GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[Northern Light]

Agreed. The question who operates the network is of little importance to anyone outside of the circles of rail fans…

Agreed; with the proviso that people do care about whether they are getting the best possible service ( frequency, comfort, speed, reliability) for the dollar.

I think what rail fans here were excited about was an outside player, with lots of real-world experience running a good system, would help shake things up and drive better performance.

While it matters not if the preceding is achieved by OnExpress/DB, or by Alstom or anyone else; the worry, I expect, is that DB's exit is a signal that we will get more of the same, slow, incremental improvements, using established procedures and equipment rather than 'next level'.

Because it doesn’t make sense to start electrification before the tracks at Union Station (i.e., the one station all GO corridors share) are in their final location?

Yes, but.....I think the implicit question is why is the USRC work and the platform work not done or further along by this point.

I will note, that Steve Munro raised the issue of whether Union Station platforms would have adequate capacity more than a decade ago when the City-led restoration work was just getting started.
Many here at UT likewise raised those issues......

I appreciate that isn't on now (mostly) different staff and consultants than were there 10-15 years back.
But equally, riders aren't worried about whose name is on which desk.......but why we still haven't delivered a service level promised many moons ago.

 

[guavadelic]

I don’t care what anyone says. 100 billion is better spent here and fixing the Milton line than a 401 tunnel. Everyone agrees with that. But I’ll make one larger claim. 100 Billion dollars to fix this and serve the GTA is better spent here than a faster train to Ottawa and Quebec.

GO Expansion and HSR are different projects serving different markets. For a rich G7 country, it really shouldn't be an either/or scenario.

 

[Urban Sky]

GO Expansion and HSR are different projects serving different markets. For a rich G7 country, it really shouldn't be an either/or scenario.

In a country where a single transit line (Eglinton Crosstown) can cost almost as much ($12.8 billion) as what Germany invested between Berlin and Munich over the last 30 years (10 billion Euros) to build 230 km of greenfield HSR and upgrade 270 km of legacy lines, it quickly becomes an “either/or” if you don’t find an effective way to combat scope creep and construction cost escalations…

 

[cplchanb]

Why would you want to make GO a premium service? I don't see anything wrong with pricing it the same as the TTC. Ideally, you should be able to use GO and the TTC within Toronto with a single fair.

You are naive to the fact that go trains are higher order transit that costs more to run hence require a premium. Go to any major rail system anywhere else around the world and itll be the same cost model. GO is considered a limited express service while ttc is a local metro with more stops/km

 

[cplchanb]

In a country where a single transit line (Eglinton Crosstown) can cost almost as much ($12.8 billion) as what Germany invested between Berlin and Munich over the last 30 years (10 billion Euros) to build 230 km of greenfield HSR and upgrade 270 km of legacy lines, it quickly becomes an “either/or” if you don’t find an effective way to combat scope creep and construction cost escalations…

Face it... ML most likely is just too cheap or dumb for DB to run things here. They probably saw the writing on the wall when they saw just how poorly run the operations are and decided to leave....

 

[crs1026]

Face it... ML most likely is just too cheap or dumb for DB to run things here. They probably saw the writing on the wall when they saw just how poorly run the operations are and decided to leave....

You are dismissing (and probably have no insight into) the high level decision process that would cause the proponents to enter into a consortium, place a bid, spend three years in a co-development phase (during which they would be making commitments for the long term as to their side of the bargain), and then reach the decision to extricate themselves. They would have had to justify to their shareholders that there was a business opportunity to begin with (we can assume that they saw themselves able to correct whatever ML defects they identified), and they will now have had to justify why that opportunity is no longer available (and explain how they missed the red flags on the way in....and/or what they tried to get past them).

It's quite possible that they made the right decision, and some combination of ML and Ontario deficiencies exists that they have learned is not surmountable. My point is, the devil is in the details along the way.

- Paul

 

[cplchanb]

You are dismissing (and probably have no insight into) the high level decision process that would cause the proponents to enter into a consortium, place a bid, spend three years in a co-development phase (during which they would be making commitments for the long term as to their side of the bargain), and then reach the decision to extricate themselves. They would have had to justify to their shareholders that there was a business opportunity to begin with (we can assume that they saw themselves able to correct whatever ML defects they identified), and they will now have had to justify why that opportunity is no longer available (and explain how they missed the red flags on the way in....and/or what they tried to get past them).

It's quite possible that they made the right decision, and some combination of ML and Ontario deficiencies exists that they have learned is not surmountable. My point is, the devil is in the details along the way.

- Paul

I have friends who work at ML planning and development. They share horror stories of how inefficient things are to the point consultants start at one side of the table and end up on the other side before any shovels hit the ground. Also based on the fact they did it quietly further makes it suspicious that there is an embarrassing undertone to this failure

 

[crs1026]

I have friends who work at ML planning and development. They share horror stories of how inefficient things are to the point consultants start at one side of the table and end up on the other side before any shovels hit the ground. Also based on the fact they did it quietly further makes it suspicious that there is an embarrassing undertone to this failure

I agree, it's a deplorable situation. I'm definitely closer to the doomsayer end of the discussion.... ie this was a major organizational failure.

Heads need to roll, but let's not just say that and leave it there as a blanket statement. What are the root causes and what would a recovery plan look like?

- Paul

PS - Is the electrification thread the right one to have this discussion? May be better somewhere else?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I will note, that Steve Munro raised the issue of whether Union Station platforms would have adequate capacity more than a decade ago when the City-led restoration work was just getting started.
Many here at UT likewise raised those issues......

UT has been around for two decades - the platform/platform access issue had been raised over, over and over again - it really is something that users and observers, nevermind experts can make a note of.

As to the 'whys' - notice the timing of the announcement, as well as the priorities of the government in the lead-up to (and after the) last provincial election? Transit took a back seat to "gridlock", and it is all about highways and roads. ML/Verster role might not be understated, but there is probably more to the calculus than simple organizational failure - it fails, because their master allows it to.

AoD

 

[ARG1]

UT has been around for two decades - the platform/platform access issue had been raised over, over and over again - it really is something that users and observers, nevermind experts can make a note of.

As to the 'whys' - notice the timing of the announcement, as well as the priorities of the government in the lead-up to (and after the) last provincial election? Transit took a back seat to "gridlock", and it is all about highways and roads. ML/Verster role might not be understated, but there is probably more to the calculus than simple organizational failure - it fails, because their master allows it to.

AoD

I'm really not sure how you can reach this conclusion when the election felt like every party trying to one up each other on transit proposals. The NDP promises all day GO to Niagara? The PCs announce the signing of the contract for Grimsby GO like the next day. Liberals announce they want to upload the Otrain? The PCs make the same announcement that same day. Liberals announce they want to extend GO to Collingwood? Introducing GO 2.0, featuring the Bolton Line, Midtown Line, and realigned Richmond Hill Line. Let's not also forget the announcement that they'd fund the underground extension of the Hurontario LRT into Brampton.

Now whether or not you actually believe that any of this stuff will actually happen by the end of the term is up to you, and concerns of competency are frankly valid. But I don't know how 1 or 2 major transit announcements every week during the campaign period is "taking a back seat" to anything. Maybe you can argue that the 401 tunnel had a lot more press and media attention, but this is just how Toronto media works. They're a lot more interested in bringing attention to road projects, and when they do talk about transit its often about how much of a pointless waste of money it is (looking at you TVO). At the very least, I don't see how transit was any less emphasized this election compared to last, at least if you only read from official party sources (don't forget many people treated the 2022 election as a referendum on the 413).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm really not sure how you can reach this conclusion when the election felt like every party trying to one up each other on transit proposals. The NDP promises all day GO to Niagara? The PCs announce the signing of the contract for Grimsby GO like the next day. Liberals announce they want to upload the Otrain? The PCs make the same announcement that same day. Liberals announce they want to extend GO to Collingwood? Introducing GO 2.0, featuring the Bolton Line, Midtown Line, and realigned Richmond Hill Line. Let's not also forget the announcement that they'd fund the underground extension of the Hurontario LRT into Brampton.

Now whether or not you actually believe that any of this stuff will actually happen by the end of the term is up to you, and concerns of competency are frankly valid. But I don't know how 1 or 2 major transit announcements every week during the campaign period is "taking a back seat" to anything. Maybe you can argue that the 401 tunnel had a lot more press and media attention, but this is just how Toronto media works. They're a lot more interested in bringing attention to road projects, and when they do talk about transit its often about how much of a pointless waste of money it is (looking at you TVO). At the very least, I don't see how transit was any less emphasized this election compared to last, at least if you only read from official party sources (don't forget many people treated the 2022 election as a referendum on the 413).

If you think they can't deal with the "operational issues" with the DB scheme, you think they can deal with the full blown issues with Bolton and Midtown?

And of course I can - mark my words, the 401 tunnel thing is for juicing a buyback for 407.

AoD

 

[ARG1]

If you think they can't deal with the "operational issues" with the DB scheme, you think they can deal with the full blown issues with Bolton and Midtown?

And of course I can - mark my words, the 401 tunnel thing is for juicing a buyback for 407.

AoD

Oh I absolutely agree that the trust in Metrolinx' ability to execute these projects is at an all time low. I just don't see that it has affected Ford's or anyone's campaigning priorities - nowhere near enough to imply top down sabotage.

 

[nfitz]

You are naive to the fact that go trains are higher order transit that costs more to run hence require a premium. Go to any major rail system anywhere else around the world and itll be the same cost model. GO is considered a limited express service while ttc is a local metro with more stops/km

Any major rail system elsewhere in the world?

GO is already a premium to TTC subways in the city, with a $3.70 minimum fare compared to $3.35 for TTC. But if you were to take GO from Kennedy station to Downsview Park station it costs $4.17 compared to $3.35 on the subway.

But if you were to do the same thing in London, on national rail commuter services, it's the same fare. No premium. (unless you use the high-speed 300 km/hr commuter trains out of St. Pancras and Stratford).

Similar in Paris, the RER (express) services between the same stations cost the same price as the Metro.

 

[Urban Sky]

You are naive to the fact that go trains are higher order transit that costs more to run hence require a premium. Go to any major rail system anywhere else around the world and itll be the same cost model. GO is considered a limited express service while ttc is a local metro with more stops/km

I‘m not sure where you are traveling, but as @nfitz has already hinted, the clear global trend is towards eliminating the artificial fare borders between different transit modes and operators and to create a fare system where the fare is based solely on your start and your destination.

Intercity trains (or intercity buses) are the exception, but for everything else, it thankfully no longer matters in those countries with the most advanced and efficient transit networks (such as Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) what combination of (to provide German examples) bus, tram, U-Bahn, S-Bahn, RegionalBahn or Regional Express you ride - and they all have started to offer nationwide mobility passes which cover all transit systems. (Switzerland takes this to an even further extreme by adding cable cars and ferries.)

 

[guavadelic]

I‘m not sure where you are traveling, but as @nfitz has already hinted, the clear global trend is towards eliminating the artificial fare borders between different transit modes and operators and to create a fare system where the fare is based solely on your start and your destination.

This fare system is a must as soon as GO implements 2WAD frequencies on its core network. Kilometres and Kilometres of GO tracks are being underutilized within the city of toronto proper. The Kitchener and Stouffville GO lines in particular would go along way in addressing Rapid transit deserts in North Etobicoke and Scarborough.