News   Dec 05, 2025
Renowned Toronto-Born Architect Frank Gehry, Dead at 96
 990     5 
News   Dec 05, 2025
Finch West Line 6 Opens Sunday: It Could Use Some Improvements
 3K     9 
News   Dec 05, 2025
First Phase Advances at Multi-Tower Proposal on Steeles in Brampton
 575     0 

GO 2.0 Expansion Plan

T3G said:
I'm a little confused by your post - what am I supposed to have seen?

It's been pointed out to me in the GO service thread that this could also arise due to a lack of crews - but I have no idea what you are referring to.
Click to expand...
Ah, I'm sorry, I misread your post. I'll go edit it. Sorry, reading too fast.
 
crs1026 said:
I went looking for the right thread to post my comments in, and rather than post in individual threads and fragment the discussion, I figured this one might deserve its own, just in case there are actual legs to this study and it becomes a real thing. (The mods may have other ideas, I defer to their wisdom, they can move this discussion wherever)

My personal reaction is that this plan is simply pre-election vapour, just like the promise to spend $200M to upgrade service to London which was made before the last election.

It appears to take ideas that have been studied already, and discarded on grounds of high cost or low utility, and package them in one big glossy project.... the likelihood being that the other parties know these ideas are weak, and won't be promoting them.... so the PC platform looks more ambitious and more focussed and the other parties look like they don't care, or don't have ideas.

The absurdity is that the party that is supposed to be most concerned with deficit control, cost control, and prudent use of taxpayer money, up to and including tax cuts.... is proposing a ridiculously expensive program that will rock the Province's finances (or generate demands that Ottawa shouuld pay for this). Is the avarage voter that gullible? Perhaps.

The Bolton line is the most likely to emerge, but it needs a proper Business Analysis with a clear scope. Is this to be a peak service consisting of a few trains, or another 2WAD service?

The Richmond Hill line seems to take on greater significance. How does this parallel the Line 1 extension? We don't need both. Any plan to upgrade and floodproof the Don line is going to be expensive and intrusive. Any plan to rekindle the Leaside Spur is just fantasy - it will never pass the NIMBY gauntlet.

The Milton 2WAD, Bypass, and Midtown line again need a clear scope definition. It would be good to have someone do a proper cost analysis. There is lots of speculation about this one, and railfan imaginations run wild.... but we need an apples to apples analysis of the cost/benefit of moving CPKC versus sharing the corridors. I expect that if reelected, Ford will milk the mere thought of a Milton 2WAD for another term in office without actually spending any money or signing a deal with CPKC. Milton 2WAD is not a bad idea, but it's an expensive one, and is not a crisis level problem yet. So keep teasing the voters and leave it at that.

The maps have so many wrong details that I seriously wonder if the whole thing was prepared by an intern, possibly using sources like UT for ideas. Perhaps it's time for the Roundhouse Museum to set up a display cabinet and begin collecting napkins from various political transit "platforms".

Lastly, ML is a failed organization that hasn't pulled off GO 1.0 yet. Any forward motion on 2.0 is counterproductive. Keep the spotlight on ML's current commitments (making sure they aren't dropped or rewritten, or deferred) and save 2.0 for some future date.

- Paul
Click to expand...
The reality is that this is a CYA for the fact that Minister Clark approved a MTSA in Bolton in Peel's Official Plan in 2022 as well as a massive MZO in 2021 based on a Ghost Go and Rail line. Developers want to be able to say transit is coming to support earlier and higher density, the reality is anything but certain. At what point are planning justifications made under false statements and pretences and when does that become a crime?

 
From the Ontario Fall Economic Statement:

Screenshot 2025-11-06 at 14.43.03.png
 
hw621 said:
2.0 is just MX or politicians pretending to be busy...
Click to expand...
You mean sleeping on the job and dreaming they are building somrthing great
 
SaugeenJunction said:
From the Ontario Fall Economic Statement:

View attachment 693818
Click to expand...

As others have noted... ....

The disconnect between what is being said and what is being done (or not) is large.

Mx has been regularly pushing on social that 'We ARE building 2-way all-day to Milton' which is clearly not true.

There has never been either an acknowledgement or explanation as to why the previous federal promise of 1B for same was not accepted....and run with...

To be clear, I'm not sure the Feds were sincere, its easy to smugly throw out an offer you know will not be acted on......

But there is a have your cake and eat it too problem here.......... or is that 'fantasize about having a cake and eating it too' ? Hmmm

Dishonesty, opaqueness, failure to deliver........not the inspiration for confidence.
 
Last edited:
TwoWheelPoli said:
That 401 tunnel will NEVER get built! That thing would undoubtedly cost over $100 billion and there are a lot more urgent priorities to use this funding.

However, it would be great to see that missing link finally get built to allow for more train service on both the Kitchener and Milton GO lines.
Click to expand...
As I've said before the 401 tunnel is not as outlandish as many portray it, - it's not going to cost $100 billion and it's relatively feasible. That doesn't mean we should be focusing money on it.. hell, even if we say that the province wanted to sink $20-$30 billion (the amount it will more likely cost) into highways only there are far better places to spend it than the 401 tunnel..
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
As I've said before the 401 tunnel is not as outlandish as many portray it, - it's not going to cost $100 billion and it's relatively feasible. That doesn't mean we should be focusing money on it.. hell, even if we sat that the province wanted to sink $20-$30 billion (the amount it will more likely cost) into highways only there are far better places to spend it than the 401 tunnel..
Click to expand...

Repeating that its feasible does not make it so.

You continue to avoid addressing that the roads that connect to 401 have no surplus capacity to accommodate more traffic to/from said highway, and most cannot be widened. To create such capacity would cost more than the tunnel itself.
 
innsertnamehere said:
As I've said before the 401 tunnel is not as outlandish as many portray it, - it's not going to cost $100 billion and it's relatively feasible. That doesn't mean we should be focusing money on it.. hell, even if we sat that the province wanted to sink $20-$30 billion (the amount it will more likely cost) into highways only there are far better places to spend it than the 401 tunnel..
Click to expand...
I still say this is a way to campaign on buying the 407 for the next election. Two-year study to show that it'll take 30-years to do, including 30 years of major 401 traffic.

Suddenly $20B to buy back the 407 seems like a bargain, and can be done on a way shorter timeframe
 
innsertnamehere said:
As I've said before the 401 tunnel is not as outlandish as many portray it, - it's not going to cost $100 billion and it's relatively feasible. That doesn't mean we should be focusing money on it.. hell, even if we sat that the province wanted to sink $20-$30 billion (the amount it will more likely cost) into highways only there are far better places to spend it than the 401 tunnel..
Click to expand...
You're right, it's even more outlandish. It would be the longest road tunnel in the world by far. Not through mountains, not under a major waterway, but under another highway. With cost overruns that are routine for large infrastructure projects $100 billion is realistic for no benefit. It would make traffic worse all over the city. It would entrench car dependency in the worst way. It's nothing short of idiotic.

T-Bor said:
I still say this is a way to campaign on buying the 407 for the next election. Two-year study to show that it'll take 30-years to do, including 30 years of major 401 traffic.

Suddenly $20B to buy back the 407 seems like a bargain, and can be done on a way shorter timeframe
Click to expand...
Buying back the 407 is also a bad idea - tens of billions of dollars to make the highway worse. As we've seen on the part of the 407 that's now free, eliminating tolls would make it just as congested as the 401. Even just reducing tolls would increase congestion.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top