This article holds a collection of comments that accumulated, nay took over a separate piece on stop elimination on the King car.
This started with Peter Strazdins on July 30 who, in the middle of another comment, said:
Some transit needs to run fast and have few stops, like the GO trains, and other commuter transit. Other transit needs to be fine-grained with frequent stops, a line that serves the local populace and visitors to the area – a kind of transit that helps out pedestrians, too.
I was talking tonight with a fellow who works in transit about the size of vehicles. We are both residents in the Bolton area. PMCL used to supply buses through Bolton to Toronto on a busy schedule 7 days a week. Then GO took over and cut back service to the point where it was almost pointless to consider taking a GO bus. Oh, yes, we used to have passenger trains here before GO took over that & cancelled it. GO uses giant luxury coaches that run not that often, and there are only a handful of passengers on each. These coaches cost somewhere in the $millions each. They must use a lot of fuel, too. Some smart accountant (?) must figure that they save a bundle on labour costs this way. So, what if GO ran mini-van buses every 10-15 minutes instead? And routes to where people actually want to go to. Suddenly the service level will go way up, and people will start using the service once they find out about the utility. Same with the new Flexity streetcars. Do all the streetcars need to be so huge? Apparently the TTC thinks that a bigger streetcar allows them to run less streetcars, therefore increased headway, and decreased utility to passengers. Sure, same number of passengers moved in an hour, but less utility.
So, James, I would not worry so much about the number of stops, but rather, the frequency of transit vehicles.
Speaking of public transit in Bolton, I mentioned to this same fellow about the idea of an LRT from Bolton to Pearson Airport. From there one could connect to TTC or Mississauga Transit. He thought that it was a super idea & said to make sure to mention this on this blog. Everybody in this area seems to love the idea, so let’s move on it!
Robert Wightman July 31:
Peter Strazdins says
“PMCL used to supply buses through Bolton to Toronto on a busy schedule 7 days a week”
PMCL sold out to Greyhound a few years back, don’t know if itwas before or after GO took over the routes to Bolton but Greyhound has abandonded most of the old PMCL route.
Oh, yes, we used to have passenger trains here before GO took over that & cancelled it.
GO never took over any train service through Bolton. That was the CP Canadian which VIA took over and consolidated with the CN transcontinental which now runs 2 or 3 times per week. Don’t blame GO for all your problems when there are others who caused it.
So, what if GO ran mini-van buses every 10-15 minutes instead? And routes to where people actually want to go to.
This is not GO service but local transit service. Try to get Bolton council to spring for that. That is their job not GO’s. People in Valleywoods at 10 and 410 in South Caledon want Brampton Transit to run a bus into their community but Brampton says you are in Caledon not Brampton. If Caledon will pay the extra cost we’ll do it but they won’t. Unfortunately transit is in a mess in the areas outside the near suburbs and Metrolinx which was created to solve this problem supposedly is only interested in expanding their own empire.
Peter Strazdins August 4:
I said: “PMCL used to supply buses through Bolton to Toronto on a busy schedule 7 days a week”
Robert Wightman August 4: “PMCL sold out to Greyhound a few years back, don’t know if itwas before or after GO took over the routes to Bolton but Greyhound has abandonded most of the old PMCL route.”
GO took over the Penetang-Midland-Angus-Alliston-Bolton-Toronto route, and for a couple of years continued to use PMCL coaches, but they were selling GO fares. At that time also, GO discontinued issuing PMCL’s paper schedule pamphlets, which until then were readily found in the variety stores in Bolton. I might still have a pamphlet or two around, but I would not be able to guess where they are hidden in this house.
Currently, I cannot find any GO bus service either north of Bolton (via Bolton) or any weekend /holiday service. GO has severely cut back weekday service, and it runs only to GO Bramalea Station.
I did not know that Greyhound bought the remains of PMCL, but I did know that Greyhound bought the TTC’s Gray Coach Lines in 1993. I found on Wikipedia that Laidlaw bought PMCL, but then Greyhound bought some Laidlaw assets including PMCL, closing the PMCL offices, but still retaining the corporate shell.
I said: “Oh, yes, we used to have passenger trains here before GO took over that & cancelled it.”
Robert Wightman: “GO never took over any train service through Bolton. That was the CP Canadian which VIA took over and consolidated with the CN transcontinental which now runs 2 or 3 times per week. Don’t blame GO for all your problems when there are others who caused it.”
No, Robert, you are incorrect. VIA never took over the CPR passenger service through Bolton (two trains a day), GO did, and promptly cancelled it. To this day the talk is to “restore GO train service” to Bolton. It was never in VIA’s mandate – VIA took over passenger services which were essentially inter-provincial or cross-country, like Toronto-Montreal, Toronto-Windsor, Toronto-Ottawa, Toronto-Thunder Bay, while GO took over local routes such as Toronto-Hamilton, Toronto-Barrie, Toronto-Oshawa.
I have been trying to research, but historical information from the 1970’s is essentially not to be found anywhere. So, looks like I am a primary source, I am going by my own memory of the events. I could try to invoke the memories of other old-timers on a Facebook page that I am on. The CPR line runing through Bolton is called the MacTier subdivision – it runs up to MacTier in the Muskokas, passing through Woodbridge, Bolton, Tottenham, servicing the Honda plant in New Tecumseth, Alliston, Barrie, Orillia. I found a piece from 2009 about restoring passenger rail on the MacTier in Simcoe County.
Robert, you are most welcome to try to show me that I am wrong.
I said: “So, what if GO ran mini-van buses every 10-15 minutes instead? And routes to where people actually want to go to.”
Robert Wightman: “This is not GO service but local transit service. Try to get Bolton council to spring for that. That is their job not GO’s. People in Valleywoods at 10 and 410 in South Caledon want Brampton Transit to run a bus into their community but Brampton says you are in Caledon not Brampton. If Caledon will pay the extra cost we’ll do it but they won’t. Unfortunately transit is in a mess in the areas outside the near suburbs and Metrolinx which was created to solve this problem supposedly is only interested in expanding their own empire.”
There is no longer a Bolton council, there is the Caledon council. But, I am talking about buses that run beyond Caledon, to Pearson Airport, Orangeville, Alliston, Barrie, Newmarket, Richmond Hill, Guelph, Kitchener-Waterloo. All of these places are unreachable by public transit from Bolton, and that is just one reason of many why auto traffic is so heavy here. I remember when Bolton had one traffic light, there must be 100 now! Back then, if we kids heard a car, we would run out to see it. But you cannot put those giant beasts of GO coaches on these routes, and run them once a day. That will never work. I have as the model the mini-bus services that I have seen in Europe – they run often & they run cheap, and they take you to where you need to go, not where GO wants to go.
I repeat from another thread on this blog, the residents here really do want public transit. While a restored GO train to Bolton is probably uneconomical, an LRT from Bolton to Pearson Airport is a very popular idea, and in a sense it would bring back rail passenger service.
I must add, Caledon council is being short-sighted in not providing transit to Valleywoods. It might make sense for the province to redraw the municipal boundary.
Robert Wightman:
Peter Strazdins | August 4, 2016 at 12:31 am
“No, Robert, you are incorrect. VIA never took over the CPR passenger service through Bolton (two trains a day), GO did, and promptly cancelled it. To this day the talk is to “restore GO train service” to Bolton. It was never in VIA’s mandate – VIA took over passenger services which were essentially inter-provincial or cross-country, like Toronto-Montreal, Toronto-Windsor, Toronto-Ottawa, Toronto-Thunder Bay, while GO took over local routes such as Toronto-Hamilton, Toronto-Barrie, Toronto-Oshawa.”
You are partially correct according to my source who used to work for CP. He tells me:
“Neither VIA or GO took over any service that operated on the CP MacTier Sub. The sole remaining train in 1978 was The Canadian, which was shifted upon VIA’s takeover in October to a CN routing on the Newmarket and Bala subs. At CP Reynolds/CN Boyne, at South Parry, it crossed over to the CP Parry Sound Sub. GO has never operated anything to Bolton, although the far-off promise of service is on the table.”
It seems nobody took over the trains through Bolton; they were just abandoned. Why would GO take over a transcontinental train service anyway? I am afraid your memory is lacking on this. VIA took over the Barrie Commuter run that CN had been ordered to run in 1972. This service was abandoned in 1981 when the Trudeau the first government cut VIA’s funding by 20%. VIA also stopped the Peterborough and Stouffville services at the same time. The two trains a day you talk about ran on the Barrie line and were dropped by VIA, not by GO. There never was a commuter train on the MacTier Sub run by CP or by GO.
I did not know that Laidlaw had taken over PMCL for a while. I found out that Greyhound had taken them over when I saw a PMCL bus with a Greyhound logo on the side of it in Penetang.
I know that Bolton Council disappeared into Caledon; that was a mental error.
“I repeat from another thread on this blog, the residents here really do want public transit. While a restored GO train to Bolton is probably uneconomical, an LRT from Bolton to Pearson Airport is a very popular idea, and in a sense it would bring back rail passenger service.”
It will not be a restored GO train but a new service which isn’t likely as it is CP’s mainline to western Canada. Show me a picture of one GO train operating to Bolton or any train operated to Bolton by GO. As far as I can find it did not happen.
“…I am talking about buses that run beyond Caledon, to Pearson Airport, Orangeville, Alliston, Barrie, Newmarket, Richmond Hill, Guelph, Kitchener-Waterloo. All of these places are unreachable by public transit from Bolton, and that is just one reason of many why auto traffic is so heavy here….”
The problem with connecting a bunch of nodes by direct service is that there is not enough demand to make service anywhere near viable without extensive subsidy. You will have to wait for Elon Musk and his self driving Tesla cars to provide that service.
Caledon does not seem to want to provide service within its boundaries and what you want is not viable. Your best hope is to pressure the province into running regularly scheduled GO buses to meet hourly or better train service on the Kitchener line. This will then be part of a network that would provide better service. Metrolinx is slowly moving in that direction but I fear my 1 year old grand daughter will be collecting her pension before they finish anything.
This seems to have nothing to do with the service on 504, sorry Steve.
Steve: Yes, it’s about time I hived all of this off to a separate thread.
Well, I tried, and more comments kept accumulating in the wrong place.
Robert Wightman | August 3, 2016 at 8:25 am
Denon says
2. Likely unrelated, but potentially summer tech work of a different kind – the city is starting work to widen the Queen/Dufferin rail bridge. I assumed it was for the West Toronto Railpath but our landlord mentioned it has to do with “adding a new line” – surely this is false?
Who is doing the work; are you sure it is a city contract and is it the new bridge over Dufferin or the old Bridge over Queen? Tracks are being added to the rail corridor, one on each side along that stretch.This is not newly approved; it has been in the works for years. Ride UPX between Bloor and Union and back and you can see all the bits and pieces for the new track. It has been going on for a couple of years and they probably just reached the intersection where it is suddenly noticeable. I believe that they eventually want 2 tracks for each of the 4 corridors, Barrie, Kitchener, UPX and Milton for a total of 8 tracks.
Steve: The EA for the Georgetown South Corridor clearly shows 8 tracks across the Dufferin/Queen bridges. The report has been around since 2009, although Metrolinx is no longer maintaining it online.
Dennon | August 3, 2016 at 11:21 pm
Robert, I think I’ve figured it out thanks to you! I did know that they were expanding to 8 tracks and on the Queen “side” of the bridge, you can clearly see 8 spans already in place – as Steve pointed out, they’re no longer maintaining the project, so I figured it was relatively complete. The new-ish Dufferin side certainly looks wide enough to accommodate all 8, and in a neat little bit of history you can clearly see where the original 3 lay due to their existing support pillars sheared in place. However, your statement about considering which section the bridge was over prompted me to investigate a little further with google earth and it looks like – in a well covered up construction error – the Dufferin section is not *quite* wide enough to support all 8 tracks, and certainly not the W.T.Rp as well. The area section off in the picture is where they’re fencing off, which looks like it will widen the bridge just enough for both all 8 tracks and the little extra that the W.T.Rp would require (I’ve marked the corresponding section which would need to be put in over queen in blue as “9?”).
My apologies on some quick assumptions regarding the completion of the project, and thank you again Robert for putting my curiosity at ease!
Steve: It is important to remember that when the EA for the Georgetown South project was done, plans were slightly different than today. The Railpath was planned to end at Dundas, although this was criticized at the time and if Metrolinx is now making provision for it to cross Queen, so much the better. Here are the preliminary drawings for that section of the line.
Malcolm N | August 4, 2016 at 10:24 am
Steve said:
“Here are the preliminary drawings for that section of the line.”
That seems like a huge amount of track capacity to be adding, are that many sets of tracks actually required? Based on the limits in the USRC, I am surprised they are bothering, or is this to support a level of service that will not be seen until a satellite station is built further west?
The logic being what: 1 each way for UPX, 1 each way for Kitchener GO, 1 each way to support Milton et al? Are they leaving a pair additional and local freight traffic, as opposed to having the GO or UPX lines having to share?
Steve: You forgot the pair for Barrie. Note that these branch off to the Newmarket Sub in the Dundas Street drawing. The Barrie service is currently spoken of as the one that will go to the new Spadina Station, and that’s because the service does not have to cross any tracks in the corridor to reach it. Platform allocation at Union will require that other cross-over operations are eliminated so that trains on each route operate independently. There are also considerations for any hookups with services running east of Union.
Malcolm N | August 4, 2016 at 1:53 pm
Steve said:
“You forgot the pair for Barrie. Note that these branch off to the Newmarket Sub in the Dundas Street drawing.”
I actually had not thought that this would require a pair to themselves, I suppose long term that makes sense, but I had rather assumed it would share a pair, but yes given the way the tracks approach, that makes sense.
Robert Wightman | August 4, 2016 at 3:44 pm
Dennon | August 3, 2016 at 11:21 pm
“… However, your statement about considering which section the bridge was over prompted me to investigate a little further with google earth and it looks like – in a well covered up construction error – the Dufferin section is not *quite* wide enough to support all 8 tracks, and certainly not the W.T.Rp as well. ..”
The rail bridge was never meant to hold the West Toronto Railpath. That is being done by the city and a bike bridge does not need to be as strong as a rail bridge. If they ever manage to extend it that far a much lighter cheaper bridge would handle it. The problem for the S.T.Rp will come at Bloor station when GO puts in the track on the northeast side of the station right where the rail path now runs. It will be difficult to fit the rail path in along with the extra rail. The track is coming because all along the right of way you can see various stages of it being installed. I fear the Metrolinx doesn’t care about it so start raising the stink now if you want to keep it.
Robert Wightman | August 5, 2016 at 9:38 am
Malcolm says
“I actually had not thought that this {Barrie service} would require a pair to themselves, I suppose long term that makes sense, but I had rather assumed it would share a pair, but yes given the way the tracks approach, that makes sense.”
Don’t forget that the long hoped for service to Bolton would also switch over to this corridor, probably in Weston. With Hunter Harrison leaving and Pershing Square selling their block of stocks CP will be a whole new ball game.
This does not sound much like street car track jobs, sorry Steve. Perhaps it could be moved into the Weston Corridor talk also.
Steve: Moved more comments. Let’s hope that the thread stays here!
Steve Munro 
I have family in Bolton, and finding out how to get there by transit is mostly an act of comical entertainment. That bus frequency declined while the population grew dramatically over the last 4 decades is abjectly sad. This is easily the least-serviced sector of the GTA, at least for that distance.
The last feasibility study determined that there would be demand for 3 peak trains in 2031. In the mean time, I would have hoped to see much better bus headways than once every couple hours.
LikeLike
The Canadian ran through Bolton until October 1978, but it didn’t stop there. It made no passenger stops between West Toronto and Alliston. As far as I can determine, the last passenger train to serve Bolton was the Expo Limited. It was a second Montreal/Toronto-Vancouver train, in addition to The Canadian, that ran for the centennial year tourism boom in 1967. It only stopped in Bolton for passengers from Sudbury and beyond; local Bolton-Toronto travel was not allowed.
Robert’s other information is basically correct, but a few nitpicking corrections: VIA stopped running the Barrie, Stouffville and Havelock (Peterborough) trains on the weekend before Labor Day, 1982, not 1981. GO took over the Stouffville and Barrie routes the following Tuesday, cutting the latter back to Bradford-Toronto. Both routes have been run by GO ever since, with the Bradford train later extended to Barrie again, and frequencies increased on both routes. GO declined to take over the Havelock train. VIA revived it in 1985, but killed it again in 1990.
LikeLike
As a long time York Region citizen, I can confirm Tom Box’s description of changes above. There were also unofficial service changes on the Barrie Line during the CN period. The original 1972 court ordered train used 5 or 6 early forties vintage CN passenger coaches, with smoking sections. In a few months, it was down to 2. This was not any kind of plot by CN, but rather a response to passenger counts which were much lower than the court or railfans anticipated. I never saw an official headcount, but I would estimate 70 or so on an average day. The cars were never crowded. Eventually, the word got out that it was a far less stressful way to travel, if you worked near Union Station, and the numbers began their long acceleration to the several thousand who currently use this line each day. Incidentally, CN did not attempt to sabotage this service even though they didn’t see themselves as public servants in any way. The old equipment was clean and reasonably well maintained. Their employees were consistently affable, often on a first name basis with the regulars.
The long term success of the Barrie line points out the frustration that people in the Alliston-Bolton-Kleinberg-Woodbridge corridor must feel, since the two areas have generated similar population growth over the past 50 years.
And furthermore: with Pershing Square selling their massive holding of CP stock and the subsequent retirement of Old Man Harrison, it’s time for GO to reopen negotiations re rail service from Alliston to Toronto. In recent years, CP has been increasing its use of the Chicago route for its transcontinental traffic at the expense of the Canadian mainline through Bolton et al. That should create more room for GO on this double track ‘main’. If nothing else works, Kathleen could soup up the ‘public good’ part of the legislation that created GO, in a philosophic echo of the Barrie-Stouffville court orders of 1972.
LikeLike
Two problems with this idea;
1) Most of the main line to Alliston is single track not double, but CP would probably want it double tracked at a minimum.
2) The Province of Ontario has NO authority over a federally incorporated railway. This was put into the BNA act that set up Canada. Wynne can pass all the legislation she wants and CP can just ignore it as it has no effect.
Peter: do you still say there was Commuter service to Bolton that was killed by GO? You are mistaking the CN and VIA service to Barrie for service to Bolton.
Steve: I think that Peter was contrasting what happened on the two lines.
LikeLike
I’ve heard people interested in pursuing a shuttle train from Bolton to Weston. It’s different than the previous Metrolinx recommendation of routing the line across Steeles and down the Barrie line.
It requires sharing the freight line into the City, but it allows for transfer of passengers to UP. You could likely use a shorter train for those 3 peak trips and don’t add congestion to the Kitchener corridor.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
To Rpbert Wightman. That’s twice that you’ve proved to be a strong supporter of CP’s ‘public be damned’ attitude. I’m beginning to think that you’re a shareholder!
In any case, I’ve apparently been crossing the wrong, double tracked, sections of Mactier lately. The presence of some single track doesn’t prevent a GO double track project; they are quite efficient in their present double tracking on the Barrie and Richmond Hill lines.
As for the BNA Act and federal charters; It’s 2016, to paraphrase one obscure politician. It’s time for CP to smarten up.
LikeLike
Don’t count on it.
LikeLike
I am not a CP share holder or supporter but I am a student of Canadian history and all inter provincial railways as well as any intra provincial railways that the Government of Canada wishes to designate are subject to federal jurisdiction, not provincial. That is a provision of the BNA act and your disliking it will not change the law, only a constitutional amendment will and good luck on that one.
If the province were to pass a law requiring CP to allow GO trains on the MacTier Sub the courts would declare the law, “ex iuris'” outside the province’s control. You may not like the fact, but just because I point out a problem with your logic does not mean that I am a supporter of CP or a shareholder. It might be 2016 but according to the law it is still 1867.
There are some long passing tracks on the MacTier Sub and a section near their intermodal yard at Bolton that has 2 tracks but that does not mean that the Sub is double tracked. Try driving back and forth across the line south of Bolton until it joins the Weston Corridor and tell me how much double track you find.
CP will probably demand that the line have an extra track placed along side of its existing track before it will let GO run any trains up it to Bolton. With new management at CP and their recent economic downturn this would be the right time to open negotiation on using the MacTier Sub but passing a law telling CP what they WILL do is not the way to go about it.
I try to stick to the facts to the extent that I know. I am sorry if the facts conflict with your version of reality. I will check on the status of the MacTier Sub’s double track stretches and apologize if I am wrong.
LikeLike
I am not a CP share holder or supporter but I am a student of Canadian history and all inter provincial railways as well as any intra provincial railways that the Government of Canada wishes to designate are subject to federal jurisdiction, not provincial. That is a provision of the BNA act and your disliking it will not change the law, only a constitutional amendment will and good luck on that one.
If the province were to pass a law requiring CP to allow GO trains on the MacTier Sub the courts would declare the law, “ex iuris'” outside the province’s control. You may not like the fact, but just because I point out a problem with your logic does not mean that I am a supporter of CP or a shareholder. It might be 2016 but according to the law it is still 1867.
There are some long passing tracks on the MacTier Sub and a section near their intermodal yard at Bolton that has 2 tracks but that does not mean that the Sub is double tracked. Try driving back and forth across the line south of Bolton until it joins the Weston Corridor and tell me how much double track you find.
CP will probably demand that the line have an extra track placed along side of its existing track before it will let GO run any trains up it to Bolton. With new management at CP and their recent economic downturn this would be the right time to open negotiation on using the MacTier Sub but passing a law telling CP what they WILL do is not the way to go about it.
I try to stick to the facts to the extent that I know. I am sorry if the facts conflict with your version of reality. I will check on the status of the MacTier Sub’s double track stretches and apologize if I am wrong.
LikeLike
Bob Wightman has no need to apologize for his statements about the configuration of the CPR MacTier Subdivision.
The only section that is double-tracked is from Weston (Mile 5.0) to Emery (Mile 9.2). There are two stretches of non-signalled service trackage south of Weston and numerous main line sidings north of Emery. The CPR’s justifiable requirement for any GO service has always been a full second main line track, which would include some expensive bridges over creeks and rivers such as the Humber.
The MacTier Sub is equipped with centralized traffic control (CTC) from Osler/West Toronto (Mile 0.0) to Bolton (21.6) plus a CTC “island” at Baxter (Mile 49.0-51.7), where the signalled siding is used for holding trains when Vaughan Intermodal Terminal is clogged and sending them south would just gum up the works.
North of Bolton, and with the exception of the CTC island at Baxter, the line is equipped with an elderly automatic block signal system. Any GO service to Alliston would require its replacement with CTC, although that’s been on the CPR’s “to do” list for quite a while.
While traffic may be down now on the CPR’s Canadian transcontinental main line, they won’t agree to new passenger services that would eat up excess capacity that may and likely will be required in the future. That approach is a given on any Class I road anywhere in North America today. We just have to live with it.
LikeLike
If GO Transit/Metrolinx/Queen’s Park wants to pay the CPR to double track their line all the way up to Alliston, I am sure this would be a huge step in getting a GO line in.
As for the province wanting to ‘force’ the CPR to accept passenger service on the MacTier Sub., as the Liberal Party has a majority Government at both the provincial and federal levels, it should not be too hard for current provincial Government to get the feds to help if necessary. And if I recall my Canadian history correctly, the CPR owes Ottawa a lot for helping to get their mainline across Canada built. Although, as this is 2016, I doubt any Government would want to actively ‘force’ a private railway to allow passenger train services.
LikeLike
Robert Wightman: To an extent, I was having fun with this; but it isn’t funny to people from Bolton. I’m constantly amazed that there aren’t many more serious rush hour accidents on Highway 50. It’s over capacity and rapidly driven.
I’ll concede Alliston to you; they all work at Honda; but Bolton is huge and something needs to be done, or the commute will become impossible. It’s all a product of the dumb planning that governments have applied to the GTA for a half century. If an area has water and sewage; build away! Getting to work is left to chance. So, tough luck Bolton, Orangeville and Richmond Hill, but you don’t fit into our nineteenth century rail and road patterns-you should have realized that before you moved there.
LikeLike
I’m guessing that the service trackage south of Weston is relatively new (well, within the past 26 years) as Timetable 44 (Jan 1990) shows two tracks from Lawrence (mile 3.5) to Emery (mile 9.2).
Everything else Greg mentioned is correct (e.g.: CTC ending at Bolton), but I’ll add that the details I have about sidings: 6250 feet at Elder (mile 14.8) and 8570 feet at Bolton.
LikeLike
There is a very basic thing that we sort of choose to ignore when we look at rail I Southern Ontario generally. The operators took up rail they did not actually need for capacity issues in most places, and rail freight traffic has increased remarkably (so if the rail allowance if full, it is likely that the track there is already well used). There is not perforce a massive of amount excess space on these rail lines, where they can simply absorb a passenger train every few minutes. They do charge track use fees, and well, if there is much empty space, I suspect they would happily offer slots to the province. There is in some places space to add additional track, but where we are pushing passenger rail into space in the face of opposition, we do not want to force too much, because that also means imposing cost on our businesses, in terms of moving the same goods by road, and also by the way, putting an awful lot of heavy trucks on our roads, that there may not be room for. We should be looking at what our requirements are, and be thinking in terms of creating space in road allowances, or helping by expanding rail right of ways, not simply thinking we can grab capacity. Perhaps we should be looking at BRT (and even eventually LRT) to places where we know the province controls the ROW, and can actually create real capacity. Would Bolton not be better served by a BRT through the congested areas and bus 5-10 times as often?
However to the extent this is Toronto sprawl, perhaps we should also be looking at improving the within Toronto transit grid, and encouraging higher density in areas that could and should be looked at for redevelopment, instead of pushing new greenfield development.
LikeLike
They second track is gone north of Weston GO to at least north of Oak St….they redid all the level crossings as single tracks and the new barriers are located to only allow single track.
LikeLike
As various observant folks have posted here, the section of the MacTier Sub south of Weston has undergone some alterations as a result of the GO Georgetown South/UPX project, the modification of the connecting track to enable the CN transfer to reach Lambton Yard and the general evaporation of rail-dependent industries in the GTHA. Industries that I visited on CP assignments only a few years back have vanished or they’ve ceased making use of carload service. Gone are the days when it required three or four industrial jobs out of Lambton to accommodate them all. You almost have to go out there on a weekly basis just to be sure of who and what’s still in place.
As for the CPR’s willingness to allow additional VIA or GO services on their lines, they’re not as negative as some might suspect. They’ve always prided themselves on the quality of the service they deliver to VIA, Amtrak and the commuter railways. The bottom line is always the cost. The CPR always had a reputation among passenger operators for being pricey, but also delivering consistently superior service.
As for the stance taken by CN, for whom I also worked on many occasions from the 1980s through to 2002, I can provide no insights. Their reputation on the passenger front has been uniformly bad for several years. Perhaps their new president will recognize the wisdom in what executives of Norfolk Southern and BNSF have always told me about their passenger-friendly policies: You’re not apt to get any public funding for your freight projects if you beat up on the public’s passenger trains.
LikeLike
Further to the work on the bridges on the GO lines crossing Queen and Dufferin, there is an article in Railway Age that explains what is being done.
Good news for cyclists is that the railpath is being extended to Queen
LikeLike