News   Apr 01, 2026
Lombard Canyon
 175     0 
News   Mar 31, 2026
City Council March, 2026: Plenty of Rental, Mutli-Phase Redevelopments Approved
 1.5K     2 
News   Mar 31, 2026
Building Toronto’s Skyline Podcast Event to Feature Brad Bradford in Concord
 250     3 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

crs1026 said:
It's worth going back to the GO Expansion Business Case before we start assuming increases (which, as noted, have been drawn from noise and other studies whose baselines are by design more conservative than the actual ML plan)

Note the ridership changes that ML is projecting. This does not seem to argue for any all- day enhancement of the Richmond Hill line

View attachment 615334

Also note the commentary.

View attachment 615333

The point being..... we can all argue our individual opinions, but if this is ML's plan, this is all they are going to build. Maybe in a decade or two....

- Paul
Click to expand...
Looking at that document, at how small the dot for Bloomington is ... and how big that parking garage is. I'm not sure why they couldn't have just built a parking lot similar to the one Acton (which was already there, and grossly underused on weekdays). I'm just realising now that ridership was never projected to be that high at all!
 
crs1026 said:
It's worth going back to the GO Expansion Business Case before we start assuming increases (which, as noted, have been drawn from noise and other studies whose baselines are by design more conservative than the actual ML plan)

Note the ridership changes that ML is projecting. This does not seem to argue for any all- day enhancement of the Richmond Hill line

View attachment 615334

Also note the commentary.

View attachment 615333

The point being..... we can all argue our individual opinions, but if this is ML's plan, this is all they are going to build. Maybe in a decade or two....

- Paul
Click to expand...
The scope of GO expansion has changed significantly from the business case from my understanding after the proponent was selected.

It would not surprise me if the proponent identified the potential for significant increases in service levels on the Richmond Hill line, when before Metrolinx had largely been identifying it as "out of scope" of the project.

At the time of the business case, I believe Metrolinx viewed the RH line as remaining more or less in stasis at current service levels.

Bloomington was always intended to try to relieve parking pressure on Aurora GO - but it struggles as the RH line has much more limited service and is also significantly slower than the Barrie Line at getting downtown.
 
Everyone just remember how much were supposed to obey these business cases and not question them when they conclude that bike lanes produce more traffic and hurt the economy therefore they need to go.
 
nfitz said:
I'd say an increase from 10 trains (total) per day to 81 trains a day is a lot more than a minor service improvement! That's at least every 30-minutes all-day both ways (how that's possible without at least some passing tracks I don't know). Perhaps I'm missing something.

I'm certainly not saying Richmond Hill needs a significant improvement (I really don't see the demand is there south of Richmond Hill GO - especially once the Line 1 extension opens). I'm just surprised at how big the number is! I'm not sure what they are thinking here ... I wonder if using the DMUs might be an option for this line.

Obviously Milton needs significant approval - which is why both Ontario and the Feds are talking about it. But Richmond Hill is, in comparison, low-hanging fruit. Perhaps GO staff think it might help some of them keep their jobs, after ONxpress supplants some of their functions.
Click to expand...
Weekend bus service would be a huge improvement on the Richmond Hill line.
 
sixrings said:
Everyone just remember how much were supposed to obey these business cases and not question them when they conclude that bike lanes produce more traffic and hurt the economy therefore they need to go.
Click to expand...
Ok, I guess I will never trust a business case ever again - that includes that of any Subway, Light Rail, or Highway Project.

In fact, since we can never trust that a Business Case is trustworthy, we should just stop building stuff altogether. Let's get rid of most taxes, and completely abandon the idea of capital projects. If someone wants to build a piece of infrastructure like a rail line, it should only be done via private money and firms. Clearly the government is way too biased and incompetent to ever be involved in that process. Brightline seems to be an amazing model, and should be the main way we get anything built on this continent.

... wait what do you mean the Feds contributed to Brightline?
 
ARG1 said:
Ok, I guess I will never trust a business case ever again - that includes that of any Subway, Light Rail, or Highway Project.

In fact, since we can never trust that a Business Case is trustworthy, we should just stop building stuff altogether. Let's get rid of most taxes, and completely abandon the idea of capital projects. If someone wants to build a piece of infrastructure like a rail line, it should only be done via private money and firms. Clearly the government is way too biased and incompetent to ever be involved in that process. Brightline seems to be an amazing model, and should be the main way we get anything built on this continent.

... wait what do you mean the Feds contributed to Brightline?
Click to expand...
I largely become a skeptic depending who is in power. If the people in power propose new highways (413), tunnels under the 401 and ripping up bike lanes it makes me become skeptics of their business cases.
 
Bojaxs said:
What do you guys make of this? Any truth to it?
Also what exactly is Alstom's role within Onxpress? I thought they were going to take over fleet maintenance, but that was contracted out to CAD Rail fleet. So Alstom's role within Onxpress is to make sure Metrolinx only procures Alstom equipment?
https://www.reddit.com/r/gotransit/comments/1h1ym64/prepare_for_a_messy_2025
Click to expand...

Let me bring that forward for the click averse:

1732817822099.png
 
innsertnamehere said:
I mean often these come from disgruntled employees not privy to the full picture.

These kinds of transitions are also not uncommon to experience a few "growing pains" which I'm sure will be resolved by mid 2025.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I am still stunned that the concept of "successor rights" did not apply to labour agreements, employment status, etc for operating and maintenance staff. I guess the law is less airtight than I had imagined.

The issue of the changeover leading to resetting vacation entitlements and limiting time off is one that I have heard directly from train crews. And the need to reapply for jobs with certified credentials is a bit hard to understand, although it may be understandable for management positions and the office organization (which may look nothing like ML's old organization).

- Paul
 
innsertnamehere said:
I mean often these come from disgruntled employees not privy to the full picture.
Click to expand...
I would normally agree with you on these kinds of things.

But if the poster is who I think he is, he is someone who has operated at Bombardier/Alstom for quite some time and is very well connected with much of the staff there - and not just on the operations side, either.

innsertnamehere said:
These kinds of transitions are also not uncommon to experience a few "growing pains" which I'm sure will be resolved by mid 2025.
Click to expand...
Yes, but......

There have been some very serious missteps with this process. Both in terms of how it was laid out and has happened, and also due to Alstom management's stubbornness, with a bit of Metrolinx overreach mixed in for fun.

crs1026 said:
Perhaps, but I am still stunned that the concept of "successor rights" did not apply to labour agreements, employment status, etc for operating and maintenance staff. I guess the law is less airtight than I had imagined.

- Paul
Click to expand...
It does, but only if the agreements have been put into place to make them happen.

That has not happened here - at least not as yet.

Dan
 
Perhaps, I'm just usually wary of these kinds of rumours.

And even if the rumours are true, these things have a tendency to resolve themselves by the time the time-critical date rolls around (in this case, January 1st).
 
smallspy said:
It does, but only if the agreements have been put into place to make them happen.

That has not happened here - at least not as yet.

Dan
Click to expand...

Interesting....I looked it up. The Collective Agreement between Alstom and TCRC 660 expires Dec 31 2024. How convenient.

All the same, successor rights are about the right to represent as well as the continuation of any collective agreement then in force. So I can't see how TCRC 660 loses its rights to negotiate a first agreement with Onxpress. And I can't imagine that the workforce would accept an agreement that didn't generally match the old one.

But a good lawyer....

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Interesting....I looked it up. The Collective Agreement between Alstom and TCRC 660 expires Dec 31 2024. How convenient.

All the same, successor rights are about the right to represent as well as the continuation of any collective agreement then in force. So I can't see how TCRC 660 loses its rights to negotiate a first agreement with Onxpress. And I can't imagine that the workforce would accept an agreement that didn't generally match the old one.

But a good lawyer....

- Paul
Click to expand...
Successor rights also need to be baked into the agreement between the originator and successor - Alstom and ONXpress. At this time, they have no such agreement.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top