News   Jan 09, 2025
Oxford's Union Park Swaps Office Tower for More High-Rise Residential
 1.3K     2 
News   Jan 09, 2025
UrbanToronto Industry Updates: Record-Low Sales, Award-Winning Innovations, and 2025 Training Opportunities
 421     0 
News   Jan 09, 2025
UTPro Q4 2024: GTHA Crane Count Stabilizing After Several Large Drops
 1K     0 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

afransen said:
Seems like a relatively paltry sum for increasing transit accessibility for a broad swath of central Mississauga and Milton, not to mention unlocking more value of the billions the province invested in HuLRT and upgrades to Cooksville GO. And more cynically, these ridings are swing ridings, both provincially and federally.

It strikes me as odd how little upgrades to the Milton line are in planning documents. It's fine if it is not a priority, but to not really mention it as something that is being contemplated is odd. I don't think it's in the RTP, from what I recall. So, in the next 30 years, we don't think a ~1B investment in regional connectivity for Mississauga is warranted?
Click to expand...
It is in the RTP. By 2041, Milton is supposed to be part of the 15-minute GO network, ie the electrified portions, which will now see better than 15-minute service. So are ‘extensions’ to Hamilton Centre, Mount Pleasant and Mt. Joy (I think). We just can’t build it all at once.
 
Sunnyside said:
It is in the RTP. By 2041, Milton is supposed to be part of the 15-minute GO network, ie the electrified portions, which will now see better than 15-minute service. So are ‘extensions’ to Hamilton Centre, Mount Pleasant and Mt. Joy (I think). We just can’t build it all at once.
Click to expand...
Perhaps in the 2018 document from the Liberal government. In the 2022 update, there is no specific commitment on this, only to "Continue to work with freight rail partners to seek options to explore GO Rail service enhancements to[...]Milton". That could be as little as adding peak trains.

 
afransen said:
Perhaps in the 2018 document from the Liberal government. In the 2022 update, there is no specific commitment on this, only to "Continue to work with freight rail partners to seek options to explore GO Rail service enhancements to[...]Milton". That could be as little as adding peak trains.

Click to expand...
I’m aware of the GGH plan, and yes it seems to lack any mention of Milton. However I don’t think it’s clear this is actually an update to 2018’s 2041 RTP from Metrolinx, as this isn’t from them- it’s from IO. I don’t know what the document is supposed to be for from a transit planning perspective, but I read it as identifying corridors that will now receive more attention than they were prior. I find it hard to believe this much of the 2041 RTP is being wiped away.

Apologies if I’m wrong about the legitimacy of the 2051 GGH plan, but I’ve simply yet to read or see anyone explain how it interfaces with the 2041 RTP. Maybe it’s in there and I didn’t see it. I’ll double check now, but I’m going to post this comment anyway (lol).
 
the 2051 GGH plan is an MTO Document and thus mostly focused on planned road projects. It was also significantly more political than the RTP was.

These documents are vague in general anyway and generally shouldn't be relied on for priorities for the government. They give an idea of what the next potential list of transit projects for the 2030's may be, but we ultimately don't know.
 
innsertnamehere said:
the 2051 GGH plan is an MTO Document and thus mostly focused on planned road projects. It was also significantly more political than the RTP was.

These documents are vague in general anyway and generally shouldn't be relied on for priorities for the government. They give an idea of what the next potential list of transit projects for the 2030's may be, but we ultimately don't know.
Click to expand...
The vagueness can become even worse now that GO/Metrolinx considers the Lakeshore West Line as part of Route 21 Milton.


You can see in the Milton Line schedules they show the Lakeshore West Line and consider it the alternative to offering all day service.

So this could be interpreted as what they mean to offer this service, sadly.
 
innsertnamehere said:
the 2051 GGH plan is an MTO Document and thus mostly focused on planned road projects. It was also significantly more political than the RTP was.

These documents are vague in general anyway and generally shouldn't be relied on for priorities for the government. They give an idea of what the next potential list of transit projects for the 2030's may be, but we ultimately don't know.
Click to expand...

Speaking of the RTP, there is a reference to it in the planning report for the upcoming board meeting.

Work is set to begin to update the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), published in 2018, to
reflect notable changes in planning context over the past few years including our expanded
geographic mandate, updated government direction on housing and growth, and changes in
travel behaviour. Through this initiative, we will extend the plan to 2051. By doing so, it will
allow Metrolinx to: assess the progress made over the past five years; consider emerging
trends; reaffirm our commitment to equity and Indigenous engagement; recommend
prioritized actions for the next 5-10 years to connect communities; and lastly, to implement an
integrated, sustainable regional transit network for all. This will be supported by new technical
analysis and input from a wide range of internal and external stakeholders. An internal project
launch workshop with teams across the organization is planned for later this month. Externals takeholder and Indigenous engagement are planned for the summer and fall of this year.
Click to expand...
 
Does anyone else love how @Allandale25 just quietly sneaks in that the Mx Agenda for next week's meeting is up?

LOL

Thought this was interesting:

1687556528024.png

From: https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/...linx/Item_12_-_Let_s_Get_Ready_to_Ride_En.pdf

I would like to see that compared with what percentage of pre-pandemic service is actually operating.

Weekday, Mid-day Lakeshore service is definitely at 50% of what it was in core areas (15M) which naturally depresses the ridership number.

Same with less frequent/convenient rush hour services.
 
Last edited:
Allandale25 said:
Speaking of the RTP, there is a reference to it in the planning report for the upcoming board meeting.
Click to expand...
Very, very interesting. Glad you shared this. These RTPs really do tell us alot, if even if they aren't a perfect reflection of reality. I for one am quite excited, seeing as many municipalities are currently updating their older TMPs right now. York Region just updated theirs last year, I believe. Hamilton has finished part of it. Halton is updating it now. Niagara now has an integrated system, which might finally result in something interesting. But this will be a long process, without results until at least 2025. Probably a good time to get involved in some meetings hosted by Metrolinx if you have a particular thing you'd like to advocate for.
 
Northern Light said:
Does anyone else love how @Allandale25 just quietly sneaks in that the Mx Agenda for next week's meeting is up?

LOL

Thought his was interesting:

View attachment 487503
From: https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/...linx/Item_12_-_Let_s_Get_Ready_to_Ride_En.pdf

I would like to see that compared with what percentage of pre-pandemic service is actually operating.

Weekday, Mid-day Lakeshore service is definitely at 50% of what it was in core areas (15M) which naturally depresses the ridership number.

Same with less frequent/convenient rush hour services.
Click to expand...
In fairness I knew the material was up when I saw this tweet. Meant to credit them but forgot. Meant to also provide the link but got distracted. So thanks for providing.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1672281746228887553
 
Just digested the ML Annual Report which is going to the Board next week.

One interesting factoid that I found in the ML Annual Report is the expiry dates for the Master Agreements with CP and CN. (pgs91-92) and with various others (PNR, Alstom, TTR)

The ML agreement with CN expires July 31 2023. The ML agreement with CP expires Dec 31 2024. Those dates give an indication of when ML has the opportunity to reset the relationship (as opposed to one-of service change proposals).

There are comments (pg 30) about a new service plan plan for electrified service to Barrie, and about ML "approaching" agreement with CN on Halton Sub enhancements and consultation requirements. (They have been saying that since 2018, but maybe this time.....)

There is also an interesting comment (pg30) about planning to address freight requirements on the Guelph Sub in light of future service plans (I have been hearing a rumour that the design for the new trackage at Guelph is getting pushback from GEXR and CN in light of their needs)

As @Northern Light light has pointed out, we UTers spend a lot of energy complaining here without actually taking action for advocacy or input. I'm not likely to become known for writing a deputation on every issue out there, but the Annual Report is a good opportunity to put some things on record without becoming a "repeat customer" with ML.

I'm trying to distill my thoughts on the Annual Report into a letter to the ML Board, but that's beyond this short post. Hopefully done in time to put on record with the Board.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
The ML agreement with CN expires July 31 2023. The ML agreement with CP expires Dec 31 2024. Those dates give an indication of when ML has the opportunity to reset the relationship (as opposed to one-of service change proposals).

There is also an interesting comment (pg30) about planning to address freight requirements on the Guelph Sub in light of future service plans (I have been hearing a rumour that the design for the new trackage at Guelph is getting pushback from GEXR and CN in light of their needs)
Click to expand...
I've thought about this in a previous post, but I wonder if this might present an opportunity to look into completely decoupling freight and passenger operations in the GTA.

For example, with this conflict, it could be worth looking into eliminating freight traffic on the Guelph Sub entirely by buying out CN and the GEXR. Most of the lines CN sold to Metrolinx are secondary and it is likely not interested in long term continued operations. I don't believe G&W is interested in long term operation of the GEXR either given the loss of the Guelph Sub.

Doing so could simplify design requirements and speed up the implementation of electrification and high frequency service.

While there would be the negative impacts of a mode shift to trucks, it would likely be more than made up for by the decrease in car traffic and other resulting benefits.
 
C_Johnson_1995 said:
I've thought about this in a previous post, but I wonder if this might present an opportunity to look into completely decoupling freight and passenger operations in the GTA.

For example, with this conflict, it could be worth looking into eliminating freight traffic on the Guelph Sub entirely by buying out CN and the GEXR. Most of the lines CN sold to Metrolinx are secondary and it is likely not interested in long term continued operations. I don't believe G&W is interested in long term operation of the GEXR either given the loss of the Guelph Sub.

Doing so could simplify design requirements and speed up the implementation of electrification and high frequency service.

While there would be the negative impacts of a mode shift to trucks, it would likely be more than made up for by the decrease in car traffic and other resulting benefits.
Click to expand...
I don’t get how this would work in practice. Given CN still needs to be able to come/go from the west, Wouldn’t they need part of the Guelph sub to reach the Halton sub and then Dundas? Without a freight bypass, they wouldn’t be off the parts of the line that still run through the contiguous GTA, and now the Dundas/Oakville sub will have even more freight traffic. Maybe not an issue if we are disinterested in passenger service to Brantford and beyond, but it makes the situation from Bayview Junction to the Halton sub even more demanding than it is now.

I generally like the idea of better segregating the two sides, but that will involve a lot of dedicated infrastructure that doesn’t exist in some cases. In many instances, GO gets to operate quite good service on CN or CP’s track; while I like the idea of adding infrastructure to segregate the two, we should probably be more particular about where and how we do this before trying to do it across the board.
 
^One has to play the ball where it lies. As of today, a great many jobs in Guelph, K-W, Stratford, and Goderich depend on the freight rail service. And CN retains certain contractual rights (which are not discoverable, but I'm told they include rights to through operation) to operate over the territory.

I'm quite certain that the cost of modifying the infrastructure to harmonise freight and more intensive passenger would be less than the cost of buying out the freight operation - that could involve not only compensation to the railways for present and future opportunity, but to municipalities for tax base if the industries involved elect to move, for road work based on added volume, and to workers themselves if shippers close up shop or move out of province.

If we ever get to HSR west of Toronto, then sure, all bets are off.... but finding a new alignment might be desired anyways.

I would see any proposal that deprives Waterloo Region or Perth County of freight service as totally unacceptable.We should b e growing that business, not eliminating it.

- Paul
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top