Metrolinx has launched a study of substantially increased rail capacity in the Weston Malton corridor to serve the growing demand on several lines in the northwest as well as a Union-Airport shuttle service.
Affected and proposed GO services include:
- Brampton (frequent, express all day service)
- Georgetown (all day service)
- Guelph (peak service)
- Bradford (all day service)
- Bolton (peak service)
For further information please refer to the Metrolinx project homepage. There will be six public meetings between February 3 and 12 in various communities.
Worth noting is the timetable which includes several months of consultation, then the formal assessment of the proposal and public comment.
Updated January 24:
Mike Sullivan from the Weston Community Coalition has provided the following information about proposal.
- From a meeting with Metrolinx Chair Rob MacIsaac, Mike has learned that three tracks are to be added between West Toronto Junction and the Airport, four tracks from the Junction to Union.
- The tracks on the CN only (not the CP) will be in a trench through Weston, and this will be covered (ventillation will obviously be an issue with diesel trains) from just northwest of Church to just southeast of King.
- The John Street crossing just north of Weston Station will be closed and replaced with a pedestrian bridge.
- Air-Rail Link trains will stop at Weston Station.
- The crossings at Strachan Avenue (west of Bathurst) and Dennison Avenue (about .5 km south of Lawrence) will be grade separated.
- Operations will be diesel both on GO and the Air-Rail Link. Electrification might happen in the 15-25 year timeframe. [By that time, the refurbished Budd cars providing the airport link will be at least 70 years old if they are still in use.]
- Some land expropriation is likely both for the grade separation at Dennison and at the north end of Weston.
- Service to Brampton will be every 15 minutes all day long in addition to the airport service and other trains in the corridor.
Steve Munro 
Hopefully Metrolinx puts a plan together soon as the feds seem to be looking to invest in projects right now that will help stimulate the economy.
LikeLike
The new proposal seems vastly improved, when one looks at the Weston issue and various other corridor benefits.
Its a shame though that we still seem to be stuck with no GO service to the airport, and instead a lesser private operator with lesser equipment.
Still, the benefits of vast amounts of new track, the Weston trenching, and a substantial investment at Bloor/Dundas West are not to ignored.
My only serious reservation now is the cost of what is proposed, this is going to be a big number. I imagine the private operator will not have to cover any of the cost either.
Steve, did you get a look at the track numbers? I was looking at the Sat. photos of the corridor (8 or 9 tracks, I think, at peak). They are pretty much proposing to re-track the entire corridor. I wonder if this has any impact on the Toronto Railpath?
Steve: As far as I know, the railpath is not affected.
LikeLike
Why Bradford, and not Barrie?
And has any thought been given to using third rail power on these trains, similar to some lines on the Long Island and Metro North railroads?
Steve: Use of third rail poses problems both for weather (snow/ice) and for restriction of access to the right-of-way.
LikeLike
I didn’t know where to put this but another piece of good news it that…
Google Transit now has York Region Transit!
Why can’t the country’s largest transit authority use Google Transit? *Sigh*
Steve: I believe that the TTC is working on this, but don’t know when it will be available.
LikeLike
I was reading the article about it in this morning’s Metro. Apparently they hope to begin construction at the end of this year. Whether this actually happens, remains to be seen. Steve, any idea of the validity of a quick turnaround to the beginning of construction for this project?
Steve: I suspect that they will find some comparatively straightforward preparatory work (utilities relocation, maybe some preliminary regrading) that will allow them to claim a 2009 startup. In the same vein, construction of the York U subway is already underway, but on stuff that more or less disappears when it is completed.
LikeLike
Yes, we need improvements to transit, but the city core must have far greater benefit from this rail corridor and billions than currently seem to be possible.
The Weston Community Coalition has suggested a subway/public transit route with about 13 stops between the Airport and Union, and this is far far more sensible than more suburban/regional travel, though it too needs to have improvements.
I’m still sensing that a “fix” is already in, despite a few hundred million of extra work to help Weston buy-in, but we already may have adequate service to the Airport as is, and will there be an evaluation of a more TTC-based use of this rail corridor as per the Downtown Relief Line plan of 1985? And I favour using Front St. for transit to enhance linkages to Bathurst and Spadina TTC routes, as well as the many many existing destinations on Front St. that now don’t have transit. Front St. is wider than other core streets, and it’s wise to relieve some stress from all links leading to Union Station.
The core really needs to have some benefit from all of these projects, not merely bills and overcrowding.
The remarks of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario in his annual Message of last year’s report touches on needing to have meaningful consultation.
Steve: Dare I point out that we don’t really do “environmental assessments” on transit projects any more? We have a sham process intended to rubber stamp whatever scheme has already been decided on, all in the name of getting transit moving quickly.
LikeLike
I am curious as to why they are not electrifying this line and Lakeshore west. They can still run diesels while electrification is in progress but at least the sound and smoke pollution from those diesels won’t be around for as long. Electrifying a few 100kms shouldn’t take more than 2 years.
Steve: If you read the GO2020 report, you will see that GO is not embracing electrification as strongly as Metrolinx. There are also issues with the mainline railways that have to operate in the same corridor and who own the tracks.
LikeLike
Many people have put forward the idea of extending the people to the line, and building a GO/VIA Station there. Seems to be a better idea, then providing premium service with one stop at Weston for the residents.
LikeLike
It is worth noting that Blue22 (Perhaps now Blue25 or so?) now seems committed to stopping at Bloor/Dundas West and at the new Weston station.
LikeLike
GO’s MP40 locomotives are a big improvement in the smoke department, but are quite a bit louder than the F59s. I definitely think sound is more of an issue than the smoke, as the sound of the MP40s accelerating carries quite far.
Regarding James’ point about the private operator, if it is only going to be running the train, (probably similarly to how Bombardier operates the GO trains) and therefore would not have any relationship with the construction costs.
Steve: The construction costs come into it because the private operator is freeloading on infrastructure improvements made for GO Transit that are at a scale not contemplated when Blue 22 was first proposed.
LikeLike
Although I am willing to bet that the number of passengers taking Blue22 at Weston GO per day will be in the single digits – especially since the 58 Malton goes right by that GO station.
Steve: It will be interesting to see how many take Blue 22 at all from any station. Why would someone get on at Dundas West when they can just go to Kipling and take the bus? It’s the premium fare that makes nonsense of the whole thing. Also, if the line ever electrifies, you can bet SNC Lavalin will find a way to get someone else to pay for new cars.
Blue 22 should be killed off now, and the airport service rolled into GO Transit.
LikeLike
fiendish: Third-rail technology also can’t support voltages nearly as high as overhead wires can, so it has trouble with heavy or fast trains. This has severely hampered expansion in the south of England, which has an extensive third-rail network dating from the early 20th century (one company promised to lengthen eight-carriage trains, and then discovered that such a thing was impossible), and is why it’s considered largely legacy technology for anything higher-end than the subway.
LikeLike
Well, whatever the folks in Weston think needs to be addressed to win their support I hope they keep right on hounding the powers that be. A rail link between downtown to Pearson of some sort IS needed but how can anyone possibly blame those poor folks for not wanting their neck of the woods split up? It now looks like there’s going to be a Union Station to Pearson in whatever form for better or for worse so the only course of action now is for all interested parties to fight for whatever improvements that will make this thing more palatable and fight for the removal of whatever shortcomings these parties find objectionable then maybe Toronto will something at least fairly different from when first proposed.
LikeLike
There are also public meetings happening about extending Georgetown GO service to Kitchener. Is that related to this?
Steve: Possibly, although I suspect that’s a GO project, not a Metrolinx one. Do you have a link to info on this?
LikeLike
fiendish Says:
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:41 am
“Why Bradford, and not Barrie? “
“And has any thought been given to using third rail power on these trains, similar to some lines on the Long Island and Metro North railroads?”
One reason the line was cut back to Bradford was the snow conditions between Bradford and Barrie. Another reason to stop daily service at Bradford right now or in the near future for daily service is cost. You would need an extra train and extra passing sidings to go to hourly service to Barrie. Granted you do not need to buy anymore equipment but it needs to be operated. A connector bus at first is probably more cost effective.
Third rail power limits you to about 750 VDC which would require a lot of sub stations, not to mention the fencing problems to keep trespassers and animal from frying themselves. Then there is also the infamous snow belt between Bradford and Barrie.
LikeLike
Saurabh Says:
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
I am curious as to why they are not electrifying this line and Lakeshore west. They can still run diesels while electrification is in progress but at least the sound and smoke pollution from those diesels won’t be around for as long. Electrifying a few 100kms shouldn’t take more than 2 years.
I worked in the late 60’s as a student electrical engineer for CN motive power and discussed the problems of electrification with the senior engineers. One of the major problems was that CN, and probably CP, would not allow anything but 25 000 VAC to match any future mainline electrification. This voltage would require the replacement of most of the bridges that go over railway line as there is not sufficient clearance for this high voltage, especially with the high level auto racks and double stack container trains. Go needs to own its own tracks and then give running rights back to the freight lines for any switching that they need.
The installation of the overhead and sub stations requires a lot of specialized equipment, especially along the ROW, not to mention the rebuilding of many overpasses.
LikeLike
Does this mean there won’t be any room left for LRT in that corridor?
Steve: Almost certainly, yes, especially after the line turns west to cross the Humber River.
LikeLike
Could it be that it will not be electric because the feds are supported by big oil?
And could it be that it will be private because the feds are anti-union so they don’t want it to be part of GO or TTC?
Steve: Blue 22 was conceived long before Metrolinx planned to electrify GO. GO Transit for its part (see GO2020) advocates a mix of express and local trains that would provide comparable service improvement for long-haul riders without the (pardon the pun) overhead and complexity of electrification.
Also, the proponent is a company well-known for its connections with the Liberal government who were in power at the time. I doubt that GO wanted to pursue the idea because, of all the things they might have done to expand their services, running dedicated trains to the airport was way down their list of priorities. Note that the service only makes sense because it will use refurbished, antique equipment, the right-of-way improvements are paid for by the public sector, and the fare will be four times or more what a comparable GO Transit fare would be. A sweetheart deal for the private sector, like so many others in this country.
LikeLike
Robert: You can go considerably higher than 750V DC. San Francisco’s BART system uses 1000V DC.
LikeLike
If this is a service that will be costing about $20/one way, I can’t understand why anybody would support this proposal — other than those who will be running it.
The pricing structure alone means most of the folks who could benefit from this route (the literally thousands who work in the airport area, or along this axis) will be shut out from using it. Put two potential riders going together between Union and the airport and it isn’t even a bargain for those two riders. In its current state, this proposal is a white elephant. Why are we spending public monies and benefits (sorry I don’t buy the Premier’s “private financing” claims) on a line to benefit private interests? Built properly (ie with a few more connections) and priced properly, this line has great potential to make the north-west corner of the city a much more transit friendly place, and thereby significantly reduce car ridership. In its current form, this line will fall far short of that.
Any service that costs many times (ie about $20 one way) more than surrounding services (ie GO or TTC) is not an integrated service. This will only benefit a very small percentage of potential riders. Put two potential riders going together between Union and the airport and it isn’t even a bargain for those two riders.
Why isn’t Metrolinx voicing concerns about this mess? Why hasn’t GO (or even TTC) stepped up to the place as potential operators of this route? So much for their collective credibility.
Why are we spending public monies and benefits (sorry I don’t buy the Premier’s “private financing” claims) on a line to benefit private interests? Yes, by all means build it — but build it and structure the service in the way that will do the most benefit.
LikeLike
Justin Bernard Says:
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“Robert: You can go considerably higher than 750V DC. San Francisco’s BART system uses 1000V DC.”
.
I did say about 750 Volts and a 33% increase in voltage will only in crease your substation spacing by about 75 to 80% and still not get rid of the problem with the Snow Belt, trespassers (especially the idiot snow mobilers who threatened to derail the GO service to Barrie because in interfered with their trail) and animals. The cost of the third rail, substations and necessary fencing would be greater than the cost of the overhead installation. GO owns this line north of the York sub and the Stouffville line north of York as well. I bet that they would have no problem getting the part between the Lakeshore lines and the York sub as well as CN then would not need to switch it as it would become GO’s problem. I bet that GO would like to get control over the Lakeshore lines but CN is starting to run more through intermodal trains along that do not need to stop at Bramport of Macmillan Yard.
I think that this is the reason that GO is not pushing electrification as strongly as they might because they know what battles they can win and what they cannot. I will be interested in what CP demands from GO for allowing rush hour service to Bolton. I bet that they will want the MacTier sub double tracked with full CTC signalling from the North Toronto Sub to Bolton or Sudbury.
LikeLike
Regarding GO’s electification plans….
Many of the “choke points” regarding electrification have been solved – a lot of them were signal bridges that have since been replaced during the upgrading programs on both of the Lakeshore Lines. And as for clearing double-stack containers and ultra-high tri-level autoracks (20 feet, 2 inches tall), modern catenary can easily clear this.
And while yes, the Union Station trainshed is still a problem, it too has been solved – half the catenary voltage so that you need less clearance, and it will fit between the roof of a BiLevel and the underside of the trainshed. The trains won’t be going that fast through there anyways.
As for the whole Blue22 fiasco, dare I suggest something that I’ve been suggesting for many years now: extend the people mover to the rail corridor, and build a new rail station, complete with connections to both GO and VIA Rail services.
Dan
LikeLike
I think that the demands for CP would probably include space for them in the GTA West corridor proposed by Metrolinx. This corridor will open up the Galt Sub much more than the MacTier Sub (opening up the MacTier Sub would require a GTA East corridor), but depending on what role CP’s yard in Vaughan takes on, as well as where its trains are bound for, and whether or not CP can use the York Sub between Islington and the Rouge Valley, it might be able to alleviate traffic on MacTier and North Toronto. However, that’s asking for a LOT! CN not being a crown entity anymore is a real monkey wrench in the whole scheme.
LikeLike
I can’t find a link, but I do have an ad clipped from the Waterloo Region Record. This is what it says:
The ad was placed by GO Transit.
A site that is watching developments is http://gokw.org/.
LikeLike
If we’re serious about addressing climate change, air travel can’t continue as it is, and George Monbiot does a good analysis/clarion call on this.
So we can’t presume that the volumes forecast, and that Pearson was built for can continue, and the Airport itself may well become if not a white elephant then a smog-brown elephant, as we don’t really count the many emissions from aircraft.
John Barber had a factoid of a 60% capacity at Pearson in the last couple of days, so it really makes even less sense to spend a billion plus or what ever it is for relatively limited benefit.
I’m glad Steve swiped at the sham EA processes – I’ve got a cartoon for you Steve, I’ll send it along sometime.
LikeLike
Are there any documents available which detail this enormous track expansion? It seems to be well beyond what was depicted in the original GO Georgetown Corridor Expansion study.
Steve: Not yet. Metrolinx claims that this will be online for public commentary. Otherwise, you will have to attend one of the open houses.
LikeLike
I don’t see mention of the other level crossings. What about the Old Weston Road at Junction Road and the Brock Avenue level crossings? Are they to remain or will they be bridged or underpassed?
Steve: Good questions. Maybe, again, Metrolinx hasn’t done its homework.
LikeLike
I think that it makes a lot of sense for the Government of Ontario Transit; for that is what GO Transit is, to provide more service to other parts of Ontario. Service Of two trains a day inbound in the Morning and outbound in the afternoon could be provided for the purchase of one extra train set and locomotive for Kitchener, Cambridge and Brantford. Kitchener and Branford currently have early morning Via service arriving around 8:30 for a round trip fare of $42.00 from Brantford and $52.00 from Kitchener. There are a number of people who are willing to pay this price. GO fares would be about $20.00 per day to Kitchener on a pass and slightly less to Brantford. Cambridge does not have any real public passenger service to Toronto except for a Greyhound that gets in at 9:25 and costs about $52.00 return.
The reason that they are looking at going to Baden is that it is advantageous to have the storage facility on the far side of the final stop so that the train does not have to reverse and interfere with the next train out. They could also put a station with a large parking lot there for very little money and intercept passengers from west of the Kitchener Waterloo area.
LikeLike
Someone mentioned on spacing.ca that the whole thing lacks vision. I was doing some thinking on it, and the only way this thing has ‘vision’ is if regional and inter-city transit improves greatly. I’m thinking that the line will be used to connect airline passengers quickly to Union (possibly at a reduced combo travel fare), then from there to connect them to various smaller cities in southern Ontario by (greatly improved) GO/VIA rail or Greyhound bus. So that essentially this line isn’t designed to connect downtown to the airport, but to connect south-central Ontario to the airport.
This would explain the high fare and lack of stops.
Obviously I have mixed feelings about this. On the pro, this could help many cities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe and south-central Ontario grow their economies. Many cities see themselves as part of the GTA, when they are in fact outside the CMA (Oshawa/Whitby and Burlington are prime examples), and we have people commuting from other cities when they should be working in their own (Barrie, Peterborough, Guelph, etc). If these smaller cities have a rapid connection to the country’s largest airport, it can help grow their economies and reduce commuting from outside the region.
On the con side, is that we need a connection from downtown to the airport, not for Ontario. Most transit enthusiasts agree that the subway should be used to get around the city, while GO should be used to get into the city. Right now the subway is used to get into AND around the city, while the GO is designed to get 9-5 business district commuters into the city only.
On the topic of the airport, we need GO trains running to and from the airport every 10 minutes, and add stops at Eglinton (York), St. Clair (The Junction), and Dufferin/Queen (Parkdale) as a means to not only get commuters from the airport into the city, but commuters from the inner-suburbs into the city as well.
LikeLike
Apparently Delhi Metro uses 25kV AC traction, switching from catenary to rigid overhead rail in tunnels. Sounds like something that might help the trainshed problem while conforming to traction attractive to freight haulage.
I think this should be looked at in the context of electric multiple units though, with locohauled stock being displaced onto new non-electric lines with surplus above this and life-expired stock resold to other systems unlikely to see electrification in the near term such as West Coast Express or a GO system for Ottawa.
Steve: The trainshed at Union is not an issue. The redesigned roof that will be installed as part of the Union Station reno already has been adjusted to provide sufficient clearance for the overhead wires. This is a slightly different situation than at bridges out on the mainline where not only passenger equipment but freights will operate.
LikeLike
If there are going to be 3-4 tracks, is there a chance that two of those could be reserved for passenger rail only so that they could use lighter stock (i.e. Bombardier Talent or Siemens Desiro DMUs)?
Steve: I will be quite surprised to see GO take up any “ligher stock” as you put it considering the service levels planned for all of their lines over the next 15 years.
LikeLike
Will the trench through Weston mean a level crossing where Lawrence Ave. goes under the tracks?
Do they really mean 3 and 4 additional tracks? That would be enough capacity to make the DRL redundant, if we could just move everyone from Vaughan to Malton.
Steve: The DRL shows up on the map as a “U”, but it really only needs the east leg. Partly this is due to the University subway, but moreso because there is (or will be) stronger commuter rail presence west of downtown. East of downtown, the rail corridor is rather inconveniently located for intercepting passengers on the Danforth subway and its catchment area.
LikeLike
At this point, would there be restitution to pay (to the private operator) if Blue-22 were canceled outright or recast within the public sphere?
Steve: I suspect that in the best tradition of PPP contracts, there are penalty clauses to keep governments from backing out, but much of this depends on how the clauses for damage calculations are written. Personally, unless we are on the hook for some ridiculous fortune, I feel we would be better to just buy they out, and stop getting into such ridiculous situations in the future.
LikeLike
Brock Ave. is already grade-separated… I believe I have a photograph I took of the Brock crossing kicking around here on my files somewhere… but you can see it on Google or Live Maps.
As for Old Weston Road… my money is on closure but with a pedestrian bridge, mainly because Old Weston Road doesn’t continue south anyway.
LikeLike
W. K. Lis says: “I don’t see mention of the other level crossings. What about the Old Weston Road at Junction Road and the Brock Avenue level crossings? Are they to remain or will they be bridged or underpassed?”
The level crossing at Old Weston and Junction is already adjusted. The West Toronto diamond is undergoing grade separation by GO already, and that submerges the CN Weston sub under the CP North Toronto sub. Old Weston and the parallel CPR wye share a bridge over the Old Weston trench.
Unless you’re talking about another Brock Avenue – I’m looking at google maps and seeing Brock pass under the Weston sub just south of Florence? – that’s also a non-issue.
LikeLike
I am kind of divided on this issue:
One side of me wants this rail as I am a big fan of rail travel (gotta love European Rail system).
The other side of me is thinking about the community: I don’t want a rail track behind my house.
What I have not seen in the comments on this site and others is the issue/topic of the rail link’s ability of taking away some of the traffic out of the island airport.
I find it funny that when flying Toronto-Ottawa, that out of Pearson it’s cheaper than with Porter via the island airport. Like Pearson-Ottawa is GO Transit and Porter-Ottawa is the premium Blue 22.
Whatever ends up being built, it could have an extension into Mississauga or whatever northbound, but I think it would have the additional benefit of “wounding” or even “killing” the Island airport then a park, or whatever else can be built on the land (that’s another discussion).
At the end someone will “suffer”. The Weston Community, or regular people who will pay $20 each way for the fare.
LikeLike
GO Train service from K-W to add trips to Toronto sounds great, but at what point does a trip on the GO train, even express from Brampton, get too long? It’s currently 58 minutes from Georgetown to Union, I don’t know what the trip times from Guelph to Georgetown were when the GO trains ran to Guelph from 1991-1993, but then adding additional time for Kitchener starts making for one VERY long ride.
The current Lakeshore West express trips to Hamilton are over an hour, and that’s a long haul to sit on a GO coach. If we had the optimal situation of inter-governmental co-operation (waiting for the planets to align on that one), there would be improved VIA Rail service, appropriately priced, for the long-haul commutes. This is one area where the province and Feds really need to properly integrate things. One can dream….
LikeLike
As I understand it with the Old Weston Road crossing, two tracks will be tunnelled under the CP North Toronto Sub and the trench will run all the way under the wye and the road, re-surfacing by the time they reach St. Clair Avenue and the bridge there. One new track will be laid at the current level west of the existing ones as a bypass and continue through the road crossing. This will mean that the road crossing will still have at least three tracks passing through it. One new bridge has already been added over Dupont Street to accomodate the bypass track. The bypass will be needed initially until completion of the tunnel. It will likely remain afterwards.
Old Weston Road meets Junction Road which runs out to Keele Street. It is well used as an alternate route around the often horribly congested Keele/St. Clair intersection and for other local access including emergency vehicles. Closing the road crossing is simply out of the question.
LikeLike
“Air-Rail Link trains will stop at Weston Station. ”
There’s no way the predicted passenger demand from Weston to Pearson justifies these trains stopping here. This seems like a really bad idea.
Steve: The really stupid part is that this is a premium fare service which pretty much guarantees low demand everywhere. If this were part of the regular GO network, a stop in Weston would be perfectly normal.
LikeLike
Makes me wonder if the Weston community would have preferred a fixed link to the Island Airport. Steve, what were your thoughts regarding this issue?
Steve: The Island Airport should be closed. It has lost money consistently for years, and its prime tenant is only financially viable because of substantial public subsidy.
As for your fixed link remark, I think you are misrepresenting the Weston folks as so many others have done. Their basic issues are that whatever goes through Weston should not intrude on the neighbourhood and certainly not sever it. A fixed link to the Island Airport would condemn us to propping up that facility forever, and could be the thin edge of a scheme to redevelop the property. It needs to stay as parkland, and the best way to ensure that is to make it comparatively difficult to access.
LikeLike