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 guess you are unfamiliar with the geography and demographics of the Oshawa GO Station. To the north is Highway 401, to the south there is 13 sets of railway tracks then the Oshawa GM Plant, to the west is Mackie Moving and Transportation, to the east is many industrial businesses including Durham Dodge car dealership. So in your wisdom of offering solutions to an area you seem to know nothing about, where would you suggest an additional parking lot be built? Where would the funds to expropriate businesses and build additional parking??
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.
What is the cost to the province to build more highways and maintain them as Durham Region continues to grow at a huge pace. More people now commute from further away from the downtown core into the core than ever before. I might suggest expanding and maintaining GO Train service to Bowmanville is much cheaper than building new highways and causing further congestion in the downtown core and even overburdening the TTC as they are running at record levels.
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.
As for a shuttle service from a satellite parking lot in Durham, where would the additional funds come from to purchase all these buses, house these buses, service these buses and operate them?? Also Durham Region Transit service is pathetic especially during rush hour as service during rush hour is every 30 minutes along Hwy 2 and even longer on other routes. Again, to improve transit in Durham Region and expand service, Metrolinx must find the majority of the expansion just as it does for Toronto. As for car pooling, that sounds like a great idea for Scarborough residents to use to a current subway station and Metrolinx can cancel the Scarborough Subway and use is to fund transit expansion in the rest of Ontario. If car pooling is good enough for Durham Region residents, then it should be good enough for Scarborough residents.
LikeLike
Until the early 50s our family phone number was HYland 8890 then it changed to HUdson 9 8890 then to 489 8890. On rotary dials it was a very slow number to dial.
LikeLike
“Steve: 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.”
Here is the study of the spur line to STC. Could you please substantiate your comment that it is a bad idea, because the study seems to differs substantially from what you are saying.
Steve: I disagree strongly with Transport Action’s study because they are attempting to conflate a local transit line with a regional transit facility. If the RER/ST service on the Uxbridge sub is going to contribute to “relief” of demand flowing into downtown, then trains should not be diverted away from that line and the maximum capacity should focus on northern Scarborough and Markham. The demand on the SRT today plus anticipated growth even at the LRT level (never mind the gerrymandered figure for SSE that includes riders who will use RER/ST) would consume a large chunk of the RER capacity. Of course, in a fantasy world, we would upgrade all of our rail lines to operate five minute headways and figure out how to stuff all of the service into Union Station, but that isn’t going to happen in the timeframe when Scarborough should have expanded rapid transit.
LikeLike
One of the things that really bothers me personally with regards to the ST and subway arguments, is that they in effect treat local transit users as though they do not exist, and that this demand is to be ignored as opposed to being served and grown. I think that one of the basic notions that needs to be brought back to the fore, is that the transit needs to support riders who intend to do more localized trips as well, and not all be oriented around serving core bound riders.
A transfer for a core bound rider is being treated as a huge deal, the rider forced off the grid to use routes twisted from grid so as go to hubs rather than serving the grid matter not at all? Why should it be that much harder to get from Eglinton and Warden to Lawrence and Vic Park, than from Markham Road to core. BRTs or LRTs that helped to undo this distortion would serve all better, the current subway proposals threaten to make it worse.
LikeLike
The way I look at it Transport Action’s plan creates a framework for discussion on how to integrate and harmonize transit projects within the constraints created by the mandates and commitments of both the current municipal and provincial governments and the former municipal administration.
The goal should be to provide both local and express service, but to do so by integrating the project with the provinces excellent commitment to GO electrification. An integrated approach will allow for much lower capital costs, lower maintenance costs and a more optimal utilization of public assets.
Steve: We will have to disagree. There is no way that there will be sufficient capacity in the Stouffville corridor, even with electrification, to handle the combined demands of RER/ST plus an STC/Malvern branch, let alone merge this into frequent service on Lakeshore East. In some mythical future when we have five minute headways on GO lines, maybe, but in the time frame of replacing the SRT or as an alternative to the SSE, not a chance.
LikeLike
First, Ontario uses 0% coal-powered electricity generation. Second, for the last 50 years, non-carbon electricity generation has been a majority of Ontario electricity, so even at 26% coal or 45% Natural Gas it is still cleaner than diesel.
The conceptual design is valid and I’m sure it will eventually be funded and built, but it’s not in the current docket of construction projects. Mostly it’s one of those shifting goalposts situations, where “a station” is being built, but it’s not the station that was originally talked about.
I’m relatively familiar the the area. The pedestrian bridge would be similar to Willowbrook and capable of spanning 13 tracks. There are undeveloped areas within the GM Plant property that could be developed without negatively impacting their business. Likewise the Dodge car dealership could co-locate within a parking structure or possible completely relocate for the right price.
A few million for a parking structure is much easier to find in the budget than a billion and change for an extension.
You might suggest that, but it’s not what the last business case came out with. The auto related savings were a third of the cost of the extension. If that’s changed, then a new business case will put the extension into a better light.
It would come from Durham Region residents and people that want to use the GO service to work in Toronto but live 70km away. There is an obvious demand and it’s the number one concern for residents, so it shouldn’t be a hard sell.
I absolutely agree. This is the problem with funding one losing proposition, everyone else wants equal treatment.
LikeLike
I thought you were familiar with Durham Region. If Durham Region did not have the density or capacity to sustain an extension of the GO Train to Bowmanville, then why is the Ontario Liberal government spending MILLIONS if not BILLIONS on a 407 extension to Hwy 35/115 through Bowmanville and a North/South 407 Spur from Hwy 401 to Hwy 407 between Courtice Rd and Holt Rd? Why did the government expropriate all those farms to build the North/South spur if the density was not there? Do you believe that is a waste of money???
I thought you were familiar with the area??? The Chrysler dealership property is a very small lot and would not be large enough to build a parking structure or extra lot sufficient for the parking needed. There is other industrial businesses next to Durham Dodge that would have to be bought out then the land expropriated. As for developing south of Oshawa GO Station, who says GM would be willing to sell their property to the government? What price do you think would be required? As for building a bridge that would require the stoppage of freight in and out of GM during construction along with CN freight and VIA rail traffic, what cost do you estimate??? Remember, GM operates on a “Just In Time” parts which means they keep minimal stock on hand to keep the assembly lines going. What cost do you think GM will penalize the government if the assembly line has to idle because of bridge construction? That is why their is 13 sets of tracks south of the Oshawa Go Station.
Do you not realise that Durham/Bowmanville is one of the fastest growing regions in the GTA???
I gather you have no idea what the total cost of expropriating land, negotiating with businesses that have to move or close entirely and cost of building a bridge and parking lot. The total cost would be far more than a few million as you claim. Your rhetoric is not based on any facts but only based on your political support for the Ontario Liberal government.
Why would Durham Transit prioritise building an extra maintenance structure, procure and maintain buses, and employ hundreds of people to operate and maintain those buses especially if the Ontario Liberal government doesn’t believe an extension to Bowmanville is needed but yet will spend BILLIONS on subway to Scarborough that Scarborough Liberal MPP Mitzie Hunter championed????
If you were familiar with Durham Region and it’s needs, Durham needs more frequent bus service along Hwy 2 instead of the once every 30 minutes during rush hour that is currently in use. Durham Region also needs better night service as the only transit service in all of Clarington and surrounding regions is the GO Bus that runs hourly along Hwy 2 until 1 am. Those would be a larger priority, than a shuttle service to bail out the Ontario Government from reneging on a business case that was already approved now dropped.
Again, this does not bode well at all for FIRST TIME Ontario Liberal MPP Granville Anderson, whom was elected largely because he promised the GO Train extension to Bowmanville would be built if the Liberal Government was re-elected. I attended the Durham Riding debate during the provincial election in which Granville Anderson was grilled many times on transit and infrastructure improvements in Durham and he promised the Liberal government would not abandon the GO Train extension to Bowmanville as it has done!
So if you believe other regions like Durham Region should pay for their own transit and get screwed out of any decent transit expansion by the Ontario Liberal Government, then why should Durham Region residents be subjected to pay for Toronto Transit expansion such as the Scarborough Subway or the Spadina Subway Extension or the Eglinton LRT?????
I thought Metrolinx was created to take politics out of transit planning/building yet it seems that all Metrolinx is, is another Ontario Liberal Government extension to reward their supporters and lieutenants with cushy jobs paid for by the taxpayer!
LikeLike
I believe there isn’t enough comparison between mass transit expansion and highway expansion. I’m not well enough informed about ongoing road expansion to comment. My gut feeling it that it is valuable for service in the area and as parallel relief for the 401. However, my point was only regarding what the Business Case Analysis for the Bowmanville Extension said, not what has actually happened in the Region since 2008, when the report was written. My point was from the last report, auto savings would only cover 1/3 of the cost of the GO expansion.
Using Google Earth for a rough estimation, an L shaped garage over just the parking area would have an area of 4940m² per level, at 30m² per space, that’s 165-200 spaces, so a 5 storey parking structure would add 50% of the main lot. I haven’t seen a recent traffic study of the station, so I can’t say if that’s enough or not, but it would at least reduce to problem.
VIA rail, CN, and CP are federally protected entities, and thus cannot be expropriated. GM can be, so it is in their best interest to take the best offered deal rather than risking the legal minimum via expropriation.
Legally, fair market value between a willing seller and willing buyer based on the best use of the property. Every case is unique, but I would peg it under $20M (please don’t forget all the expropriation/land purchases that would be a part of the extension).
No, there would be no construction within the rail corridor. Consider how any bridge over water is actually built. They don’t need to stop all ships and drain the river, etc.
That is all a matter of definitions. If you definite the GTA as Halton, Peel, York, Durham, and Toronto, then between 2006 and 2011 (the last two census years), Durham was the second slowest growing region in the GTA (ahead of Toronto). Bowmanville specifically is growing much faster than the Durham as a whole, but still slightly slower than Peel. If you would prefer to say “a fast growing region” or “one of the fastest growing regions in Ontario” those would match the facts.
Please, if you want to discuss the issues, I’m happy to continue. If you turn this into personal attacks, I’m just going to ignore it. I haven’t presented anything as facts, only as first order approximations of feasible alternatives to fix the issue as you perceive it in the meantime until the underlying condition change and the extension is built. With a lick and a promise, I would guess the bill would be under $40M, which is 3% of the cost of the extension. I’ve probably become blasé with big numbers, so that anything under $10M is a rounding error.
Because Durham Transit’s mission is to serve their residents. If you assume 3 full time drivers and 2 support positions, that is still only 75 people from my minibus/van scenario. If Durham decides they aren’t going to meet a need of their residents because they want to sulk over Scarborough getting a subway, I’m sorry for you. I personally, would prefer the SSE was not built, and it went into the most rewarding surface transit alternatives.
I agree. I don’t know any of the cost-benefits of the various projects, but the underlying issue is that new money needs to be found to do it. Either though new taxes, an expanding economy, or program cuts/’cost savings’. This applies on the local level equally as the Ontario level. There seems to be no appetite for this politically across the spectrum, and I don’t know what to do to change it. I don’t support the OLP because I’m married to their policies, but rather I find them the least disagreeable of the three options.
If this is your make or break political factor, then the question is will the OPC or NDP be more willing and able to provide the extension?
Ummm, I never said that. My point is when a gap remains on transit planning from any of the three levels of government, then another level is capable of filling the gap. If Metrolinx doesn’t service the needs of some Durham residents, there is an opportunity for Durham Transit to fill the void. Furthermore, Durham Region has a disproportionate transportation spending per capita already with the 407 East. I haven’t suggested either that Durham Region be responsible for paying for this either. As for why should Durham residents pay for “Toronto” transit? Because transit is good for the economy and a rising tide lifts all ships.
It’s a statement about the sad state of affairs that it was and has to a large degree. Part of this is that the Bowmanville Extension takes economic priority behind projects with better business cases. If you want to jump up the queue, then do a new business case.
At the end of the day, there are three options: do nothing, complain, or attempt to make it better.
LikeLike
The problem would be that while that was the theory, they were never really set it up in a way that would allow them to really control the process from both a city and budget perspective. Ultimately, the province has the power to make the entire thing work, however, it would also mean that announcements would lose their political advantage to some degree.
Ideally in my mind you would give Metrolinx a couple of billion a year to work with, and a clear mandate, and enough power to tell politicians like Rob Ford to piss-off. If Metrolinx had a study in hand as to best design, and previous council agreement, when Ford blew up, it could have simply gone to council and said one of two things: (1) here is the plan, you want transit -yes/no or (2) the province granted us the power and direction to proceed, and your position is frankly immaterial. The latter if it was so empowered, the former, if it had real purse strings.
Such a process would also have meant a more drawn out GO electrification, and a continuing process of build on the Scarborough RT. Honestly 2-3 billion per annum should be enough to build all the major transit infrastructure that the GTA requires, it just means that the phasing has to be correct, and the right projects actually scaled to demand are built. A billion on GO, a billion in Toronto and a 500 million in the balance of the GTA would likely catch the region up, in a well planned and predictable fashion. It would also be much harder to cut for the next government, because it would be staged, logical and clearly needed, so a cut would itself seem politically motivated.
That is a level of spending that could be sustained, and would reasonably address all of the needs, and allow a well planned and controlled roll-out.
Steve: But Queen’s Park would not control the timing and location of the photo ops.
LikeLike
That would give 825 to 1,000 spots and the most recent parking garages built by Metrolinx cost about $44,000 per space so the garage would cost between $36 and $44 million which nicely brackets your estimate of $40 million though knowing how good Metrolinx is at getting jobs done and on time you are probably on the low side.
The one problem I have with that is GM might use it as an excuse to close the plant and move everything to Mexico or elsewhere. It is difficult to engage in a rational conversation when most of the correspondents are arguing emotionally but thanks for trying.
LikeLike
I’m glad someone else is thinking about this. One of my side interests is comparative politics, and one of the lessons there is that accountability works best when only one level of government raises the revenue and spends the money for a particular area or project. With this in mind, the GTHA would ideally have a regional level of government with progressive taxation powers, and the ability to spend in areas of transit and transport. Given that we already have 3 or 4 levels of government, this would only fly if we could amalgamate the regional municipalities into one.
A more likely scenario is a provincial agency with those responsibilities. Unlike the Metrolinx of today, it would have elected representatives, progressive forms of taxation levied only in the GTHA, and independence from Queen’s Park within its domain. Legally, as a creature of the province however, the province would retain the ability to abolish it.
As an alternative to adding another layer of income taxes, which is bound to be unpopular, Super-Metrolinx could be provided with funding in proportion with the excess per-capita revenue generated from the GTHA that is above that generated by the Ontario-wide per-capita average.
To explain, as is commonly reported in the news, the GTA generates more taxes than services consumed. This is true, although the reason is not any virtue of the residents. It’s mostly a matter of progressive taxation: the GTA has some of the highest household incomes in the country. A smaller effect is that the GTHA has a lot of head offices, with CITs counted where they are located.
So the idea is to take some of this ‘extra’ revenue raised in the metro area and funnel it back into transit. This has the virtue of being easier to digest by the rest of the province, rather than the GTHA seemingly being gifted ‘free’ LRT lines.
As for how much is needed, based on the Big Move, about $4B per year, not 2 or 3. And considering that the Big Move would only keep up with population growth, not get ahead of the curve, the GTHA likely needs around $5-6B per year for 3 or 4 decades to clear the backlog.
LikeLike
GM already seems to be acting as though the entire Oshawa complex is in serious question. They have committed ongoing product to the CAMI plant in Ingersoll, however, Oshawa, is not really secure. If I was looking at this I would wait and see, don’t rock the boat at all until GM has actually committed product to the plant, this decision will in effect be made soon enough. I would think that a better local transit connection and another 200 spots would make a good start.
LikeLike
We are so screwed. I’ve heard industry averages closer to $18,000, so it sounds like Metrolinx is paying the usual Toronto construction bonus.
At $44,000, that’s likely $10/day in capital/depreciation costs. What does GO charge these days, beyond the $90/month reservation fee?
Steve: From what I understand, $40k/space is fairly standard for structured parking these days. If you want to spend serious money, try building beside the lake. The new underground garage at Harbourfront cost about $100k/space.
LikeLike
I saw a report from OCTranspo in 2008 that the average spent to build covered parking by transit authorities in North America was US$16,000, which would be about US$18,000/C$22,500 today. It did however exclude land costs, since it’s often ‘provided’. Public works of any kind in Canada always cost more than the US, and Toronto costs more than the ROC (or virtually anywhere, for that matter).
Canada’s high cost of construction compared to the US and Europe is a critical feature of what’s keeping transit from getting built here. In turn, it’s hurting our productivity, and that’s keeping us from being wealthier. Less wealth means less transit. It’s a virtuous cycle we’re almost cut off from by these high costs.
At $44,000/covered space, that’s over $10/day for the lifetime of the structure, excluding financing. It would be cheaper to run ‘free’/near free vans to pick up regular commuters in perpetuity, even at exurb density. I kid you not. For the outliers, build (paid) surface parking instead, which is much cheaper and at least stands a chance of generating revenue.
Steve: Careful. “Covered” parking is not the same thing as “structured” parking with multi-level lots. Costs in the range I cite have been reported elsewhere in North America for parking garages. This is not a question of high “Toronto” costs.
LikeLike
Reports from condo builders put the cost per parking space at even higher values if they have to be underground. A number of years (5 – 7) ago a major developer told me it cost him between $35,000 and $38,000 per parking spot in a parking garage. Inflation has raised costs since then. A roof to keep snow, rain and sun off a car is a lot cheaper than building a reinforced concrete garage five stories tall. Building in areas with frost is more expensive than in areas without and paying a decent wages also raises costs. It would be cheaper to import slave labour from third world countries but for some reason that is frowned upon.
LikeLike
@Robertwightman – Your comment with regards to the danger regarding the narrow platforms at Union is at least partially confirmed.
LikeLike
Yes, and that is why we end up with projects that make far less sense taking lead over ones that actually make planning sense. I understand that the politics are the dominant factor, just would like to point out how expensive allowing politics to dominate us, and having short time horizons and narrow interests as a voter is. (Buddy of mine calls this the “Leon’s effect” … no money now)
LikeLike
I like the theory, but you aren’t removing the issue from politics, just creating a new group of politicians who only care about transit. Metrolinx did come up with a laundry list of revenue powers it would like to have, but nothing ever happened on it.
So long as any funding is provided from an external source, there is the ability to attach strings to it. For example, the province could give an extra billion for the Hamilton LRT to be built.
The main issue is that the budget is a zero sum game. Any ‘extra’ revenue funneled into southern Ontario transit has to come from somewhere else. The representative majority of rural and suburban voters tend not to like new taxes or cut services to pay for something they personally won’t use.
It really depends on how intensive the parking structure is.
What are you using as a lifetime? If you assume 35 years, it’s under $5/weekday.
Steve: The fundamental problem with parking is that we cannot possibly build enough to handle all of the traffic the proposed service levels on GO/RER will generate. Today the ratio of parking to GO riders is 2 spaces for every 3 riders. This model does not scale up. Moreover, it does not work for counterpeak travel. Excellent local bus service as feeder/distributor for GO is essential.
LikeLike
If you look at the picture it is impossible to pass the old elevator shafts on either platform without being on the yellow line. Those platforms a disaster waiting to happen again. A good engineer can stop a train within 2 feet of the same spot every time. This is the one area where I can see a need for platform edge doors. If it is good enough for UPX then it is good enough for the rest of GO.
Steve: A few of the old elevators are to be preserved for historic purposes, but this shows the problems inherent in using what was originally a baggage platform as a busy passenger platform. The stopping pattern and passenger flow in these areas needs to be reviewed.
LikeLike
The point is not to remove it from politics, because that will not – and should not – happen. Sizing and accountability are key. That new group of politicians would care about more than transit, since transit is hardly the only issue facing the region as a whole. The key is that their geographic area matches the domain. They are as local to the matter as possible, while having the requisite scope.
We did this once before in the 1950s. While it was not perfect, it was a significant improvement, until it lacked scale after about 30 years.
True. That is why I privileged independent tax raising power, a la regional governments, over the alternative.
It’s not a zero sum game when we’re acknowledging and addressing mutual contradictory fiscal grievances as part of the process. This is as much a pragmatic political solution as a budgetary consideration. Having said that, I’m not in favour personally because it perpetuates the metro/non-metro or urban/rural grievances rather than dispel them through education. But I would take it with the other reforms as better overall than the status quo.
25 years. These structures lasts about 35-40 years typically, but require rehabilitation after 25 years to extend their life, with rehab costs of approx 4% of initial outlay in real dollars per year of extended life. So the initial capital equivalent is 25 years.
Financed at current ON bond rates over 25 years adds about 42% to the sticker price, which gives us ~$9.10 per weekday. But since the project won’t be built in the current year, and there are operating costs we haven’t even considered, I added 10% to get $10/weekday. That’s starting to look like the floor. We can bus most users to the station for less.
In any case, Steve is right: it doesn’t scale. I would argue that it already makes little economic sense. My take is that it doesn’t even work at our current scale, before RER.
So this leads to:
– intensified feeder bus service for local users
– van service in low density areas
– paid, reserved monthly surface parking – sold (auctioned?!) at a profit – for users living outside the transit area
– levies for private parking lots operating near GO stations
It may not scale to infinity, but it scales better than the status quo, and has all sorts of other benefits (less cars, more productive, etc.)
LikeLike
That was the other half of my original suggestion, but ironically, megafun77 thought other projects with higher demand should take precedence. As a new random thought, if we were to raise the Vehicle Plate Renewal fee from $98 to $547.50 ($1.50 per day), we would raise $4.7B in new revenues. With $0.7B for roads, $1.0B for transit operations, and $3.0B for transit capital works, that would be $47M per year for Durham Region and $206M per year for Toronto.
First of all, we need to wait for the findings of whatever investigation happens. If it was a defective train or passenger error, then the mitigation options are different. Next, I’ll probably sound like a complete ass, but I don’t think the cost-benefit ratio is there for just one death. For the good of the community, I would suspect hiring one or two more doctors would provide more life savings at a lower price point.
Lots of keys, hehe. I’m happy with the concept in principle, but it’s the implementation that worries me. If you do it on the current Municipal level, you get economic distortions and competitive begger-thy-neighbour pricing. If you do it on a wider scale (GTA, GTHA, Golden Horseshoe, Southern Ontario), then the question is who gets put on either side of the line. The method of election will also skew the outcomes. We saw from Metro-Toronto that the fringe can outvote the core on a regional representative basis, and a geographic population basis comes with the opposite effect where more higher density areas would benefit from a single project and the lower density areas complain about underwriting the project and not getting any benefits. An official-at-large approach would remove the “local as possible” key feature.
I agree with that, but it’s not a new idea. All we are lacking is the political will to do it.
“There is only one taxpayer.” Do you think the OLP wouldn’t be blamed for the rise in taxes under the new Metrolinx? Do you think the OLP would survive the next election, if the OPC promised to kill it? Our election cycle is too short to see the returns on mid-term investments.
I think everyone, except Metrolinx and the parking lot users would agree that we need to move past the park-and-ride model (at least to the point of paying equal to daily transit fare). It would be interesting if Metrolinx were to provide transit connections to the nearest mobility hub.
LikeLike
I think a lot of how much is really required will depend heavily on the degree to which we can get planning in and political “fair” driven design out. If we are to make the argument for instance that we will go with LRT wherever applicable, at a billion a year in 5 years we have the money to pay for Finch West, Sheppard East, Scarborough SRT replacement, and a BRT in Gatineau from Kennedy stations (GO and Subway) to past where the corridor crosses the 401. I would be really surprised if we could build much faster than that – given the planning requirements. That would give us the time required to plan a 1 stop 2 km extension to Steeles on Yonge, to increase turning capacity, while planning a DRL – as a true capacity enabling line. I think that would take about 8 years to build, and the construction would cost likely on the order of 8 billion, for a line that would really enable a lot more transit. The line in my mind would run from at least close to the Hospital at the end of the Queensway through Liberty Village, past the site of a western core GO station, through core, to the Danforth, and on to Eglinton and Don Mills. Once built it would support an LRT on Don Mills and eventually a Western Waterfront LRT starting at its other terminus. That to me would be a reasonable 16-18 year plan in Toronto, funded on a steady flow of money. I am not claiming that this is a particularly good plan nor in any particular order, just discussing how quickly things would actually flow at a billion in transit per annum within Toronto. (any money not spent this year would need to be put into a kitty for next) Beyond Toronto at 500 million – 3.5 years for Hurontario-Main, another couple for additional BRT in York, Durham and Peel region, 2.5 for Hamilton LRT…. The big thing is the money needs to start flowing now, and accumulating even prior to the start of construction, to permit construction to flow smoothly.
Could you perhaps make it a little more generous? Yes, but I would argue fund it too heavily, and careful planning is likely to be undermined, or we will actually get totally caught up, the money removed, and ongoing extension stop. I would rather make very steady progress rolling out one project after the other, maintaining credibility by picking only those that make very good use of capital, where the need is clear, and that tie well to existing infrastructure. We would then keep coming back and making extensions etc as we go. Keep it tight, leave some real need, and even the Conservative party will have a hard time opposing it, and it will be too small a line item, affecting too many ridings to want to chop.
A billion per annum on GO would allow a careful considered roll-out of new services, moving the existing equipment around to support additional services, as one line at a time is electrified starting where it will actually enable service required now. My problem with the bigger bang approach, is that you get “done” or start to overbuild, and lose credibility. Playing catch-up, increases credibility, and encourages planning that will make best use of what is there, or about to be, rather than counting on large new services.
I would note however, that this level of spending is purely to support the extension of transit infrastructure – new capital, and would need to be inflation adjusted. I would agree that if we are throwing in major repairs and renewal, additional funding will likely be required. like new trains for the subway, re-signalling Bloor\Danforth etc. However, I think that even here a 300-500 million in a steady continuous funding formulae would go a long ways.
LikeLike
A hike of $450/yr would raise $1.4B, since there are 3.2M vehicle registrations in the GTHA. Dynamic scoring would take the revenue lower. Another $2B would be raised outside of the GTHA, which has 4.4M registrations. If you were contemplating funneling the funds raised by the hike outside the GTHA into GTHA transit, that’s likely a dead letter. The other problem is that your idea is a significant transfer from road users to transit users. There are lots of good reasons already for raising these fees – to pay for the actual costs of driving.
I prefer the approach that municipalities can levy the license tax as a means to cover their road expenses, since it’s closer to user-pay than funding roads through property taxes. Unlike most provinces and US states, Ontario does a relatively good job of matching provincial highways expenses with fuel excise tax revenues, but the highway network covers only 35% of our kms driven.
A closer approach to user-pay is to use annual odometer readings and axle weights. We have lots of data already on who drives where, so we don’t need individual GPS tracking to allocate funding to municipalities.
Note that except possibly for munies levying the plate tax, you still get more fiscal room for transit spending, assuming that other sources of revenue are not cut to be ‘revenue neutral’.
Steve: One might ask why Toronto does not reintroduce the Vehicle Registration Tax to pay for the cost of rebuilding the Gardiner, especially on an accelerated schedule. That would clearly be road users paying for a road project.
You’re probably right, given the estimates for platform doors on the TTC. But that’s assuming we’re talking about system-wide use. I think there’s an argument for platform doors just at Union, or just on the narrower platforms. Ironically doors would shrink the platforms further, but maybe grow the ‘safe’ footprint.
Also, if we’re doubling Union’s capacity, we’re doubling the death incident rate against a fixed cost for the doors.
Steve: The challenge will be to stop the trains accurately enough for the doors. This could also raise problems for “standard” door locations for a fleet that could well have more than one “flavour” of car.
There’s always going to be people on the other side of the line, the trick is to get a better ratio. Right now, we have the worst ratio possible, twice. Toronto is just under half the GTA population, and the GTHA is just over half the pop of ON.
It could be worse. We could have a provincial border running through the city. Ottawa can’t build a bridge to Gatineau to save its life, even with federal blessing. Nor extend its LRT over the bridge it already owns.
These issues are actually features, to some extent. They have to be resolved, and they are best resolved by the citizens with a stake. All of these issues already exist, except it currently is worse because using the province as a proxy for local government entangles the other half of the province with the GTA’s political scene.
There is actually no need to raise taxes with this specific reform, since a level of government is getting replaced. Shifting tax points to a more local level is actually a successful method of buying votes. There are a number of options. We could see taxes go down in some areas outside the GTHA, and that would be popular there. Or we could see a method that tries to be revenue neutral in each region.
On the other hand, the OLP has implemented a number of tax hikes, some of which have been enormous, yet seems to be loved for it, based on electoral returns.
I’m actually baffled that the OLP gets so little flak for raising taxes.
Metrolinx can’t move past this because it requires caring about and spending much more money on integrating local transit. This is something they seem unready or unwilling to do.
LikeLike
I think the whole scale is wrong, on a couple fronts:
1) The Big Move is not big enough to actually make a difference. If you look at growth and travel demand projections, the GTA just about shuts down in the mid 2030s, even with this level of spending. Throughput is unstable today, but crashes just about everywhere about 20 years from now. We are talking 3 to 4 hours to get from Pickering to Mississauga, virtually any time of day, in good weather.
2) You wrote almost entirely about the City of Toronto. It’s not a solved problem, but it’s not really where the problem lies. Over the next 40 years, we’re going to have to spend 4 to 6 dollars outside the City of Toronto for each dollar inside, because of the lower density and higher population. $6B/yr is probably on the low side, if we want to avoid the crash. Talking about more though appears to be outside the Overton window, even with transit advocates. Of course the ground is nowhere near prepared for this politically. I am purely writing about what is actually needed if we want to make travel efficient two to four decades from now.
Steve: Yes, I am always amused by claims of how we will fight congestion when so much of the infrastructure we are building does not serve the travel between places outside the Toronto core.
LikeLike
I wonder if Matthew in his wisdom factored in the cost of conducting an EA and widening the 2 lane road (one lane each way) on Bloor St. because of congestion that an added parking garage would cause at the Oshawa GO station???
In Matthew’s cost estimates, I see no where the cost factored in to creating a road so a parking lot south of the Oshawa GO station could be created and accessed as it would have to be separated from GM’s factory and GM’s factory access could not be used by the general public.
I wonder if Matthew know it takes between 15-20 minutes for each train traffic to enter/exit the current parking lot in Oshawa, so with an every 15 minute RER to Oshawa, what does he think the additional congestion time be that would promote using the GO train instead of driving into Toronto. I wonder if in all his statistics has he factored in the various congestion costs and lost productivity due to congestion.
The whole idea behind public transit is to promote and encourage people to leave the car at home to reduce congestion, but for that to happen, public transit as a whole must be made to be accessed with much greater ease than it is now. A train every 15 minutes into Oshawa will only add to the congestion to the current 2 lane Bloor St. and its 2 exits onto Bloor St.
Also Matthew Phillips forgets that in Metrolinx’s next 5 year business plan, a covered parking structure or any alternate lot at the Oshawa GO station is not in the plan.
Thus reinforcing my original comment that an every 15 minute RER to Oshawa is a waste of taxpayer money because the Oshawa GO station is already at maximum capacity and can not handle any additional passengers without addition parking or additional and more frequent GO bus service to the Oshawa GO station.
LikeLike
Great point. The Big Kahuna prioritized killing the wrong tax IMO. The property transfer tax is an incredibly regressive capital-eroding tax, and its pain has been masked by a mad property bubble. Vehicle Reg Tax meanwhile at least approximates user pay. I would still prefer taxation scaled to annual odometer readings over the VRT though.
Are you talking about stopping diesel or electric? I assumed electric is more accurate, since platform doors are not rare for electric. It could be that the new electrics would get assigned to the narrower platforms at Union with doors, and diesels would have to be restricted to the wider platforms without doors. Restrictions are not free of course, they reduce logistical flexibility.
Steve: Even with electrics, this presumes use of some form of ATC for accurate positioning.
LikeLike
I imagine the occupancy rate at Oshawa will drop with RER, by design, since it isn’t much of a counter-traffic destination. The current usage is something like 2000-2900/day according to GO. Until usage quadruples, traffic at the station will likely smooth out and congestion will be less of an issue.
Besides the more casual use of transit that frequency brings, one of the other benefits is reducing the peaks at stations.
LikeLike
The 407 BRT in York Region will help in terms of cross Toronto travel. Also I would note the projects beyond Toronto like Hurontario-Maine will make some difference in terms of linking more to MiWay Transitway, GO and the 407 BRT. The billion per annum on GO should actually make a difference in GO. Also 500 million/annum when you are building mostly BRT is a lot of money.
The problem I have with the massive spending levels, is that there are not enough projects on the table outside Toronto to actually make good use of that type of spending. The projects need to be focused, well conceived and appropriate to load. Your point about low density, along with wide road allowances also means that BRT are feasible in Mississauga, Brampton, Pickering, Vaughan, etc even where they are not already proposed and underway or largely built like the MiWay Transitway. Also they are likely to be appropriate to load.
I have no issue with an east-west LRT, however, where? I would love to see an express BRT cross Toronto in say the 401 corridor, however it would require high quality linkage to the other major transit corridors. I would love to see this be a higher speed LRT (using something like the Alstom cars in Ottawa with 105km/h speed). This could be easily scaled to permit ridership that would hugely exceed the capacity of the 401 (say 4 of those Alstom cars every 2 minutes for a capacity of ~25k/hour or about 12 lanes per direction). The problem is connecting such a project well to the balance of transit. However, I do not believe that there are many of these types of projects, so as to require that level of spending. I think a lot of the solution will need to come from much better local basic transit within the 905, and I have always been impressed by the impact of a couple of BRT in terms of making transit effective and attractive. The MiWay Transitway, along with one on Dundas if actually well used can make for much better transit, and take up quite a lot of load. One of the points in my mind of having the Waterfront West LRT is to extend it beyond Toronto, and actually alter the existing concept to allow it to be a multi car LRT (hence eventually much more capacious), and why I would run subway to where it could connect. Such an LRT would connect to BRT (Dundas) or LRT from Mississauga and beyond.
My issue is that the best projects are not capital intensive enough so that $6 billion per annum decades on end – on strictly major capital projects would be justified. I can see increasing the total of 2.5 b to 3.5b to support the likely $10-12 billion dollar+ expense of building that dreamy in 401 LRT with its very expensive stations and transit linkages (especially since it would likely need to extend from Brock St in Whitby to something beyond Trafalgar Road or about 85 km). I like this concept enough to realize I am tempted to distort things in order to have that vision of a large LRT (or EMU) flying past traffic, making those stuck, ask themselves -how could they make use. There is likely a better route/way my mind refuses to see just because of this vision of LRT or EMU (or even buses) streaming quickly (110km/h+) past cars stopped in traffic. The option of the combination MiWay/409 /Finch power corridor for a BRT might be a better idea my mind wishes not to see?
As I said the MiWay Transitway is largely built, the 407 BRT well under way, and the Dundas BRT does not look to be that expensive. Run 3 or 4 buses per minute on each of these and well…The equivalent of these linkages are required in the east, however, Gatineau if we can use it would provide a good point of connection, as perhaps would the Finch corridor. However this also would not be that incredibly expensive, except perhaps getting the permission to use the corridors. Again 3 or 4 buses per minute goes a long way to moving a lot of people, and the real issue would be distribution locally, not something done with the large, central dollars in question, but rather TTC/MiWay etc buses. The bigger issue is keeping the overly grand plans (like my 401 LRT fantasy) to a minimum and smaller, more effective ones to the fore.
Also I would note that once you were done with what I proposed in the previous post within Toronto~ I had listed 18 years of projects for Toronto (@ 1 b/annum), I believe the projects I listed beyond at 500 million /year beyond Toronto would be built in something like 8. You would keep building, and the in vs beyond Toronto mix would likely change. The largest extent of ground beyond Toronto could even should be covered with BRT, and again an awful lot can be built for not a lot. If you built a lot of heavy or even light rail, it would be tempting to offer too sparse a service (better a bus a minute than a 3 car LRT every 10).
Also the extent to which the outer areas vs inner will require additional transit depends on the model we adopt for growth. I would support an avenues type plan, where higher density is used to reduce the increase in space required to accommodate the new population, with virtually all population growth being housed using increased density in areas already built up. Adopt that avenues plan in Mississauga, and well you are looking at more LRT, but also a more concentrated load, and less to build elsewhere. The amount being spent within Toronto would only be sustained if that was where the growth was, and some of the 1 B in Toronto, might well find its way beyond, as density increased.
LikeLike
The question would need to be – to what degree would it be reasonable for Durham transit to improve service that included GO as a stop. To make RER worthwhile, will require more service by local transit providers, and GO Bus should not be a replacement for Durham transit for service within Durham. I would argue that further development within Oshawa to the extent it is a bedroom community should be predicated on better transit service to support it. Otherwise, better to provide better GO service only to areas that actually looking to seriously improve the local transit access.
LikeLike
The two numbers I saw were 8.1M in 2013 from StatsCan and 10.4M from the MTO article on WikiPedia. My suggested plan was that operational funds be invested on a per capita basis and capital funds be invested on a needs basis.
I don’t see the problem. Are you suggesting we are underfunding the MTO as well as transit? I’m not really bothered about how the funds are distributed between transport and transit, but it makes the cost of driving more transparent and it’s an alternative to the gas tax, which provides the government an incentive not to push for better fuel efficiency.
If you are suggesting that this money specifically needs to go to roads, you can do that and use the previous general funds for transit.
I’m against regional tax differences. It distorts the natural system by providing an economic incentive to not take the otherwise best choice. If Toronto has a high license tax and Mississauga doesn’t, it doesn’t result in less traffic in Toronto, but just more cars registered in Mississauga.
I would make this every 1 or 2 years and done when renewing your plates. Basically, this is a tweak to the flat rate system and I’d be fine with it, if it’s going to generate fairer prices without being overly expensive.
Saying “just at Union” is like saying we’re “just going to repave Yonge Street, end to end”. The TTC estimates for PED were $9.8M per station (I’ll assume 2 platform edges and 165m length). Union Station has 10 single side berths and 16 double side berths, and each is twice the length of a TTC platform. So, a full Union Station would be around $823.2M (2010 dollars). At least part of every platform is substandard, and I might suppose that half a wall is more or equally dangerous than no wall. It’s probably cheaper and more effective to ban backpacks on GO platforms.
I’ve always liked the D.C. model, where the capital is it’s own special division. In this case, everything in Ottawa could be officially bilingual.
The thing is that all of Ontario has a stake in the economic well being of the GTHA. The urban subsidizes the rural, because the rural is a necessity. Whenever someone brings up raising a local tax, the hue and cry is that we are taxed enough and should spend less on other parts that don’t contribute as much. Unless you want Southern Ontario to secede from the rest of the province, the political scenes will always be enmeshed.
I thought the argument was that to fulfill the existing need to raise taxes, outsourcing is a viable option to separate it from other political issues. How can you reduce taxes in any part without shrinking the overall pool? In fact, if you are making locals pay for their roads and transit, you’d probably see a rise in tax outside the GTHA, because the GTHA is underwriting activity there. If you are going for revenue neutral per region, then you are adjusting service levels per region.
Not so, Metrolinx is ready and willing to integrate better, it’s mostly the fight over the bill that is stopping progress.
Steve: The challenge here is that a massive improvement in GO service triggers a need for local transit outside of Toronto to grow at a far faster rate than the 905 municipalities would be prepared to fund on their own. I believe that Toronto is the only city where the provincial gas tax is partly devoted to the operating budget, and so there is no provincial ops subsidy in the 905. This means that any increase to meet GO expansion is 100% local dollars.
Conversely, if Queen’s Park does get explicitly into operating subsidies in the 905, then there will be calls from the whole province, including Toronto, for similar treatment. All of the ad hoc arrangements bite governments in the end, so to speak.
While it’s in my employment interests to think otherwise, expanding roads and transit is just incentivizing the underlying issue of bedroom communities and million dollar average house prices. We still need more transit for our own good, but we need much better local and regional development planning.
In my wisdom, you are looking for problems, not solutions. The cost of an EA is included. Widening Bloor St. is not because the complaint was there isn’t enough parking for the existing demand.
First off, parking structures generally are funded out of a larger pool. Second of all, I made a suggestion about how to improve the situation, not a statement about the current plan of action.
Right, I’ll be sure to let Metrolinx know that you don’t want more frequent Lakeshore East service because of the road and parking congestion it may cause.
Umm, didn’t I suggest that either or both of these are needed in the interim?
LikeLike
Durham Transit DOES NOT have a bus route that goes from Bowmanville, Newcastle, or Orono to the Oshawa GO station nor any bus that goes to Oshawa at all. As I have stated earlier, Durham Transit service frequency along Hwy 2 during rush hour is every 30 minutes. That route is Durham Region bus “402 King” and it begins in Courtice (west of Bowmanville) at Courtice Rd and travels to the Oshawa bus terminal and Oshawa Center bus station. Then a transfer has to be made from the Oshawa bus terminal or Oshawa Center to the Oshawa Go Station. So as you can see, Durham Transit does not provide any transit options to Bowmanville that can get them to Oshawa or the Oshawa GO station. The only bus service available from Bowmanville/Newcastle/Orono to the Oshawa GO station is the GO bus.
Here is the current GO bus Schedule from Bowmanville/Newcastle to the Oshawa GO station.
Here is Durham Region bus “402 King” route map and schedule that begins in Courtice (west of Bowmanville).
I would also argue that Clarington is not a bedroom community as it is growing vastly and the population as of 2011 was 85,000. There has been much new housing builds since 2011 and I would estimate the population would now be pushing 100,000. I would argue that Milton has the exact same population (85,000 as of 2011) as Clarington (Bowmanville) and if Metrolinx feels that Milton’s population is large enough for GO train service, then how can the Ontario Liberal government and Metrolinx say that Bowmanville’s population isn’t large enough for GO train service to Bowmanville. There is already a CP rail line that runs directly into Bowmanville so no new corridor would have to be created.
LikeLike
If you look closely, you will note that I am commenting that Durham needs to improve its service, and GO bus should not replace local service. The point being that there is a need for more service, not the very thin service in question. GO needs to be met by real local service, by the local provider. I am not claiming it is there, merely that it needs to be to justify improved service to the GO station. Also a community can be huge, in terms of populace, if they all work elsewhere it is a bedroom community.
LikeLike
I am not looking for problems but stating FACTS! The fact that your solutions you provide to blindly support Metrolinx and the Ontario Liberal government’s decision to cancel the planned (with approved business case) Lakeshore East Go Train extension to Bowmanville are wrought with problems. You seem to suggest easy quick wins just as Andy Byford has done with TTC, but the end result is still the same that without an extension of the GO Train to Bowmanville, RER every 15 minutes to Oshawa is a waste of taxpayer money because the infrastructure at the Oshawa GO station can’t handle an increase in passenger volume. So why spend BILLIONS to increase service to every 15 minutes to Oshawa without looking at the entire picture???
As I have stated before, a business case was ALREADY approved, EA’s completed and property for a new Oshawa GO station expropriated, so it’s a farce to have rookie Liberal MPP Granville Anderson tell his constituents that his faithful trustworthy leader Kathleen Wynne now says he must provide a new business case. I say that is hogwash and Kathleen Wynne has LIED to Durham residents!
If the Ontario Liberal government and Metrolinx’s decisions for transit expansion are based on sound business cases, PLEASE provide us all with a sound business case that supports building a 3 stop Scarborough Subway and not a 7 stop Scarborough LRT that Kathleen Wynne, Liberal MPP Mitzie Hunter campaigned on to build. Steve has posted many articles showing that the formula that was used to support a Scarborough subway was flawed and proof of that flawed formula is the ridership levels currently on the Sheppard Subway.
Steve: At the risk of saying “read the report”, the Benefits Case Analysis for various GO corridors (from 2010) clearly states that the Bowmanville extension would have a negative net benefit with a ratio of 0.6:1. [See Table 6.5 on P. 38] By contrast both the Richmond Hill and Milton proposals have ratios above 1.0. If you are going to cite a report, at least do so accurately. Or is there some other analysis beyond the one available on the Metrolinx site?
It’s funny how sarcasm comes into play when a person can’t argue/debate with facts when presented with the reality of today’s present situation at the Oshawa GO station and that reality doesn’t line up with his ideas to avoid supporting an extension of the GO Train to Bowmanville.
As I’ve stated earlier, Milton has the exact same population (85,000 as of 2011) as Bowmanville, so how can Metrolinx and Kathleen Wynne’s Ontario Liberal government say that Bowmanville’s population doesn’t justify a GO Train station yet Milton does??? Isn’t that hypocritical????
Steve: Referring again to the BCA, the projected demand on the Milton line is considerably higher than on Bowmanville, although to be fair, this is a comparison between improved service on an existing line and the marginal additional demand on an extension.
Your more general argument, which is repeated in the next comment, is valid: throughout the GO network, the drive/park/ride model fails because of constraints on parking capacity and access.
GO faces the conundrum of how RER will fit in with CPR lines. Milton and Bowmanville would both run on CP tracks, and yet electrification plans are, at present, mainly confined to track owned by GO that is ex-CNR.
LikeLike
I may suggest that the distance of 20km from Bowmanville and the Oshawa GO station makes it a bit difficult to enhance any bus service to accommodate RER every 15 minutes to Oshawa GO station whether it is by Durham Region Transit, GO Transit or both. I agree enhancing regional transit including Durham Region bus service is necessary, but if the Ontario Liberal government can pay to build subways to Vaughan, Scarborough and LRT’s from Mississauga to Brampton, then it can also pay support improved transit in Durham Region that helps eliminate the use of a car. As it is right now, the time it takes to take the GO bus from Bowmanville to Oshawa GO station, then the GO train into downtown Toronto, is the same time as it takes to drive into downtown Toronto and the cost is approximately the same. How can transit be promoted so congestion and pollution in Toronto be reduced? Isn’t that the whole idea of public transit??
Also people who argue about traffic congestion in Toronto/GTA costing businesses BILLIONS each year in lost productivity need to look at the heavy traffic congestion on the 401 from Oshawa all the way into downtown Toronto. Many people drive from Peterborough, Port Hope, Newcastle, Bowmanville into Toronto daily for work because the current Oshawa GO Station infrastructure can’t handle an increase in vehicular traffic or parking and that running RER every 15 minutes is supposed to promote leaving the car at home, Metrolinx and the Ontario government needs to revisit the plan to extend the Lakeshore East GO Train to Bowmanville.
LikeLike
Population, presence or lack of, does not make a city a bedroom community FYI.
LikeLike
The 10.4M figure likely includes trailers, of which there are about 2.5M. They don’t get registered annually. 8.1M includes things like school buses and farm equipment.
The idea is user-pay. Also, it’s a matter of fairness. Taxing someone’s car in Kenora or Bobcageon or Toronto to pay for GTA transit introduces geographic and mode subsidies, which is distorts the economy and is politically difficult to sell.
Yes, this is the way it needs to be sold politically, but note that it puts an upper limit on how much can be raised. The limit is the amount of money spend on roads from general funds.
Different communities spend different amounts per vehicle on roads. Different tax levels actually reduces the distortions created by taxing everyone the same amount for different amounts of usage. Of course it requires redistribution between municipalities to account for where the driving actually occurs, but we have the data to make that work. The result is that each municipality gets its road budget covered by vehicle users, and economic signals are restored through pricing. It doesn’t result in any less traffic in Toronto, but that’s not the goal. From what I’ve seen in studies where this is done, insurance drives registration fraud much more than VRTs.
No. Because stations are so numerous, most platforms are not at Union.
Ottawa is officially bilingual. It’s Gatineau that isn’t.
While that is true, that doesn’t justify anything. I could just as well say that we have a stake in the health of Newfoundland outports, and therefore we should be pay for paving their local roads.
The problem is that this is a fallacy, albeit commonly held (FWIW, I’m an urbanite). Without writing a whole topic, suffice to say that one can claim subsidy either way simply based upon a few assumptions which can be reasonably argued.
You can shift tax between gov’t levels, between regions, or between revenue streams (general vs. targeted). If you want to raise more funds overall, obviously taxes are going to rise somewhere, but we could move from general revenue to user-pay with or without raising overall taxes, depending upon our goals.
LikeLike
If you go to any GO station in the morning you will find the people lined up at specific spots on the platform because the engineer stops the train at the same spot everyday. A good engineer can spot the train accurately because they slow down before they get to final stopping point. When CN used to run transcontinental trains I watched engineers join the Toronto and Montreal sections in Capreol and push cars together closing the knuckles without jostling the stationary car. It is a skill that can be learned.
Steve: Yes, but when every second spent serving a station is vital for the operation of close headways, stops much more like subway trains that enter at a reasonable speed are needed to exactly spot car locations. If an engineer over or undershoots today, the little bundles of waiting passengers simply trundle down the platform to where the doors actually are. This would not be possible with platform doors.
LikeLike
We are only talking one station not the system and the amount of time spent in Union will be a lot longer than a normal line stop. The PEDs can be wider than the train doors and the engineers aim for an undershoot and then creep forward to the proper spot. The doors would even work for VIA because the distance between every second PED would be one coach length.
LikeLike
Yes, it does incentivize bedroom communities. The problem is that we already built these communities, without the accompanying infrastructure to support them. If you want to address bedroom communities, stop building them out. But meanwhile, we have an existing population to support, plus about 1M more each decade. Ensuring that we build up rather than out is more critical than building any transit, but we need more transit infrastructure anyway.
As for million dollar average house prices, these will increase if/when we disallow sprawl, not decrease. Our current high prices are mostly the function of low long-term low interest rates, which will eventually correct.
LikeLike
Simply awesome. This reminds me of the joy I get from perfectly docking a boat while turning in a tight spot during a healthy chop. Nothing feels more elegant than cancelling all the forces within a hair of the dock.
LikeLike