The first meeting of the “new” Metrolinx Board will be held on Monday, July 13. Included in the public portion of the agenda is a report summarizing all of GO’s plans for extended service. A lot of this is old news, but it’s a convenient compendium of what they are planning.
Rail Service Expansion
- Georgetown North: Brampton to Kitchener. At this point the layover facility is shown in Baden, although I understand that there is some local controversy about this. GO has plans for all day service in this corridor, but actual implementation is dependent on studies that won’t complete until 2013 and construction thereafter.
- Georgetown South: This is the expansion of capacity on the Brampton/Weston corridor to permit frequent all day service as well as introduction of the link from Union Station to Pearson Airport.
- Milton: GO plans to expand to all day service on this line. The EA for additional facilities will complete in mid-2010, and that will be followed by construction. A separate study will review service to Cambridge, but that will not be completed until fall 2013.
- Lakeshore East: A study of service expansion to Bowmanville including a new maintenance facility will complete in early 2010. A related study of the section from Guildwood east to Durham Junction for service expansion will not begin until Winter 2011 and complete in Spring 2013.
- Lakeshore West: Although weekend service to Niagara has already started, a study of weekday service is also in the works. This will complete in mid-2010. A separate study will review the junction between rail lines in the Bayview area with a view to possible grade separation or other changes needed to run more frequent service. The EA will be conducted from 2010 to 2011.
- Barrie: The new Allendale Station will be built in 2010. An EA for changes needed to provide all day service will be carried out in 2011-2012. Preliminary work is underway for study of the Davenport Diamond grade separation as well as a new station at St. Clair.
- Richmond Hill: In the first phase, service will be extended further north and new stations will be added. Grade separation at Doncaster will be studied in 2012-2013. This is a prerequisite for all day service.
- Stouffville: In 2010-2011, GO will study double-tracking of this line to allow all day service. A separate study, with no date yet determined, will examine extension to Uxbridge.
- Peterborough: A feasibility study is already in progress for this service, but a detailed EA will not be undertaken until 2013-2015. The overview map shows service connecting either via the CP North Toronto Station or, via the Don Subdivision, to Union Station.
- Bolton: The EA for this line will be conducted in 2011-2012.
- Seaton: An EA to examine service to Seaton and Locust Hill will be conducted in 2011-2012. This service is shown as connecting to North Toronto Station.
Other Projects
GO is also planning many other changes to its system including:
- Expansion of maintenance facilities for trains at Willowbrook. With the growth in GO’s fleet, the demand for maintenance also rises. The growth in storage for the fleet will be accommodated mainly by end-of-line yards both to save on dead-heading costs, and in recognition of the limits of storing all trains in southern Etobicoke.
- Bus service will be expanded to Niagara Falls, Kitchener-Waterloo and Peterborough in Fall 2009.
- GO will study a proposed bus maintenance and storage facility in Oshawa in 2009-2010.
- Union Station capacity expansion includes many components including enlarged yards to hold 12-car trains, resignalling and restructuring of the complex approaches to the station from the east and the west, and additional pedestrian circulation capabilities. Not shown in the GO plans, but part of the City of Toronto’s project for Union Station Revitalization will be the more-than-doubling of concourse capacity for GO with the creation of a new western concourse, expansion and restructuring of the east concourse, and provision of additional pathways through the station to spread out pedestrian flows.
- Rehabilitation of the Union Station train shed will begin in fall 2009, and will include the construction of a glass atrium in the central part of the station. This is a GO project undertaken in concert with the overall City plans for the station.
After a long period in which GO expanded slowly if at all, it is refreshing to see such a large range of projects. However, few of these projects have funding at this point, and it will be interesting to see how much is announced in future Ontario/Metrolinx budgets.
Many studies will be underway by the time of the next Provincial election, and assuming the projects get funding, services would begin operation during the next four-year term at Queen’s Park. If this goes ahead, it will mean a substantial commitment both to the growth of commuter rail service in the GTA, but also of the transformation of GO in many corridors to an all day provider. This will have many implications for local transit systems that will have to provide additional service to feed the rail network.
Demand at Union Station will increase substantially, and much if not all of the planned doubling of capacity as part of the revitalization project will be consumed by additional GO services.
Steve Munro 
GO really needs the Toronto North station – the whole idea that everyone wants to go to Union has limits. Union can only handle so many trains to begin with, and again people will still have to travel from Union to get to where they are going.
Steve: A related issue here is to avoid overloading the Yonge Subway so that it actually would have capacity available at Summerhill. This is yet another argument for the Downtown Relief Line.
LikeLike
Wait, the planned Peterborough rail service looks to be on the same tracks as the potential Locust Hill service?
I admit the line has never made much sense to me, but in so much as it did, it made sense as an extension of the Oshawa line. There are a considerable number of folks who live in Peterborough but work in Oshawa, most notably who work at the GM plant. So many that the plant would likely have considered running a shuttle if you scheduled the first train in to coincide with the start of the 7am shift. Combining that demand with the demand to commute into Toronto, and I could almost see the point (aside from political patronage).
Between Peterborough and Locust Hill, on the other hand, the only demand I can think of would have been me in my University days. I admit that going to my mom’s in Markham, she would have been far more likely to pick me up there than at Union. But I don’t live there anymore.
Which means the demand is only for those commuting all the way into downtown Toronto. I’m pretty sure the Greyhound already serves those 15 people.
Steve: You may have noticed that the whole study process is sufficiently protracted that the political impetus to operate this service may have found alternative employment before the study will complete. Don’t tell anyone.
LikeLike
Have been wondering about this since the original post in the comments earlier this week – would it be feasible to look at operating the Seaton trains from eastbound facing terminal platforms at Oshawa GO? (Mirroring those just to the west of the station building)
It would be a longer run and would probably cost more in CP twinning demands, but it would integrate to VIA and Lakeshore/Bowmanville service and a station in North Whitby would probably provide some trade as well for those whose destinations are closer to Agincourt or North Toronto than Union and who don’t currently use the 401/407 services.
The platforms would connect to the yard spur bridge over the 401, if grading and curvature were not insurmountable, and from there to CP Belleville. Having the trains stored at Oshawa, being a major station, might be useful for basing technicians for troubleshooting on winter mornings than a remote location like Seaton.
LikeLike
“A related issue here is to avoid overloading the Yonge Subway so that it actually would have capacity available at Summerhill. This is yet another argument for the Downtown Relief Line.”
Well, a station could also be built to connect to the Spadina Line. Overcrowding the Yonge Line already happens at Union – I have experienced this too many time to count during the rush hour – and its not just people going from Union in the morning or to Union in the evening, it’s both directions.
THE DRL, with or without GO expansion is already a necessity for the Yonge Line in my humble opinion.
LikeLike
What is this “studying” of all-day infrastructure on Barrie & Stouffville? I’m quite sure that the passing tracks are already well into the construction phase on these lines, which should bring limited all-day service before these 2010-11 “study” dates. Please correct me if I am wrong?
Steve: I believe that these studies are in aid of more frequent service.
LikeLike
Demand at Union Station will increase substantially, and much if not all of the planned doubling of capacity as part of the revitalization project will be consumed by additional GO services.
This is assuming the doubling of capacity is even sufficient to handle the volume of train traffic Metrolinx wants to run through Union, which is far from assured. It can be argued that they’d have to ensure that Lakeshore operations (both east and west) can get by with 4 tracks at peak in order to accommodate the other lines funneling in. The alternative would involve kicking out VIA Rail (and any other non-GO user of the train shed) during peak hours, and I don’t see that going over too well.
Steve: The “Big Move” at Metrolinx only even acknowledged that Union Station was a vital hub on the system in the final version of the report. The planners at Metrolinx don’t seem to have any idea of the implications of the demands their model predicted on the infrastructure of trains, station, parking, fleet size, etc. Meanwhile, all of the really important decisions are made at Queen’s Park since the local politicians on the board couldn’t be trusted to do things the right way.
LikeLike
It is a little strange that the new GO station on Barrie line is planned at St Clair, rather than at Eglinton (connecting to Eglinton LRT’s Caledonia station).
LikeLike
There is a York Region Transit document out there that states all day service on the Stouffville line will begin this fall.
Steve: If you could provide a URL to the document, that would be useful.
LikeLike
I agree with Toronto Streetcars, having GO Passengers board at Summerhill would be a disaster. I used to live at Yonge & Eglinton, and in the morning rush many trains would be too full to board anybody at Summerhill, let alone a few GO Trains worth of people.
A GO Station at Spadina & Dupont makes much more sense, they really need to avoid putting anymore pressure on the Yonge Line. It could be quite useful for students at the nearby George Brown college as well.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why a station at St. Clair is being studied by Go on the Barrie/Bradford line. Sure, there was a station there in the old days, but a station at Bloor (close to the Lansdowne Subway station) and Eglinton (at the Caledonia streetcar-subway line) would be places where one might want to get off?
Yes, a small part of the solution will be to promote the use of secondary stations to serve the downtown market. Exhibition Station has some useful connections to the Liberty Village and west end offices. Bloor, if it had the connection to the subway done properly would be great, and more should be done at Danforth/Main Street. A station at Bloor on the Bradford Line could be a good connection to the subway. Trains on the Milton and Georgetown lines really should stop somewhere between Queen Street and Strachan, despite insistences that it cannot be done.
Of course, partial or full fare integration would be a big help as well. Maybe more people would get off the train early if it wasn’t a full $2.75/2.10×2 cost barrier.
LikeLike
As for the K-W stuff, our local media had quoted GO reps as hoping to be ready by 2011 – which studies would delay it to 2013?
I am aware that we’re having trouble getting the layover yard installed, they’d hoped for Petersburg but had too much local opposition there as well. It seems they like the quiet life in Wilmot; I hope there’s a way to make things work out.
Steve: I suspect that some of the dates in the presentation are, er, out of date. GO/Metrolinx needs to prepare a consolidated, accurate timetable so that everyone including staff and politicians are singing from the same songbook. This gets important when it comes time for funding if the project isn’t in the financial plan where the people who spoke to the media thought it was.
LikeLike
Booze Up & Get Outta Town!
With a station at/near Dupont/Spadina, Summerhill/Yonge and Union there would be LCBOs within staggering distance of each service!
More to the point though, I cannot see any major construction requirements* to divert every-other non-rush train service away from Union Station; provided that the track space was available on the CP North Toronto sub.
The east end routes (Richmond Hill (via “Bond” Parkette near York Mills), Stouffville (terminating service at Kennedy), and Lakeshore East (via Pickering Junction) can all be re-routed to Summerhill.
The west end routes (Barrie (cannot be diverted without manufacturing additional tracks at Davenport Diamond), Georgetown (West TO Diamond), Milton (West TO Diamond), Lakeshore West (spur east of Willowbrook up to Kipling GO) can all be diverted to bring them into a Spadina/Dupont “Annex GO” Station
* Major construction requirements IMO do not include the interchange points between lines as may be required. Certainly with the grade separation projects on the GO, construction of *some* interchange points may be more expensive than others.
Steve: Good news about a station on St. Clair! Are you aware of the details, in terms of interchanges (they currently exist at West Toronto; where they do not exist at Davenport) for the diamonds that are to be modified/reconstructed? Will they keep/lose/add these interchange points?
Steve: I only know what’s in the GO presentation linked from the post.
LikeLike
As someone who used to live in Peterborough and used the train to Toronto back in the day, and was a member of the Havelock Peterborough Toronto Passenger Association.
I don’t know if using the old line which goes through Locust Hill, would be a good idea. That line was in rough shape 20 odd years ago, it’s a single track for most of it’s length, and there is a lot of bridges on it, which is why GO didn’t want it when the feds cancelled the Via service back then.
Best scenario I can see at the moment is to run a bus down the 115 into the Oshawa or Whitby GO station, which then heads back. Would be scheduled so that it arrives about 5 minutes before the train and leaves 5 minutes after the train on the return trip. Running a single bus in a 2 hour loop would probably be sufficient for a start, with the idea that they can add a second bus if it gets busy.
LikeLike
Steve, regarding Richmond Hill, is there any mention of fixing the (excuse my bluntness) idiotic transfer situation between GO and TTC at Sheppard/Leslie?
Steve: As I said in reply to another comment, all I know is what’s in the presentation. This issue is raised periodically, but nothing ever seems to happen despite the idea of “regional integration” being at the heart of Metrolinx’ plans.
LikeLike
Congestion at Summerhill should be a non-issue if the DRL is constructed – which was a TTC pre-requisite for the Yonge subway extension. And given that there is chatter about extending the DRL north from Danforth to Eglinton/Don Mills rather than tunelling the Don Mills LRT, then perhaps it would be prudent to integrate a GO station at/near this location as well.
LikeLike
Re zb: What is this “studying” of all-day infrastructure on Barrie & Stouffville?
The study wouldn’t just concern infrastucture. It would mainly look at the financial implications (number of passengers vs. additional costs of crew, fuel, acess fees etc.). Also, the predicted number of passengers would be used to work out the right level of service.
Looking at the Bowmanville extenstion plans, some of the options imply that it would be possible to run trains from Oshawa station westwards along the CP line to Seaton and Agincourt. You’d end up with a line that acts as a Lakeshore West relief line, a bit like the original motivation behind the Milton line.
Better connections in Toronto are a must, though don’t count as expansion. Would be nice to see what plans GO have if that field … any way of finding out?
LikeLike
Ian Alexander said:
Wait, the planned Peterborough rail service looks to be on the same tracks as the potential Locust Hill service?
I admit the line has never made much sense to me, but in so much as it did, it made sense as an extension of the Oshawa line. There are a considerable number of folks who live in Peterborough but work in Oshawa, most notably who work at the GM plant. So many that the plant would likely have considered running a shuttle if you scheduled the first train in to coincide with the start of the 7am shift. Combining that demand with the demand to commute into Toronto, and I could almost see the point (aside from political patronage).
Wogster added:
As someone who used to live in Peterborough and used the train to Toronto back in the day, and was a member of the Havelock Peterborough Toronto Passenger Association.
I don’t know if using the old line which goes through Locust Hill, would be a good idea. That line was in rough shape 20 odd years ago, it’s a single track for most of it’s length, and there is a lot of bridges on it, which is why GO didn’t want it when the feds cancelled the Via service back then.
Best scenario I can see at the moment is to run a bus down the 115 into the Oshawa or Whitby GO station, which then heads back.
There is only one rail line that still runs out of Peterborough, and it’s the CP line that is being contemplated. Running trains down to Bowmanville is just not possible.
Besides, and despite the language of the original budget announcement, the real impetus for upgrading the rail line IMO is to re-enable CP to run freight at a reasonable speed to Peterborough… Peterborough’s growth has not been as fast as local politicians would like – this despite Peterborough being one of the Ontario government’s “Places to Grow.” So improving the connection to GTA is high on their agenda (the 407 East extension serving that purpose as well).
I have a few personal reasons to want to see this rail line improved, but I don’t know how the economics work for it.
As for creating commuter demand to Toronto from Peterborough, GO is already implementing bus service starting this fall (as Steve has noted). And there was always a workers’ bus from Peterborough to Oshawa when there was demand (and may still be).
LikeLike
What happened to the talk of expanding Go’s mandate to include Ottawa and eastern ontario?
https://stevemunro.ca/?p=476#comments
Steve: Shhh! They’re sneaking around the south side of the lake via Niagara, and then will make a lightning pincer move via Peterborough. It’s a plot to take over the country and move the capital to the centre of the universe.
LikeLike
On Oriole/Leslie — last I checked with GO (in winter/spring), there was no intention to move the GO platform closer to the Leslie TTC station.
A lighted walkway from the north end of the GO platform was built to connect with a new street between IKEA and Leslie St. (Esther Shiner Boulevard? It’s not on Google maps yet).
But there was some dispute between GO and the City about maintaining the walkway… the City was not forthcoming on details at the time.
Even with the walkway, it is not a great connection.
LikeLike
What happened about the train to Peterborough, announced with such fanfare a few years ago? Not that I am all that disappointed to have transit dollars focus on regions that need it, but has that project fallen off radar and into the crack between GO and VIA?
Steve: GO is studying it. Implementation is way off in the future because (a) the line needs a lot of work and (b) the passenger demand may not be spectacular compared to other projects on the books. Don’t forget that when it was announced, it was immediately dubbed “Flaherty’s Folly”.
LikeLike
Any idea where the Locust Hill station would be? Is it for certain that it would be at the intersection of Hwy 7 and the rail line?
LikeLike
The document I was talking about.
All day service on the Stouffville line is mentioned on page 4.
LikeLike
Well, it seems to me that building up service on what GO now has should be concentrated on first and then any expansion and extension of routes should come afterwards.
Steve: A lot depends on which MP or MPP’s riding has which line that needs more/any service.
LikeLike
It may be that the CP line is the only one still running out of Peterborough, but I don’t know if that line is in good enough shape. In 1982 the line was in barely serviceable shape, you could walk along it, and pull spikes out of the ties. I don’t know what CP has done maintenance wise since, probably not much, and if GO hints on using it, what little maintenance they have done has probably been reduced.
The line is mostly a single track, and currently should see a train about once a week or so. There are areas where the line is raised, through the use of a berm, there are also a lot of bridges, including the swing bridge across the Otonabee.
For GO to use it, the track would need to be doubled, so the berms would need to be widened, the bridges doubled or replaced and the track would need to be completely replaced. New stations would need to be built as many of the old ones, were either sold off (like the Peterborough station) or simply removed like the outhouse sized station at Myrtle Station.
Actually Myrtle Station would be a good place for a station, it’s about 20km North of Whitby Station on the Lakeshore line. You would also need a station where the line crosses Simcoe Street, near Port Perry, but I don’t remember Port Perry being a stop. Running shuttles from Port Perry and Myrtle would add a lot of traffic to the line, in that GM workers would take the train to Port Perry and the bus down from there. Others wanting stations on the east end of the Lakeshore line would take the bus down from Myrtle Stn.
Locust Hill and Agincourt were stops, and probably could be again. What do you do about the piece from Peterborough to Havelock, and where would you build a new station in Peterborough? It would need to connect to Peterborough Transit somewhere.
LikeLike
The line to Peterborough is definitely not in good enough shape to use as is; as I said earlier, the real impetus for the federal announcement IMO was to provide federal funds to rebuild the whole line for freight, and transit was being used as a smokescreen… The MP for Peterborough is a car salesman, after all. CP had supposedly commited to pay half the reconstruction cost.
It’s too bad the spur up Bethune Street has been pulled up; the GO trains could have run right out of Bethune and Simcoe a half block from the City bus terminal! As it stands, I can see that they might need to reclaim some space at the old (but nicely refurbished) train station at the north end of Little Lake… I’m not sure if the Chamber of Commerce is still using it as their home offices. There would be room nearby for the necessary parking, I’m sure.
As for other stations, I could see Pontypool being added to your list as it’s relatively right at the intersection of Highways 35 and 115. The frequency of these trains in the short term would be such that a single track with appropriate sidings would be sufficient; if demand actually arises, I won’t mind building a second track at that time. But the (what I believe to be) main federal-financial impetus – restoring freight – can be accommodated and still provide passenger opportunities just by rebuilding the existing ROW to current standards.
A reminder of the initial announcement: Toronto Star article
LikeLike
Now with the possible expansion of GO service to Niagara Falls, what’s going to happen to what service VIA has to/from Niagara Falls?
Steve: VIA was, I believe, planning an expansion in that corridor, but if GO takes it over, they may simply move their operations elsewhere. One major difference is the times of trains. GO, certainly in early years, will focus on peak period, peak direction travel, with weekend tourist trips added on. VIA has a different service pattern, and these would have to be reconciled before VIA disappeared.
LikeLike
zb Says:
July 12th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
“What is this “studying” of all-day infrastructure on Barrie & Stouffville? I’m quite sure that the passing tracks are already well into the construction phase on these lines, which should bring limited all-day service before these 2010-11 “study” dates. Please correct me if I am wrong?”
I have driven most of these two lines and have not seen any sign of passing sidings. They would also need to change (i.e. put in) the signalling system as these lines operate by train order. If the two lines were interlined I think that three trains could operate an hourly service from Stouffville to Bradford.
The condition of the line to Peterborough is irrelevant as the line from Bradford to Barrie was in worse condition. GO would completely rebuild the line with continuous welded rail as they did between Bradford and Barrie.
Steve: I’m just quoting what’s in GO Transit’s own presentation.
LikeLike
With respect to the potential for overload at Union, could you comment on:
a) the likely impact the DRL (assuming there is a GO/DRL transfer station somewhere in Riverdale)
b) same on the west side (if the DRL were to turn south and terminate at Exhibition GO–I’m imagining a turn at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre grounds)
c) alternating inbound Lakeshore trains short turning at the DRL on either side
Steve: I don’t think there is any hope of getting people to transfer to a DRL service when they would, by that time, be about 5 minutes away from Union just by staying on the GO train. A short turn operation with GO handing off trainloads to the TTC would have severe peaking problems at the transfer station as all 2,000 people on the GO train would have to transfer to the DRL service. Unlike Union Station, these riders would not be in walking distance of their destinations.
LikeLike
Well, I’m all for GO-train service, I just think they use the wrong trains. They’re LOUD and belch blue smoke. Why can we have train service like in the UK, comfortable, quiet, no locomotive engine, just real passenger trains!
LikeLike
I live in Burlington, not too far from tracks or station.
Although always loud, something has changed. GO must be using new engines which are much louder than before.
Can someone who knows advise if they have changed to new (louder) engines?
Steve: Yes, the new engines are louder than the old ones.
LikeLike
Two comments:
Firstly, the Bowmanville downtown option is feasible if the service is operated on CPR’s Belleville subdivision which runs close to downtown Bowmanville.
Secondly, the Kitchener expansion, now in environmental assessment phase, is far less practical than the Milton line expansion to Cambridge, which is not in the plans for a few years.
The Cambridge line parallels the 401, making the stops easily accessible to a large portion of those now using the 401 to commute to the GTA. For the Cambridge and vicinity commuters to use the proposed Kitchener expansion, traffic will have to funnel through city streets to reach the proposed station, creating gridlock in Kitchener, and longer commutes. The decision to start this expansion before the CPR Cambridge line, is a political one.
Via (another tenant on the line)is planning to upgrade this unsignalled route this year to Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) and GO can now assist with funding through provincial support. The big winner here is CNR, who owns the line. Watch them reclaim it when the RailAmerica contracts expire.
As for the Cambridge option, CPR wants double track, which might be a little extravagant for the actual capacity demands of the line right now. The third rail through Toronto that was put in years ago on this line, at taxpayer’s expense, is being used to store cars right now. Maybe double track will be needed later, but I’m not sure it is right now to start up, yet this cost is one of the start up hurdles.
The real problem in all this, is lack of an independent needs assessment process, to moderate the railways demands, and lack of a clear federal government position when dealing with federally regulated railways in these regional situations.
LikeLike
I have no issues with CN/CP benefiting from taxpayer dollars. Road hauliers get lanes built for them without specific cost being assigned – all they have to do is put enough trucks on the road and the MoT traffic counters and planners do the rest. I would rather the mainlines be brought into Provincial ownership, like the 400 series, but that’s not going to happen any time soon. The people who will have a real problem with a viable bidirectional Toronto-Kitchener rail service will be (diesel powered) Greyhound.
Steve: Now all we need is for Via to announce improvements planned for the Toronto-London via KW service. This has been held up awaiting conclusion of GO’s studies of the corridor, including the changes for the new Kitchener service. If you look at the Georgetown South EA, you will see that the trains per day numbers for Via are twice what they are now.
LikeLike
I think GO Transit needs a bus and a train between the Oakville Go Station and the Milton Go Station, quite a few people need to get from Milton to Oakville with ease. And the Bronte Bus just doesn’t cut it. We need a direct bus from the Milton Go Station to the Oakville Go Station.
LikeLike
Hi Steve
Will there be GO bus conections to Peterborough from the new extension in Bowmanville?
Thanks,
Bill Pearson
Steve: Here is the reply I received from GO to this question.
In effect, they say “we don’t know yet, come back later”.
LikeLike