News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5K     0 

Update, in a later question Phil said he presented GO Expansion/RER to the PC Cabinet today. He mentioned how RER will save $35 billion in operational costs. He said that they were "switched on" to the idea. Also, it's still up to the bidders to determine catenary or hydrogen. Seems we're close to a decision on this.
Over what period of time would these savings of $35B be achieved?
 
Yes but I’m referring to those who will read this thread within the next week.
If it's like previous ones, you can watch it, just not live, for some time:

Ended 1 hour ago
Ask Metrolinx
Metrolinx
151 Charles St W, Kitchener, ON N2G 1H6, Canada
Ask Metrolinx Town Halls are your opportunity to ask our leadership questions about Metrolinx services, regional transit planning and anything top of mind for you....
More
WATCH AGAIN
Here: https://livestream.com/accounts/7089549/events/7965030/videos/188294293

I've just found the time to watch it now, albeit I'll be fast forwarding through a lot of the filler.
 
If it's like previous ones, you can watch it, just not live, for some time:

Ended 1 hour ago
Ask Metrolinx
Metrolinx
151 Charles St W, Kitchener, ON N2G 1H6, Canada
Ask Metrolinx Town Halls are your opportunity to ask our leadership questions about Metrolinx services, regional transit planning and anything top of mind for you....
More
WATCH AGAIN
Here: https://livestream.com/accounts/7089549/events/7965030/videos/188294293

I've just found the time to watch it now, albeit I'll be fast forwarding through a lot of the filler.
Take note, there was a lot of back and forth and some of the juicy bits were dropped during the back and forth with those asking questions in person. I was sitting in the front tow and I could tell that Ohil just wanted to go into much more detail.

You pretty much have to watch watch the whole thing without skipping.
 
Verster got moderated away from saying too much about where the Cabinet is at.

He did seem to imply that a flyover is in the works for Georgetown.

- Paul

He gave a killer description of all the infrastructure required for Kitchener service to be achieved without the bypass, and yes he did say new platforms and a flyover were needed for Georgetown. I'm super impressed at his knowledge level for such technical details.
 
Take note, there was a lot of back and forth and some of the juicy bits were dropped during the back and forth with those asking questions in person. I was sitting in the front tow and I could tell that Ohil just wanted to go into much more detail.

You pretty much have to watch watch the whole thing without skipping.
I got to 27:00, and the talk about the "By-Pass"...and my immediate thought was "Well, most of the same staff were there then, how can you expect me to accept the story you're telling now?"

I'll try and watch more later when I'm in the mood. I got taken-in by Verster in his first public interview which led me to post nice things in these forums, and the story that Jonathan English had featured here at UT.

I believed him. I was a fool. He's talking a very different story now on the By-Pass.

Addendum: Just looking to see who else online thought "I won't get fooled again" by Verster, and here's discussion on the UT interview I referenced above:
Benny Cheung | February 27, 2018 at 6:56 pm
Mr. Verster said on the Feb 1 interview with Urban Toronto that Union Station is not a capacity constraint. The gist of it is that there are 9 access tracks from the east and the west. There are more capacity at Union than the Paris equivalent.
At yesterday’s luncheon with the Board of Trade, Mr. Verster said that the Stouffville Line and Kitchener Line would form the outer U just like Line 1 is the inner U for rapid transit. Reading from these two articles, bypassing stations does not seem to make sense. How can these two GO lines function as the outer U if it does not stop at every station? There is no credibility in that.
I will talk about the Stouffville Line. There is some scope creep as Smart Track was added to the RER plan and perhaps Mr. Tory will pay for it. This corridor does not have room for triple tracks. However, if money is available, there is room to add sidings to certain stations. Smart Track Finch East is located on a road under bridge where the station is on top of the bridge. Metrolinx can build a wider bridge if they are willing to take space from the nearby parking lots and self storage business. Milliken GO is located on a bridge as well. Taking land from nearby businesses and parking lots are not hard. When Line 3 is decommissioned, there will be land to build a 4 track dual center platform stations at Smart Track Lawrence East.
If CBTC signalling is used, running 10 trains per hour per direction is possible. Mount Joy GO is only suppose to get 20 minutes single direction service per hour (rush) and 60 minutes bi directional (non rush). If 7 trains are local to Unionville GO and 3 goes express to Mount Joy, it is possible as long as stations have sidings. On midday, for every 5 trains, only 1 has to run express to Mount Joy GO, while the remaining 4 runs local to Unionville GO.
Here is another curve ball. The federal budget just approved a few million dollars to study VIA Rail’s High Frequency Rail project. If it proceeds, a service from Toronto to Quebec City via Peterborough will be built. Those trains might use the Stouffville Line as well. Even if it is an hourly service, there will be more traffic on that line.

Steve: There are a few issues in the inconsistencies in Verster’s remarks. In the Feb 1 interview, he talks about EMUs, but makes no mention of hydrogen trains. The recently released report on that technology makes it fairly clear that an “HMU” will have its limitations because of the space lost to the power storage and generation system. When asked about electrification at the Board of Trade, Verster launched into praise for “the hydrogen economy”, but then reverted to the claim that the technology decision will be up to the DMFOM bidders. There will be more details in the article about Hydrail I am partway through writing, but Verster seems to switch between praising hydrogen and attempting to give the impression Metrolinx has outsourced the decision.
As for Union Station, yes, the tracks per se are not the constraint, but how they are used is a big problem as Verster’s remarks make clear. The platform width problem is easy to address by selective track removal, but whatever is left must be capable of sustaining the future demand for platform time. There will also have to be hard decisions about which service uses which platform so that anomalies like the UPX’s need to traverse all of the Weston sub’s tracks to reach the north track at Union is eliminated. There is also the matter of signalling to allow more closely spaced trains as you note below. That will prove tricky on the portions of routes Metrolinx does not own and is another factor in deciding what the minimum service frequency can be on each branch of the network radiating from Union.
The recent embrace of the local/express service design fundamentally changes the track layouts needed to operate the service so that at a minimum there are passing opportunities and ideally separate tracks at least for peak direction operation. That also affects station design because at express stops all tracks must have access to platforms.
Yesterday in the media briefing, Verster was talking about dealing with grade crossings by putting that U-shaped line in a trench. Why he is not simply considering road-under crossings is beyond me, and there is no published report on this option. I cannot help thinking that he has heard fragments of ideas, but does not understand the details of where or how they would be implemented. The classic problem of a senior manager answering questions that should be left to the subject matter experts and, in the process, destroying his credibility and getting defensive when called out for it.
Many of the necessary changes are possible, but Metrolinx has farted around for too long without addressing the technical issues of how RER will actually operate. They have actually taken decisions (notably setting 15 minutes as the lower bound for any service) that avoid the need to plan for greater capacity they now may find is necessary.
 
Last edited:
^There was a definite change in Verster’s story from past town halls, when he described negotiations with CN as being the obstacle to Kitchener service... it now sounded that agreement has been reached quietly, and now the challenge is getting government commitment to spend. Since Ottawa promised money for Kitchener, and it’s almost election time, I expect the stars will align soon.

The odd about-face was how he talked about needing to have carefully prepared BCS’s for everything they do (hence no early prospect of Cambridge service) but that Kitchener, Niagara, and Bowmanville could proceed without them. My translation: this provincial government doesn’t run on fact, so whatever we can get them to fund, we’re doing - bcs or not.

One has to accept that many of the things that were talked about previously were actually grandiose window dressing that had little prospect of substance. In hindsight ML was sent down a rabbit hole by being directed to study these.... my complaint is that ML has always been a study factory rather than a design-construct-operate enterprise. I think Verster is probably reading the new government well in terms of not talking in megaproject terms and not asking for huge amounts that will provoke sticker shock. Perhaps putting out that failed Kitchener schedule was not so bad a move.... it cost him an apology, but convinced the government that a go-slow approach to 2WAD wasn’t a good idea politically.

- Paul
 
Im currently at this town hall, they also touched on the $75 million investment for the Kitchener alone and building slidings between Georgetown and Kitchener for counter morning service.

There are currently 33 at grade crossings Westward from Georgetown. They touched on the need to either close or grade separate to increase service levels.

I’m really excited by the answers Phil and his team are giving. They’re going in depth. Once the video is posted, I encourage watching it.

I can think of a few grade separations that could be worth it: Trafalgar Road west of Georgetown, Highway 7 and 25 at Acton (though both would be challenging - perhaps a bypass north of the railway is needed for through traffic), Main Street at Rockwood, Bingeman's, and Lancaster Street. Maybe Wellington Road 32. But all the major grade crossings in Guelph are done, and there are still plenty of rural crossings that shouldn't necessarily be grade separated unless it was work to build a higher speed line with frequent service. Hmmmm..
 
^ Fourth Line in Rockwood would also be a good candidate. It's a bit of a blind corner from the south and also lessens the chance of a train running into a combine decked out in festive decorations during the parade of lights.
 
I did watch more of the meeting last night up until the last half hour. I had to come up for air. My eyes glaze over when Metrolinx talks flyovers. They're everywhere in much of Europe. There must be at least twenty going into London on the commuter lines as they merge into mainlines, and have been for generations.

By the time sufficient flyovers and all the diversions, passing loops and machinations are done for the K/W route, it would have cost no more to build the Freight Bypass, all other advantages included. I found the meeting, by and large, a fantasy fest.

One thing that was interesting was James Smith's appearance at 47:00. He's a passing acquaintance from my time in Guelph. He speaks, and quite eloquently, for many in Guelph on the need to 'tie together' the western branches of GO service north to south, and Aldershot is the hub to doing that. Metrolinx responded on the (snore) "Business Case" for it. There isn't one in overhead traffic, no-one has been able to make it pay, but that belies the need for doing it. ML then mentioned (gist) "either single decker or double-decker"....but then (was it Woo?) stated, knowing that even a single decker would be overkill, (gist) "but we can take other forms into consideration, second parties such as Uber, etc". Wow! Now that was the only point of what I watched of what I did of the meeting that I considered a take-away. The rest was just musing, contrary to Phil's Philatio of "it's really happening".

GO needs to run two links (albeit I think in concert with the Regions, Counties and Cities involved) that can be combined into one: An "About Town" revisit type of 'airport van' to connect the K/W unis and GRT to Guelph and uni via Hwy 7 and then south via Aberfoyle and Waterdown to Aldershot. Perhaps run by a contractor, but fully GO fare inclusive with an operating subsidy from the local gov'ts. (Perhaps via GRT, Guelph Transit and Burlington/Hamilton transit)

This is policy for the here and now, can be implemented within months, and has next to zero risk. In fact, I'll check the Guelph and K/W media to see if this is mentioned. Any commuter system of size has to run connecting links that don't stand on the basis of "Business Case" in the orthodox sense, but are essential to underwrite the business case of the connections.

Some of the questions from the floor were awkwardly presented, but had brilliant points to make. That is one.

Addendum: Short on time to edit or look more fully, but today's Guelph Mercury (shared from K/W Record):
At least one more GO train coming to Kitchener in about a year, Metrolinx says
Improving service to Kitchener is “one of my three highest objectives,” agency’s CEO said in town hall.
NEWS 10:08 PM Waterloo Region Record

Phil Verster

Metrolinx CEO Phil Verster, second from right, said to a packed audience that they can “take comfort from this meeting that more services are coming within the next year, ish.” - Peter Lee , Waterloo Region Record
KITCHENER — Metrolinx will add at least another train between Kitchener and Toronto within a year or so, Metrolinx chief executive Phil Verster pledged in a town hall event in Kitchener Monday night.
Improving service to Kitchener is "one of my three highest objectives," Verster told the standing-room only crowd at the town hall.
As well as increasing the number of trains, GO is working to shorten the travel time, officials also said.

More than 150 people — with another 75 following online — packed the Communitech offices at the Tannery for the chance to hear from top brass at Metrolinx, the provincial body that runs the province's GO bus and train network.
"We're telling you that we are now increasing services," Verster said. "We've done the first increase in January. We had four trains in a day and we now have five. We intend to do more."
He said he couldn't be more specific because "it won't be wise for me to scoop a minister's announcement, but you can take comfort from this meeting that more services are coming within the next year, ish."
Questions about improved service to Kitchener dominated the 90-minute session.
Metrolinx holds town halls four times a year, though this is the first time one has been held outside Toronto.
Local business and government leaders have been pushing hard for the province to bring all-day, two-way GO train service to the region, saying it is crucial to this area's economy.
Metrolinx added a fifth train from Kitchener in January. They run weekday mornings between 5:15 a.m. and 7:10 a.m., and every weekday afternoon from 3:35 p.m. to 6:50 p.m. Ridership to and from Kitchener increased 5.4 per cent between April and November last year, with 41,000 people taking the train, averaging 237 people a day.

A key to improving service to Kitchener is dealing with a bottleneck in Georgetown, he said. Metrolinx has already signed a $75-million contract to address the bottleneck. When that work is complete next year, it will be possible to add more trains to Kitchener, he said.
Verster stressed that Metrolinx's abandonment of a plan to build a $4 billion to $5 billion freight bypass was a sign of its commitment to improve service to Kitchener, not a sign that it was less committed. Instead of building a very expensive bypass that would take years, Metrolinx negotiated with CN to build smaller "passing loops" to relieve bottlenecks along the line, he said.
"We don't have to build the freight bypass and we can get the services to Kitchener sooner," Verster said.

A shorter trip is also a priority, said Greg Percy, Metrolinx chief operating officer. "In no way should you interpret the current schedule as acceptable," he told the audience. His target is to trim the trip from two hours and five minutes to 90 minutes.
One reason for the slowdowns is the 33 level crossings between Georgetown and Kitchener, which force the trains to slow down. Metrolinx is negotiating with the municipalities where the crossings are located to see if some roads can be closed at the rail line.

cthompson@therecord.com

One further comment I must make at this time is again about the buses, and here and now (I'm beyond cynical on the train promises). The 30 route came up a few times in the meeting, and for the record, it does the distance Bramalea to K/W faster than the train does, albeit the train has stops. It's my opinion that the 30 should loop at Aberfoyle, which according to a couple of inspectors/planners I've spoken with, exact only a ten minute penalty. But the question has to arise why the route isn't extended to other connections further east when the day-time train isn't running? Bramalea is the middle of nowhere without that connecting train. And then there's the possibility of running it into Pearson to connect with UPX when the day train finished, but alas, that's a bitch-fest for another time.

I'd find Metrolinx a whole lot more believable if they delivered on the obvious here and now. And they can do a hell of a lot more with their buses, and do them in a few month time frame to deliver.

Btw: I was amazed the old GWR branch from Guelph to Cambridge came up yet again. It's next to unusable, it's only desperation that keeps the dead body coming to the surface. Not only are the rails and roadbed in atrocious shape, the physical infrastructure under it is too. Look! Squirrel, over there, on the tracks to Cambridge!
 
Last edited:
^There was a definite change in Verster’s story from past town halls, when he described negotiations with CN as being the obstacle to Kitchener service... it now sounded that agreement has been reached quietly, and now the challenge is getting government commitment to spend. Since Ottawa promised money for Kitchener, and it’s almost election time, I expect the stars will align soon.

The odd about-face was how he talked about needing to have carefully prepared BCS’s for everything they do (hence no early prospect of Cambridge service) but that Kitchener, Niagara, and Bowmanville could proceed without them. My translation: this provincial government doesn’t run on fact, so whatever we can get them to fund, we’re doing - bcs or not.

One has to accept that many of the things that were talked about previously were actually grandiose window dressing that had little prospect of substance. In hindsight ML was sent down a rabbit hole by being directed to study these.... my complaint is that ML has always been a study factory rather than a design-construct-operate enterprise. I think Verster is probably reading the new government well in terms of not talking in megaproject terms and not asking for huge amounts that will provoke sticker shock. Perhaps putting out that failed Kitchener schedule was not so bad a move.... it cost him an apology, but convinced the government that a go-slow approach to 2WAD wasn’t a good idea politically.

- Paul

By "BCS's" do you mean the Business Case Analysis?

Phil also said last night that they came to an agreement with CN on the "minimum infrastructure required" and that they'll spend $75 million on the Georgetown solution. I wonder when we'll know if they are going to spend anything on the two-track section through downtown Brampton.
 
My eyes glaze over when Metrolinx talks flyovers. They're everywhere in much of Europe. There must be at least twenty going into London on the commuter lines as they merge into mainlines, and have been for generations.
Flyovers in Canada are slightly more challenging, I would argue. The UK loading gauge is a bit more forgiving than having to allow for what Metrolinx/CN does, not to mention in Georgetown-Silver Junction the limited space between Silver Junction and the river to accomplish the transition.
175490
 
Metrolinx should build a replacement storage yard for Georgetown, either at Winston Churchill Boulevard or towards Limehouse, so it an handle 12-car trains and rebuild Georgetown Station so it is no longer subject to yard speed restrictions. VIA trains could then also stop at the north side of GO, leaving the south side for CN freights. The flyover/flyunder then can be somewhere where there's plenty of room, such as just west of Mount Pleasant Station.
 

Back
Top