[crs1026]

Totally agree this has to be fact and data based. One ought to revisit the ridership projections to see if the numbers are there.

It’s possible that peak service might fill a couple trains worth of business, but possibly by syphoning rides off other routes. The Highway 27/427 catchment will end up at Woodbine GO anyways. Bolton sits at the periphery of catchment for both Barrie RER and Kitchener RER, but I’m not sure we can afford to infill with another line. A better investment might be some level of east-west higher order transit that better links Vaughan destinations and communities.

I too oppose 413 on the general principle that building more highways in the GTA steals too much money from transit investment, and fundamentally we don’t want to encourage autocentric sprawl in that region. But I don’t have much of a handle on what the most important needs are. IMHO the paramount objective must be to discourage sprawl, so maybe adding transportation capacity at all is wrongheaded. It would be ironic if a group that claims to be fighting sprawl is advocating for an enabler of it.

Everything we were just discussing about CN and Niagara also applies. The Bolton line is CP’s main transcontinental freight thoroughfare. We are only hurting ourselves if we constrain CP’s freight business here, we need that traffic to flow smoothly. Doesn’t mean there can’t be GO there, but expect CP’s valid needs to be substantial and the cost of adding GO capacity on top of CP’s needs to be huge.

- Paul

 

[ShonTron]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1298301702802739201

More to this story:

Stranded at Bramalea GO: Metrolinx’s missed connections

While Metrolinx continues to build expensive new parking spaces, those who walk, bike, or take the bus to its stations can be made to feel like an afterthought. Especially when a connecting bus tri…

seanmarshall.ca

 

[Northern Light]

More to this story:

Stranded at Bramalea GO: Metrolinx’s missed connections

While Metrolinx continues to build expensive new parking spaces, those who walk, bike, or take the bus to its stations can be made to feel like an afterthought. Especially when a connecting bus tri…

seanmarshall.ca

Did GO satisfactorily address your trip cost/record on Presto?

Also curious, will the station building feature any food retail? Will there be meaningful improvements to the 'waiting' experience?

 

[lenaitch]

There are routes, and rolling stocks issues that have left the freights w/o ability to move product (freight) in a timely way, notably grain in western Canada.

I was not suggesting they maintain routes to far-flung places that have neither the freight nor passenger demand to justify such; or they retain capacity solely as a charitable exercise.

The failure to retain twin track, or some sidings, or to lengthen said siding to merely allowed two freights to pass one another has hampered the industry at times.

That's what I was noting.

Additional capacity for the sole or primary benefit of passenger travel is something that would either have to be funded by passenger rail/gov't or legislated.

*****


The idea is not to retain a route that can't be made to work economically, nor do so, in the context of this discussion, for any reason other than self-interest.

Retaining an E-W option across the near-north to Ottawa was entirely workable.

It was justified, if nothing else, by the disruption causes to freight service (and passenger) along the CN mainline in particular just last year.

But certainly you don't want that alternate line have 1-2 runs per week.

But an examination of CN Traffic shows an awful lot of traffic that passes through Toronto but is not bound for Toronto.

That makes a case for routing some of that traffic more directly to Ottawa, and points east.

****

There are other ways to address this; I have no objection to nationalizing all the track; and let the freights own and managing the rolling stock and pay for running rights.

I also have no objection to logical streamlining (there was no justification for 2 routes across the north); its frankly dubious whether CN and CP should both having mainlines running in tight parallel from Durham Region eastwards.

I'm certainly no rail historian, but the routing is largely historic, reflecting the needs and goals of the day. If I recall correctly, the original (now) CP Toronto-Montreal route was though Havelock until they decided to build a line between Belleville and Perth (ish).

Transcontinentally, there were actually 3 lines, with CN ending up owning two, before linking them at Nakina/Longlac and eventually abandoning the line through N/E Ontario and northern Quebec which was unprofitable.

Both national mainlines run through through Toronto because they have directed a lot of their transcontinental traffic through the US, re-emerging back into Canada at Windsor/Sarnia. The Ottawa Valley CP line carried bridge traffic between west and east which they apparently determined they could route through southern Ontario and save themselves the cost of maintaining the line. The ruthless bottom line driven cost cutting of Harrison et al no doubt did hurt the railways' own capacities, but kept the shareholders of the day happy. They probably worked acceptably until one piece - be it weather, a blockade, etc. - fell apart. The problems of capacity also involve the terminals (as we are currently seeing with the labour action in Montreal) but also, to a degree, the variabilities of a season crop.

We will always be faced with a very large country with a low and unevenly distributed population meaning, in freight movement terms, long stretches of infrastructure that provide no revenue. The protection and maintenance of a strategic national rail capacity is on the government, not the railways. I recall one plot element in Tom Clancey's 'Red Storm Rising' - which had the cold war going hot - was the ability of the Red Army to move troops and armour to the 'western front' being depended on a single switch in a Moscow railyard.

 

[smallspy]

Totally agree this has to be fact and data based. One ought to revisit the ridership projections to see if the numbers are there.

It’s possible that peak service might fill a couple trains worth of business, but possibly by syphoning rides off other routes. The Highway 27/427 catchment will end up at Woodbine GO anyways. Bolton sits at the periphery of catchment for both Barrie RER and Kitchener RER, but I’m not sure we can afford to infill with another line. A better investment might be some level of east-west higher order transit that better links Vaughan destinations and communities.

I too oppose 413 on the general principle that building more highways in the GTA steals too much money from transit investment, and fundamentally we don’t want to encourage autocentric sprawl in that region. But I don’t have much of a handle on what the most important needs are. IMHO the paramount objective must be to discourage sprawl, so maybe adding transportation capacity at all is wrongheaded. It would be ironic if a group that claims to be fighting sprawl is advocating for an enabler of it.

Everything we were just discussing about CN and Niagara also applies. The Bolton line is CP’s main transcontinental freight thoroughfare. We are only hurting ourselves if we constrain CP’s freight business here, we need that traffic to flow smoothly. Doesn’t mean there can’t be GO there, but expect CP’s valid needs to be substantial and the cost of adding GO capacity on top of CP’s needs to be huge.

- Paul

Historically, from GO's view, they have long wanted to run a service to and from Bolton. They even went so far as to create a service plan and a budget, earmarking a need for 5 trainsets.

But while Bolton would be nice, the real prize would be service to and from Woodbridge. And in that respect - at least prior to March - the ridership would be there.

I think that the real elephant in the room is CP, which is interesting - I've not heard much noise from inside GO on their part about their impact on the potential service, as opposed to the services to Milton and Hamilton (where GO would regularly complain about the short window for service, or the hard limit on train movements). The same 1990s report that laid out the requirement for 5 trains was also startlingly quiet on the infrastructure requirements to get the service in place and running. Perhaps the service was much closer to being a reality than anyone assumed?

Dan

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I see a Bolton line being more useful for the stations contained within Toronto.

Stops at Wilson, Sheppard, and Finch would be connect more neighbourhoods with rapid transit, connect with some feeder bus routes, and be surrounded by developable lots that might require some industrial conversion but seem like good development opportunities otherwise.

Potentially a stop at Steeles on the York Region side too, could allow for a good cluster of density.

 

[crs1026]

I think that the real elephant in the room is CP, which is interesting - I've not heard much noise from inside GO on their part about their impact on the potential service, as opposed to the services to Milton and Hamilton (where GO would regularly complain about the short window for service, or the hard limit on train movements). The same 1990s report that laid out the requirement for 5 trains was also startlingly quiet on the infrastructure requirements to get the service in place and running. Perhaps the service was much closer to being a reality than anyone assumed?

The 2010 Feasibility Study does appear to have had considerable input from CP and describes in moderate detail various options. As with all things CP, one has to consider which management team was in place at the time of the study.... things changed in June 2012. The study appears to have understood CP's intentions with respect to longer trains, but did not have a clear view of how GTS would turn out, and may have predated the Precision Scheduled Railroad discipline. (PS: That's not to disparage PSR... the point is, CP has reduced its transcontinental intermodal timings since 2012 by 24 hours. What was tolerable in 2010 may not be tolerable today)

Bolton service was promised by the government of the day in 2009, and was identified in the GO2020 strategy... but disappeared from planning documents by 2011. That likely coincided with other provincial fiscal cuts in 2011 (that's when Crosstown, for instance, was pared back to Mount Dennis).

The study is worded to sound like the 2011 CP would have accepted shared use for a nominal number of peak trains with some infrastructure improvements, but really wanted a new track built on the east side of the line. One wonders if the more recent management position might be closer to "stay the hell away from us".

- Paul

 

[robmausser]

I see a Bolton line being more useful for the stations contained within Toronto.

Stops at Wilson, Sheppard, and Finch would be connect more neighbourhoods with rapid transit, connect with some feeder bus routes, and be surrounded by developable lots that might require some industrial conversion but seem like good development opportunities otherwise.

Potentially a stop at Steeles on the York Region side too, could allow for a good cluster of density.

I actually envisioned a "SmartTrack 2.0" (ok lets call it GO RER 2.0... it was a while ago!) after the Missing Link was implemented (dark blue on map)

As the section you discussed and the Midtown GO line would both be freed up by it, and a "subway like" service would be possible.

 

[Allandale25]

^ I remember seeing this map when it was published and noting this small mistake where these tracks don't exist.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I see a Bolton line being more useful for the stations contained within Toronto.

Stops at Wilson, Sheppard, and Finch would be connect more neighbourhoods with rapid transit, connect with some feeder bus routes, and be surrounded by developable lots that might require some industrial conversion but seem like good development opportunities otherwise.

Potentially a stop at Steeles on the York Region side too, could allow for a good cluster of density.

The last GO Woodbridge/Bolton study I saw had the line routed North on the Newmarket line, West on the CN Halton sub and then back North on the CP Macteir sub that runs through Woodbridge/Bolton. Rather than the more logical GTS/Weston sub connection to CP Macteir.

I think this is absurd since it misses obvious opportunities for stations at Sheppard W (Possible connection to a Sheppard W LRT/BRT) and Finch W (Connection to Finch LRT) and even a commuter station near the 401. And the North West of Toronto is relatively underserved by transit to begin with.

I know the GTS/Weston corridor is quite busy but it's also the widest ROW in the region and I don't see why a 4 (or maybe 5) track ROW couldn't accommodate Via, UPX, GO Kitchener, CP and a GO Bolton service.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

As the section you discussed and the Midtown GO line would both be freed up by it, and a "subway like" service would be possible.

Even if the Missing Link and Midtown corridor doesn't come to fruition, I feel like this would still be a very worthwhile service.

Weston, Mt. Dennis, Stockyards, Bloor West, Liberty Village/Queen, Bathurst-Spadina would hit a lot of trip generators/destinations/transfer connections before eventually reaching Union Station.

Which can be fed by feeder buses and mixed-use intensification along the Bolton corridor at the locations I mentioned in the previous post (Wilson, Sheppard, Finch, maybe Steeles), along with Woodbridge and a suburban catchment station (or two?) at Elder Mills/Kleinberg/Nashville.

 

[crs1026]

I know the GTS/Weston corridor is quite busy but it's also the widest ROW in the region and I don't see why a 4 (or maybe 5) track ROW couldn't accommodate Via, UPX, GO Kitchener, CP and a GO Bolton service.

The 2010 study looked at routing via CN south of the Halton Sub as an alternative. For the reasons you suggest, it didn't rank favourably. But that's what studies do, consider options.

The only issue with a connection to the Kitchener line somewhere around Weston - Mount Dennis is, there would have to be be crossover movements as trains enter/exit the Kitchener line. This is an added complexity that could affect both express and local services. Not saying it isn't possible, but we don't know how GO intends to run things once the fourth track is built.

If the operating plan would require Bolton trains to cross over in front of express or even local trains, it's a problem, even though the 4-track line has loads of capacity. Crossover movements are the bane of high capacity multi track operations.

- Paul

 

[JasonParis]

I see a Bolton line being more useful for the stations contained within Toronto.

Stops at Wilson, Sheppard, and Finch would be connect more neighbourhoods with rapid transit, connect with some feeder bus routes, and be surrounded by developable lots that might require some industrial conversion but seem like good development opportunities otherwise.

Potentially a stop at Steeles on the York Region side too, could allow for a good cluster of density.

Woodbridge, and all of western Vaughan really, is probably one of the largest communities in the 905 to not have quick access to GO rail services. A Bolton line could address that.

 

[johntauren]

Bramalea absolutely sucks after hours.

I've spent 20, 30 minute periods waiting for the next BT bus after getting in super late at night from Union, and it's just bleak. Not even the washrooms are open, and is nothing in walking distance.

 

[Northern Light]

Bramalea absolutely sucks after hours.

I've spent 20, 30 minute periods waiting for the next BT bus after getting in super late at night from Union, and it's just bleak. Not even the washrooms are open, and is nothing in walking distance.

Consider (if you haven't) writing to Metrolinx, writing to your Councillor (who may have some influence); your provincial MPP; and/or tag all of them on Twitter w/a post about this.

Start w/the simple asks, washrooms open, staff present, and vending machines with drinks.

In a longer form communication discuss the bigger picture.

The need for retail, better landscape/streetscape, better active transportation infrastructure etc.

You may have already done these things, and if you have, I apologize for any presumption to the contrary.

But I feel its so very important not to settle for sub-par infrastructure or services.