The Big Move got moving

Posted on April 10, 2009 at 9:19 pm by Andrae Griffith

No, it wasn’t an elaborate April Fools Day joke…

On April 1st, the Government of Ontario announced funding a collection of transit projects across the GTHA. While many of the projects are in the central parts of the region, and there has been some criticism of this fact, these are the projects that are closest groundbreaking – some will see construction start next year. We can’t forget that we need to build a region-wide network, but we need to start somewhere.

Here’s what was announced:

$1.4 billion to upgrade the VIVA Network and give vehicles their own lanes on the Yonge Street and Highway 7 corridors. Construction is to begin in 2009 with phased opening from 2011 to 2013.
- VIVA has been an unprecedented success in the 905, and having ridden from Aurora to Finch Terminal today, I was very impressed to see how many people were riding the service in the more suburban areas of Richmond Hill. We did hit traffic around Major Mackenzie, so lanes will definitely make trips faster and more reliable.
$1.4 billion to replace the Scarborough RT vehicles and extend the line to the Malvern community, though the exact cost will depend on the choice of technology. Construction could begin in 2010 and the line could open in 2015.
- While we don’t know what kind of vehicles the refit will use, it’s safe to say that the line will have a higher capacity than before and that users coming from the northeast might be spending less time on local buses and more time cruising past traffic on the trains.
$4.6 billion to construct the Eglinton-Crosstown line from Kennedy Station to Pearson Airport. This will include a tunnel under the narrowest sections of Eglinton from Leslie to Keele. Construction could begin in 2010 and the line could open in 2016. Technology choice may still be in the air, but the most commonly mentioned option is surface LRT with a central tunnel.
- Whatever vehicle choice is made, Toronto needs a high-capacity crosstown line north of Bloor. The Eglinton-Crosstown line will provide this, and depending on the technology choice, there could be opportunities to interline the service with the Scarborough RT or the future Scarborough-Malvern line.
$1.2 billion to construct the Finch West LRT from Humber College to Don Mills station. Construction could begin in 2010 and the line could open in 2013.
- It’s fairly certain that this line will use surface light rail to replace the very busy #36 bus, adding capacity and reliability to the route. This line could eventually be extended to the proposed Woodbine Live! entertainment complex a few blocks south of the college and even to Pearson Airport. Malton is also within reach. On the east end, it appears that the line will continue past Yonge to Don Mills and Sheppard, passing Seneca College along the way. There has yet to be an announcement of what will happen on Sheppard, but the TTC board is recommending that the proposed LRT meet the subway at Don Mills station and the Sun is reporting that the mayor has been dropping hints left, right and centre.
$3 million to finish the Hamilton rapid transit studies to recommend the preferred option for the east-west King/Main corridor and the north-south James Street corridor. The study should be completed in 2010.
- Hamilton has been very proactive in pushing for rapid transit, and it could do wonders to revitalize the downtown core, especially in an era where the manufacturing base is declining. The city’s preferred option is light rail, so it will be interesting to see how things play out.

But wait! There’s more!

On the Milton line:
- An EA will be started to bring all-day service to the corridor, with an aim to complete the environmental study early next year. This will eventually end the parade of off-peak buses that currently serve the corridor.
- The Streetsville bus garage will be expanded to hold more buses, including the potential for more double-decker buses.
On the Lakeshore West line:
- Tunnel, bridge and platform improvements will occur at Exhbitiion, Clarkson and Burlington stations to improve passenger flow and install snow-melting systems.
- A fifth track will be constructed through the Exhibition station area. More tracks means more trains can pass through and reach Union Station more efficiently.
- A train fueling station will be built at Aldershot to reduce the need to bring trains back to the main facility to be serviced, and will come in handy until electrification is complete as this facility can be built by November.
- Bus service to Niagara will begin in the fall and connect to the train in Burlington. The bus will make stops in Grimsby, St. Catharines and Niagara Falls. While Park-and-Ride stations will be built, I hope that the buses can find a way to serve the downtown terminals in those cities and that the route successful enough to justify train service (maybe a VIA-GO joint venture – comfy VIA seats at GO prices).
On the Lakeshore East line:
- A satellite bus garage will be built in Ajax to store more buses and reduce the time it takes for them to get into service.
- An EA will soon be started to extend service past Oshawa to Bowmanville. It’s not clear if the line will use the CN or CP corridor, but both have their advantages. Using the CN line w
- Bus service to Peterborough will begin in the fall and connect to the train in Oshawa. Again, I hope that the buses serve the downtown terminal and that the route is successful enough to justify train service (yes, I support the train to Peterborough as a first step in rail expansion in southern Ontario. But, we’ll have to see where people are getting off. If they are bound for Oshawa then a train across northern Durham Region won’t help them).
On the Richmond Hill line:
- Station improvements at Oriole will better integrate the station with the adjacent community, and improvements at Langstaff station / Richmond Hill Centre Terminal will better integrate GO and YRT/VIVA services. The latter will be a big benefit to commuters because the 407 GO buses, Richmond Hill GO buses, and YRT/VIVA/GO Airport Express buses currently stop in three different parts of the complex.
On the Bradford/Barrie line:
- Allendale GO station in downtown Barrie will be constructed to respond to rising demand, make the service more convenient and support the Places to Grow growth centre objectives. It’s unclear how much, if any, of the historic station will be re-used but I hope the answer is as close to “all” as possible.
On the Georgetown line:
- The bridge over the Credit River will be expanded to for a second and potential third track. This line has many bottlenecks that prevent service from expanding, and expanding the bridge will take care of one of them.
On the 407 corridor:
- A new bus storage facility will be built at the Aberfoyle Park and Ride to reduce the amount of time buses take going into service, and discussions are taking place for a joint GO-Greyhound terminal at the site.

Also, GO is:

Refurbishing tracks and railway bridges it owns. Bridges are often choke-points for service expansion, and new rails will allow for higher speeds and shorter travel times.
Purchasing the CN Weston subdivision for $160 million. This is akin to buying a house instead of renting indefinitely when you pay more rent the more time you spend inside. This takes GO’s destiny into its own hands and hopefully sets a precedent for future acquisitions.
Installing snow-melting systems at Ajax and Bronte stations in order to reduce the salt they use in winter.
Installing 56 covered bike shelters this summer to encourage people to cycle to stations rather than drive.
Installing computer aided dispatching capabilities to the fleet to make service management easier and potentionally provide real-time arrival data to customers.
Constructing a rail-to-rail grade separation on the outskirts of Hamilton to let passenger trains bypass a busy freight choke-point and constructing more parking at stations across the region as part of an earlier announcement.
Refurbishing 45 locomotives to tie itself over until new ones arrive and buying 20 new commuter rail cars for service improvements.

The last ten days have been very interesting for GTHA transit, and I think everyone can agree that this momentum needs to be continued long into the future.

Photo source: Flickr user un_owen

Tags: Big Move, funding, GO, LRT, metrolinx, RTP, Transit City, TTC, Viva, YRT

40 Comments »

This is all very exciting news for transit in Toronto and the GTA!

With respect to the historic Allendale train station in Barrie, the latest I have heard is that it will be turned into a new YMCA. That is a huge mistake in my mind for a plethora of reasons.

Comment by OTerry — April 10, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
These are great initiatives and I hope they are realized.

But what was most surprising was what was not included. Where is Sheppard LRT? I would say that the premier is timing his announcements for political gain, but doesn’t he know you should announce the obvious ones first?

The only logical explanation is Sheppard LRT will be a three-way thing with the federal infrastructure program.

Comment by Triceratops — April 11, 2009 @ 12:46 am
Here are my issues:

Triceratops: thank you for mentioning the SELRT.

Now to everyone:

1) The Sheppard East LRT is not being mentioned through the “official” channels. The only mention was through me asking Giambrone during those EA open houses for each Transit City line and after TTC commission meetings, but NOTHING on any “official” announcements. Mayor Miller even told me it’s coming. The SELRT is supposed to be the first line, and it’s coming this fall but according to Steve Munro – no funding for the line (at time of either reading on his website or asking him, and I trust him above most people when it comes with transit – hey if you can take the ups and downs of transit for 35 or so years then you have my respect).

2) There is is a municipal election in 2010, a provincial 2011. Even a monk in a monastery in the high levels of Mount Everest who has been there for the past 35 years, will know that those elections have a lot in common.

What is going to happen if the pro-transit Councilors and MPPs decide not to run for re-election or don’t win?

3) The Finch line was originally Finch West-Etobicoke, somehow it got extended to Don Mills station (I will assume the extension goes east to Don Mills and south on Don Mills Road). Can anyone tell me who extended the LRT line? (not that I have a problem with that).

4) I had a conversation with the TTC Chair about what is going to happen to the current buses running along the future LRT lines, they will be gone. What I am wondering, most of those TC lines are over routes that have blue night buses, what will happen around 2am? will the TC vehicles stop service then buses will take over on the Right-of-Way between 2am and 6am (9am sundays)? or will the blue night services for those TC lines be absorbed? For example, I take the 85 & 190 a lot, they would be gone when the Sheppard East LRT, but what about the 385 Blue night Sheppard East? Same question about the night routes about their status, what is going to happen to the 301, 303, 305, 307, 308, 309? The Harbourfront East has no real service right now in that area of buses or streetcars, also the 302 could dissappear if the Scarborough-Malvern LRT comes (but I think this one is at the very bottom of the list).

5) Kennedy subway/RT station is such a mess, now there will be two lines going into it (technically one, since the Eglinton East gets replaced by the crosstown). If anyone has gone through Kennedy you know that to go from the RT station you have to go down one level to the bus bay, then one level to the mezzanine, then one more to the subway station. Yet magically somewhere in that sandwich there is supposed to be an LRT level as well? The crosstown and Scarborough-Malvern could “share a level” I guess.

6) What is going to happen to the 39 Finch East, will it go from Finch station or will the line go the way of the dodo bird and it will change into what the 139 Finch East express route (minus express part). The 139 goes north on don mills, east on finch. On the way back it goes west on finch south on the 404. We are all creatures of habit. If the 39 adopts the 139 routing…people would have to go down whatever level down to catch the Finch LRT to continue their way west, that adds such a load to Don Mills station.

7) Does it mean that the Finch and Don Mills LRT are going to share the Sheppard-Steeles area of Don Mills Road or will the Don Mills LRT be Danforth-Sheppard only?

The following routes go through Don Mills station:

4 SHEPPARD STUBWAY
10 VAN HORNE
24 VICTORIA PARK
25 DON MILLS
85 SHEPPARD EAST
139 FINCH-DON MILLS
167 PHARMACY NORTH
169 HUNTINGWOOD
190 SCARBOROUGH CENTRE ROCKET
224 VICTORIA PARK NORTH
303 DON MILLS BLUE NIGHT
385 BLUE NIGHT

The 25 Don Mills ones (and maybe the 303) would go the way of the do-do bird. so that’s 11 routes (taking into consideration only the 25 goes and 303 & 385 stays), then you add the Finch LRT, Don Mills LRT x 2 (assuming it goes up to Steels, so DMLRT northbound, and DMLRT southbound), Sheppard EAST LRT.

That is going to be a huge mess.

9) Every subway station that the TC LRT lines will go through will have to be retro-fitted somehow, speciall Don Mills station, since it will have 3 tracks incoming/outgoing (DM LRT is technically twice, one going in each direction, and both the DM LRT & FLRT can technically share tracks going north on Don Mills), what is the impact to the residents in the area and the businesses, SELRT is having issues with the Sheppard East Village BIA. Every other BIA that will get impacted will “voice their opinions”. That could lead to slowing down on schedules. Before any of you comment on this, think about if you would tolerate construction right next to YOUR house for 8 hours a day every weekday for years and years.

10) Yes we are all excited about these improvements, and the TTC Chair/Vice-Chair and GSO perfectly know I will there to take the first ride on each TC LRT lines when they open and most likely I will go back and forth on each line the first day but there are a lot of “negative” aspects to TC LRT line. I live very close to Sheppard and there is a possibility of hearing the noise for years and years of the SELRT building. All these questions need to be discussed. You can’t just take the Ying without the Yang, You can’t take light without darkness. You can’t take a good Shawarma sandwich without taking time off your day and travel to the restaurant, giving up some money.

11) Oh yeah, the transition period might also mean re-routing of some of the bus routes…what about the people/businesses on those streets that the buses will use to re-route?

12) Last time I got an update: The TTC had no definite plan on how to connect the SELRT into Don Mills station, it can’t go under Sheppard bridge (think Bloor-Danforth over DVP), not enough room and you can’t “sink” in the 404 since the 401/DVP are less than 2km’s away. Don’t forget to add the FLRT and DMLRT.

13) Every route diversion, every change of vehicle (streetcar to bus and vice-versa) has an impact on the rides, specially the transition periods, it has an impact on connecting routes, these need to be addressed.

I am all for better transit, SPECIALLY since I will be in the very front of the TC LRT vehicles looking out the window – unless they are like the SRT which would be no fun. We have to do this in a proper way, look at the SRT – anyone that has spend 1 minute in it knows that it is CRAP, these TC LRT lines can not be yet another SRT.

These announcements are like you waving a giant lolipop in front of a child and not giving the child that lolipop, I want Giambrone/Miller to give me my lolipop (cherry flavoured please) by putting a shovel down to the ground.

We have to look and address the concerns and issues before things are built AND NOT AFTER in a decade or two.

Wow, I had a lot to get off my chest.

Comment by Miroslav Glavic — April 11, 2009 @ 11:03 am
I just realized I forgot to mention something, if the Finch LRT goes east to Don Mills then south, it will miss Seneca College’s Newnham campus. as the campus is technically 0.6 km to the east, more closer to 404/Finch.

http://i40.tinypic.com/b96lbp.png <— map of the area with e-marker drawn on it to show the Finch LRT.

There is no way the FLRT will go down the 404, and the nearest big street is Victoria Park.

See how talking about little things like this is good? Southwest corner of Seneca Hill Drive and Finch there are a couple of buildings that is filled mostly with seniors. Oh boy are they going to be happy that FLiRT will be just short of their location.

Comment by Miroslav Glavic — April 11, 2009 @ 11:51 am
@ OTerry – Putting a YMCA at the train station is actually a good idea, as it will allow people to work out before they get on the train and go to work. This is the mobility hub concept in action.

@ Miroslav – Here goes:
1) I’m expecting a big announcement with the theme “See! Jobs right now!” Just as long as it stays on schedule I don’t really care when/how it is announced.

2) It’s all about the will of the people, and I expect their demand for it to go up when shovels are in the ground in 2010. If people demand transit, then politicians will deliver by the “politicians will do anything to get re-elected” rule.

3) The extension was part of the Metrolinx RTP to add crosstown capability with the Sheppard and Finch lines.

4) My guess is buses, as the blue night routes are often different from the daytime routes. Finch East & Finch West night routes are interlined, for example.

5) The Scarborough RT refit is supposed to move the RT platform into the basement for a much easier connection to the subway. Kennedy of tomorrow will be very different from the Kennedy of today.

6) I’m sure it will become an express at some point, but this is where an origin-destination study will come in handy. If they are going downtown then they probably won’t care, but if they are going to North York Centre then they’ll want the 39 routing.

7) Don Mills is supposed to be Highway 7 to the subway. I think they can coexist in the peanut area.

EIGHT) Yes it’s a mess, but we’re going to have to deal with it.

9 + 10 + 11 + 13) The Highway 410 extension is being built within sight of my house, so I think this qualifies me to say that we, as a society, cannot fear short term turmoil for long term benefit. My opinion applies to improvements in all areas, including health care and education. Extreme example, I know, but consider this: Would we have abandoned the charter of rights and freedoms because it would have been disruptive to the hiring practices of a large number of companies?

12) It’s something we’ll have to overcome, but why not a parallel bridge. Since it will likely interline with Finch surface options are pretty much the only options available.

14) Most of Ryerson is about this distance from the subway, so I’m not seeing it as too big of distance for the majority of students to cover. The line has to be drawn somewhere though, and someone is always going to miss out. It’s a fact of life.

Sure, we all want shovels in the ground – and this time it’s going to happen by the end of the year for Sheppard and the end of next year for a whole slew of other projects.

Comment by Andrae Griffith — April 11, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
Presuming the Sheppard LRT goes to the same platform as the subway at Don Mills, it will require a real feat of engineering to get it to interline with Finch-Don Mills.

Comment by Triceratops — April 11, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
That’s the thing:

I’m not sure we can assume it will go underground anymore for that very reason.

It may still happen, but it’s not a safe assumption when interlining is what I’ve been hearing most often.

Comment by Andrae Griffith — April 11, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
From what I have heard of the Niagara GO bus connection it will be crossing the Skyway and meeting the trains in Burlington just as the current Stoney Creek GO bus connection does. Will these 9 Niagara GO buses a day merge with the Stoney Creek service to make the route Niagara Falls- St Catharines- Grimsby- Stoney Creek-Burlington? That would seem to be more efficient than running the two routes separately, when they will likely often meet the same trains and I’m sure there is some demand from the Niagara region for service to Stoney Creek, and vice versa

Comment by Batman — April 11, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
Making a transfer at surface would be an even bigger mistake. I say put Sheppard LRT at subway level (and design it for a future conversion of the subway to LRT vehicles in mind), and have the Finch-Don Mills platforms at a mezzanine level.

Comment by Triceratops — April 11, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
Triceratops, the reason Metrolinx wants to connect Finch to Don Mills Station is so that Finch trains could continue along Sheppard. If Finch and Sheppard cannot share platforms, then they are not going to connect Finch to Don Mills in the first place.

I think the Mezzanine level is the likeliest place for such platforms.

The stubway may still be extended a few decades ahead. Hell, if Future People run it south along Victoria Park, then it will both add to the network and not replace the earlier TC investment.

Comment by Leo Petr — April 12, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
The Eglinton Crosstown is going to be ART, just to placate the new private sector enterprise that Metrolinx is becoming!

Comment by Justin Bernard — April 13, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
But is that a bad thing if (conceptually)
a) the money is there, and
b) it will provide long distance service and locally oriented service at the same time.

I guess what I’m trying to say is this:

Aside of cost and capacity arguments (and what technology DOESN’T come with these arguments), I haven’t heard an argument against Bombardier ART technology that can’t be solved by better design. Maybe I’m not seeing it, but what’s fundamentally wrong with it?

Comment by Andrae Griffith — April 13, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
Wait, so Sheppard will be LRT, but the crossdresser line will be ART?
ART stands for ….?

Are LRT and ART compatible?

All the TC lines should be the SAME technology. That way all TC vehicles can be interchangeable from Sheppard to the crossdresser and Jane, and so forth.

Also if each TC line has seperate technology then it will mean each TC line will need it’s own car house.

Also, a streetcar on the 504 King line can go service the 510 Spadina and any other 500s line.

Comment by Miroslav Glavic — April 13, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
Everyone seems to agree that Sheppard will be LRT.

Eglinton could be surface LRT with a central tunnel, or it could be Bombardier Advanced Rapid Transit, which is used in Vancouver as the Skytrain. It is an automated mini-metro and is what the Scarborough RT would look like if 25 years of research and development were put into. It is not compatible, but it offers higher capacity and speed over surface LRT – at a higher cost (but not as much as a full subway).

I agree that we should have as much interchangeability as possible… I’m just wondering why people seem to hate a technology that, while based on Scaborough RT, has very little to do with it. It’s like hating a plane because a bird pooped on your head.

Comment by Andrae Griffith — April 13, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
There is some concern that ART would mean a new elevated guideway down the middle of an existing vibrant street, casting a permanent shadow on it and preventing rather than encouraging redevelopment. Elevated guideways are not popular — there is a reason why there is a movement to take down the elevated Gardiner highway, widening Lakeshore but at the same time eliminating the shadow barrier.

Scarborough RT isn’t along a major artery — it goes through its own corridor that all development avoids looking at. From what I understand, Skytrain also avoids being above major commercial streets.

ART would be fine over the Finch hydro corridor, but along Eglinton the shadow it casts would be a major problem.

We don’t have the budget to tunnel ART all the way, and ART can’t run in a semi-separated median on the surface, unlike LRT. ART means either tunnel or elevated, and elevated is cheaper, and elevated would be awful.

Comment by Leo Petr — April 13, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
I fail to see the reason why any new ART has to be a Public Private Partnership (and therefore Eglinton will be a P3-ART because of a perceived Metrolinx fix being in) and conventional LRVs would obviously be TTC. The private sector could just as easily design and build an LRT line.

I think ART’s time has passed. In Vancouver it makes more sense to build out an already extensive network, and if there hadn’t been a desire to ensure a level tendering playing field I think Canada Line would have been ART. But in Toronto ART is a bust because of our climate and our fear of automation/unions. Conventional LRVs are the way to go. If we want innovative technology, let’s deploy PRIMOVE or battery propulsion or some other technology which minimises the need to drape visual spaghetti over our already cluttered streetscapes.

Comment by Mark Dowling — April 14, 2009 @ 8:17 am
“But is that a bad thing if (conceptually)
a) the money is there, and
b) it will provide long distance service and locally oriented service at the same time.”
LRT can provide the same, or better service , without being locked into a proprietary., and expensive technology. And there won’t be a need to fully grade separate the line. An ART line will most likely mean longer station spacings along the entire length of the line, sacrificing local service.

”
Aside of cost and capacity arguments (and what technology DOESN’T come with these arguments), I haven’t heard an argument against Bombardier ART technology that can’t be solved by better design. Maybe I’m not seeing it, but what’s fundamentally wrong with it?”
There IS a better design. It’s LRT. Compared to LRT, ART is a limited technology designed by one company, that requires special vehicles built by one company. Why spend the extra money when you can save money using a tech that will be compatible with the other TC lines, is versatile, and can be adapted to the urban environment? If you wanted higher capacity, and speed, it’s possible to grade seperate LRT also.

Comment by Justin Bernard — April 14, 2009 @ 8:39 am
Also, we can build a mini-metro without the need to use ART.

Comment by Justin Bernard — April 14, 2009 @ 8:46 am
I’m not going to disagree that it’s more expensive, but I do have two thoughts. Firstly, I’ve been searching for how well the JFK airtrain does in the snow (for six months I’ve been searching) and I can’t find any evidence that snowfall cripples the line. It’s just better design. Second, I think that saying that unions will never allow it because of automation is a bit insulting to the unions. There would still be a role for the single operator as a safety attendant. I’m not going to argue it’s the best choice in every case, but it’s not this terrible nightmare in waiting that some make it out to be.

Anyway, to steer this conversation in a different direction… How about them GO improvements?

Comment by Andrae Griffith — April 14, 2009 @ 9:37 am
“Also, we can build a mini-metro without the need to use ART.”

Indeed – in Dublin they are in the first stages of doing just that (“Metro North”). The ultimate plan is to join that to their Line B LRT (currently Citadis 401) which was designed with a wider loading gauge but the same track gauge to facilitate conversion to metro.

Comment by Mark Dowling — April 14, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
All of the announcements for transit improvement throughout the GTA are really exciting. The vivaNext projects, including the rapidways in York Region, have already completed the Environmental Assessment process with the Ministry of the Environment. Shovels are planned to go into the ground for some of the rapidway projects by this fall. Go to vivanext.com or vivanext.com/blog to find out more and tell them what you think of the projects.

Comment by Jordan — April 16, 2009 @ 8:13 am
Andre, please correct me if I’m wrong, but

ART offers absolutely no benefit, zero, nil, over competing technologies on the market.

LRT can go underground and elevated and automation every bit as easily as ART can. Plus LRT is more versatile as it can run at street-grade when desired, LRT vehicles can be sourced from many more manufacturers. LRT is cheaper to run and maintain.

If I am overlooking some golden nugget that makes ART worth a second look, please please tell me what it is.

Comment by Triceratops — April 18, 2009 @ 12:36 am
You are absolutely right… LRT can do everything that ART can do, but…

If you’re going to compare automated LRT to automated ART then you’ll need a fully separated ROW in both cases. The cost might not be cheaper. The Canada Line’s technology choice would have been ART had certain bidding provisions been written differently. You cannot compare street-running LRT to ART in the same way because you’ll need an operator.

As for technology-lock in, this has become a reality in every industry. If you buy a high-end car you’re generally forced to have it serviced at the dealership rather than your corner garage. People make that choice all the time, and yeah it’s scummy, but it’s pretty standard practise across many industries, especially heavy industries like rail.

Comment by Andrae Griffith — April 18, 2009 @ 11:12 am
The TTC has been doing preliminary engineering work that, to my understanding, involves designing the Brentcliffe-Weston tunnel to be compatible with both LRT and HRT [subway] should an upgrade become necessary in future.

With talk of the DRL starting to surface again, including some speculation of the underground portion of the Don Mills LRT getting absorbed into the DRL, then the prospect of a U-liner with Eglinton materializes (I’m assuming that, depending on how the GSSE project goes, such a U-liner would have both its termini at the Weston Subdivision). One thing is certain, that if a future subway upgrade is to be incorporated into a design, that absolutely rules out ICTS (or ART or AGT, whatever label one wants to use, it’s like tram vs. streetcar vs. LRT, they all mean the same thing).

Comment by Karl Junkin — April 18, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
I’m interested in which way the Bowmanville extension goes. Andrae, I’m not sure what advantages there are to using the CN Kingston sub, the CP Belleville sub to me seems to be superior by a wide margin since it actually cuts through the centre of Bowmanville to provide a centrally-located station that a huge portion of Bowmanville residents could walk to, getting the most amount of cars off the road.

I’m baffled by improvements being sunk into Oriole. This station should be relocated as a whole, 400m north. The same parking lot the station currently uses is still viable within the distance of such a relocation (check out Streetsville as an example of proof of how far parking lots get from the platform). The improved TTC connection will yeild far higher ridership than any parking lot.

Comment by Karl Junkin — April 18, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
The advantage to using the CN alignment is that you won’t have to build any greenfield trackage. You would have to build a greenfield connection track to get to the CP line, but I agree that the CP line is far superior. I’m with you on Oriole too, but the bridge might not be a waste if the relocated platform is on the same side of the tracks as it is now.

Comment by Andrae Griffith — April 18, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
I don’t know if I’d consider it “greenfield” since there’s not much greenspace around Townline Rd beneath such a crossing, just the 401.

Comment by Karl Junkin — April 18, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
It’s really good to see that people are talking and excited about the $1.4 billion announcement for us to build rapidways in York Region. My name is Jordan and I work for the people responsible for designing and building these rapidways. I’m also a Markham resident and wishing for ways to spend less time in my car!

Our head of communications started a blog to discuss all issues related to the next phase of rapid transit in York Region. He updates it about twice a week – usually Tuesdays and Fridays – and responds to most comments. Comm guy, what do you expect?

You should post whatever your thinking and feeling about transit – at least he has some influence over decisions about the project. You can find it at vivanext.com/blog.

Comment by Jordan — April 20, 2009 @ 8:36 am
Cleantraincoalition.ca
In case anybody here cares about green transit.

Comment by scottd — April 26, 2009 @ 11:30 am
I care about green transit and would welcome all GO lines to be electrified… But we have the funding to go ahead with the track improvements while we secure funding for the wires. I do not support sitting on that cash when it could be used for immediately improving transit to the people of Georgetown, Brampton, Malton and the west end of Toronto.

Comment by Andrae Griffith — April 26, 2009 @ 11:54 am
Andrae> I am convinced you do care. But what is the cost of peoples health? Has cost become the determining factor in EA’s? If look at the documentation they talk about considering electrification in 2015: thats 6 years away! So if money is short (and I am old enough to know that there is always money if enough people want something) why are we technically building a system twice ? That makes no money sense to me either. And given that electrified systems are cheaper in the long run to operate why don’t we just wait a bit longer and do it right. Its a sign of how poorly transit has been planned in Ontario that well meaning transit backers will accept anything because they are so scared that if they don’t take a second or third rate solution they will get nothing. Where did being being smart and pro transit go?

I would add that most people I know are in favour of expanded green transit in the West End even though most will get nothing from it.

Comment by scottd — April 26, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
If this is an issue of people’s health, then why not advocate for the entire GO system to be electrified, especially when Lakeshore trains are going to double in frequency next year?

Comment by Andrae Griffith — April 26, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
I do. And Lakeshore is already in the early process of planning for electrification. I would add that it makes no sense to build a new line that you are saying you will replace in 10 years. Thats the kind of planning that everybody hates governments for.

Comment by scottd — April 26, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
scottd: I have seen comments on a few blogs that say those electrical corridors will cause health issues. Others say the opposite.

To the rest:
Electrification just like all other methods to power the trains….will have GOOD and BAD, nothing is 100% good, nothing is 100% bad.

ALL sides have to be considered, not just electrification.

Some people have accused the WCC to be NIMBY. In a way I see how those people got to think WCC is NIMBY.

If you move next door to train tracks, guess what is going to be expected:

1) You seriously shut the hell up about the noise, don’t want noise from trains, then don’t move next to a train track
2) Rail corridors can expand with more tracks. again, don’t move next to the rail corridor

I live 2.5km west of the Stoufville/Linconville line, I am far enough that they will not expand it near my house. The reasons that I chose that house 2.5 km from the line:

1) I like the neighbourhood
2) It is far from the Stoufville/Linconville line and I far enough not to hear the noise.
3) I am a big rail fan, so I can go for a walk and just observe the trains go up and down the line.

It is like choosing to buy a house within let’s say 1-2km radius from Leaster B. Pearson International Airport.

Comment by Miroslav Glavic — April 26, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
I guess I just fail to see how installing wires is “rebuilding the line.” It’s an upgrade in my mind.

Electrification is supposed to come within six years, and it will take about 5-4 years to install the new tracks. We will probably agree to disagree, but I do have a feeling that this is going to be moot in the end.

Comment by Andrae Griffith — April 26, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Andrae,

what will happen to the service during those 4-5 years?
Service along Sheppard was horrible during the time the Sheppard stubway was being build+delay.

I am sure the same happened in the YUS and BD lines.

Comment by Miroslav Glavic — April 26, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
Hi Miroslav>

North America is going electric are catching up with the rest of the world. I will take my chances with what the rest of the world uses.

There is a nuance to this issue that many people are not picking up on so I will repeat. Most people along the entire length of the corridor WANT expanded transit as long as it is green. They are not exclusive concepts. A lot of the people who are calling people NIMBYs are not looking close enough to see that the position of West End Toronto starting downtown and heading to Weston is YIMBY. As well most people are not aware that GO is also planning to increase diesel on the Newmarket line which is only a block or so from the Georgetown line: air quality is an true issue.

The argument that “you should not have moved next to a rail line” is a bit lazy as it conveniently ignores local conditions and provides a blanket cover for polluting, which is what this issue is a bout for most.( I am not being rude and calling you lazy by the way. ) A great analogy is the Concorde. Everybody knows and understands why people were against it landing at most airports: concerns over hyper pollution. Nobody said because people lived near an airport that they should have to accept increased pollution of that magnitude. The rail lines along the corridor have been vanishing over the last 4o years as aerial photos show and for years rail was considered a dead technology. The West End Railpath is a former CP line that was dug up over 15 years ago because nobody wanted it. To start going on about what people “should have known” is as unfair as saying that people on Lansdowne should have know that it would be narrowed, or any other thing that happen. Change occurs. But this is about change for the better, not about change that repeats the pollution of the past; something that residents along the corridor DO know about.

Comment by scottd — April 26, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
Miroslav,

I suggest you attend a Metrolinx public meeting so that you have all the background and facts about the corridor as residents of the West End Toronto have done in droves.

You would then have heard the Metrolinx excuses that they cannot wait and go electric now because they would have to do a new EA, and electric is very complicated, expensive to build and hard to do (except everywhere else in the world). I am not saying I believe that at all but that is the “official” take so it makes you wonder why they don’t just wait and build it once (and have a lower carbon footprint overall).

I actually take a different view that is closer to yours. Electric is easy, Bombardier makes electric cars, the world is full of electric expertise including Amtrack and NY MTA, electric is greener, cheaper in the long run, and will not waste taxdollars with a second build (of a magnitude that we are not sure of). It boggles my mind that people are accepting this wasteful retro project. I guess we have been so starved for transit people will accept anything.

You wait, if they go with diesel in 10 years people will be trying to stop electrification saying it is a waste of the money already spent. And politically that will be hard for any government to ignore.

Comment by scottd — April 26, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
actually scottd, this thread is perfect example of what I am advocating.

FULL DISCLOSURE AND DISCUSSION OF ALL SIDES.

Going green takes an expensive front up cost.

For example, I would love to have solar panels heat up my water and a wind turbine or two to power my house………but:

1) I don’t have the $$ to buy/install the panels and turbine
2) What about the effects of the sound the turbines make? what is the long term effect?

We need to look at all aspects and questions need to be asked. Rushing into electrification can be an expensive mistake to fix. Do it the right way from the begining.

I am going to take something out of the High Speed Rail symposium yesterday: Electric trains might not be suitable for all areas.

I remember reading a comment about the new streetcar order and how one commenter didn’t like all the wires hanging around. What about him/her?

The overhead wires are looked by many people like eyesores.

The west end belongs to the west enders, not every west ender wants electrified trains.

You are going to pay for it, via some level of taxes or higher fares. To tell you the truth, I will not benefit from the Blue 22 being electrified, either than the price. I don’t live downtown. I can take TTC to York Mills subway station then go across to GO York Mills to catch a bus that goes to the Airport (via Yorkdale) thus avoiding downtown. I just posted some sides to this story. We all have different views, mix them together and voila = solution.

Comment by Miroslav Glavic — April 26, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
The big elephant in the room regarding electrification is rolling stock. GO Transit gains no real advantage by switching to hybrid locomotives. The advantage of running electric is the ability to run EMU trains. Locomotive hauled trains still have the same acceleration rates regardless of diesel or electric. EMUs would see GO trains accelerate as fast as the subway (the subway is itself an EMU consist).

The problem comes in GO making new investment in new rolling stock for its diesel operations. The reality is that GO by-and-large has enough fleet currently for its rush-hour operations, which can and should continue to be diesel for trips that originate beyond a certain point of demand along the line that only sees trains in rush hour, since demand in those farthest-flung areas is too low for electrification. For off-peak termini closer to Union Station, GO should start investing in fleet for EMU trains now, because it is these trains that will become the foundation and backbone of the GO network which would be reinforced in the rush hours by the farther-flung diesel service runs that would very likely make less stops than their electric counterparts (there’s a significant fuel efficiency in stopping less for a diesel loco-hauled train).

The same argument applies to the airport train. This is a service that will require a new fleet to provide the service. This investment should be in electric vehicles from day one. In both cases, for GO and the airport service, the investments they make now is going to last decades. They will not abandon new rolling stock in 6 years. Particularly the airport service, which will be responsible for about half of the passenger traffic on the Georgetown South corridor in 2025, and more than half in 2015 before GO service has increased to its 2025 level. That means that, if not electrified from the outset, the airport service would be running diesel trains for 30-40 years regardless of whether the electrification infrastructure is provided, because the private operator will have no incentive to invest in electric rolling stock before then.

If GO is planning to run reverse-peak service in peak periods on most lines, as their GO2020 release indicated is the plan, this will require additional rolling stock. This rolling stock should be electric as it would not go to the farthest-flung peak-only service area where the diesel consists would be originating in the morning and terminating in the evening. If GO keeps buying diesel locos and the current bilevel cars, however, then GO becomes reluctant to invest in electric rolling stock because of its existing investment in diesel. It’s an economics and business case argument. The decision on these investments must be made now in order to have a fiscally responsible expansion plan for the next 20 years.

GO’s FP40 locos need to be replaced anyway, and there’s no complaints about that. Diesel will continue to be used at rush hours regardless, except maybe on Lakeshore West (Lakeshore East is expected to have only rush-hour service to Bowmanville, which would presumably remain diesel). However, GO has 42 trains, 40 in service today and 2 more 10-car trains on order right now in Thunder Bay. That’s enough to split across 7 lines (including the new Bolton line minus the fully electrified service to Hamilton) during the rush hours for peak-direction only travel. They could run 6 trains on each line, which is at or above current service levels, except on Milton which is about to add another train very soon to its schedule (and Lakeshore, all of the current Lakeshore is electric in this scenario, only the Bowmanville extension isn’t). GO needs to wind down its investment in diesel rolling stock immediately, and start investing in an EMU fleet for its all-day network before it becomes an all-day network region-wide.

The current fleet is large enough to provide a transition phase if no reverse-peak service is provided at peak periods. This provides the breathing room space needed for electrification, as we all know this doesn’t happen overnight.

Laying the track now is fine, however, this plan and EA is including diesel rolling stock and the facilities for maintaining diesel rolling stock for the airport service (check the recent panels, the airport spur includes a small yard), and that’s a huge problem, especially since the airport train is not even close to a needed service (it only has a capacity of 480 people an hour, which is insignificant, the Eglinton LRT can carry 480 people in 5 minutes, nevermind an hour). Increasing service without investing in new rolling stock, which is possible for GO, is fine. However, Metrolinx is talking about service levels so high that new rolling stock will inevitably be required, and this new rolling stock needs to be electric. The airport service will inevitably require new rolling stock and that airport service will, even in 2031, be running more frequently than any single GO corridor’s service.

If service up to Mount Pleasant station, just west of Brampton, is electrified including the airport service, most passenger rail on the Weston Subdivision becomes electric (just Bolton service (which is actually on the MacTier Subdivision, which overlaps with Weston) and rush-hour trains from Georgetown or even Kitchener), and that is extremely significant. The Weston Subdivision will be seeing close to double the passenger rail traffic projected for the Oakville Subdivision (for Lakeshore West service) in 2015, and should therefore be the first in the electrification line. There is also a much stronger residential presence around the Weston Subdivision than the Oakville Subdivision, and that has significant social impacts, including the aforementioned health issue.

Comment by Karl Junkin — April 29, 2009 @ 1:17 pm