[Monarch Butterfly]

Would the third GO line be something like this?:
(Map by Khalil Heron)View attachment 630080

That's for GO 3.0 in the 22nd century.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Would the third GO line be something like this?:
(Map by Khalil Heron)View attachment 630080

It really should make the (relatively) small diversion to YYZ.

 

[Ward8]

Yes, I was wondering if that'd be part of Go 2.0 or 3.0

Go 2.1?

 

[ARG1]

GO Expansion costs some unknown amount that is at least $15 billion and likely closer to $25 billion. If this isn't a megaproject, I don't know what is. This GO 2.0 crayon proposal, adding two lines and maybe with other things thrown in, is another massive megaproject announced when it seems that even Metrolinx and ONxpress haven't finalized the scope of GO Expansion. Will it include the Richmond Hill line? Kitchener GO to Kitchener? These seem like important questions to answer before starting "GO 2.0," whose name implies a megaproject. I worry that Metrolinx is taking too many projects into its hands, and this is constraining project management capacity (which we know they are in short supply of) and driving up costs. For that matter, we are hearing about value engineering on GO Expansion 1.0, which is a $24 billion project.

GO Expansion is not close to finishing construction. GO Expansion, as managed by ONxpress, is more accurately described as close to starting construction.

The issue I take with this is that "GO Expansion" isn't really a singular project, but rather a huge collection (or package) of small distinct projects that together push the goal of achieving sub 15m electrified service on the core of the GO Network. Whilst its marketed as a single cohesive project, and the term GO Expansion is useful a catch-all word to describe the transformation of the network, internally its being administered exactly as I described: A pipeline of various small projects that will inevitably lead up to a level of improvement. Of course this can be argued and we can have a discussion on the grounds of "What even is GO Expansion, and what counts as being part of GO Expansion?". For instance does Davenport Diamond, Aldershot 4th track, and the Heritage Road Layover Facility count as part of GO Expansion, or does GO Expansion only specifically include the fundamental organization transformations that will impact how GO operates such as OnCorr (or whatever actually became of that) and other major contracts?

An approach as you describe would be smaller. We tender GO Expansion to (for example) 7.5 minute headways on the Lakeshore Lines. Once construction starts, we start planning the next line. Once construction is complete, we move the crews to Stouffville. Then Barrie. Then Kitchener. Then Milton, etc., etc. And we approach projects with a coordinated set of construction timelines and line items that would allow us to gradually improve service, both today, and do more work in the future,, with minimal disruption and cost (see: Scarborough Junction Grade Separation), not by value engineering eleven-figure projects.

In a way that's kinda what we're doing, except its even more fine grained than this, with a lot of parallelization. You just don't hear about these smaller enabling works because Metrolinx is absolutely abysmal when it comes to PR, and actually the public what's going on behind the scenes. Labels like GO Expansion and GO 2.0 are more or less just political nonsense.

 

[rdaner]

^Of course the immediate impact of this will be the creation of instant value for many nodes along this route. MTSA zoning!

 

[DirectionNorth]

The issue I take with this is that "GO Expansion" isn't really a singular project, but rather a huge collection (or package) of small distinct projects that together push the goal of achieving sub 15m electrified service on the core of the GO Network. Whilst its marketed as a single cohesive project, and the term GO Expansion is useful a catch-all word to describe the transformation of the network, internally its being administered exactly as I described: A pipeline of various small projects that will inevitably lead up to a level of improvement. Of course this can be argued and we can have a discussion on the grounds of "What even is GO Expansion, and what counts as being part of GO Expansion?". For instance does Davenport Diamond, Aldershot 4th track, and the Heritage Road Layover Facility count as part of GO Expansion, or does GO Expansion only specifically include the fundamental organization transformations that will impact how GO operates such as OnCorr (or whatever actually became of that) and other major contracts?

Certainly true, and fair points.

I still believe that we are getting ahead of ourselves. The 2041 Regional Transportation Plan does not, to my quick scroll-through, include Midtown, while Bolton is listed as a post-2041 project, which GO 2.0 very well may be. Metrolinx is not giving me too much confidence in their abilities to manage projects - and certainly, something has gone wrong with the ONxpress program as they are still not in charge of operations, three years after that contract was signed.

The fact that a crayon drawn on a website during an election campaign (if this were coming from any other source, I'd suggest the Fantasy Maps Thread instead) is the first we're hearing about this is, in my eyes, the bigger issue - but politicization of transit is too well established in Ontario and, I think, not going to be broken during the Doug Ford reign. /sigh

 

[rbt]

Certainly true, and fair points.

I still believe that we are getting ahead of ourselves. The 2041 Regional Transportation Plan does not, to my quick scroll-through, include Midtown, while Bolton is listed as a post-2041 project, which GO 2.0 very well may be. Metrolinx is not giving me too much confidence in their abilities to manage projects - and certainly, something has gone wrong with the ONxpress program as they are still not in charge of operations, three years after that contract was signed.

Since it takes Metrolinx 10 years to go from announcement to start of construction [for large GO projects] if you want something complete in 2041 then we need to make the announcement today.

 

[Rogue2016]

PCs promise ambitious GO Transit expansion. But experts question its feasibility​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/go-transit-expansion-election-1.7453929

 

[WB62]

Here’s a map I made that shows the proposed station locations and connections from this iteration of the Midtown Line:

 

[sixrings]

Here’s a map I made that shows the proposed station locations and connections from this iteration of the Midtown Line:

View attachment 630688

Nice map. Maybe the midtown line could simply branch and end at MCC.

That way you have Mississauga served by the midtown line from MCC. The Milton line from Dundas. And the lakeshore line from port credit. That actually would be a good mix.

 

[Aplus23]

So in theory if we built a MSF somewhere along this corridor you could make this into some sort of light metro subway style line?

 

[smallspy]

So in theory if we built a MSF somewhere along this corridor you could make this into some sort of light metro subway style line?

Only if we completely separate it from the rest of the North American railway network. And it may not be a bad idea to grade separate all of the level crossings, too.

Dan

 

[micheal_can]

So in theory if we built a MSF somewhere along this corridor you could make this into some sort of light metro subway style line?

Why light metro?
Why not the bilevels GO uses?

 

[ARG1]

Why light metro?
Why not the bilevels GO uses?

In theory a light metro would allow more flexibility for the route to veer off to serve important destinations and provide better connections, whilst saving on operations and maintenance costs in the long term. For instance, you could have the light metro divert from the corridor to have a direct interchange at Sheppard-McCowan and a better connections to Line 2/4, rather than forcing everyone to walk 400-500m like at Main Street-Danforth. Building such infrastructure with BiLevels in mind would significantly increase the capital costs for any such diversions.

 

[micheal_can]

In theory a light metro would allow more flexibility for the route to veer off to serve important destinations and provide better connections, whilst saving on operations and maintenance costs in the long term. For instance, you could have the light metro divert from the corridor to have a direct interchange at Sheppard-McCowan and a better connections to Line 2/4, rather than forcing everyone to walk 400-500m like at Main Street-Danforth. Building such infrastructure with BiLevels in mind would significantly increase the capital costs for any such diversions.

The money saved for the 500m diversion would not equal the added benefits of removing that distance. As others said, they would nit be compatible with the existing rail infrastructure, which would cause even more problems with the possible savings.