GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[Allandale25]

I do wonder if ML has been able to capitalise on the Province's leverage for "other considerations". For instance, Queens Park has been relatively mute on CN's proposal to build an intermodal yard south of Milton. I would have expected QP to extract all sorts of concessions from CN before letting that go forward. Of course, every action has its reaction, and ML walks a tightrope in holding the railways' feet to the fire without giving them reason to retaliate. And maybe there is more behind the scenes than we realise.

- Paul

Doesn't approval of the new container terminal in Milton rest with the Federal government? I was under the impression that CN had to go through a Federal EA. Is there anything the Province could do to stop it? Also, I wonder if another "other consideration" could be the railway line that has to go to the Ring of Fire. If the Province agreed to let CN build it (assuming they wanted to), could they trade it for the Missing Link and the arrangements that would have to be made on the Halton Sub and the York Sub?

I wonder if it's even possible to do the rough calculations of the Missing Link. CP would benefit, in theory, of having a faster line that is more direct, and the value of the line through some of Toronto's richest neighbourhoods. There's another thread on the 407 by-pass/Missing Link so I don't want to go on too long about this.

 

[crs1026]

Doesn't approval of the new container terminal in Milton rest with the Federal government? I was under the impression that CN had to go through a Federal EA. Is there anything the Province could do to stop it? Also, I wonder if another "other consideration" could be the railway line that has to go to the Ring of Fire. If the Province agreed to let CN build it (assuming they wanted to), could they trade it for the Missing Link and the arrangements that would have to be made on the Halton Sub and the York Sub?

Yeah, I don't think the Province could bring South Halton to a total stop, and I don't know of a specific lever they could pull unilaterally. But some level of provincial cooperation was needed (the road accesses being built are extensive, for instance). So the leverage might not have been enough for "total victory" but hopefully they got whatever they could in terms of goodwill and owies for GO.

I wonder if it's even possible to do the rough calculations of the Missing Link. CP would benefit, in theory, of having a faster line that is more direct, and the value of the line through some of Toronto's richest neighbourhoods. There's another thread on the 407 by-pass/Missing Link so I don't want to go on too long about this.

I won't belabour here either, except to say that the initial cost/benefit should be done with only CN in mind. Seems a reasonable premise given that they would end up with a shorter route with much less gradient, and ML's construction costs for KW RER would be greatly reduced. That has to be win-win within ML's potential budget. The proposal to add CP to the mix, and obtain the Milton and North Toronto lines in exchange, might be a heartbreaker cost-wise. The CP real estate is worth so much per acre that they will drive a very hard bargain. I'd save that for a later negotiation, let CP be the one feeling they are sitting on an unrealised opportunity.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

RE: "Bypass"

I did, and I still think it's a great idea. The question is whether we can wait that long to get CN off the Halton. I do think some sort of compromise might be possible in the meanwhile, provided we keep electrification off the table until CN is gone. CN is not *that* busy, they could make do with some middle ground in track availability if they knew it was not for all time.

It does appear to be off-topic in this string, but the "Link" impacts...greatly impacts so many strings in terms of being the "ring that binds them all" that discussion on it is relevant here.

Bearing in mind how difficult it is for CP and CN to work co-operatively (it has happened, but more through quirks of necessity), the 'Link' is a golden opportunity for the Feds to step in, and announce "We've taken a close look at the needs of Toronto, the needs of Commerce, the needs of the interests of CN and CP and the needs of the People, and with an eye to the maximum benefit we can all gain from infrastructure investment in and around Toronto, we've decided to finance and *own* 'The Missing Link'. We already have powers under the Railway, Transportation and other Acts to do this, and we will fine-tune them to make it even clearer. We are mandating the use of this link once we have established it, such that the Province and agencies are able to utilize the RoW's left redundant for the purpose of commuter and other needs". A precedent has already been established in Ottawa with the National Capital Commission.

Edit to Add: From the National Capital Act: (This Act deals with far more than just railways, and wouldn't directly allow same in Toronto, but *sections* of this Act stand under other Acts, as stated following: )

[...]
Power to construct railway

• 13 (1) The Commission may construct in the National Capital Region, in accordance with plans prepared under this Act, a railway and related facilities.
  
  
• Marginal note:Sale, lease, etc.
  (2) The Commission may
  • (a) sell, convey or lease any railway and related facilities, or any portion thereof, constructed pursuant to subsection (1) to any railway company; or
    
    
  • Canada Transportation Act
    Canada Transportation Act, with such modifications as the circumstances require, is applicable to the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, but nothing in this section is deemed to constitute the Commission a railway company except for the purpose of subsection (2).
  • R.S., 1985, c. N-4, s. 13;
  • 1996, c. 10, s. 236.
  Expropriation
  Marginal note:Expropriation
  • 14 (1) Where in the opinion of the Commission the acquisition of any land or interest therein by the Commission without the consent of the owner is required for the purposes of this Act, the Commission shall so advise the appropriate Minister in relation to Part I of the Expropriation Act.
    
    
  • Marginal note:Idem
    Expropriation Act, any land or interest therein that, in the opinion of the Minister mentioned in subsection (1), is required for the purposes of this Act shall be deemed to be land or an interest therein that, in his opinion, is required for a public work or other public purpose, and, in relation thereto, a reference to the Crown in that Act shall be construed as a reference to the Commission.
  • R.S., c. N-3, s. 13;
  • R.S., c. 16(1st Supp.), s. 42.
  • [...]

• • http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-4/FullText.html
  More details and pics here:
• http://www.ncc-ccn.gc.ca/planning/horizon2067/find-out-more
  

This will be very expensive, doubtless, but since it impacts almost every other GO proposal, doesn't play 'favourites' (in terms of Fed monies promoting any one project over others) with any of them and greatly improves the movement of freight, it would be an absolute win for all concerned. And what little private land is expropriated is a *fraction* of what would have to happen if just Brampton widening alone is viewed, let alone Crosstown and all the others.

Under Ontario law, the hydro RoWs must be shared with "other users" as long as they don't impact on the safety and accessibility of those xmssn lines. And failing that, the Feds trump provincial law in cases like this anyway, not that it would come to that, it wouldn't need to. At a later date, the 'Link' could be sold off to CN/CP (with provisos of course)(one of them being passenger rail precedence for a dedicated corridor to co-exist), but the project would have to be announced and started soon, for all the reasons Paul states.

 

[crs1026]

I don't know whether the rearrangement of rail lines in Ottawa in the 1960's resulted in joint ownership of anything. There may have been an "Ottawa Terminals Division" but it would have been joint CP-CN ownership and not NCC owned. (I think..... I may well be wrong)

What you are suggesting makes eminent sense in terms of internal logic, but it's just 180 degrees in approach from the prevailing transportation policy in Ottawa. Having government own *anything* in the rail sector is a non-starter (Yeah, I know, VIA owns some lines, but look at how Ottawa distances itself from *that*).

It's a bit like asking the Sharks and Penguins to decide the Stanley Cup by playing a baseball game. Baseball may be a grand sport, but it's not the set of rules (and skills) that the teams are comfortable with. I can't see CP or CN agreeing to put their trains on a set of tracks they don't control. Nor can I see them buying the "share with other users" principle, even if Hydro is fine with it. They would be more comfortable fighting it out between themselves, as they do with DR Zones and some terminals. But even that's a stretch....they are most comfortable with having their own turf, where they control everything and answer to no one. Ottawa is basically fine with that approach, high sticking and all ;-)

One might lead them to accept it....but it would take a trail of $100 bills to get there.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

I don't know whether the rearrangement of rail lines in Ottawa in the 1960's resulted in joint ownership of anything. There may have been an "Ottawa Terminals Division" but it would have been joint CP-CN ownership and not NCC owned. (I think..... I may well be wrong)

That *used* to be the case. The fiscal particulars are difficult to trace on this, but the NCC purchased vast swaths of land and expropriated large amounts of railway to 'clear' the centre of Ottawa of the 'congestion'. What they did with it is highly controversial, mostly created expressways it seems, but it appears that ownership of the expropriated and newly created rail lines and stations was transferred to the City of Ottawa, under the name of "Capital Railway"...a term that may remain on the books, but is not longer used in common lingo. Ironically, it did force CN and CP to share RoWs as a result. I'll detail more of what little I've found in the 'Missing Link' forum, but to buttress my point for the sub-string in this one, here's some of the history:

2005, May 6 - City of Ottawa (Capital Railway) takes ownership of the following lines:

Ellwood subdivision between mile 0.00 and mile 4.99 (Ottawa West)

Prescott subdivision between mile 4.90 and mile 4.99 (Greenboro)

Prescott subdivision between mile 4.99 and 8.17 (Leitrim Road). This is excepted track for possible future expansion.

Ellwood subdivision between mile 4.99 and the Lachute sub. mile 119.12 (including the Prince of Wales bridge) NB. this is not shown in the three year plan.

Walkley Line between the junction with the Ellwood subdivision and Albion Road

On this date the City leased the line east of Albion Road to the Walkley Repair Facility.

2006, January 24 - City of Ottawa (Capital Rail) takes ownership of the Prescott subdivision between mile 8.17 and mile 25.42 (Highway 416). This is excepted track for possible future expansion.

http://www.railways.incanada.net/candate/ottawa.htm

Some more history here, but still not what I'm looking for:
http://www.railways.incanada.net/circle/subdivision ownership.html

it's just 180 degrees in approach from the prevailing transportation policy in Ottawa.

Agreed...I suspect they may have to be creative in structuring this, but this is being done in many US cities by Federal diktat, albeit they have a much tighter Railroad Act and a stronger hand in financing under the FRA and other agencies.

I'll keep researching this, and post a link here to a post in the "Missing Link" forum. Any other readers have some search tags that I'm missing on this?

Quick Edit to Add: Note that the precedent is now held by "the City"...perhaps that's the legal framework to doing this:

The communities of Mississauga, Toronto, Cambridge, and Milton have joined together to develop a business case to build a so called “Western By-Pass” to divert freight traffic from the Canadian Pacific “Milton” rail line north, to free up the line for commuter rail traffic.
[...]
With Mississauga taking the lead, it is our hope the business case will be finalized in mid-August.

The purpose of this new line would be to relocate heavy freight rail away from the Milton and Kitchener GO lines in order to allow for 2-way, all-day GO Train service on both of these lines. Another benefit would be that heavy freight would be relocated away from the most densely populated areas of the GTA, including central Mississauga.

This truly is the “Missing Link” that will create a regionally-integrated rapid transit network in the Western GTA.

Improving rail transit in the western GTA would provide long-lasting benefits for our city. It would stimulate economic growth by attracting new talent, businesses, employers and students to the city while increasing innovation, growth opportunities and prosperity.

We share the same vision as our municipal partners to bring about convenient and effective transit solutions to move people across the GTA and beyond.[...] Once the business case is completed, we will continue conversations with the government and the other federal parties about the proposal. It is our hope that the federal government will be a partner in this project to help make it a reality.

http://www.mayorcrombie.ca/the-missing-link/

The Province and the Feds, as they do with port-lands and airports, could then be part of the consortium to *legally facilitate and finance* this? That's pretty compelling language from Mississauga, which is what now, the fourth largest city in Canada? Credit to them for being, at least in this case, so progressive and dynamic. The only stick in the mud appears to be York Region.

Late Edit to Add:
From the Transportation Act:

[...]
Running Rights and Joint Track Usage

Marginal note: Application may be granted

• 
  
  
  • (2) The Agency may grant the right and may make any order and impose any conditions on either railway company respecting the exercise or restriction of the rights as appear just or desirable to the Agency, having regard to the public interest.
    
    [...]

Marginal note:Request for joint or common use of right-of-way

• 
  
  
  • 139 (1) The Governor in Council may
    • (a) on the application of a railway company, a municipal government or any other interested person, or on the Governor in Council’s own initiative, and
      
      
    • (b) after any investigation that the Governor in Council considers necessary,
    request two or more railway companies to consider the joint or common use of a right-of-way if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that its joint or common use may improve the efficiency and effectiveness of rail transport and would not unduly impair the commercial interests of the companies.
  • Marginal note:Order in Council for joint or common use of right-of-way
    (2) If the Governor in Council is satisfied that significant efficiencies and cost savings would result from joint or common use of the right-of-way by two or more railway companies and would not unduly impair the commercial interests of the companies, the Governor in Council may make any order for the joint or common use of the right-of-way that the Governor in Council considers necessary.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.4/FullText.html

It appears the Minister has the power to order CN and CP, and whomever else might be involved (it might behoove Metrolinx and VIA well to be party to negotiations) to use the 'Missing Link'...the result of which would be that market forces would dictate cascading the former main freight routes through the GTA to the Feds or the Province (read Metrolinx). (That order is mandated in the Act, but the Feds would be only too happy for the Province to take ownership)

NOTE: I've copied this post to:
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...s-the-missing-link.10009/page-12#post-1114826
to continue in-depth discussion there.

 

[reaperexpress]

All indications seem to suggest that GO will introduce hourly weekend and/or midday service on the Barrie Line from Union to King City starting this September, so here is my concept for how bus connections might be done. Each line represents one hourly service.

To avoid massively increasing travel times from Union to Newmarket, direct bus service would be maintained. Existing route 65B would run hourly all day, replacing route 65 as the base service to Newmarket Terminal. The only change to the routing would be to serve the 404/Woodbine Park and Ride and operate on the new rapidway rather than in mixed traffic. It seems silly to operate a regional bus in mixed traffic when there is an underutilized Metrolinx-funded busway along its exact route.

Route 65B operating in mixed traffic on Davis Drive, from this Viva Yellow cab ride video:

Unrelated to the introduction of all-day train service, I would replace YRT Route 50 Sutton with a new route 69 Sutton GO bus. Rather than operating in mixed traffic on Davis Dr then heading north on Leslie St, it would operate on the newly-built Davis Drive Rapidway then head north on the newly-built Highway 404 extension.

 

[Disparishun]

All indications seem to suggest that GO will introduce hourly weekend and/or midday service on the Barrie Line from Union to King City starting this September, so here is my concept for how bus connections might be done.

By the way, do we know anything about when decisions on (or the opening of) Eglinton Crosstown (Caledonia right?), St. Clair streetcar, and Bloor subway (Lansdowne?) connecting stations is expected? The latest round of stuffed-Yonge-line articles has me wondering about a Bloor connection in particular, which I saw some discussion of in the Davenport Diamond thread, but which I'm foggy on in terms of process and timing.

 

[crs1026]

By the way, do we know anything about when decisions on (or the opening of) Eglinton Crosstown (Caledonia right?), St. Clair streetcar, and Bloor subway (Lansdowne?) connecting stations is expected? The latest round of stuffed-Yonge-line articles has me wondering about a Bloor connection in particular, which I saw some discussion of in the Davenport Diamond thread, but which I'm foggy on in terms of process and timing.

The station selection report goes to the ML Board on June 28th. I made some comments about stations as input during the Davenport consultation and got a respone from that project saying that decisions about the station are being made within the station selection project, and not by the Davenport TPAP.

The Davenport TPAP report has been issued, by the way. The public has 30 days to comment and then the Environment Minister (Murray) decides whether to approve it.

IIRC, Caledonia is a done deal already ? St Clair is an ST station, not a GO station, so is beind addressed via ST not the GO station study.

- Paul

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Unrelated to the introduction of all-day train service, I would replace YRT Route 50 Sutton with a new route 69 Sutton GO bus. Rather than operating in mixed traffic on Davis Dr then heading north on Leslie St, it would operate on the newly-built Davis Drive Rapidway then head north on the newly-built Highway 404 extension.

Actually, the YRT 50 replaced GO's 69 in 2012. I doubt they'd change it back.

 

[rbt]

The Davenport TPAP report has been issued, by the way. The public has 30 days to comment and then the Environment Minister (Murray) decides whether to approve it.

Good news.

IIRC, Caledonia is a done deal already?

It got submitted for approval early this year (Jan or Feb). I assume it did get MOE approval but can't be bothered to confirm.

As for funding/construction, that probably won't happen until Eglinton LRT is much closer to opening.

 

[reaperexpress]

Actually, the YRT 50 replaced GO's 69 in 2012. I doubt they'd change it back.

I know that, it's not a coincidence that I named it route 69.

I think that replacing the 69 with the 50 was a good decision in 2012 given that GO is generally downloading its local services onto the municipal systems (which makes sense). Changing from GO to YRT operation made basically no operational difference to the service. But now that we have two brand new pieces of major infrastructure along the route, there is the potential to make route 69/50 more than just a local service, acting as a regional service from Newmarket Terminal to the 404/Woodbine park and ride. The change would substantially reduce travel times, which would reduce operating costs (fewer buses required) and increase revenues (more attractive service) - a very good combination in my opinion.

 

[reaperexpress]

Except that's not how it works at all.

By single-tracking the section that you've indicated, you're reducing the overall capacity of the line by a huge margin, because you now need the freights to stage at either end of the single track when a train is coming in the opposite direction.

What actually happens is that while GO (and CN) prefers to keep the GO trains on the south track, they are not bound to that track. This allows them to run a lot more trains in both directions as there is no longer a need to stage trains anywhere unless a GO train is to pull ahead of a freight.

I'm not single-tracking anything. I'm merely illustrating the typical pattern - it's not set in stone. Grey lines represent tracks that exist, but are not in use under that particular scenario. It does not represent abandoned track.

I know that two single-track operations results in lower capacity than one double-track operation, but based on typical operations, CN seems to be willing to take that hit to ensure predictable constraints through the section. I'm not advocating one strategy over the other, I'm merely stating what I have observed. During peak periods if we have counter-peak service we would need to operate a unified double-track pattern anyway, with peak-direction service using the grade separation and less-frequent counter-peak service crossing CN trains at grade.

Adding a grade separation does not bind GO or CN to any particular track, in fact it gives them more flexibility to transfer between tracks without conflict.

Also, one small issue with your diagram - the third, south track is currently dead-ended immediately west of Mount Pleasant. This prevents freights from using that track in any instance.

The third track dead-ends west of Mount Pleasant due to ongoing construction for the Creditview grade separation. That work will be complete long before we start seriously considering a rail-to-rail grade separation

 

[crs1026]

Some charts with the GO/RER viewpoint of the Halton trackage can be found in http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...RER_Initial_Business_Case_Appendix_A-J_EN.pdf

The issue is not electrifying the lines used by double stack container trains. This forces a solution at Brampton that keeps GO on the south side. GO appears to want a double flyover at Mount Pleasant - well worth the cost if we are also looking at HFR/HSR on this line.

- Paul

 

[Jonny5]

My first encounter with an old cab car modified to run mid train.

 

[mdrejhon]

My first encounter with an old cab car modified to run mid train.

So, soon, we'll be seeing some additional consists being added to the GO network, thanks to all the spares.