News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.3K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 383     0 

Peterborough Commuter Rail

The whole point of the network effect is that the usefulness of the network as a whole increases exponetially as the number of network "members" increases linearly:

Network_effect.png


We shouldn't think of this commuter rail line in isolation. We should think of it as an integral part of a transit network. If the question is "how well will it move people from A to B?" then it probably won't do very well. But, I don't think that's the question we should be asking.

We should be asking "how well does it open up Peterborough to the outside world?"
 
It's not that I don't think we should be pursuing more rail connections. But this is pure politicking when there's much better candidates for GO rail service RIGHT NOW (Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge, Waterloo, etc) and much potential even along existing corridors. Peterborough isn't exactly at the top of my list of places to connect to Union by rail
 
The whole point of the network effect is that the usefulness of the network as a whole increases exponetially as the number of network "members" increases linearly:

We shouldn't think of this commuter rail line in isolation. We should think of it as an integral part of a transit network. If the question is "how well will it move people from A to B?" then it probably won't do very well. But, I don't think that's the question we should be asking.

We should be asking "how well does it open up Peterborough to the outside world?"
I'd be okay with this link if it was accompanied by a plan to make Peterborough interact with Toronto; pursue developing industry that's compatible with CBD business and other industries in the GTA, but it's really not. The only "plan" (which isn't to accompany this project,) is for Peterborough to become almost a suburb of Toronto like Barrie, which is not what Go should be striving to do. And as Coruscanti said, there are plenty of new Go corridors, including upgrades to corridors, that would come first.
 
I don't disagree. I just believe that one has to start somewhere, and when the federal government comes with money we would be foolish to reject it as there may not be a second opportunity.

No matter what we propose, someone else will inevitably be able to find a *better* proposal to invest in.
 
Some quick numbers:

Peterborough
Urban Population: 76 925
Distance from Toronto Union: ~115km
Additional centres served by expansion: Markham?

Waterloo Region (Both Kitchener and Galt lines)
Urban Population: ~425 000
Distance from Toronto Union: ~120km
Additional centres served along line: Guelph (115 635), Acton (85 000)

Niagara Falls
Urban Population: 81 181
Distance from Toronto Union: ~135 km
Additional centres served along line: St Catharines (131 989), Lincoln (21 722), Grimsby (23 937), Hamilton (647 634)

At this time, and when compared to alternatives, the proposal for GO train service to Peterborough falls short, especially considering track conditions already makes travel time completely unreasonable. Depending on the report, it may be more worthwhile to construct an entirely new rail corridor roughly parallelling highway 115, connecting existing track at Bowmanville and Pontypool. (The gap between track segments is only ~20 km compared with the 60 km that would otherwise need upgrading) The section of CP track between Pontypool and Markham could then be abandoned to almost no consequence, while a continuous rail link would connect Peterborough to Bowmanville, Oshawa, and beyond. Perhaps then, some variety of regional service would be warranted, but only time and the price of oil will tell.

But not before service and track improvements happen in Niagara and Waterloo Region. The population definitely warrants service. It would also be worthwhile if GO expanded to provide regional rail service along its major lines including their extensions, especially in the Niagara Region and Waterloo/Wellington.

GO service to Peterborough using existing track really is nothing more than political grandstanding, much like Del Mastro's scheme for a high speed rail corridor to run through his riding, when compared with the alternatives, a Peterborough alignment seems a bit nuts. Maybe if Peterborough weren't so small and so far away, I could see it, but otherwise, there are much more important projects that need to be done.
 
Last edited:
For instance, the entire population of Peterborough county that commutes to the GTA everyday is probably about equal to ONE full Go train. On top of that, transit from the Go station may be inconvenient to some people, and so they'll drive instead. So that ends you up with less than one full Go train a day per direction, which could be served much better and much more flexibly with a bus.
There's a lot more to passenger rail than daily commuters. Where does the ridership come from in similar sized cities all over the world that have passenger service? Everyone's stuck on the idea of GO Trains going to Peterborough, when there's been no indication that that's what will happen. It could be DMUs, it could be operated by VIA.

The second point is actually really, really true and I don't understand how people fail to understand that we're very much capable of supporting not only Quebec-Windsor HSR, but also many regional and local systems in between. The St. Lawrence/Great Lakes region is very comparable to places in Western Europe like TGV corridors. Add to that the fact that the entire corridor is going to be increasing substantially in population, probably with a base increase of 1/4, probably quite higher depending on future government's take on immigration. Aaaand add that it connects the brunt of the two most populous provinces and two most populous cities in the country with the capital and together... you get the point.
All true, and local links like the line to Peterborough are important feeders into a successful HSR system.

It's not that I don't think we should be pursuing more rail connections. But this is pure politicking when there's much better candidates for GO rail service RIGHT NOW (Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge, Waterloo, etc) and much potential even along existing corridors. Peterborough isn't exactly at the top of my list of places to connect to Union by rail
Waterloo Region is already connected to Union by rail. Peterborough isn't. Big difference. That's not to say that service to Kitchener, Niagara Falls, etc. shouldn't be improved - it should be, and those projects are happening as well. Instead of shooting down a worthy project because you think other projects should come first, how about applauding it as an important step in improving our rail system?

Depending on the report, it may be more worthwhile to construct an entirely new rail corridor roughly parallelling highway 115, connecting existing track at Bowmanville and Pontypool. (The gap between track segments is only ~20 km compared with the 60 km that would otherwise need upgrading) The section of CP track between Pontypool and Markham could then be abandoned to almost no consequence, while a continuous rail link would connect Peterborough to Bowmanville, Oshawa, and beyond. Perhaps then, some variety of regional service would be warranted, but only time and the price of oil will tell.
On this we can agree, except the last sentence. Rail service is warranted now, and the old dayliner should never have been neglected and cancelled in the first place. But as long as we're restoring service and rebuilding the track, it should connect to the Kingston sub through Durham.

GO service to Peterborough using existing track really is nothing more than political grandstanding, much like Del Mastro's scheme for a high speed rail corridor to run through his riding, when compared with the alternatives, a Peterborough alignment seems a bit nuts. Maybe if Peterborough weren't so small and so far away, I could see it, but otherwise, there are much more important projects that need to be done.
Would you consider rail service to Aberdeen or Inverness in Scotland to be political grandstanding? How about Cherbourg, France, or Segovia, Spain? All are comparable to Peterborough and there are countless other examples. As for your last sentence, I think we're capable enough in this country to plan more than one rail project at a time, no?
 
Waterloo Region is already connected to Union by rail. Peterborough isn't. Big difference. That's not to say that service to Kitchener, Niagara Falls, etc. shouldn't be improved - it should be, and those projects are happening as well. Instead of shooting down a worthy project because you think other projects should come first, how about applauding it as an important step in improving our rail system?

The rail connection between Kitchener and Union takes about 2 hours, compared to 1:20 greyhound scheduling. For a dedicated right of way, this is kind of lame. There is also no direct VIA Rail link to Hamilton, and the GO link only operates during peak hours. These are both populations of around 500 000 that are being completely underserviced by passenger rail compared with Peterborough's 80 000.


Would you consider rail service to Aberdeen or Inverness in Scotland to be political grandstanding? How about Cherbourg, France, or Segovia, Spain? All are comparable to Peterborough and there are countless other examples. As for your last sentence, I think we're capable enough in this country to plan more than one rail project at a time, no?

I don't want to bring up this argument, but I feel that I have to. We're not Europe yet. We have a long way to go in improving our passenger rail network between our major cities before we can consider effectively serving relatively out of the way areas, especially considering that travel time by a GO bus/train would likely be just as effective.u There's no point connecting Peterborough to the rail network until we have at least hourly trains running along the corridor that exists and local transit networks that can effectively move people around.

Yes, a Peterborough rail link is a worthwhile investment, but as a standalone line, not yet. However, I can see it being an effective peak extension of the Lakeshore East via Bowmanville provided that the infrastructure is in place.
 
The rail connection between Kitchener and Union takes about 2 hours, compared to 1:20 greyhound scheduling. For a dedicated right of way, this is kind of lame. There is also no direct VIA Rail link to Hamilton, and the GO link only operates during peak hours. These are both populations of around 500 000 that are being completely underserviced by passenger rail compared with Peterborough's 80 000.
Sorry but none of this is relevant - the merits of upgrading the line to Kitchener have nothing to do with the merits of this project. Again, we're capable of planning more than one project at a time. Improvements to Kitchener, Cambridge, and Niagara are happening - they're in the Metrolinx plan. It's not a zero-sum game - restoring rail service to Peterborough won't result in cancelling upgrades to Kitchener, and canceling the Peterborough line won't make the Kitchener upgrades happen any sooner. On the contrary, each upgrade only increases pressure to upgrade in other areas.

I don't want to bring up this argument, but I feel that I have to. We're not Europe yet. We have a long way to go in improving our passenger rail network between our major cities before we can consider effectively serving relatively out of the way areas, especially considering that travel time by a GO bus/train would likely be just as effective.u There's no point connecting Peterborough to the rail network until we have at least hourly trains running along the corridor that exists and local transit networks that can effectively move people around.

Yes, a Peterborough rail link is a worthwhile investment, but as a standalone line, not yet. However, I can see it being an effective peak extension of the Lakeshore East via Bowmanville provided that the infrastructure is in place.
You're right we're not like Europe yet and with thinking like this we never will be. It's the same argument that people use against HSR. Improvements are already happining to local trainsit, regional rail, and even VIA Rail. There's no magic service level that other lines need before a new city gets service. Besides, there already are hourly trains running along the existing corridor, so going by that argument the line should go ahead today. This is a worthy project that's just one small step among many that's needed to upgrade our transport system to acceptable levels.
 
Fair enough. Niagara and Waterloo service GO extensions are already being given higher priority, so a line to Peterborough would really be of little consequence to the implementation of these other lines.

The main worry that I see with using the Havelock subdivision is the relatively empty area along it. It doesn't make much sense to have any intermittent stops along this line, because there are no employment centres between Markham and Peterborough. So, any service would need to be supported by passenger traffic between Peterborough and Toronto alone. Conversely, I could see a GO bus service being more popular because of the connections made to the urban centres in Durham. We will just have to wait and see what the study says in terms of costs vs. benefits. If the study says that people will use a train along the Havelock subdivision, then it would be hard to take the position of denying Peterborough that service. In the mean time, GO busses will have to do.
 
The whole point of the network effect is that the usefulness of the network as a whole increases exponetially as the number of network "members" increases linearly:

We shouldn't think of this commuter rail line in isolation. We should think of it as an integral part of a transit network. If the question is "how well will it move people from A to B?" then it probably won't do very well. But, I don't think that's the question we should be asking.

We should be asking "how well does it open up Peterborough to the outside world?"

You need to be careful how you open an area to the outside world. By opening up an area, you could be leap frogging the green belt to create more urban sprawl.

The in Side World need to have plans an policy's in place to help prevent the sprawl and to eat up good farm land. Otherwise, we will loose the ability to feed ourselves and to rely on off shore countries to feed us at a high cost or ransom.

With rail, come the need for more roads if there is no transit in place there in the first place. No transit here today.

At the same time, as the developing density area get built, cost of living increase to the point you start to force ppl to relocate to a cheaper place to live. As you force those ppl to other areas, you start to drive up the cost of buying a place which in turns force ppl in that area to move else where.

The other question that needs to be asked, when do we start charging a cost for surface parking lots of business?? Surface parking is a waste of land use as well resources.

If you built a underground area under the building or plant depending on what it is in the first place, you created more room to put in another industrial/business to support the infrastructure in the first place. At the same time, you help to support a transit system to service the area.

Having more than one business operating out of a mid rise building is a cost saving to the party building the plant, but gives better land use and support local transit.

Business that exist today may not exist in 10 or 30 years from now and that can have an impact on everything. Times are changing and we need to change as we go along, otherwise we will have brownfield s and decay.

A network is great if it runs 7x24 and offer real great service.

The other question that needs answering, when do we force the policy of one car per house hold??

Considering 72% of all vehicles on the road at any given time is driven by a single persons, where do we get the room to put 1.5 million car on the road by 2031 when we cannot handle what we have today??

Transit is not for everyone, but it needs to be for a lot more that don't use it today.

The RTP is only the tip of the pin.
 
Sprawl is a product of cheap land, cheap transportation and permissive zoning. Break one of those legs and the tower falls.
 
The metrolinx study was finally released, giving a big dose of reality to del mastro and his little carrot on a stick:

The most basic commuter rail service between Peterborough and Toronto would cost $541 million, nearly a quarter of a billion dollars more than budgeted, states a long-awaited provincial report released to the public Monday.

Taken on face value, those numbers would represent a fatal blow to the project, Peterborough MP Dean Del Mastro said.

"This report is a huge blow," he said. "They have a cost assumption of half a billion dollars. There is only $300 million budgeted."

The provincial and federal governments committed as much as $150 million each in the Building Canada Fund agreement for the Peterborough commuter rail line in July 2008 -- contingent on the results of a study done by Metrolinx, a provincial agency that co-ordinates transportation in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area.

Del Mastro stated emphatically Monday that the train service could be built for $300 million and criticized the report's findings. He said he would continue to fight for the rail service and would combat the report's findings with his own third-party documentation.

The Metrolinx report investigates three different track routes and three levels of service including basic, enhanced and all-day service with price tags ranging from $541 million at the lowest to $1.5 billion at the highest for service beginning in 2016.

On top of that, the report suggests it would cost between $21 million and $25 million to maintain and operate basic service each year.

It projected passenger levels of about 1,900 per weekday for both directions, which would only justify basic service beginning in 2016, not all-day or weekend services, the report concluded.

Del Mastro took aim at the report's findings in many areas including its infrastructure, operating costs and passenger projections.

"One of the things that really shocked me were the findings for infrastructure upgrades," he said.

"The overall costing to build the infrastructure is grossly overestimated."

Advertisement

The report estimates it would cost $329 million to upgrade the Havelock subdivision, which extends between Havelock and the Canadian Pacific Railway's Toronto Yard in Agincourt and is operated by the Kawartha Lakes Railway.

Del Mastro said he took the numbers used in the report to outside experts who estimate the Havelock subdivision upgrades could be completed for $155 million.

He slams the report for suggesting operating costs could hit $25 million per year and criticizes its authors for assuming people would be riding for free.

"It's not possible that this would cost $25 million a year to operate," Del Mastro said. "They exaggerate the cost and dramatically underestimate the revenue. Why are they assuming people are riding for free? That is not a fair evaluation of the service."

The report's passenger projections have been understated by at least half, Del Mastro said.

"You should expect closer to 3,000 people and I would argue more than that," Del Mastro said.

Peterborough MPP Jeff Leal called the report a "very reputable study" done by a team with extensive experience in the passenger rail and railway industries.

"It's come in at a bare-bones service at $500 million.... It's well beyond the $300-million figure at a time when both governments have fiscal challenges," he said. "We'll have to see what transpires down the road."

Leal pointed out that GO Transit is extending its rail line to Bowmanville from Oshawa and the province and federal government are working together on the extension of Hwy. 407 to Hwy. 35/115.

GO Transit bus service is already running between Peterborough and the GO Transit train station in Oshawa, Leal said.

"We're seeing ridership growth in that particular area," he said.

The province and federal government will need to discuss how to improve freight capacity on the rail line and who will pay for any further studies on the Peterborough-Toronto commuter rail service, Leal said.

More accurate price estimates and engineering assessments need to be done to try to reduce the projected cost to an amount that the province and federal government will be willing to pay, Mayor Paul Ayotte said.

"I think with all the infrastructure funding they've done I don't think there's a lot of appetite to add more money to it so we've got to try to get it down to a workable number," he said. "It's really important to the community that we get this line upgraded. If we don't get it upgraded we won't have a line.

"If we are concerned about the environment and getting cars off the road and that, this is one of the best ways. And it will not only help Peterborough, but Durham, and Kawartha Lakes and everybody along that corridor."

Metrolinx doesn't factor in the other economic activity, such as freight and business activity, when it's determining the feasibility or viability of the commuter rail line project, Coun. Len Vass said.

"From what I'm hearing out there in the rumour mill is that Metrolinx, to some extent, thinks the world ends at the end of the GTA," he said.

The federal government has been the driver of the Peterborough-Toronto rail link and it needs to step up to the plate, Coun. Bob Hall said.

"I hope Mr. Del Mastro shows some leadership and finds some money in the federal budget to make it cost effective," he said. "It's a service that will expand the city of Peterborough. I think it will bring jobs and opportunities.

"It's one of those investments that you're investing for the long term... I think it's a 100-year investment."

Overall, Del Mastro characterizes the report as "the worst-case scenario multiplied by the worst-case scenario."

"It has been handed to government as a report to base a decision on, that's the problem."

Del Mastro said he's going to make his third-party findings known to the public and the governments who will ultimately make the decision.

"It falls to elected leaders to make decisions, not the authors of reports. I will ensure that both federal and provincial decision makers have the best possible information to base this decision upon," Del Mastro said.

"I'll put all the information out there so the public can hold governments to account."

While the report could jeopardize Del Mastro's longtime promise to bring the service to fruition, the MP said he won't go down without a fight.

"I have been elected to advocate and fight on behalf of my constituents not simply to accept report findings that hurt our region's future," he said.

geagle@peterboroughexaminer.com

My problem is not with the project per se, only the unrealistic and inflated exceptions surrounding it used by the MP to get re elected.
 
report

appendices

Hatch Mott MacDonald is the main consultant, they are also working with IBI (IBI did the demand/ridership)

FWIW the $541 million capital cost includes $200 million in unallocated contingency
 
Last edited:
report

appendices

Hatch Mott MacDonald is the main consultant, they are also working with IBI (IBI did the demand/ridership)

FWIW the $541 million capital cost includes $200 million in unallocated contingency

This seems like a poor investment. A minimum $350M capital and minimum of a $10M per year operating subsidy for a best case of 5000 people per day after a decades growth.

It doesn't appear GO gains much in the way of assets (land or exclusive use track).


It looks like CP gains quite a bit though; possibly saving millions per year in freight movements without expending any capital.
 
This report shows how ludicrious a GO Peterborough line is. "Trips from Peterborough to downtown Toronto are expected to hold steady over the 25 year period [2006-2031]". Total demand on the line for 2031 is expected to be 11,250. Compare that to GO Milton line where 460 people drove to Milton from K-W daily before GO started their K-W bus service last year or the expected 9,500 new passengers expected to board at Cambridge, Campbellville, and Milton in 2031. More passengers would use the GO Georgetown line to go to Kitchener.

Extending beyond the Green Belt should be a concern (I believe all Ontario municipalities now have urban intensification and rural protection plans in place.), but it should weigh against Peterborough when Guelph, Kitchener, Cambridge, and Hamilton are all beyond the Green Belt. GO Peterborough should be kept in mind advanced when higher capacity improvement to dollar spent projects have been exhausted.

If you extended Lakeshore West or made a third contiguous corridor (Dundas-Brantford-Paris-Woodstock-Ingersoll-London), I would say a short new corridor Cambridge-Ayr-Paris would carry as much as GO Peterborough line would.

Sorry but none of this is relevant - the merits of upgrading the line to Kitchener have nothing to do with the merits of this project. Again, we're capable of planning more than one project at a time. Improvements to Kitchener, Cambridge, and Niagara are happening - they're in the Metrolinx plan. It's not a zero-sum game - restoring rail service to Peterborough won't result in cancelling upgrades to Kitchener, and canceling the Peterborough line won't make the Kitchener upgrades happen any sooner. On the contrary, each upgrade only increases pressure to upgrade in other areas.

You're right we're not like Europe yet and with thinking like this we never will be. It's the same argument that people use against HSR. Improvements are already happining to local trainsit, regional rail, and even VIA Rail. There's no magic service level that other lines need before a new city gets service. Besides, there already are hourly trains running along the existing corridor, so going by that argument the line should go ahead today. This is a worthy project that's just one small step among many that's needed to upgrade our transport system to acceptable levels.
Everything is a zero-sum game. Any infrastructure improvement comes out of each of our pockets. We are willing to only dip so deep into our pockets, so at the end of the day, one priority must suffer to accomidate another priority. The key is to balance the planning stage (low cost) of the next priority while building the current one (high cost). I see GO Peterborough as something to be build/funded for 2036-2040.
 

Back
Top