News   Apr 02, 2026
Early Work Commencing on St Clair-Old Weston Station
 220     1 
News   Apr 02, 2026
Cranes Up, Foundations Underway at Peter Gilgan Mississauga Hospital
 295     0 
News   Apr 02, 2026
City Council March, 2026 Settlements: Negotiations Advance Projects Across Toronto
 1K     1 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

crs1026 said:
The ML agreement with CN expires July 31 2023. The ML agreement with CP expires Dec 31 2024. Those dates give an indication of when ML has the opportunity to reset the relationship (as opposed to one-of service change proposals).

There is also an interesting comment (pg30) about planning to address freight requirements on the Guelph Sub in light of future service plans (I have been hearing a rumour that the design for the new trackage at Guelph is getting pushback from GEXR and CN in light of their needs)
Click to expand...
I've thought about this in a previous post, but I wonder if this might present an opportunity to look into completely decoupling freight and passenger operations in the GTA.

For example, with this conflict, it could be worth looking into eliminating freight traffic on the Guelph Sub entirely by buying out CN and the GEXR. Most of the lines CN sold to Metrolinx are secondary and it is likely not interested in long term continued operations. I don't believe G&W is interested in long term operation of the GEXR either given the loss of the Guelph Sub.

Doing so could simplify design requirements and speed up the implementation of electrification and high frequency service.

While there would be the negative impacts of a mode shift to trucks, it would likely be more than made up for by the decrease in car traffic and other resulting benefits.
 
C_Johnson_1995 said:
I've thought about this in a previous post, but I wonder if this might present an opportunity to look into completely decoupling freight and passenger operations in the GTA.

For example, with this conflict, it could be worth looking into eliminating freight traffic on the Guelph Sub entirely by buying out CN and the GEXR. Most of the lines CN sold to Metrolinx are secondary and it is likely not interested in long term continued operations. I don't believe G&W is interested in long term operation of the GEXR either given the loss of the Guelph Sub.

Doing so could simplify design requirements and speed up the implementation of electrification and high frequency service.

While there would be the negative impacts of a mode shift to trucks, it would likely be more than made up for by the decrease in car traffic and other resulting benefits.
Click to expand...
I don’t get how this would work in practice. Given CN still needs to be able to come/go from the west, Wouldn’t they need part of the Guelph sub to reach the Halton sub and then Dundas? Without a freight bypass, they wouldn’t be off the parts of the line that still run through the contiguous GTA, and now the Dundas/Oakville sub will have even more freight traffic. Maybe not an issue if we are disinterested in passenger service to Brantford and beyond, but it makes the situation from Bayview Junction to the Halton sub even more demanding than it is now.

I generally like the idea of better segregating the two sides, but that will involve a lot of dedicated infrastructure that doesn’t exist in some cases. In many instances, GO gets to operate quite good service on CN or CP’s track; while I like the idea of adding infrastructure to segregate the two, we should probably be more particular about where and how we do this before trying to do it across the board.
 
^One has to play the ball where it lies. As of today, a great many jobs in Guelph, K-W, Stratford, and Goderich depend on the freight rail service. And CN retains certain contractual rights (which are not discoverable, but I'm told they include rights to through operation) to operate over the territory.

I'm quite certain that the cost of modifying the infrastructure to harmonise freight and more intensive passenger would be less than the cost of buying out the freight operation - that could involve not only compensation to the railways for present and future opportunity, but to municipalities for tax base if the industries involved elect to move, for road work based on added volume, and to workers themselves if shippers close up shop or move out of province.

If we ever get to HSR west of Toronto, then sure, all bets are off.... but finding a new alignment might be desired anyways.

I would see any proposal that deprives Waterloo Region or Perth County of freight service as totally unacceptable.We should b e growing that business, not eliminating it.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
^One has to play the ball where it lies. As of today, a great many jobs in Guelph, K-W, Stratford, and Goderich depend on the freight rail service. And CN retains certain contractual rights (which are not discoverable, but I'm told they include rights to through operation) to operate over the territory.

I'm quite certain that the cost of modifying the infrastructure to harmonise freight and more intensive passenger would be less than the cost of buying out the freight operation - that could involve not only compensation to the railways for present and future opportunity, but to municipalities for tax base if the industries involved elect to move, for road work based on added volume, and to workers themselves if shippers close up shop or move out of province.

If we ever get to HSR west of Toronto, then sure, all bets are off.... but finding a new alignment might be desired anyways.

I would see any proposal that deprives Waterloo Region or Perth County of freight service as totally unacceptable.We should b e growing that business, not eliminating it.

- Paul
Click to expand...

There also is a "you scratch my back and ill scratch yours" thing going on here too. GO still uses some CN owned tracks at various parts of their service, and so if they operate in bad faith towards CN, you can expect the same in return.
 
Sunnyside said:
It is in the RTP. By 2041, Milton is supposed to be part of the 15-minute GO network, ie the electrified portions, which will now see better than 15-minute service. So are ‘extensions’ to Hamilton Centre, Mount Pleasant and Mt. Joy (I think). We just can’t build it all at once.
Click to expand...

afransen said:
Perhaps in the 2018 document from the Liberal government. In the 2022 update, there is no specific commitment on this, only to "Continue to work with freight rail partners to seek options to explore GO Rail service enhancements to[...]Milton". That could be as little as adding peak trains.

Click to expand...

Allandale25 said:
Speaking of the RTP, there is a reference to it in the planning report for the upcoming board meeting.
Click to expand...

Please overvalue the RTP. We've played this game before. The Big Move was the original RTP, and it marked the Milton Line as having 2WAD service in 15 years (which considering it was published in 2008, would make that this year).

Not totally dumping on it, we have seen some of this achieved.

Big Move 15.png
 
Metroscapes said:
Please overvalue the RTP. We've played this game before. The Big Move was the original RTP, and it marked the Milton Line as having 2WAD service in 15 years (which considering it was published in 2008, would make that this year).

Not totally dumping on it, we have seen some of this achieved.

View attachment 487658
Click to expand...
I think this is a matter of interpretation... every timeline in almost every RTP has been innacurate, with projects being cancelled, moved around, changed, pushed off, etc. BUT, the RTP is as clear a document for what we, and specifically Metrolinx and the province, are working towards.

In your example, Milton being a 15-year commitment each time really just indicates it is recognized as important, but for one reason or another is not/cannot be pursued immediately. In this case, Milton made as much sense on paper as the rest of the GO Network until we determined what 'express rail' entailed; the scope of work necessary made it easier/necessary to disentangle it from the rest of GO Expansion since the Big Move.

Anywho, we cannot expect what RTPs say will come to fruition when it says it will, but dropping Milton from RTPs would indicate its no longer a priority at all. The Big Move was made at a time when we had completed no new transit projects and it was essentially how Metrolinx hoped to spend its money (before realizing how much things actually cost, and how long they would take). There has been a lot of new transit built and under construction since then, and our expectations have been tempered as we accumulate that knowledge. I would place more faith in the 2041 RTP today than The Big Move in 2008 for this reason; despite Metrolinx's shortcomings, we are starting to know what we are actually doing.

I’ll end with this; other jurisdictions have seen great success adopting a regional plan, because the more legitimate that plan is, the less external stakeholders can influence what gets built or prioritized. Sure politics gets involved, but ideally at minimum the RTP is a list of projects for people in power to choose from (as it often is elsewhere). Although it might not seem like it, the RTP has at least slightly taken away the absolute power politics has traditionally had over transit planning priorities by creating a pre-existing framework they need to acknowledge exists before screwing with it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top