The details of GO Transit’s service improvements and electrification leading to the rollout of the “RER” (Regional Express Rail) network were announced today by Minister of Transportation Steven Del Duca.
The plans will please some and disappoint others, but there is little to surprise anyone familiar with the details of GO Transit’s network and the constraints of the rail lines around the GTHA.
If there are “winners and losers” in this announcement, the benefits clearly fall (a) on lines that are completely under Metrolinx ownership and control and (b) on lines that do not already have full service, that is to say, there is room for growth.
Electrification is planned for most corridors by 2022-2024 starting with the Kitchener and Stouffville routes in 2022-23, followed by Barrie and the Lakeshore in 2023-24. The announcement is silent on the UPX service on the Kitchener line and whether the inner portion of the corridor will be electrified as a first step for UPX before 2022. (I have a query out to Metrolinx on this topic.) These dates have implications for rolling stock plans including purchase of whatever new technology — electric locomotives or EMUs — will be used for electric services, and, by implication the eventual fate of the existing fleet.
The scope of electrification will be:
- Kitchener line: Bramalea to Union
- Stouffville line: Unionville to Union
- Lakeshore East: Full corridor
- Lakeshore West: Burlington to Union
- Barrie: Full corridor
There are no plans to electrify either the Milton or Richmond Hill lines, nor to substantially improve service on them. In Milton’s case, this is a direct result of the line’s status as the CPR mainline. On Richmond Hill, significant flood protection works are needed in the Don Valley as well as a grade separation at Doncaster. Plans could change in coming years, but Queen’s Park has clearly decided where to concentrate its spending for the next decade – on the lines where improved service and electrification are comparatively easy to implement.
The limits of electrification correspond, for the most part, to the territory where all-day 15-minute service will be provided. This will be the core of the “RER” network with less frequent, diesel-hauled trains providing service running through to the non-electrified portions.
One important aspect of the line-by-line chart of service improvements is that there will be substantially more trips (most in the offpeak) before electrification is completed. This allows GO to “show the flag” as an all-day provider and build into a role as a regional rapid transit service, not just a collection of peak period commuter lines. This will also give local transit a chance to build up to improved GO service over time rather than a “big bang” with all of the changes awaiting electrification.
Over the five years 2015-2020, the Kitchener corridor will see the greatest increase in number of trains, although many of these will not actually run through all the way to Kitchener. The service build-up will finish in 2017.
The Barrie line will receive weekend service in 2016-17 with weekday off-peak service following in 2017-18. The Stouffville line also gets weekday service in 2017-18, while weekend service follows in 2018-19.
Minor off-peak improvements are planned for both Lakeshore corridors in 2018-19.
Peak service improvements relative to today vary depending on the corridor:
- Lakeshore East: 4 more trains by 2018-19 on a base of 45 (9%)
- Lakeshore West: 6 more trains by 2019-20 on a base of 47 (13%)
- Stouffville: 4 more trains by 2018-19 on a base of 12 (33%)
- Kitchener: 6 more trains by 2019-20 on a base of 15 (40%)
- Milton: 6 more trains by 2019-20 on a base of 18 (33%)
- Barrie: 2 more trains in 2019-20 on a base of 14 (14%)
- Richmond Hill: 4 more trains by 2018-19 on a base of 8 (50%)
- Total: 32 more trains by 2019-20 on a base of 159 (20%)
Other than making trains longer (where this has not already occurred), that’s the limitation of peak period growth for the next five years on GO Transit. This has important implications for projections of greater transit commuting along the GO corridors, and especially for the shoulder areas within Toronto itself that lie along GO routes, but also face capacity and travel time issues with the local transit system. Unlocking gridlock may be the goal, but the rate of service growth could not be described as “aggressive” especially against the background growth in population and jobs.
This will, or at least should, lead to renewed discussion both of rapid transit capacity within Toronto, and on how GO Transit will address growth beyond 2020. Where should new capacity be provided? What are the realistic upper bounds for various options? How will Toronto deal with demand for expanded suburban subway service to handle growth in the 905?
It is quite clear from the electrification dates that an electric SmartTrack is not going to start running soon, and with frequent all-day service to Bramalea, Aurora and Unionville using diesel-hauled trains operating well before electrification is completed, one might wonder just where SmartTrack as a separate “local” service will fit in.
Beyond these questions lie the more complex issues of travel that is not bound for Toronto’s core. “Gridlock” is commonly cited as the rational for transit spending, and yet this spending does little to improve travel anywhere beyond existing corridors to central Toronto. Demand in the GTHA is not conveniently focused on a few points, not even on Pearson Airport which is a major centre, and single-route improvements do not address the diverse travel patterns of GTHA commuters.
Ontario will spend billions on transit in the coming decade, and sticker-shock has already set in with the huge amount of infrastructure needed. Even this is only a start and the work to truly address travel requirements of the coming decades is only just starting.
Steve Munro 
I would argue that we want to keep the number of stations on this line to a very low number, in order to ensure a relatively fast ride. This service needs to be faster, and more attractive than a subway extension for core bound riders. Ideally it would be fast enough and frequent enough to draw core bound riders off the Sheppard subway, Finch and Steeles bus routes. I can see adding a linkage to the DRL eventually for riders going to points between, but many stops will make this route slower, hence less attractive. This needs to be the reason that no subway extension need or desired to be built to Richmond Hill Centre. Yes the TTC connections need to be permit distribution, but they need to be sparse enough to keep this an express route.
LikeLike
Replaced by what? I’d think that replacing any of the streetcar lines by underground trains would help. Though perhaps not, given that the traffic on both Danforth and Bloor west of Bathurst in rush-hour seems worse than the corresponding pieces of Gerrard, College, Dundas, Queen, or King. Yonge doesn’t seem great either, despite a complete lack of any central north-south streetcar routes.
I doubt anyone would ever think that replacing a 30-metre streetcar with 12-metre buses would reduce congestion … so I’m not really sure what the point of the comment is, other than to advocate that we replace streetcars with subways.
Which I don’t think anyone would disagree with, except from cost.
Wouldn’t it be far cheaper to just put streetcar (or heck, bus) ROWs on King and Queen? Neither street is particularly essential for travelling more than a block or so downtown. Who doesn’t go to Richmond, Adelaide, or Wellington in rush hour?
And what has this got to do with GO Transit?
Steve: For some people, it’s any chance to take a potshot at “downtowners”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Malcolm,
An appropriate balance would certainly be needed, and if the service was sufficiently frequent with enough station density on Richmond Hill, express/allstops could begin to occur. RER trains also accelerate much faster, and reach top speed much sooner, allowing extra stations without slowing down a line. Plus, the extra demand and speed will fill up the line, if there’s enough stations to fill the line to warrant peak express trains. Leslie express to Union, perhaps, once peak trains become full by Oriole.
Now, imagine Gormley + ECLRT interchange + Leslie-Oriole merged station with indoor interchanging + Bloor-Danforth interchange … let the car commuters walk a little bit longer to this station from the old Oriole parking lot, as an example, through a covered accessway. It’s parking constrained; the parking lot will STILL fill up, so instead, we simply get more Sheppard traffic from a merged Leslie+Oriole station.
In theory there might be modification to involve the Don Branch, if track-raising was bundled with some future theoretical Don Valley Parkway raising megaproject (in the flood-prone section). Lots change in ten years, climate-wise, and sufficient pressure might occur, in a subsequent “10-year-plan” (after the current RER plan). This would impact other interchanges (e.g. whether or not we can do Leslie-Oriole)
The distance between Broadview Station and Don Branch is only a hair over 200 meters. With escalators (similiar to Ontario Science Centre) to a pedestrian overpass over Don Valley thrown in, and a pedestrian connection to Playter Gardens, this is a shorter walk than the 150-meter TTC Spadina tunnel (when excluding the non-walk standing on escalator).
Combined with good wayfinding (RER routes and ALL new interchanges on ALL TTC maps), there are at least some core-bound people who will prefer to take a less crowded Don Valley interchange than one of the Bloor interchanges. Although not DRL (no relief for Beach commuters, as an example), this might even produce measurable diversion away from the TTC interchange chokepoints for incoming commuters from the West. This could be worth the price. Phase 1 would be simple stairs from Playter Gardens to ped overpass over Don Vally Parkway as a cheap station to the west of Don Branch. Phase 2 adds direct ped tunnel to TTC Broadview and the moving escalator, to increase interchange traffic.
This is, ONLY, in theory, if it was found that it was economically feasible to RER-ify either Don Branch or Richmond Hill, from the interchange opportunities available. The rail in the valley (Richmond Hill and/or Don Branch) can be MUCH more useful, faster, and higher-capacity, with some creative planning and additional indoor interchanges & RER on all TTC maps.
Steve: As I have said before, beware of the constrained area for any station on the Don Branch or the Bala Sub at this location. There is a hydro line and substation immediately west of the Don Branch which stands right where any platform might go. Then there is the small matter of the river. (I can look out my window as I write this at the would-be site.) There is also the perennial problem I have raised that the closer to Yonge a link to the Danforth subway is made, the less useful it is because of major feeder locations further east that are not intercepted.
As for a stairway down from Playter attracting much demand, don’t hold your breath.
LikeLike
The number of stations must remain low because it’s diesel and the transfers don’t make sense.
(Crayon warning) A better approach is to extend Steve’s DRL/Don Mills Subway (DMS) another 2.5km north of Eglinton, just beyond Don Mills itself, where Don Mills Rd. intersects the Richmond Hill line. The RH line gets 1 new station there, for interchange only (no parking or large land requirements). The subway would eventually go further north under Don Mills, not interline with the RH line, as someone else suggested. Don Mills is already an intensified site, so an intermediate station or two between RH interchange and Eglinton is not a waste. For that matter, extending to the DMS further north to at least York Mills provides land for a bus terminal (e.g. Weston Prince lands).
This solves several problems. Passengers heading to/from Union beyond Don Mills (up to Bloomington) can get a single express ride on the Richmond Hill line, as they do today. Passengers starting or ending in between Union and Don Mills would use the Don Mills subway, and get access to Eglinton-Crosstown, Bloor-Danforth and streetcars. The RH GO line also gets to act as relief for the Yonge subway, allowing the extension of that line to Richmond Hill Centre.
Of course there are issues (e.g. fare integration). But in a sense, this allows the DRL/DMS to solve both the Y&B transfer problem plus the Yonge capacity issues *at both ends*. I think this would make the DRL much more likely to be politically successful. It also makes a good reply to critics of RER ‘ignoring’ of the RH line.
LikeLike
From a two-way GO RER perspective, there much more room to multi-track (double and triple-track) the Don Branch, given the extra land avaialble adjacent the rail. The tricky part would be the small rail yard in Leaside area, but if solvable (e.g. expropriation of the building there, paralell trackage, or reactivation of disused trackage in rail yard), a Don Branch interchange with ECLRT could be built very near Ontario Science Centre, and then several Valley interchanges. But very hard further north, because there is no corridor allowances north of Eglinton due to all the buildings. This may not be enough to fill a RER train, but a Millwood station, a Danforth station, a Gerrard station (with connection to the new Bridgepoint hospital and interchange with Gerrard streetcar), a Queen Street station (Regent Park / Pan Am Village), this would easily fill a Don Branch RER using forecast 2030’s traffic.
The other tricky part is the half mile bridge (actually ~1100 feet) which would need to be reworked/replaced to accomodate extra track.
Of course, this is hypothetical, but Metrolinx owns the Don Branch now — so the door is open.
Steve: There is much more than you admit to the problems of double (or triple tracking) the Don Branch, but this conversation is going in circles, and so I am going to stop replying.
LikeLike
I can see problems bringing electrification from Burlington to the existing Go station in Hamilton, but it seems strange for Metrolinx to construct the new Go station without planning on bringing electrification to the new station. What issues are involved there, or is it simply a case of the electrification plans predating the plans for the second Hamilton station? Also, has Go come up with a service pattern for the new station when it opens for Pan Am and for normal service after the Pan Am games finish up?
Steve: I very much have the feeling this announcement was thrown together for timing relative to the budget and details like service plans will be worked out later.
LikeLike
Missing from the electrification announcement is further integration between GO and TTC that it makes inevitable. Surely electrification means there will be more stations within 416, and perhaps more short turning and express through trains.
But more importantly, fare integration. Surely we won’t put this many trains on these lines without dealing with this issue. Oh wait…
LikeLike
I’d like to point out how many billions the city is spending on the BD extension in part because the relatively short transfer at Kennedy is seen as a “death march” by a vocal minority.
LikeLike
There are two possibilities that are interchangeable as far as system design goes. One, new trains are only electric and run only in the core network and old trains are only diesel run from the whole network. The likely breakdown would be electric for ‘express’ service and diesel for ‘local’ service. Two, new trains are dual and can switch over, more expensive, but more flexible. Until they get close enough to start their purchase orders, I wouldn’t expect a final decision.
Expansion to Cambridge is beyond the planning horizon, mostly due to the difficulty in expanding the rail corridor through the Escarpment.
Yes, rather than EMU, the current thought is to use electric (or dual power) locomotives.
Two things, first, as a Scarborough resident, I can greatly support this idea. Second, what air based transit systems do we have in Canada?!?
This one seems a bit weird and I expect will be revised in the Preliminary Design stage (no previous Electrification Conceptual Design was completed for the Barrie corridor) as East Gwillimbury is the normally defined end of the core network.
Think of this as Phase 1 Electrification. The other parts all need corridor improvements first, so there is no point in earmarking money to electrify them before 2025. This is the time that partisan promises meet reality and we still benefit from it. As for your Liberal/Conservative conspiracy, the Richmond Hill and Milton lines run completely through Liberal territory, Barrie, Guelph and Kitchener are Liberal islands too, so why not “run through the Conservative area to get there”, and the Hamilton/Burlington section is a mix of all three parties. In addition, Lakeshore East ends in Oshawa with Whitby being Conservative and Oshawa being NDP. Finally, there are more Liberal ridings not served by electrification than Conservative ridings.
This will be the first segment done. I believe the TPAP/EA will start May/June 2016.
The issue is peak service won’t increase increase on the GO corridor. To solve Union Station capacity issues (beyond the current full optimization of what we do with what’s currently built) would be a significant cost. It’s like trying to ease use on the King Street car by diverting people through Yonge-Bloor (I know the geography isn’t right).
While this is true, a large part of the desire of Milton to Cambridge is that it’s a much more direct route.
While I expect this will happen anyway, it won’t be a part of Electrification.
I think everyone agrees about improvements. This issue is what they will achieve, and if they would actually serve as a replacement, rather than a supplement to other projects.
Union Station can handle this level of expansion, and it seems more likely that Metrolinx will go the satellite station route rather than the tunnel route (or possibly both). However, it would be two stubs rather than a through structure, if any tunnel is actually built.
Metrolinx has plans to double track everything eventually.
Bowmanville has an Electrification Conceptual Design, but I have the sense that this project has fallen down the list. It hasn’t officially been axed, like Bolton or Peterborough, but it’s unfunded and not being advanced at the moment.
Actually, GO did some serious work under McGuinty that allowed for the service expansion under Wynne. When you look at the timelines of mega-projects like Georgetown South or rail-rail grade separations (like West Toronto Diamond), most of these were started early in the Liberal reign.
They are proposing a half mile on the Halton subdivision to Bramalea, if that’s what they actually meant instead of the UPX.
I’m not sure what plans you have seen, but the last I saw involved Oshawa Station being a stub-end and Bowmanville service being independant.
Pocket tracks or short-distance twinning is an option, but once you have mobilized, it isn’t that much more expensive to have much better service. With fixed meeting points, you cannot improve headways and your on time performance is kicked in the teeth as one late train impacts everything else on the line. There is no ability to recover.
Tracks won’t be moved for electrification, at least not separately from any expansion project. There are Electrification Conceptual Design plans for Union Station, but I don’t believe they are in the public domain.
The off-peak service would be delayed if the Davenport Diamond isn’t done.
LikeLike
Looking at it from the north, there are a couple of things of interest:
1. How come the 15 minute service ends at Aurora and does not extend to Newmarket? With Newmarket being a regional growth centre, plus the new Viva line running along Davis Dr, it seems like a far more logical place to end the frequent part of line than Aurora. Hopefully this changes in the near future.
2. YRT is going to have to seriously review how their cross routes operate. Even with the Viva lanes going in on Yonge, I can see a lot of people (including myself) taking a Major Mackenzie or Rutherford bus across to the Barrie line and taking a frequent GO train downtown. These routes are going to need a major boost in service (current service about 15-30 minutes where branches converge, depending on time of day) in order to keep up with demand.
On the plus side, once this rolls out I can see a major relief on the subway, especially with fare integration. Those in the central/north/west parts of York Region will likely switch from taking the subway to GO for off-peak trips, and Viva’s current detour to Enterprise and Unionville in the east will become a logical diversion as people transfer to the GO train there.
Even TTC users may benefit from this service. While the Stouffville line’s benefits have likely been discussed with SmartTrack threads, (new) Downsview will likely become a major hub. Those coming from southwest Vaughan, York University, and northwest North York and Etobicoke may decide to transfer to the GO train if it proves significantly faster and more comfortable. Likewise those coming from UFT, the Annex, Forest Hill, etc. who are heading north may end up transferring at Downsview as well, rather than crowding the Yonge line.
Best of all, it will allow the TTC to focus more at providing local service, rather than being relied on for regional trips because there has been no alternative.
LikeLike
Re: Richmond Hill-Castle Frank transfer:
Anecdotal evidence, but about 10 years ago I was commuting from Richmond Hill to Centennial College’s East York campus. Having a transfer there would have made taking GO a far more attractive alternative to the YRT and subway, and could have shaved a large amount of time off of my commute (was about 2 hours each way, including a 20 minute walk from the bus. Perhaps 1:50 if I managed to catch a connecting bus, which was rare).
I also have a friend in East Toronto who usually throws a party in the summer. For the return trip I can usually take the GO from Danforth to Maple, or at least Union, but with such a transfer and frequent service I could just make my way to Castle Frank and head north from there.
I’m NOT saying that we don’t need a downtown line or that these examples make such an installation make fiscal sense. I’m just saying that with people going from everywhere to everywhere these days, such a transfer MAY POSSIBLY be more well used than one would think.
LikeLike
GO doesn’t own the network much beyond Burlington Station. The James St. Station was included on previous electrification plans as a seperately costed segment (everything beyond Burlington). Likewise, a potential Confederation Station in Hamilton is in the electrification plans and everything up to a Lewis Road Maintenance Facility.
You might have a Spadina Station and Eglinton Station, but otherwise, electrification is really about GO passengers getting downtown, not serving intra-Toronto passengers.
LikeLike
You might be right, but [if] you stare south instead of from the top of the hill, there is room. Look at this diagrammed picture (credit: UrbanToronto):
The line might not be accurately drawn, and may need slight rerouting.
There is room for a double track and a small centre platform. It would have to overhang on the hill a bit. Green-colored gantries and a bit of visual clutter mitigation also may lessen opposition, considering the ugly alternatives occurring in the next 20 years.
Steve: To give you an idea of just how good a view I have of the site, the second highrise north of the Danforth is the one I live in, on the west end of the building.
Scaling off of Google Maps, there is less than 50m between the west wall of the DVP and the eastern edge of the substation in the valley. This is a pinch point for any new construction. Don’t forget that you want to add at least a second track plus a platform. Then there is the non-trivial issue of access which must first go up before it goes over the DVP. Any tunnel into Broadview Station would have to aim at the west end of the platform, but that is physically underneath a seniors’ home on the north side of Danforth. The map you cite is misleading because it shows Broadview Station as lying along Danforth when in fact it is on a diagonal from roughly the south end of Cambridge Ave northeast under Broadview and ending east of the streetcar loop.
You can get an idea of how Broadview Station actually sits from the satellite view.
With population growth and the possible demolition of Gardiner, there will be far more incentive to RER one of the Don Valley corridors, say in about 20 years from now. So the question may fall to whether it’s the Richmond Hill corridor or the Don Branch corridor. Community opposition will go way down after people fall in love with RER and improved train service in Toronto. A well-designed double track can push as many people as the whole width of 401, eliminating the necessity to widen the Don Valley, or find other alternatives. Consider potential Don Valley stations:
1. Eglinton Station (ECLRT interchange, near Ontario Science Centre)
2. Millwood St Station (large residential neighborhood to west)
3. Danforth Station (interchange with TTC Broadview subway, Greektown)
4. Gerrard St Station (interchange with TTC Gerrard streetcar, Bridgepoint Hospital, Riverdale ped bridge)
5. Queen St Station (interchange with TTC Queen streetcar, Regent Park)
6. Union
Only Danforth and Gerrard would have long-ish interchanges (e.g. the tunnel to TTC Broadview), otherwise.
Linking these could be immensely useful to Toronto’s population. Perhaps this may not happen until after DRL, however, I would predict Metrolinx revisits the idea of this line in due time (e.g. within our lifetimes).
Hydro infrastructure do need to be renewed from time to time — As an example, does the towers need replacement within 20 years and can be coordinatable with the province, in some form of a quid-pro-quo? And the Hydro substation (if the lines were renewed in a refurbishment) could be used to help power the RER itself too, even if it had to be relocated.
If this talk is going in circles, I feel our chief disagreement is really simply the timing/phasing (best use of money spent first), such as DRL first. What I am saying is when the opportunity arises, it should be considered and compared to all options at the time of the future, and if it’s the most bang-for-the-buck (of the timing in the future, even post-DRL). Considering pressures brought upon by the Gardiner shutdown simultaneously combined with population growth.
No response is needed. Just adding to discussion.
Steve: I think you are incredibly optimistic about the number of places where lines could connect between the TTC and an RER, and the work involved in creating such connections. I am going to be quite blunt here. There is a need for a DRL, and this will not go away no matter how many crayons give their lives on how many fantasy maps. End of discussion.
LikeLike
(…From a “within lifetime” perspective, consider an average-age Torontoian like late thirties or early fourties, like myself…)
LikeLike
In a Twitter conversation with Durham Liberal MPP Granville Anderson, he said that the Bowmanville Go Train extension has been dropped. He said he was told to submit a new business case which to me means the Bowmanville Go Train extension has been dropped.
[Twitter links here and here.]
To me RER and 15 minute GO Train service to Oshawa is a waste of taxpayer money as the Oshawa GO train parking lot is filled beyond capacity (people park on grass boulevards) because of all the passengers from Bowmanville, Courtice, Newcastle, Port Hope, Orono etc.
If I’m not mistaken an EA was already completed for the Bowmanville extension and the Oshawa Knob Hill Farms land has been expropriated.
This to me is another LIE to the resident of Durham that saw a Liberal MPP (Granville Anderson) elected for the first time since 1978. This is a prime example of another Liberal vote buying scheme just as the Gas Plant scandal was!
LikeLike
True but they can do that with out putting any overhead above the through tracks on the Halton Sub. I keep forgetting about that last half mile. Is there any reason why Metrolinx has not taken it over or does CN just want control of the ability to wye?
True but it is 58 miles from Union to Galt on CP and just over 60 on the line via Guelph.
There are 4 advantages to using the Fergus Spur Guelph route.
1) It does require using the CP line at what ever outrageous cost CP would charge.
2) It connects Cambridge and Guelph; GO would connect Guelph and Kitchener and hopefully Ion LRT would eventually connect Kitchener and Cambridge. This would tie the three cities together with a good fast transit system along with the 2 Universities, the auto plants and all the high tech development going in.
3) It would be cheaper than rebuilding the CP line.
4) It would not require putting one’s self at the mercy of CP.
Steve: In (1) above, do you mean to say “does not require”?
LikeLike
GO is currently constructing 2 stations in 416 with 1 more in contingency, and that’s without electrification. GO has gradually added stations, even in 416, for nearly 5 decades. The better stop/start performance that comes with electrification will enable that process to continue for several more decades. Smart Track may accelerate that, given that it is likely to piggy back on electrification.
As these stations get added, and frequency increases, demand for intra-416 travel on these rail lines will continue to grow. The only thing retarding the process is fares.
Think of Aurora and Newmarket as one community. Providing more frequent service to the southern-most station is the cheapest way to serve that community. It may also provide more capacity for Aurora and southwest Newmarket if the trains tend to fill up at Newmarket GO. Also, Aurora GO has some advantages in terms of land over Newmarket GO (although East Gwillimbury GO is even better). In the long run, I would expect the more frequent service to reach EG.
LikeLike
Kevin’s comment:
In the Dutch city of Utrecht, they actually did put in a slide as an alternative means of transportation. They call it a “transfer accelerator.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve: In (1) above, do you mean to say “does not require”?
Yes, thank you.
LikeLike
Any chance we could see 7 1/2 minute service between Scarborough and Union?
Steve: As things stand now, this is highly unlikely. The corridor, let alone Union Station, is not designed for such short headways. This is not to say it’s impossible, especially with a mix of local and express services, but given the importance of a station at the Don River to serve the Unilever site, and the need for not just Stouffville line trains to serve this but also Lake Shore East trains, there are design challenges. I am looking forward to something more concrete from GO about upgrades to its infrastructure, stations and signalling to give a better sense of what they are targeting when all of these services have built up.
As I have written before, I think that the concept of separate RER and SmartTrack services both on 15 minute headways, is something we are not likely to see, and ST has been oversold in that regard. This is not to say it could not be done, just that it won’t happen in the immediate future.
LikeLike
Steve, what are you thoughts on possible infill stations?
– Kitchener line: CityPlace (DRL termination station?), Liberty Village/King west, Mount Dennis (confirmed), Woodbine (likely)
– Barrie line: CityPlace, Liberty Village, St. Clair (I think this has been suggested in some EAs), Caledonia/Eglinton (confirmed), Downsview Park (under construction), York (I’ve heard some rumblings they may keep this).
– Lakeshore West: Park Lawn (pretty sure it’s on long-term plans with redevelopment of Christies site)
– Lakeshore East: Cherry, Broadview (Lever site), Pape/Gerrard Square (DRL connection?)
– Stouffville: Cherry, Broadview, Pape/Gerrard Square, Kennedy (Crosstown), Agincourt (relocated).
Lastly, some people have suggested that you could replace the Line 2 extension with a SmartTrack/GO RER spur to Scarborough Town Centre. What are your thoughts on that?
Steve: I think that the idea of putting many more stations on the RER has to recognize the limitations on capacity and function of that network, at least until GO makes significant changes in operating procedures and signalling to permit a much more frequent service.
City Place is only going to get its own stop if Metrolinx proceeds with the satellite station west of Union that is proposed for the Bathurst North yard lying west of Spadina on the north side of the rail corridor. The question then would be which services would terminate there, and which would run through to Union.
Liberty Village would not be well served by the Kitchener or Barrie lines because a station at the old Parkdale site (Queen and Dufferin) would be at the extreme northeast corner of the area. There are also design problems adding in platforms because so much has already been used up for additional tracks, and the site is on a curve. Stopping both routes at Parkdale would create an operational problem because both Barrie and Kitchener corridors are to have frequent service, and they would be running on different tracks through this part of the corridor.
A Barrie line station at St. Clair & Caledonia is possible (this used to be a CN station site), but I am not sure what it would contribute to the network given the relatively low density around the site, unlike the Eglinton/Caledonia station that would connect with (eventually) a major east-west rapid transit line that could someday provide a link to the airport.
There has been talk of a station somewhere around Park Lawn for years. Once upon a time, it was to be at Legion Road. Wherever it is located, it will be important that there be a local transit circulator to get people who are beyond walking distance to the station (a general issue for RER access that is not built around parking lots).
The Unilever site is a given for a new station, although which trains will stop there remains to be seen. There is also the challenge of whether the station itself should lie given constraints on the right-of-way east of the river. Wherever it is, there will be one station, not separate stops for Queen, Broadview, Unilever and Cherry.
I’m not so sure about Gerrard Square given how close this would be to both Danforth and a Unilever station.
As for Kennedy, there is already a station and subway interchange there.
Basically it is not reasonable to drop in stations everywhere lines happen to cross. At some point, the “R” in “RER” (“Regional”) must not be lost sight of.
Finally, regarding the spur to STC: I think this is a very bad idea because it compromises service on the Stouffville line itself. There is a perfectly good LRT plan all the way out to Malvern that would provide far better service to Scarborough overall if the SSE project founders on a hopelessly high pricetag.
LikeLike
The problem is that Smart Track (ST) is really a bad idea when the details are really looked at. GO already has a plan that would fill the track space that is available and that can reasonably be made available. You are in essence just adding stations to RER which undermines the run. While electrification may speed the trains up, the extra stops and dwell time will slow them down even more. It would be better to run RER to current stops and greatly improve the interconnection to the existing stop, and spend the city ST where it can make a difference. The ST plan has stops where there is no room in the ROW to add them, and presupposes that there is a lot a additional track time and station capacity. Better to use the space to support regional trains, and keep the 905 cars out of the 416 to start.
Toronto will need better connectivity to support bus routes in areas that are not close to existing rail corridors that can be taken over. Build out Transit City and include a solid degree of support to the GO existing stations in 416, get a real co-payment scheme and forget the extra stations, and special trains. The additional capacity to connect Danforth subway & ECLRT to core will be regardless.
LikeLike
The average age in Toronto is 39.8 with life expectancy of 79 for males and 81 for females, so 40 years.
If it were dropped then a new business case wouldn’t be allowed, like Bolton, as it is such a bad use of money that a new business case isn’t going to tip it over the worthwhile line. The Bowmanville Extension, however, is on the bubble. It’s worth while doing, but not so worthy as to be funded ahead of other projects. Really, the limit here is funding and timing. An improvement in the baseline conditions (population and/or transit share) could push it the queue.
So you are suggesting that GO needs to build a parking structure at Oshawa? This seems it would solve your issue, no?
Yes, the EA was done and Knob Hill Farms expropriated to build a station. Does this not say that there is a serious intent to complete this project, just not sufficient funding?
I’m not happy with the price tag of the Gas Plant scandal, but I am happy that the result was the government listening and responding to citizens complaints. If this was a vote buying scheme, wouldn’t the Liberals actually have to pony up on paying?
It has to do with the location of the switches and the signal block, and CN wants to maintain operational flexibility. The switch from Track 3 to Track 2 is west of the wye and from Track 2 to Track 1 is east of the wye. The Electrification Conceptual Design had gantries crossing the whole corridor and CN signed off on the concept, so it shouldn’t be an issue. Going all the way to Georgetown however, would require sorting out the maintenance supplement issue.
Interesting, I’ll definitely mention it to Metrolinx next time the Milton line comes up.
1) You still have to pay CN for using part of the Halton subdivision. I have no idea at the relative cost of these numbers.
2) Basically, this diverts half the Kitchener trains to Cambridge, so both see lower levels of service.
3) You still need to rebuild the CP line as far as Milton and still need an end-of-the-line Maintenance Facility for the Milton line, and there isn’t many good locations for one.
4) What might be the time saving for GO Cambridge to Guelph rather than LRT to Kitchener and GO to Guelph?
I’m wracking my brain and can’t come up with two new stations currently being built. Union, Bloor and Exhibition are being expanded, Guildwood is being rehabilitated, and Agincourt is getting more parking. The Woodbine Station is a floating concept, but I wouldn’t consider that the 416. There isn’t any space on the corridor south of Queen on the Weston subdivision, you could put a station between Exhibition and Mimico (St. Joe’s or the Humber loop), you can convert the Bathurst North Yard or Don Yard into stations, and there are lots possibilities on the east side due to lower densities.
The issue isn’t travel times, but corridor space and adjacent densities.
I completely agree that demand will rise, but GO Transit wasn’t formulated to serve this demand. SmartTrack would, but their budget doesn’t include funding for expensive new stations.
LikeLike
Well said Steve. Toronto, and region need to get to a handle on the idea of many modes are required to make a good system, and each has its place. It would not be good to go from thinking subway is the answer to all that ails transit, to thinking heavy rail is.
I really think that Toronto has areas that need LRT, that would benefit from BRT, and areas where there is a requirement for some of each, plus a connection with heavy rail and subway. Kennedy could use some improvements in how things connect, and the SRT needs replacement. However, I think at this point it would make a great location to join several modes. RER, LRT, BRT and Subway, where both the BRT and LRT connected to both RER and subway. This would allow subway and RER to serve a wide area to the east and north with rapid, frequent service, while also providing better local connection, without undermining existing plans for the RER, or only building a very limited amount of subway and leaving most rides essentially unchanged.
LikeLike
From a pre-Pre-Feasibility design of a Spadina Station, it is possible to serve all the westside lines. You could fit up to 6 tracks with 4 platforms (2 island, 2 side), this gives a lot of operation options, like running 1 in 3 trains to Union.
Steve: I think another factor in planning will be whether there is a hook-up between east side and west side services such as through running from Bramalea to Unionville in a more sensible implementation of “SmartTrack” than Mayor Tory’s half-baked proposal.
LikeLike
Another thing I am surprised with is that electrification on the Stouffville line does not continue north of Unionville. The station spacing north of Unionville are arguably some of the tightest on the system, with Centennial (3.5km), Markham (2.6km), and Mt. Joy (2km). Perhaps this will be looked at for the 10+ year plan?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know if you would need extra trains and how many depending on the operating plan.
That is one way to do it. Another is to run a shuttle and do a cross platform connection at Guelph. If we ever get sensible rules from Transport Canada and MU equipment with automatic couplers the train could be split and made up at Guelph but there are two chances of that happening, and slim has left town.
Is there no room around Guelph Junction? I do not know the geography out there. It would also eliminate the need to rebuild 26 miles of the Galt sub. This capital cost savings alone along with annual operating payments to CP for operating on it would be quite hefty.
From railway timetables the three areas form an isosceles triangle with the Galt Kitchener side slightly shorter so it would probably cut the time not quite in half. Even if they do not run GO on the Fergus spur there would still be a strong case to build an LRT on it and time separate the freights from it. Cambridge, KW and Guelph are forming into their own triple urban centre. Before that Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge formed a tri city area and Cambridge was formed from Galt, Preston and Hespler. It sort of has a holy trinity feel to it, three groups of three.
Thanks for the answer about the last km to Bramalea. I figured it was something like that. Also thanks for the time you are taking to provide reasonable explanations to all us mad planners out here with an over abundance of envelopes and coloured markers.
LikeLike
@ Matthew and Ross:
Metrolinx has three 416 stations in their plans right now – Downsview Park Station on TYSSE, and Caledonia and Mount Dennis on ECLRT.
LikeLike
True, extremely unlikely now but not impossible in the long-term. Lakeshore West manages approximately 7.5 minute frequencies from 4:45 to 5:45 (8 trains in an hour period), but there’s triple tracking to make that happen, and it often uses more than 1 berth simultaneously at peak due to dwell times, so capacity can be an issue there. In recent documents (2014, 2015) Metrolinx is also going to start feasibility studies for Automatic Train Control, which would allow short headways per track. Combined with electrified trains, and berths that free quicker with shorter dwell and faster electric acceleration, it’s possible to reduce headways, though there will be chokepoints (crossings) to deal with, limited by the upgrades of USRC and the new train traffic control centre. There will be higher throughput by 2025.
Steve: Whenever someone asks me “will we see X”, I have to temper the answer to the timeframe of current plans. The idea of a 7.5 minute headway from Scarborough implies the claimed mixture of a 15 minute RER plus a 15 minute ST service coming down the Uxbridge sub, and then merging into whatever service will operate on LSE. SmartTrack has been badly oversold, but there is a polite fiction to avoid making John Tory look too bad for getting himself elected on an impossible dream, at least in the timeframe he promised.
LikeLike
Mount Dennis and Downsview Park*. ECLRT Caledonia is what I termed ‘contingent’. It will be built, but not immediately. They all predate electrification plans. I would count Woodbine if I thought it likely to get built.
*I am aware that Downsview Park is intended as a replacement of YorkU. We’ll see. Either way, it’s a categorical improvement.
All three are issues. Electrification helps with the first and makes the others more worthwhile addressing. Adjacent densities is the easiest to deal with, because when it is low there is often land for bus stations, which is one preferred method to arrive at the station anyway.
No kidding. With electrification, those days are numbered. 48 years in, this is the end of the beginning for GO.
I don’t know about expensive stations, but I thought ST included several more stations (likely underestimating the cost, too).
LikeLike
Excellent blog with some great comments. Good to see there are so many people in the Toronto area who understand transit — shame none of the politicians does!
It seems to me that with the Kitchener and Stouffville lines receiving priority for electrification, we will soon start to hear John Tory claiming that this is what he meant all along when he proposed SmartTrack. There’s no way that 15 minute GO service PLUS 15 minute SmartTrack can be accommodated — there are simply not enough train paths available.
LikeLike
This is a question of their “core network” versus the “fringe network”. It’ll be done eventually for sure, but not in the first round of electrification.
This issue near Guelph Junction is getting past the Escarpment, if you can expand the corridor to 2 or 3 tracks through Glen Eden, then the sky is the limit. Current plans would have a Maintenance Facility at Tremaine Road.
Freight isn’t an issue as the Guelph subdivision. It’d be interesting to see LRT on this route, but I don’t expect it within the next 20+ years, as they’d do the Kitchener-Cambridge LRT first, and Cambridge-Guelph would involve three Municipalities (Guelph is an unitary area).
Cheers, this is my job and also my passion, so I enjoy sharing what I know. I think the more informed we are, the better we can keep our expectations tied to reality.
Mount Dennis is the same as what I’d called Eglinton. None of these are currently under construction, however. I think we also, have a different definition of the 416.
And he doesn’t seem to be backing down. Metrolinx has said 7 years for electrification, and Tory’s spokeswomen said ‘SmartTrack in 7 years, where there’s a will, there’s a way’ (paraphrasing).
Travel times are non-critical in so far as you can run express and local service. By “adjacent densities” I meant towers beside the corridor, so the corridor cannot easily be expanded.
We can only hope. There does seem to be a small shift in attitude about better integration.
ST did include several new stations, but the price tag doesn’t match the reality for most of them. If there were space in the corridor or low density adjacent, then it could be done (expropriation wasn’t included in the price tag). The expensive stations are like the proposed “Liberty Village” Station, where there is 8 corridor space, the corridor is depressed, and towers adjacent.
Steve: I cannot help thinking that the GTHA is being extremely ill-served by the amount of planning and information that is obviously available, but not being shared with the result that various fantasies and delusions about what our transit future could look like persist.
LikeLike
@Matthew Phillips. Thanks for the info. I noticed while on google maps there is only one track going towards Aurora currently? I believe they will need to lay a second track down at some point for all day service correct?
LikeLike
It seems like we have a different definition of ‘under construction’ as well. What would you call the current activity at Mount Dennis and Downsview Park?
I’ve been using the plain meaning of ‘under construction’ and 416, but I’m curious to learn of yours.
Steve: The work at Mount Dennis is for UPX. There is no guarantee, yet, that there will be an RER station at this location, or that work now underway will be sufficient for anything other than short trains on the UPX trackage. As for Downsview, that is intended as an interchange point with the Spadina subway extension. Both of these are inside “the 416”.
LikeLike
Someone better tell Metrolinx. They seem to be under the impression that they’re building a Mount Dennis station designed with a future 12-car GO Kitchener platform in mind, not UPX. If they have changed their plans without updating their publications, then I’m wrong. Otherwise, I’ll grant you that one can logically argue that since the GO part of the station isn’t under construction yet, it therefore might never be. This is Toronto after all. It’s a reed, but a thinner one after last Friday.
LikeLike
Metrolinx and the Liberal government has said no parking garage will be built in Oshawa because the property is owned by VIA. Metrolinx did expand the parking lot further to the east but with only minimal spaces created which are filled to capacity. Therefore your theory of adding a parking structure is not a viable solution so can you suggest a solution that is acceptable to non-Toronto residents that work in Toronto?
Are you suggesting the Liberal government listened to the residents of Oakville during the EA and planning phase of the Gas Plants? If so, there would’ve been no penalties as contracts to build them never would have been negotiated. The Liberal government only cancelled the Gas Plants during the election because that became a huge election issue in those ridings.
I suggest you talk to residents in Durham and Clarington as a recent survey done by the Town of Clarington showed the GO Train extension to Bowmanville to be the number 1 priority for those residents. As the Liberal MPP Granville Anderson became the first non-PC candidate to be elected in Durham riding since 1978, how can you say the Liberal govt is listening to it’s supporters???
LikeLike
So I did some looking into the area covered by 416 (overlaid by 647/437/387). Until 1953, 416 included KW. Until 1993, Mississauga was in the 416. And in 1998, 416 became synonymous with Toronto. I’ll admit that I was fuzzy on the specific geographical boundaries, since I didn’t live in Ontario before 1999 (I did for 8 months in ’92/’93). I was thinking it was Old Toronto and 647 covered the whole city.
As for “under construction”, I mean work related to mainline GO operations.
The UPX station is under construction, and the GO station has a design, but not funded.
That’s more excuse than reason. If there was a will to acquire the property (or an adjacent one), then it could be done. Alternatively, they could build an “overflow” lot on the south side of the corridor and build a pedestrian bridge.
Assuming the excuse holds and no money appears to fund the new corridor, then my suggestion would be to improved Durham Region Transit service levels (Route 405 by the looks) and divert people to park at Oshawa Centre. It would be interesting to see where the price point was on a shuttle vans. As far as capacity, 6 12-seater vans on 150 second headways would provide 288 seats/hour. The big issue is how much people pay to park in the GO lot.
Carpooling is a great idea, if there are intermediate lots that might serve as collection points. Whether this is “acceptable to non-Toronto residents” is another question.
No, I’m suggesting, better late than never.
I’d be interested in seeing this survey, do you have a link?
I’ve found the numbers from the last business case: $399M for track and stations, $32M for additional trains, 1800 more peak-period riders by 2021, and 2300 more peak-period riders by 2031. Counter-peak was estimated to be 10% (would is probably more under the electrification/RER conditions). Time Savings +$386M, auto savings +$251M, safety savings +$26M = $662M NPV (2008); Capital costs -$472M (not sure where this number comes from so a new BCA might drop it to the $431M calculated above), Operating costs -$632M (NPV 2008) (this might come down under the assumption of higher baseline service) = -$1,104M. Overall = Negative Net benefit of $442M. Also, there were “other benefits” not included in the net value ($4M on CO2 savings, $351M in direct GDP, $194M in indirect GDP, $37M in land value, benefits to corridor users west of Oshawa $271M); Revenue $90.3M n 2021, $107.7M in 2031 (at 2008 prices), operating costs $69.1M in 2021, $96.6M in 2031. $1.5M saving in replaced bus service.
Basically, in June 2010, the case was that the extension was marginal and has been pushed down by other projects. A new business case presented in a pro-extension format might get the NPV into the positive range, and thus funded.
The question is if you think that Metrolinx was looking at the Bowmanville Extension due to political pandering, or systematically expanding the GO network. From that perspective, it’s a good idea, but in competition with similar projects (expansion to Hamilton, Niagara, Kitchener). From the political funding perspective, there are three issues: the budget deficit, tax aversion, and competing projects. Listening to citizens (I hope whatever government we have will listen to the people’s voice regardless of voting tendencies) is more than just giving certain groups what they want to ensure they vote for you. It’s about balancing the various concerns and various parts of the province.
In a budget surplus world, you can easily please local groups by spending on projects with a net negative value.
Steve: One point common to all of these analyses is the question of what constitute “benefits” and “costs”. For example, the avoided cost of new road construction, or conversely the congestion brought to an existing network by the addition of a new service. Too many of the BCAs look too narrowly at project specific benefits and costs rather than reviewing things at the network level.
LikeLike
I have been reviewing all of the Metrolinx documents and all I can find is a planned future Mt Dennis Gateway Hub in a Sept. 2012 document, but it has no specifics as to the services to be offered. I am not saying you are wrong but Google can’t find it. Metrolinx is famous for changing plans and not updating reports. I can find a Dec. 2013 report that mentions a Mt. Dennis GO station but nothing concrete.
LikeLike
For the benefit of our audience (if any), the 416 area code was split into two geographic areas in 1993. 416 was coextensive with Metro Toronto, which became the amalgamated City of Toronto in 1998. The rest of the area became 905 and is generally coextensive with the Golden Horseshoe, except for KW, which had been split from the 416 area code in 1953.
The Ontario PC victory in the 1995 provincial election trended along this division, and the shorthand of ‘416’ for urban Toronto and ‘905’ for outer suburbs and satellite cities was born.
416/905 was one of the last area code splits, and 905 the last available 1947-format codes (with a 1 or 0 in the middle). After that, overlays tended to be used in North America, to avoid disruption to existing customers. 416 has since added overlays 647 and 347. 905 has since added overlays 289 and 365.
With this in mind, my earlier statement that the number of GO stations in 416 has gradually risen over the decades is technically false, since many became 905 stations in 1993.
Steve: And for extra bonus points, don’t forget the change from 6-digit to 7-digit phone numbers in the mid-50s, and the wholesale change in exchange names.
LikeLike
I found a few documents and their current web pages mentioning the GO station at Mount Dennis (and not mentioning a UPX station). The latest dates tend to be early 2013. But if these are out of date, which sounds likely, then I’m wrong. My apologies to Matthew Phillips.
LikeLike