GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[urbanclient]

The bottom line is that building stuff too far out in advance doesn't net you nearly as much of a benefit as you think.

I would downvote this if possible. This type of mentality is what has kept Toronto so behind on rail transit versus smaller cities like Sydney, much less similar sized cities. We love to procrastinate, as shown by the broke province trying to save money in the short-term only to have costs balloon in the long-term: penny wise, pound foolish. The specific types of P3 funding models that Metrolinx have historically used have shafted the city, the province, and taxpayers of both.

I never said subgrade should be prepped, I merely said that the new bridge should be wide enough to accommodate a future fourth track; a fourth track which, by all accounts, is inevitable even if not immediately imminent. Nothing else needed to be done. You are presenting a false dichotomy of two extremes. In reality, there were other options beyond:

A, delaying the replacement and letting the bridge rot (which should have never reached this extent in the first place) even further to the point of failure.

B, kicking the can down the road to build a shortsighted, inevitably wasteful three track bridge.*

*which had to be rushed because bridge replacement was procrastinated to this point to begin with.


How about we choose option C next time?

C, build a marginally more expensive bridge with room for a fourth track, which would also require marginally more costs for the approach slab and abutments etc...


By your logic.... Should the Prince Edward Viaduct not have been built with provisions for a lower deck rail line? After all, the lower deck only became useful nearly 5 decades later and was therefore generating economic losses for that entire time.

"[bridge] spans included a lower deck for a potential future underground rapid transit line; controversial at the time because of its high additional cost. The bridge's designer and the commissioner of public works, R.C. Harris, were able to have their way and the lower deck eventually proved to save millions of dollars when the Toronto Transit Commission's Bloor–Danforth subway opened in 1966 [...]"

Prince Edward Viaduct - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[lastcommodore]

I never said subgrade should be prepped, I merely said that the new bridge should be wide enough to accommodate a future fourth track; a fourth track which, by all accounts, is inevitable even if not immediately imminent. Nothing else needed to be done. You are presenting a false dichotomy of two extremes. In reality, there were other options beyond:

A, delaying the replacement and letting the bridge rot (which should have never reached this extent in the first place) even further to the point of failure.

B, kicking the can down the road to build a shortsighted, inevitably wasteful three track bridge.*

*which had to be rushed because bridge replacement was procrastinated to this point to begin with.


How about we choose option C next time?

C, build a marginally more expensive bridge with room for a fourth track, which would also require marginally more costs for the approach slab and abutments etc...


By your logic.... Should the Prince Edward Viaduct not have been built with provisions for a lower deck rail line? After all, the lower deck only became useful nearly 5 decades later and was therefore generating economic losses for that entire time.

Of course you didn't say that. I said that, and I wasn't aware subgrading deteriorates.

I still think the bridge should be built with room for a fourth track. Many rail bridges still retain extra room for a few extra tracks. But he was not responding to that, he was specifically responding to my comment about subgrading without concrete plans to actually put in a rail. You can still leave extra room for new tracks and build wider bridges.

 

[urbanclient]

Did you say that though? It at least doesn't appear you made any edits and you never mentioned subgrade?

Of course you didn't say that. I said that, and I wasn't aware subgrading deteriorates.

I still think the bridge should be built with room for a fourth track. Many rail bridges still retain extra room for a few extra tracks. But he was not responding to that, he was specifically responding to my comment about subgrading without concrete plans to actually put in a rail. You can still leave extra room for new tracks and build wider bridges.

Where the "subgrade" at?

I agree. Track doesnt need to be layed / ballasted but factoring in future expansions is what often saves so much money in the future. It was disappointing to me when I saw that Long Branch was being rebuild the same way (1 side + 1 island platform) which will mean it will also have to be rebuilt for 4 track service. It also confuses me because Long Branch does not need access to three tracks.

However, i'm not too aware of what service is currently possible with three tracks, and capacity improvements via ETCS. But it already is a busy line and 4 tracks could easily enable all-day express service.

 

[crs1026]

Of course you didn't say that. I said that, and I wasn't aware subgrading deteriorates.

I still think the bridge should be built with room for a fourth track. Many rail bridges still retain extra room for a few extra tracks. But he was not responding to that, he was specifically responding to my comment about subgrading without concrete plans to actually put in a rail. You can still leave extra room for new tracks and build wider bridges.

Aside from abandonments, I can't think of an example where somebody deliberately built something that is now in the way of expanding a rail line. There are very few single track underpasses or bridges constructed. But anticipating how much future capacity to bake in may have its exceptions.

As a general rule, if anybody is building civil works today along a railway line, they design in some judicious futureproofing, to some (affordable) degree.

I will admit, when I rode the GO for the last couple decades, I mused at how they ought to just get on with adding track. The width is there, and it's level, right? There used to be service tracks along that line, right? Now, having seen how much prep work is involved, including utility relocation, telecom, bridge renewal, retaining walls, new geotextile, etc.... one realises it is a bigger task than it may have seemed. I still wish it was happening faster, but it can't happen everywhere all at once.

- Paul

 

[lastcommodore]

Did you say that though? It at least doesn't appear you made any edits and you never mentioned subgrade?


Where the "subgrade" at?

Oh, I didn't.

Regardless, the point is just that subgrading without actually building rails leads to it being wasted. I don't think the point being made is that we should never build out for future projects, but that it needs to be done strategically because sometimes by the time it *can* be used, it's already deteriorated beyond use.

It's totally possible that building something well before it needs to be used, will generate losses overall. It's totally possible that it could lead to massive boons in the future. You just need to be smart about what you're doing.

Aside from abandonments, I can't think of an example where somebody deliberately built something that is now in the way of expanding a rail line. There are very few single track underpasses or bridges constructed. But anticipating how much future capacity to bake in may have its exceptions.

It seems like this nearly happened recently when a company wanted to buy the air-rights above USRC from CN to build apartments over the line. Metrolinx appropriated the air rights later because it would interfere with their electrification, and they're now in court over it. Per The Trillium

 

[urbanclient]

Oh, I didn't.

Regardless, the point is just that subgrading without actually building rails leads to it being wasted. I don't think the point being made is that we should never build out for future projects, but that it needs to be done strategically because sometimes by the time it *can* be used, it's already deteriorated beyond use.

It's totally possible that building something well before it needs to be used, will generate losses overall. It's totally possible that it could lead to massive boons in the future. You just need to be smart about what you're doing.


It seems like this nearly happened recently when a company wanted to buy the air-rights above USRC from CN to build apartments over the line. Metrolinx appropriated the air rights later because it would interfere with their electrification, and they're now in court over it. Per The Trillium

I just don't like this attitude of procrastination and the penny wise pound foolish consequences. No world leading transit city thinks in this way. And that's including jurisdictions that arguably just as broke.

A larger budget deficit today should ideally be mitigated by even larger financial AND economic savings in the long-term. Instead we defer maintenance and repairs on the TTC, GO rail infra, to the point that they start failing, then we end up having to pay extra in both financial and economic costs to rush a replacement (this shortsighted bridge, T1 cars to be replaced at ~30 years) And look how Metrolinx projects are funded and financed (someone more well-versed can chime in).

Theoretically lower upfront costs, but world leading costs upon completion, not to mention 30 year maintenance.

 

[tsm1072]

I think the scope and type of project is important here. Building a bridge is a very different project compared to replacing bridge spans of an existing structure. If Metrolinx is building a new bridge, with new abutments, then building the abutments to support a 4th span would be important. But I believe this project is replacing existing spans, and re-using and repairing existing abutments. In that case, re-engineering the abutments to accommodate a 4th span is a huge increase in scope and cost, not to mention the added difficulty of trying to limit downtime.

There are times to protect for future expansion, and we've seen plenty of examples of that through station upgrades and new bridges and grade separations, but this just may not be one of those times.

A 4th track along LW will have to happen eventually, but will be an expensive and complex project. If you look along the corridor, there will need to be a large number of retaining walls, sound barriers, grade separations, and new bridges. Look at the relatively short stretch of LE to see what that can take, and compare that to 21km of ROW between Willowbrook and Oakville. I think we are probably fine waiting 10-15 years for some of the existing backlog to clear before embarking on that project.

 

[smallspy]

Oh, I didn't.

Regardless, the point is just that subgrading without actually building rails leads to it being wasted. I don't think the point being made is that we should never build out for future projects, but that it needs to be done strategically because sometimes by the time it *can* be used, it's already deteriorated beyond use.

It's totally possible that building something well before it needs to be used, will generate losses overall. It's totally possible that it could lead to massive boons in the future. You just need to be smart about what you're doing.


It seems like this nearly happened recently when a company wanted to buy the air-rights above USRC from CN to build apartments over the line. Metrolinx appropriated the air rights later because it would interfere with their electrification, and they're now in court over it. Per The Trillium

You've gotten it.

Building stuff willy-nilly with no proper plan of its use does no benefit, save for the engineers and construction companies who design and build it. And maybe to future construction companies who get to rebuild it again in the future.

That's why building a bridge for a fourth track here with no plans of exactly how it integrates into the final configuration of the line and Long Branch Station is equally silly.

Dan

 

[lastcommodore]

Raises the question: What exactly will need to be modified to allow 4th track to Oakville? From aerial imagery that I do see, 4th track ends at the Oakville-Canpa junction when the south track merges with the track north of it.
Other than, well, laying down new track alongside the other three:
- Rail over 30th Street bridge would have to be shifted north to allow south track, or Oakville-Campa junction will need to be reconfigured
- Browns Line tunnel needs to be widened
- LB needs to be reconfigured to turn north platform into an island platform, probably including an access to north side + a retaining wall for a north track
- Etobicoke Creek, Dixie Road, Cawthra, Cooksville Creek bridges all need to be widened to four tracks
- Port Credit would probably need an entire reconfiguration- The bridge over Hurontario allows an extra track on the south side, but that conflicts with the south platform, which is hardest to reconfigure as it's a side platform with the station building & parking. Meanwhile re configuring just the north island platform would require Hurontario bridge widening on the north side and rebuilding the north platform.
- Credit River, Mississauga Road bridge widening
- Clarkson reconfiguration, I suspect the easiest option would be bring the rail south of the southern island platform into revenue service, which would take away a rail from the freight yard
- Winston Churchill, Ford Dr, widening
I suspect if that project ever comes into force, MX will also want to grade separate many of the intersections.

Either way, MX needs to have a concrete plan on how they plan to enable 4 track service on LSW, so that when it *does* get around they havent shotgun'd themselves in the foot from previous decisions.

 

[Bojaxs]

- Clarkson reconfiguration, I suspect the easiest option would be bring the rail south of the southern island platform into revenue service, which would take away a rail from the freight yard

Doubt that would fly with Petro Canada. Everytime I pass by that yard in the GO train, it's always packed to the gills with tankers.

Clearly that storage yard is being used at 100%.

 

[lastcommodore]

Doubt that would fly with Petro Canada. Everytime I pass by that yard in the GO train, it's always packed to the gills with tankers.

Clearly that storage yard is being used at 100%.

Yeah, but that's basically the only option at Clarkson without expropriating some land, re configuring the station, and expanding the bridge. I reckon a deal could be struck where they extend the yard out east in exchange for converting the northern-most track of the yard to revenue service. I'm unsure of any other practical solutions to expanding Clarkson to 4 track.
Clarkson is my station. Those tankers are usually the sign to stand up and get ready to de-board, haha.