Mississauga would feel about that compared to, say, LRT from Kipling Line 2 to MC via Cooksville. For a generation or so, it might be cheaper to build that along with enough track to establish a basic 2WAD RER to Milton. It's hard to reconcile building a full heavy rail transit line against the current view that BRT is all that's needed for the next couple of decades.

The business case for getting CP out of the center of Toronto needs a good full foundation study independent of the Milton Line. It could lead to a Network Rail solution, or a P3, perhaps with the railways holding some equity. It would be tragic to underestimate how important it is to have good cross-GTA freight pathways that have capacity for the next 100 years. And, options for cross city transit on that ROW need their own full consideration. Improving the Milton line is only one bit of that. I'm sure the bypass will happen, but it will be as transformational, and as expensive/complicated, as London's Crossrail. We should give it time to breathe....better Milton service may not be able to wait for that.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

I'm not convinced of the need to kick CP off the midtown corridor for the sake of the Milton line. The corridor is wide enough to fit a pair of GO tracks in addition to the existing pair of CP tracks, similar to how I illustrated in this post (Summerhill-West Toronto) and this post (West Toronto-Kipling).

Of course GO two tracks isn't as ideal as four, but there would likely only be one or two stations difference between the express and local services anyway. So even without any passing tracks a double-track railway could support a very respectable frequency.

 

[anb]

I just realized that the Kitchener corridor train buses are a complete mess. Why couldn't we just extend the 31 bus to Kitchener, allowing service to finally happen between Kitchener and Guelph, and allow anyone west of Brampton go to connect to Kitchener at ease during off peak times. Its the "Kitchener" line, not Guelph, so how come its own train bus line can't even do that?

 

[Streety McCarface]

I just realized that the Kitchener corridor train buses are a complete mess. Why couldn't we just extend the 31 bus to Kitchener, allowing service to finally happen between Kitchener and Guelph, and allow anyone west of Brampton go to connect to Kitchener at ease during off peak times. Its the "Kitchener" line, not Guelph, so how come its own train bus line can't even do that?

1. The same reason we can't seem to have a Kitchener-Aberfoyle, a Kitchener-Downtown Toronto or Kitchener-Hamilton bus; because the coach companies have corridor rights.
2. It would be a barely used service
3. There are like 2 communities outside of Guelph between Georgetown and Kitchener — Acton and Rockwood. Given that only one has a GO station and that sees around 50 daily users, I doubt there's a need for more reverse peak buses to Kitchener, especially from those communities.
4. Kitchener has the 30, (and the 25 for that matter, which is one of the most frequent GO Bus routes and I believe the most frequent of routes that serve communities outside the GTHA).

 

[ShonTron]

1. The same reason we can't seem to have a Kitchener-Aberfoyle, a Kitchener-Downtown Toronto or Kitchener-Hamilton bus; because the coach companies have corridor rights.
2. It would be a barely used service
3. There are like 2 communities outside of Guelph between Georgetown and Kitchener — Acton and Rockwood. Given that only one has a GO station and that sees around 50 daily users, I doubt there's a need for more reverse peak buses to Kitchener, especially from those communities.
4. Kitchener has the 30, (and the 25 for that matter, which is one of the most frequent GO Bus routes and I believe the most frequent of routes that serve communities outside the GTHA).

If Greyhound disappears (which it might) the Highway 7 corridor between Guelph and Kitchener magically opens up. It's also technically possible for GO to start up a Aldershot-Guelph route right now. There's also nothing stopping GO from operating a DMU shuttle between the two cities once track capacity is improved, as Metrolinx already owns the corridor now.

If I were in charge, I'd buy up all intraprovincial bus routes not already held by GO or Northland and redesign and expand the entire intercity bus network, with a mix of owned/operated core routes, contracted secondary routes (with a guaranteed subsidy), and municipally-coordinated connections where they already exist (Simcoe County, Norfolk County, Chatham-Kent, etc.), connecting with GO and VIA where appropriate.

 

[robmausser]

I'm not convinced of the need to kick CP off the midtown corridor for the sake of the Milton line. The corridor is wide enough to fit a pair of GO tracks in addition to the existing pair of CP tracks, similar to how I illustrated in this post (Summerhill-West Toronto) and this post (West Toronto-Kipling).

Of course GO two tracks isn't as ideal as four, but there would likely only be one or two stations difference between the express and local services anyway. So even without any passing tracks a double-track railway could support a very respectable frequency.

The corridor is owned by CP, and like I said earlier, all work has to be done by CP. Metrolinx has been scolded in the past for being burned by CP for capital works projects, and they are hesitant to continue to do so.

Metrolinx under fire for CN, CP deals

Transit agency’s seen as being in weak bargaining position, but auditor general’s report not alone in criticism.

www.thestar.com

CP doesnt want to do the work and will charge a premium, PLUS, any trackage laid while the corridor is owned by CP, CP gets to use for their freight trains, just like what happened with VIA and CN.

There was work planned for more tracks in the CP corridor but it has stalled for the above reasons.

The only way we will ever see more service in the CP corridor is if Metrolinx shifted CP to the York subdivision and pays for their dedicated tracks there. Very expensive and requiring federal involvement and agreements by CP and CN.

 

[crs1026]

The corridor is owned by CP, and like I said earlier, all work has to be done by CP. Metrolinx has been scolded in the past for being burned by CP for capital works projects, and they are hesitant to continue to do so.

Metrolinx under fire for CN, CP deals

Transit agency’s seen as being in weak bargaining position, but auditor general’s report not alone in criticism.

www.thestar.com

CP doesnt want to do the work and will charge a premium, PLUS, any trackage laid while the corridor is owned by CP, CP gets to use for their freight trains, just like what happened with VIA and CN.

There was work planned for more tracks in the CP corridor but it has stalled for the above reasons.

The only way we will ever see more service in the CP corridor is if Metrolinx shifted CP to the York subdivision and pays for their dedicated tracks there. Very expensive and requiring federal involvement and agreements by CP and CN.

I'm not so sure that particular A-G report had all that much significance, other than slapping CP/CN's wrist for being greedy, and ML's wrist for not being more diligent in negotiating. The issue may have added some moral high ground to ML's position, but did not lead to pressure on government to change the law.

It would be hard to explain why the legal/commercial environment allows ML to proceed with the Bowmanville extension, with CP's apparent agreement, when it is not proceeding with something on the Milton Line. Nor VIA with HFR. It's even harder to believe that a full removal of CP to the bypass would happen under terms more favourable to ML than a much less intrusive Milton corridor expansion transaction.

I have no doubt that CP extracts a pretty penny and uses interesting accounting. Paying an entry fee to CP, or making mods that benefit their freight operation, is not necessarily wrong. One should not expect CP to offer their assets for free. In negotiation, lots of bad arguments get forgotten once both parties get to a middle point that both can live with.

It's similar to Rail Deck Park..... like the current owners there, CP may be asking the sun and the earth for what ML wants. That might make them greedy, but it doesn't make them wrong in law. The only way to find out the "fair price" is to ask a court.... and the wise saying about going to court is, don't ask for a decision unless you are willing to live with it.

The more likely explanation is that ML is not prepared to go before a third party where the result might not be as favourable as their business case analysis requires. And might lead to a discovery process, where they would have to table data that under a negotiated agreement they need not divulge publicly. That may put them at a disadvantage in a negotiation, but it doesn't prevent them from getting a deal so long as CP likes the price offered.

- Paul

 

[robmausser]

It would be hard to explain why the legal/commercial environment allows ML to proceed with the Bowmanville extension, with CP's apparent agreement, when it is not proceeding with something on the Milton Line. Nor VIA with HFR. It's even harder to believe that a full removal of CP to the bypass would happen under terms more favourable to ML than a much less intrusive Milton corridor expansion transaction.

The Bowmanville extension will be something like 5 peak trains a day. Thats less than whats already allowed on the Milton Line. So the precedent has already been set.

What CP doesnt want is some express, electrified all day service in their corridor, which is what the discussion is about.

I believe the HFR plan will find CP to be hard to deal with, and will do something like route the VIA trains down the Stouffville Line with a connection to the Peterborough sub.

The Peterborough sub is expected to be outright bought by VIA, so that is a similar solution to the missing link in Toronto with Metrolinx.

 

[Northern Light]

The Bowmanville extension will be something like 5 peak trains a day. Thats less than whats already allowed on the Milton Line. So the precedent has already been set.

What CP doesnt want is some express, electrified all day service in their corridor, which is what the discussion is about.

I believe the HFR plan will find CP to be hard to deal with, and will do something like route the VIA trains down the Stouffville Line with a connection to the Peterborough sub.

The Peterborough sub is expected to be outright bought by VIA, so that is a similar solution to the missing link in Toronto with Metrolinx.

Bomanville is pegged for 2-way, All-day, last I heard.

Though likely at a much lower level that the core of LSE, maybe hourly.