CAMBRIDGE TO MILTON PASSENGER RAIL BUSINESS CASE AND ...€¦ · CAMBRIDGE TO MILTON PASSENGER RAIL...

CAMBRIDGE TO MILTON

PASSENGER RAIL

BUSINESS CASE AND

IMPLEMENTATION

STRATEGY

Final Report

October 2014

C A M BRI D G E T O M I L T O N P A S S E N G E R RA I L

BU S I N E S S C A S E A N D I M P L E M E N T A T I ON S T RA T E G Y

DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED IN ASSOCIATION WITH HATCH MOTT MACDONALD

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Cambridge and Region of Waterloo are requesting the Province to initiate GO Train service

on the CP rail line between Milton and Cambridge as quickly as possible.

A Feasibility Study for the extension of intercity passenger rail service to Cambridge was completed in

2009 and determined that the preferred routing option was to extend the current GO Train service from

Milton rather than connecting Cambridge to the GO Train service on the north mainline at Guelph. The

2009 Passenger Rail Feasibility Study (2009 Study) includes estimates for capital and operating costs and

provides ridership and revenue forecasts for 2021 and 2031 horizon years. The study assumed that the

service extension would follow GO Transit’s traditional approach of starting the new service with four

peak period trains and increasing the number of peak period trains in response to demand.

The team of Dillon Consulting Limited and Hatch Mott MacDonald was retained by the City of Cambridge

to augment the 2009 Study by developing three additional scenarios that build on the previous work;

explore the opportunity to start the train service quickly and with lower investment; test other

important transit travel markets and promote a less auto-centric approach to station access and

commuter service design.

Scenario 1 starts the new service with two 12-car GO Trains, no storage yard in Cambridge and three

(rather than four) stations of minimum design. This Scenario was developed to represent the fastest

possible implementation with the lowest initial capital investment. The final investment requirements

and timing of the start-up of service will require further negotiation between CP and GO Transit.

Metrolinx is acquiring Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) trains to provide a passenger rail connection from

Union Station to Pearson International Airport and these vehicles are designed to be suitable for

operation on a freight rail line1 . This technology (which can operate as a self-propelled single vehicle or

in multiple car train sets), may provide new and significant intercity passenger rail opportunities when

applied more broadly on the GO Rail network. Scenario’s 2 and 3 were designed to use the Cambridge

rail service extension to test DMU flexibility, performance, operating cost, customer acceptance,

infrastructure requirements and its ability to address intercity passenger rail markets. Scenario 2 uses

only DMU technology for the Cambridge to Milton rail service and tests a variety of transit travel

markets. Scenario 3 uses a blend of DMU vehicles and 12-car trains for the service.

DMU’s in the appropriate applications will have some significant advantages over the traditional 12-car

trains, including: lower operating costs (reduced energy consumption and crewing); improved

acceleration/deceleration performance giving faster trip times; lower infrastructure costs through

shorter platform/siding requirements; reduced physical impacts in an urban environment (e.g. shorter

delays at level crossings); greater ability to be integrated with local transit buses and LRT’s in multimodal

1 Note: CP expressed concerns with mixing DMU’s and freight services on its rail line and these potential concerns

need to be discussed with CP prior to moving forward.




ii

stations (due to the shorter platform requirements, which makes integration into an urban multi-modal

station much easier); and improved reliability of the total corridor (e.g. delays on the outer DMU section

of the corridor would not affect 12-car train service on the inner section of the corridor).

Customer reaction to the DMU’s (including AODA compliance), ridership impacts of a ‘train-to-train’

transfer and a host of scheduling, operational and equipment compatibility issues are potential concerns

and will also need to be tested and assessed.

Either through the traditional approach of implementing 12-car trains or by testing promising DMU

technology for intercity passenger rail service, residents and employers in Cambridge are seeking the

earliest possible implementation of GO Train service. Other municipalities along the full service corridor

will also benefit, through new stations, provision of an improved intercity passenger rail service for their

residents and employees, and the development of a transit option for regional travel markets.

The close proximity of the CP rail line to the heavily congested Highway 401, combined with the fast and

reliable travel times that will be possible for rail commuters on this corridor, suggest a great opportunity

for the Province to achieve positive economic and environmental results from the early implementation

of GO Train service to Cambridge.

The Table below summarizes the results of the previous business case and the three new scenarios. The

significant advantages of applying DMU technology on the GO Rail network, including the opportunity to

address more regional travel markets with a high quality transit service, suggest that Scenario 2 would

be an excellent application for the Milton to Cambridge service extension.

Summary of Ridership, Revenue and Costs for GO Train Expansion to Cambridge (2021 Horizon)

Scenario Annual Ridership Annual Revenue Annual

Operating Cost Capital Cost

Low High Low High

2009 Feasibility Study

4 peak GO Trains 225,600 415,100 $1.9M $3.6M $3,8M $110M

Scenario 1

2 peak GO Trains 142,800 285,600 $1.2M $2.5M $2M $32M to $85M

Scenario 2

4 DMU trains 134,800 293,100 $1.2M $2.5M $20M to 73M

Scenario 3

2 DMU, 2 GO Trains 150,100 301,600 $1.3M $2.6M $35M to 89M

Notes:

1. All Revenue, Operating and Capital Costs in $2009

2. Ridership forecast is for 2021

3. GO Train refers to traditional 12-car consist

4. Annual operating costs for DMU’s are not yet known but will be less than 12-car GO Trains




iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1

2.0 THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO INTRODUCING GO TRAIN SERVICE .......................................3

2.1 2009 BUSINESS CASE: FOUR PEAK TRAINS GROWING TO 7 PEAK TRAINS ......................................................... 4

2.1.1 Description of the Scenario’s ................................................................................................ 4

2.1.2 Station and Yard Locations .................................................................................................. 4

2.1.3 Proposed Train Schedules .................................................................................................... 4

2.1.4 Capital Expenditures ............................................................................................................ 5

2.1.5 Operating Costs .................................................................................................................... 6

2.1.6 Ridership and Revenue ......................................................................................................... 6

2.2 SCENARIO 1: TWO PEAK PERIOD 12-CAR GO TRAINS ................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Description of the Scenario .................................................................................................. 6

2.2.2 Station Locations .................................................................................................................. 6

2.2.3 Proposed Train Schedule ...................................................................................................... 7

2.2.4 Capital Costs (CAPEX) ........................................................................................................... 7

2.2.5 Operational Costs ................................................................................................................. 8

2.2.6 Ridership and Revenue ......................................................................................................... 8

2.3 SUMMARY TABLES FOR THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH ................................................................................. 10

2.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH ........................................................................................... 11

3.0 DIESEL MULTIPLE UNITS (DMUS) .......................................................................................... 12

3.1 TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF A DMU ....................................................................................................... 13

3.2 DMU COMPATIBILITY WITH FREIGHT RAIL EQUIPMENT AND OPERATIONS ...................................................... 17

3.3 DMU’S AND CANADIAN CONTENT .......................................................................................................... 18

4.0 DEMONSTRATING SOME NEW APPROACHES ........................................................................ 19

4.1 SCENARIO 2: FOUR PEAK PERIOD HEAVY DMUS ....................................................................................... 19

4.1.1 Description of the Scenario ................................................................................................ 19

4.1.2 Station Locations ................................................................................................................ 20

4.1.3 Proposed Operational Schedule ......................................................................................... 20

4.1.4 Capital Costs ...................................................................................................................... 21

4.1.5 Operational Costs ............................................................................................................... 21

4.1.6 Ridership and Revenue ....................................................................................................... 21

4.2 SCENARIO 3: HYBRID SERVICE WITH DMU’S AND 12 CAR GO TRAINS IN THE PEAK PERIOD ............................... 23

4.2.1 Description of the Scenario ................................................................................................ 23




iv

4.2.2 Station Locations ................................................................................................................ 23

4.2.3 Proposed Train Schedule .................................................................................................... 24

4.2.4 Capital Costs ...................................................................................................................... 25

4.2.5 Operating Costs .................................................................................................................. 25

4.2.6 Ridership and Revenue ....................................................................................................... 25

4.3 SUMMARY TABLES FOR NEW APPROACHES USING DMU TECHNOLOGY ......................................................... 27

5.0 STAKEHOLDER POSITIONS .................................................................................................... 28

5.1 METROLINX/GO TRANSIT...................................................................................................................... 29

5.2 CP RAIL ............................................................................................................................................. 29

5.3 MUNICIPALITIES ALONG THE CORRIDOR ................................................................................................... 30

6.0 STATION CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................. 31

6.1 TYPICAL GO STATION CONFIGURATION .................................................................................................... 31

6.2 LONGER TERM GO TRAIN STATION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................. 36

7.0 SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................ 38

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Capital and Operating Costs

Appendix B - Ridership and Revenue Forecasting

Appendix C - Potential Site Locations

TABLES

Table 1 – Prototype Schedules for 2011 and 2021 Scenarios (2009 Feasibility Study) ................................ 5

Table 2 – Estimated Capital Costs (CAPEX, 2009 Feasibility Study) .............................................................. 5

Table 3 – Annual Ridership, Revenue and Operating Costs (2009 Feasibility Study) ................................... 6

Table 4 – 2021 Scenario 1 Ridership Forecasts ............................................................................................. 9

Table 5 – Scenario 1 – 2021 Revenue Forecasts ........................................................................................... 9

Table 6 – Comparison of Ridership, Revenue and Costs for Traditional GO Train Expansion to

Cambridge ................................................................................................................................................... 10

Table 7 – 2021 Scenario 2 Ridership Forecasts ........................................................................................... 22




v

Table 8 – 2031 Scenario 2 Ridership Forecasts ........................................................................................... 22

Table 9 – Scenario 2 Revenue Forecasts ..................................................................................................... 23

Table 10 – 2021 Scenario 3 Ridership Forecasts ......................................................................................... 26

Table 11 – 2031 Scenario 3 Ridership Forecasts ......................................................................................... 26

Table 12 – Scenario 3 Revenue Forecasts ................................................................................................... 26

Table 13 – 2021 Horizon Comparison of Ridership, Revenue and Costs for Traditional GO Train

Expansion to Cambridge ............................................................................................................................. 27


Expansion to Cambridge ............................................................................................................................. 27

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Potential Passenger Rail Corridor Connections from Cambridge (2009 Feasibility Study) .......... 4

Figure 2 – Scenario 1 Train Schedule to Cambridge ..................................................................................... 7

Figure 3 – Proposed Scenario 2 Schedule ................................................................................................... 20

Figure 4 – Proposed Scenario 3 Schedule ................................................................................................... 24

Figure 5 – Typical GO Station Layout: Double sided with Integrated Bus Facility ...................................... 33

Figure 6 – Map of Tremaine Road Widening and Realignment .................................................................. 35

Figure 7 – Map of the Morriston Bypass..................................................................................................... 36




vi

this page left intentionally blank




1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Having completed the 2009 Passenger Rail Feasibility Study (2009 Feasibility Study) for the provision of

intercity passenger rail service between Cambridge and the Toronto area, the team of Dillon Consulting

Limited and Hatch Mott MacDonald were retained to develop some new scenarios that would

complement and expand upon the previous study.

Metrolinx/GO Transit have indicated that a minimum market entry for a community to receive intercity

passenger rail service is the provision of four peak period, peak direction trains. As demand increases

more peak trains are added and ultimately the corridor is upgraded to all-day, two-way service. The

service is provided by 12-car trains and the train schedule is designed for commuters destined to

employment within a short distance of Union Station. For almost 50 years, GO Transit has enjoyed great

success in addressing this market and implementing its approach to service upgrades.

The 2009 Passenger Rail Feasibility Study followed this traditional approach and the capital and

operating cost, ridership and revenue forecasts in that report are considered good estimates (subject to

final negotiations between GO Transit and CP which owns the rail corridor). Recognizing that the capital

cost estimate of $110 M might be an impediment to early implementation, Scenario 1 is developed to

reflect a lowest cost and fastest implementation strategy. While starting service with two peak period

trains is not preferred, this strategy has been used in other corridors and may be more effective when

applied to a Cambridge service given the excellent travel times that are possible in this corridor. Section

2.0 of this report describes the traditional approach for extending GO Train service as developed in the

2009 Feasibility Study and supplemented by Scenario 1.

Since the 2009 study, Metrolinx has acquired a new vehicle technology which will be used in its Union to

Pearson Express service. Self-propelled, Diesel Multiple Units (DMU’s) can be compatible with mixed

operation in a freight rail corridor and present some significant opportunities for application on a

Cambridge extension and other parts of the GO Rail network2. Section 3.0 describes the DMU and its

potential applications.

A limitation of the traditional approach to implementing and upgrading GO Train service is that some

significant travel markets are not provided with an attractive transit option. Train schedules that are

developed for employment start/stop times near Union Station, are often not convenient for travel to

employment opportunities near other stations along the corridor. As well, the long time period before

2 Note: CP expressed concerns with mixing DMU’s and freight services on its rail line and these potential concerns

need to be discussed with CP prior to moving forward.




2

implementing ‘two-way’ service in the corridor means that many regional travel markets are not

provided a timely rail transit option. A further concern involves the large car parking lots typically

associated with the design of GO Rail stations. Particularly in urban cores areas, such as downtown

Cambridge or Milton, it is very important to have a more efficient land use and a transit supportive

environment around rail stations to achieve community sustainability and intensification goals.

Section 4.0 of this report attempts to address these limitations by capitalizing on the potential

advantages of the new DMU technology. Scenario 2 uses four DMU’s to provide peak period service

between Cambridge and Milton and allows passengers to connect with four of the eight peak period 12-

car GO Trains at Milton. With this approach it is also possible to immediately provide a rail transit option

using the DMU’s for other regional labour force mobility markets (i.e. Milton residents working in

Cambridge) and to address midday and evening travel markets in both directions. Scenario 3 is a hybrid

in which two 12-car trains are extended from Milton to provide peak period service to/from Cambridge

and two DMU’s are used to augment this peak service. If Scenario 3 is selected, the DMU’s could also be

used to test the additional travel markets noted above.

Section 5.0 provides a brief summary of the positions of various stakeholders, including Metrolinx/GO

Transit, CP, and municipalities along the corridor. Section 6.0 provides some commentary on potential

GO station locations along the corridor both in the immediate and longer term. There is an urgent need

to move ahead quickly with this initiative and allow the municipalities to plan and protect for ultimate

station locations that are consistent with their community sustainability, intensification and local transit

integration goals.




3

2.0 THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO INTRODUCING GO TRAIN

SERVICE

The 2009 Feasibility Study is fully documented in Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports prepared by the

consultant team of Hatch Mott MacDonald and Dillon Consulting Limited. These reports were circulated

and presented to GO Transit, CP and municipal councils in the Region of Waterloo and City of

Cambridge.

The Phase 1 report assessed the preferred intercity passenger rail routing to connect Cambridge with

Toronto. The two options (Figure 1) involved connecting Cambridge to Guelph using the Fergus

subdivision and linking to the north mainline GO Train extension from Georgetown or to extend the GO

Train service from Milton to Cambridge in the CP corridor.

The Milton extension option was recommended with a key determinant being the reduced travel time

possible using the CP corridor. The 2009 Feasibility Study does recommend that the Fergus sub be

designated by the municipalities for a potential intercity passenger rail transit link between Cambridge

and Guelph.

In the 2009 Feasibility Study, there were up to seven peak period trains in operation between Milton

and Union Station and preliminary cost estimates were developed based on initial CP estimates for the

expansion requirements to accommodate passenger trains on this mainline freight corridor. Four new

stations and a storage facility in Cambridge were included and double tracking was required for about

two-thirds of the 26 mile extension. Operating costs for the extension of service were estimated by

taking a pro rata of existing costs, ridership was forecasted for 2021 and 2031 horizon years and this

ridership was then converted to expected passenger revenue using formulas provided by GO Transit. All

costs and revenues were expressed in 2009$ and subject to final negotiations between GO Transit and

CP.




4

Figure 1 – Potential Passenger Rail Corridor Connections from Cambridge (2009 Feasibility Study)

2.1 2009 Business Case: Four Peak Trains Growing to 7 Peak Trains

2.1.1 Description of the Scenarios

For 2021 it was assumed that four of the seven existing 12-car GO Trains would be extended from

Milton to Cambridge operating eastbound only in the AM peak and westbound only in the PM peak. For

2031, all seven peak period trains would be extended to Cambridge and for three of these runs, a semi-

express schedule would be adopted.

2.1.2 Station and Yard Locations

Four new stations were assumed at Cambridge Central (near Water/Samuelson), Cambridge East (near

Franklin Blvd/Dobbie Drive), Puslinch (near Highway 6) and at Campbellville (or Tremaine Road). Costs

were estimated for both rural and urban station designs with associated parking requirements (500 cars

initially with expansion possible for 500 additional cars). A new storage yard was assumed to be required

in the Cambridge area.

2.1.3 Proposed Train Schedules

Train running times were estimated based on performance characteristics of the 12-car trains and the

specifics of the track geometry and corridor speed zones. Schedules were developed for the 2021 and

2031 scenarios and are illustrated in Table 1 below. It is recognized that the Union-Milton GO service

now has eight peak period trains with a new schedule. While the 2009 analysis will require updating, the

results are still illustrative of the business case for a Cambridge service extension and have the benefit of

previous input and review by all stakeholders.




5

Table 1 – Prototype Schedules for 2011 and 2021 Scenarios (2009 Feasibility Study)

2.1.4 Capital Expenditures

The estimated capital cost for implementing these scenarios was $110 M (in 2009$) with the

understanding that this estimate would be subject to final negotiations between CP and GO Transit. A

breakdown of the estimate is provided below with full details in the Phase 2 report.

Table 2 – Estimated Capital Costs (CAPEX, 2009 Feasibility Study)

Item Amount

Property $ 2,625,000

Civil Work $12,535,000

Track $28,595,000

Structures $12,181,500

Signals $15,241,500

Stations and Yards $38,750,000

Total $109,928,000

EASTBOUND SCHEDULES

Cambridge Central 6:11 6:31 6:46 7:16

Cambridge East 6:15 6:35 6:50 7:20

Puslinch 6:25 6:45 7:00 7:30

Campbellville 6:34 6:54 7:09 7:39

Milton 6:48 7:08 7:23 7:53

Lisgar 6:56 7:16 7:31 8:01

Meadowvale 7:00 7:20 7:35 8:05

Streetsville 7:05 7:25 7:40 8:10

Erindale 7:10 7:30 7:45 8:15

Cooksville 7:15 7:35 7:50 8:20

Dixie 7:20 7:40 7:55 8:25

Kipling 7:25 7:45 8:00 8:30

Union 7:42 8:04 8:20 8:50

WESTBOUND SCHEDULES

Union 16:50 17:10 17:40 18:10

Kipling 17:06 17:26 17:56 18:26

Dixie 17:11 17:31 18:01 18:31

Cooksville 17:17 17:37 18:07 18:37

Erindale 17:23 17:43 18:13 18:43

Streetsville 17:28 17:48 18:18 18:48

Meadowvale 17:34 17:54 18:24 18:54

Lisgar 17:37 17:57 18:27 18:57

Milton 17:48 18:08 18:38 19:08

Campbellville 18:00 18:20 18:50 19:20

Puslinch 18:09 18:29 18:59 19:29

Cambridge East 18:20 18:40 19:10 19:40

Cambridge Central 18:25 18:45 19:15 19:45

GO

Sch

ed

ule

s

as o

f Ju

ne 2

7 - 0

9

GO

Sch

ed

ule

s

as o

f Ju

ne 2

7 - 0

9

Po

ten

tial

+37 m

in

Po

ten

tial

+37 m

in




6

2.1.5 Operating Costs

For the 2021 four train service, the operating cost estimate was $3.8M and for the 2031 seven train

service, the annual operating cost estimate was $4.8M with estimates based on a pro rata of new

service versus existing service in the corridor.

2.1.6 Ridership and Revenue

Ridership and revenue forecasting techniques are fully described in the 2009 Feasibility Study Phase 1

and Phase 2 reports. Table 3 below illustrates the range of potential ridership, revenue (high and low

estimates) and operating cost estimates for the 2021 and 2031 scenarios.

Table 3 – Annual Ridership, Revenue and Operating Costs (2009 Feasibility Study)

2.2 Scenario 1: Two Peak Period 12-Car GO Trains

2.2.1 Description of the Scenario

Scenario 1 is the extension of two (rather than four) existing 12-car GO Trains from Milton to Cambridge

operating eastbound only in the AM peak period and westbound only in the PM peak period.

2.2.2 Station Locations

This scenario includes three (3) new station locations:

Cambridge Central (near Water/Samuelson);

Cambridge East (near Franklin/Townline);

Campbellville or Tremaine; and

Milton (existing).

Low High Low High Low High

2011 529 935 133,919 236,609 $1,115,000 $2,016,000 $3,833,000

2021 892 1,641 225,601 415,093 $1,902,000 $3,573,000 $3,833,000

2031 1,538 2,829 389,098 715,698 $3,366,000 $6,275,000 $4,792,0001.

Two-way ridership estimate2. Annual ridership based on 253 days a year (five days per week, two-way travel, excluding statutory holidays)

3. Operating Costs based on per mile cost generated by GO Transit

Horizon

Year

Daily Ridership1

Annual Ridership2

Annual Revenue Annual Operating

Cost3




7

The assumption is that these new station locations would initially be constructed to minimum standards

in the context of what may be provided at traditional GO Rail stations (new stations assumed to initially

contain fewer amenities, less parking, no buildings, etc.). The Puslinch station was dropped initially due

to concerns by the municipalities about the need for a Hwy 6 bypass at Morriston prior to introducing

more car traffic in to the area.

2.2.3 Proposed Train Schedule

In the AM peak period eastbound direction, the service would include a train departing Cambridge

Central Station at 6:09am and 6:39am, which would then depart Milton Station at 6:43am and 7:13am

respectively.

In the PM peak period westbound direction the service would extend the trains arriving at Milton

Station at 5:28pm and 6:23pm, which would then arrive at Cambridge Central Station at 6:03pm and

6:58pm respectively.

The following train schedule includes timings for these trips as well as indicative timings for the

remainder of the eight (8) Milton-Union trips for reference. The times selected were considered

attractive for Cambridge commuters but alternatives might need to be considered based on the

available capacity on the existing runs.

Figure 2 – Scenario 1 Train Schedule to Cambridge

2.2.4 Capital Costs (CAPEX)

Capital cost estimates for this scenario range from $32M to $85M depending on the final inclusion

requirements of rail corridor infrastructure costs previously carried in the 2009 study. For consistency of

the new scenarios with the previous business case, all costs estimates remain in 2009 $ and will still be




8

subject to final negotiations between CP and GO Transit. No rail equipment has been included in these

costs as the extension of service is based on using trains from the existing fleet.

CAPEX costs for this scenario do not include provision for a layover yard as discussions with GO Transit

indicated that there was sufficient storage at the existing Milton GO layover facility.

A detailed capital cost breakdown can be found in Appendix A.

2.2.5 Operational Costs

Operational costs are estimated to be in the order of $2M per year based on the cost data provided in

the 2009 study and prorated for the number of trips in this scenario.


Ridership and revenue forecasts for Scenario 1 were developed using the same methodology as the

2009 Feasibility Study. The approach to estimating ridership is detailed in Appendix B. As in the

previous study, two approaches were used to calculate ridership:

1. Trips to Union Station were based on the Greater Toronto Transportation Model, by establishing

a trip rate per population within the catchment area of the two Cambridge and Campbellville

stations;

2. Trips to intermediate stations were forecasted by assessing a transit mode share potential and

applying this to all trips (TTS survey results) made between the Cambridge/ Campbellville

catchment areas and the destination catchment areas.

Ridership forecasts for this scenario are illustrated in Table 4. These include new trips made to all

stations along the corridor. Trips to Union Station represent approximately 90 percent of total ridership

along the corridor in 2021. This high attraction to Union Station is due to a number of factors; primarily,

the accessibility to many large and unique employers near Union Station, the high quality of local transit

connections and the challenges for auto drivers with congestion on access roads and parking (pricing

and supply) within this catchment area. No other station within the GO Rail network has this

combination of elements to make it as attractive a destination point for GO Train passengers. Also, since

the train schedule is set for convenient arrival/departure times at Union Station, the times for

Cambridge travelers destined to intermediate stations are not as attractive.

It should be noted that the ridership forecasts presented below represent a significant reduction from

the 2009 Feasibility Study. This is due to an assumed decrease in the trip rate and mode share, which is

mainly attributable to the change in the frequency of train service (from four trains as proposed in the




9

2009 Feasibility Study to two trains as proposed in Scenario 1).

This limited service reduces the overall flexibility that GO Rail passengers have in accommodating their

desired departure and arrival times on both the inbound and outbound trips. Most GO Train services

operate with a minimum of four peak period, peak direction trips per day. The only service that does

not currently do this is the extension of the Georgetown service to Guelph and Kitchener which

currently operates with two peak period trains.

Table 4 – 2021 Scenario 1 Ridership Forecasts

Destination

Station

AM Peak PM Peak Total


Milton 7 17 7 17 14 34

Mississauga 12 24 12 24 24 48

Kipling 11 22 11 22 22 43

Union 264 525 264 525 528 1,050

Total 294 588 294 588 588 1,175

Revenue forecasts were calculated using a similar methodology as in the 2009 Feasibility Study based on

ridership derived from Scenario 1. Fares on the GO Transit network have increased since the 2009

Feasibility Study and the Presto Card has been introduced. Using the current 2014 fare structure has

increased the revenue estimate, so caution must be used when comparing results with other scenarios

in the 2009 study. For comparison purposes, the estimated revenue using the fare assumptions used in

the 2009 strategy are noted in brackets in Table 5 below. Appendix B describes the methodology used

to calculate revenue. Revenue forecasts for Scenario 1 are presented in Table 5.

Table 5 – Scenario 1 – 2021 Revenue Forecasts

Horizon

Year

Daily Ridership1 Annual Ridership2 Annual Revenue


2021 588 1,175 142,800 285,600 $1,618,900

($1,212,600)

$3,296,800

($2,472,200) 1.

Two-way ridership estimate 2.

Annual ridership based on 243 days a year (five days per week, two-way travel,

excluding statutory holidays and two-week vacation)




10

2.3 Summary Tables for the Traditional Approach

Table 6 below summarizes the key characteristics of the traditional approach to introducing GO Train

service to a new market area. The capital expenditure, operating costs, ridership and passenger revenue

are estimated for the two scenarios presented in the 2009 Feasibility Study involving four new stations,

12-car trains and four peak period trains in 2021 growing to seven peak trains and some semi-express

service in 2031. As a lower cost, fast implementation strategy the initial use of two 12-car peak period

trains and three minimal stations is included as an option consistent with the traditional approach.

Caution must be used in comparing these three scenarios as the revenue estimates are based on the

current 2014 fare structure for the two train scenario and the 2009 fare structure for the four and seven

train scenarios. For comparison purposes, the estimated revenue using the fare assumptions used in

the 2009 strategy are noted in brackets in Table 5 below.

Table 6 – Comparison of Ridership, Revenue and Costs for Traditional GO Train Expansion to

Cambridge

Scenario

Annual Ridership Annual Revenue Annual

Operation

Cost

Capital Cost Low High Low High

2021 –

2 peak

trains*

142,800 285,600 $1,618,900

($1,212,600)

$3,296,800

($2,472,200) $2,000,000

$32,000,000

-

$85,000,000

2021 –

4 peak

trains**

225,600 415,100 $1,902,000 $3,573,000 $3,800,000 $110,000,000

2031 –

7 peak

trains**

389,100 715,700 $3,366,000 $6,275000 $4,800,000 $110,000,000

*note: revenue is increased due to changes in GO Transit fares since the 2009 Feasibility Study, but operating and

capital costs are in 2009$

**source: 2009 Feasibility Study




11

2.4 Limitations of the Traditional Approach

The ridership forecasts that have been developed reflect a traditional approach to the introduction of a

new GO Train service. Typically, a minimum number of peak period trains are introduced for the initial

service and more peak trains are added over the years as demand increases. In the long term,

consideration is given to providing off-peak, two-way and weekend train services. This strategy has been

very successful over the past 50 years in addressing the travel market of GTA residents destined for

employment locations in downtown Toronto.

However, this approach has limitations and there are other important inter-regional travel markets that

are not currently being addressed with an attractive rail transit option. GO Transit has standardized its

fleet and delivers intercity passenger rail transit with locomotive-hauled, bi-level coaches typically as 12-

car trains. Such large passenger carrying capacity is not required along the outermost segments of the

corridors (e.g. between Cambridge and Milton) or during periods of low demand such as the midday,

evening and weekend periods. Addressing lower demand corridor segments and travel periods with a

smaller capacity train may present an opportunity for lower operating costs (energy savings, reduced

crewing requirement).

Other potential advantages (and limitations) of using DMU technology are discussed in Section 3.4.




12





13

3.0 DIESEL MULTIPLE UNITS (DMUS)

Metrolinx has purchased 18 DMU vehicles for the Union Pearson Express and with the provincial

commitment to electrification on this corridor, the DMU’s may be replaced by EMU’s and become

available for other applications.

As noted above, adopting the DMU technology has the potential to address new and growing commuter

markets and a Cambridge service extension may be an excellent opportunity to test such applications. If

successful in a Milton to Cambridge service, these applications could be extended more generally

throughout the GO Rail network. This section provides more detail on the DMU and includes both

positive features and concerns/issues that would have to be addressed.

3.1 Technical Description of a DMU

A Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) is a self-propelled rail vehicle capable of operating as a single unit or

coupled together to operate in multiple unit trains. Commonly DMUs are assembled in two unit

combinations. This scalability is one of the advantages of this type of transit vehicle.

Propulsion for a DMU consists of an on-board diesel motor that can either be connected mechanically to

the drive train, can be used to drive a hydraulic pump which then drives hydraulic traction motors or can

be used to run a generator which would create electricity to power electric traction motors.

Due to their size and power to weight ratio, DMUs have better acceleration and braking characteristics

than typical locomotive-hauled coach consists. As an example, the acceleration and deceleration rates

for the Sumitomo Corporation of America (SCOA) vehicles that Metrolinx has purchased for use on the

Union Person Express (UPE) have been calculated to be in the order of 1.06 mph/s and 2.0 mph/s

respectively. This compares to 0.6 mph/s and 1.8 mph/s for a traditional GO Train and may result in

train scheduling and travel time advantages for the DMU.

DMU’s in the appropriate applications will also have lower operating costs than a traditional 12 car GO

Train. There will be fewer operating crew required on the DMU and energy consumption will also be

lower.

While DMUs are more common in Europe, Asia and Australia, they are gaining popularity in North

America. At the time of writing this report there were four (4) DMU revenue service operations in the

United States and three (3) in revenue service in Canada with a fourth (the UPE) coming on–line shortly.

North American applications are:




14

North County Transit District, San Diego, CA

New Jersey Transit Corporation, New York-Newark, NY-NJ

Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet), Portland, OR

Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, TX

O-Train, OC Transpo, Ottawa, ON

VIA Rail Sudbury to White River, Ontario, ON

CN Koaham Shuttle, Vancouver, BC

Union Person Express (UPE), Toronto, ON (anticipated revenue service 2015)

O-Train, Ottawa, ON Sumitomo DMU, UPE, Toronto, ON

The following renderings and drawings are from the SMART system DMUs which will be similar to the

Union Pearson Express DMU. These renderings are indicative of the interior configuration of a modern

DMU with 78 seats per vehicle.




15

Source: Sonoma-Marin Area Rapid Transit, DMU Vehicle Procurement Recommendation for Award,

October 25, 2010

The following graphic is a general arrangement drawing for one of the A-Cars from the SMART system.

Source: Sonoma-Marin Area Rapid Transit, DMU Vehicle Procurement Recommendation for Award,

October 25, 2010




16

3.2 Benefits of DMUs

If the corridor segment (e.g. Cambridge to Milton) can be served exclusively by DMU’s (new Scenario 2

below) then there is also the possibility of significant savings in infrastructure costs. For instance, the

typical GO Train station platform length of 315 m could be greatly reduced if the ultimate design was for

a three car DMU consist. Similar savings would accrue for the provision of passing sidings and storage

tracks.

In an urban environment with many level crossings, small DMU trains would be less disruptive to local

streets and traffic and would be more easily integrated with multi-modal station designs. In Cambridge

there would be the potential opportunity to fully integrate the DMU with the future LRT station as both

vehicles have the same track gauge. Small intercity passenger rail trains and smaller car parking areas at

downtown stations combined with excellent feeder transit (such as Metrolinx’s ‘first-mile, last-mile’

strategies) are consistent with the planning aspirations of most communities.

If the service is designed with DMU’s in the lower demand, outer portion of the corridor and a ‘DMU

to/from 12-car train’ transfer is used at an intermediate station, the overall reliability of service in the

total corridor would be improved, especially in winter conditions. If there is an incident at a level

crossing or a delay occurs due to a frozen switch, the event might delay only the DMU service while the

portion of the corridor operating with 12-car trains would not be affected.

A major advantage of adopting the DMU as a second fleet standard for GO Transit is that after the peak

period transfer to the 12-car GO Train is completed, the DMU vehicle is available to serve other transit

markets. In new Scenario 2, a train schedule is developed that would provide peak period rail transit

connections for Milton residents working in Cambridge. As well, there is the opportunity to use the

DMU’s for midday, evening and weekend/special event services between Milton and Cambridge (or

potentially along greater lengths of the corridor).

Employment areas outside of downtown Toronto are also important and currently there are poor to

non-existent transit options for GTA residents to access these regional employment centres. Employers

in Milton industrial parks, for instance, draw a majority of employees from locations such as Cambridge,

Guelph, Brampton and Mississauga and small, fast, reliable DMU’s could form the backbone of a

regional transit strategy to serve these employment centres and the associated communities.

Currently 95 percent of GO Transit riders are destined to employment locations near Union Station and

the availability of DMU’s and existing rail corridors may provide the opportunity to efficiently address

other regional employment destinations. This need for high quality regional transit services has been




17

identified in recent area transportation studies by the provincial Ministry of Transportation including the

GTA West Corridor study, the Niagara to GTA Corridor study and the Wellington Waterloo Brant study.

3.3 DMU Compatibility with Freight Rail Equipment and Operations

Aside from the propulsion system and the ability to run in single or multiple unit configurations, another

significant difference between DMU technology and their heavier freight rail counterparts relates to

weight and structural strength.

Typical DMUs are not built with the same structural properties as the heavier equipment. This fact has

been a significant challenge for operators and transit owners to overcome in order to permit this type of

equipment to operate on the same rail lines as heavier freight rail equipment. DMU vehicles that are

not constructed with the same structural properties as heavier freight rail equipment are referred to as

‘non-compliant’. CP has expressed serious concern about any operation of DMU’s on its freight line.

In the United States, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has very stringent requirements for

passenger and freight rail equipment. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 49, part 238

governs passenger equipment safety standards. The Union Pearson Express DMU’s are believed to be

FRA compliant for mixed operation with freight rail services.

The following are some of the key provisions of this subsection, which are not typically met by non-

compliant DMUs, and include:

Subsection 238.203, “Static End Strength,” which requires that vehicles “…resist a static end

load of 800,000 pounds without permanent deformation…”

Subsection 238.205, “Anti-Climbing Mechanism,” which requires anti-climbers at both ends

“…capable of resisting an upward or downward vertical force of 100,000 pounds without

failure.”

Subsection 238.211, “Collision Posts,” which requires collision posts at the one-third points of

vehicle width, laterally, with an “…ultimate longitudinal shear strength of 300,000 pounds…”

Subsection 238.213, “Corner Posts” which requires full-height corner posts “capable of resisting

150,000 pounds at the point of attachment to the underframe without failure.”

Subsection 238.223, “Locomotive Fuel Tanks,” specifies fuel tank construction standards typical

of mainline locomotives, but also applying to DMUs.




18

3.4 DMU’s and Canadian Content

While the Union Pearson Express DMU vehicles will be produced and assembled outside of Canada,

there is a service proven option with Canadian content.

Conceived in the early 1950’s, the Budd Rail Diesel Car (RDC) was considered ideally suited to operate in

a wide range of services. The propulsion system and stainless steel body proved to be rugged and

reliable and these vehicles are still in service today.

Industrial Rail Services of Moncton New Brunswick, an experienced locomotive and passenger railcar

repair and refurbishment firm, sells rebuilt and refurbished Budd RDCs for use in passenger transit

service. The VIA Rail Sudbury to White River train service uses these Budd RDCs which have two diesel

motors driving hydraulic pumps (a technology proven in the automotive and military fields). While not

as modern in appearance as some DMU’s, passenger comfort levels are excellent and costs are relatively

low.

Budd RDC-1 Cape May Seashore Lines #407. Photograph by Bevis R. W. King, November 2002.

Reproduced with permission from photographers website and released to GFDL courtesy Bevis R.W. King.




19

4.0 DEMONSTRATING SOME NEW APPROACHES

The potential availability of DMU technology and its compatibility with mixed freight operation provides

the opportunity to test the DMU’s on a Cambridge service extension for a variety of intercity passenger

rail transit applications. Scenario’s 2 and 3 were designed specifically to test the following:

passenger acceptance, ridership impacts, AODA concerns with a ‘train-to-train’ transfer;

train scheduling and operational impacts of introducing DMU technology;

storage requirements and marshaling strategies with DMU’s;

performance and operating cost advantages of DMU technology;

infrastructure impacts including station requirements at the transfer location;

improved transit access to regional employment centres outside the Union Station area; and

compatibility of DMU’s with urban environments and mobility hub station designs.

4.1 Scenario 2: Four Peak Period Heavy DMUs


Scenario 2 is a four train DMU option with one minimal new station at Cambridge Central. This scenario

requires users travelling beyond Milton to transfer between the DMU and a 12-car GO Train at the

Milton station. This service would include four eastbound AM peak moves and four westbound PM

peak period moves for comparison with the traditional approach to minimum market entry for service

start-up.

Since the DMU’s are not required for service beyond Milton, this scenario allows for counter peak transit

travel in the AM and PM periods to accommodate Milton residents working in Cambridge. The scenario

can also be used to test two mid-day return trips and evening service between Milton and Cambridge.

Potentially these new service strategies could be tested on even longer sections of the corridor

depending on track availability between Milton and Union Station.

Storage of the DMU vehicles will be required at the Cambridge Central station area, or somewhere along

the line preferably near this end of the service.




20


This scenario includes one station at Cambridge Central (preferred over Cambridge East because of the

better local transit connection). A train to train transfer will occur at Milton and that station will need to

be modified to accept the DMU vehicles. An end-to-end configuration as well as a side-to-side

configuration would be examined in future phases of design. Each option has unique advantages and

disadvantages that would need to be assessed to determine the preferred station configuration at

Milton.

4.1.3 Proposed Operational Schedule

In the AM peak period eastbound direction, the service would include DMUs departing Cambridge

Central at 6:08am, 6:38am, 7:03am and 7:33am. Passengers travelling beyond Milton would need to

transfer between the DMU and a 12-car GO Train at the Milton station which would then depart Milton

towards Union Station at 6:43am, 7:13am, 7:38am and 8:08am respectively.

In the PM peak period westbound direction, the 12-car GO Train service would arrive at Milton Station

from Union Station at 4:58pm, 5:48pm, 6:23pm and 7:13pm. Passengers would transfer onto the DMU

service at Milton Station, which would then arrive at Cambridge Central Station at 5:33pm, 6:23pm,

6:58pm and 7:48pm respectively.

The following train schedule includes timings for these trips as well as the counter peak AM/PM, mid-

day trips and evening runs. For clarity, eastbound trips are shaded blue and westbound trips are shaded

orange.

Due to the bi-directional nature of this service, it is assumed that prior to the PM peak, all four DMUs

will travel to Milton GO Station for the start of the service (either coupled together or coupled in sets of

twos). The mid-day and evening times shown in red are taken from the GO Bus schedules beginning at

Milton GO Station and Union Bus Terminal.

Figure 3 – Proposed Scenario 2 Schedule




21

4.1.4 Capital Costs

Capital cost for this scenario ranges from $20M to $73M depending on the final inclusion requirements

of rail corridor infrastructure costs previously carried in the 2009 study. These figures do not include the

costs of rail equipment as the DMU’s may become surplus when the airport service is electrified. With

the costs of six DMUs included, the range is from $47M to $100M. A detailed capital cost breakdown

can be found in Appendix A.

4.1.5 Operational Costs

Given that the DMU fleet will have much smaller (Tier-4 compliant) diesel engines than their heavy

locomotive counterparts and that the operating crew requirement will be significantly smaller than on

the 12-car locomotive hauled coach trains, it is anticipated that DMU operational costs will be less than

the costs for a traditional GO Train. This exact cost savings from reduced energy consumption and lower

staffing levels can be estimated after commencement of the Metrolinx UPE service once exact operating

costs become available.


The calculation of ridership and revenue for Scenario 2 used a similar approach as for Scenario 1 and

details are provided in Appendix B.

Ridership forecasts for this scenario are illustrated in Tables 7 and 8. These include trips made from

Cambridge to all stations along the Milton line, as well as off-peak trips (midday and evening service

between Milton and Cambridge) and reverse flow direction peak period trips between Milton and

Cambridge.

Total ridership is slightly higher than in Scenario 1 (2021 horizon). While the increased number of trains

and the faster travel time from Cambridge to Milton helps increase the level of service, this is offset

somewhat by the transfer required at Milton Station, which adds a 5 minute wait to the total travel time

and impacts passenger convenience.

Trips to Union Station continue to represent approximately 87 percent of total ridership along the

corridor. While a higher level of transit service is provided between Milton and Cambridge, it is

anticipated that this will not generate a high level of ridership in the short-term until the land use

around both Cambridge Central and Milton stations change to become more transit supportive. Higher

transit ridership between these municipalities will occur if there is good local feeder services and once

two-way service is provided along the GO Rail line between Milton Station and Union Station. Once an

intercity passenger rail service is established and station locations identified, some families will alter

their live-work relations and relocate which will also increase ridership potential between intermediate

stations.




22


Cambridge

to/from:

AM Peak - EB AM Peak - WB Midday -EB Midday -WB PM Peak -WB Evening - EB Evening - WB Total

Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High

Milton 18 36 6 12 3 5 0 1 18 36 3 5 1 2 58 112

Mississauga 13 26 13 26 26 53

Kipling 12 25 12 25 25 50

Union Station 223 496 223 496 446 992

Total 266 583 6 12 3 5 0 1 266 583 3 5 1 2 555 1,206


Cambridge

to/from:

AM Peak - EB AM Peak - WB Midday -EB Midday -WB PM Peak -WB Evening - EB Evening - WB Total

Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High

Milton 44 55 15 19 8 11 1 1 44 55 7 10 4 5 143 180

Mississauga 36 58 36 58 72 116

Kipling 27 47 27 47 54 94

Union Station 271 591 271 591 541 1,183

Total 378 751 15 19 8 11 1 1 378 751 7 10 4 5 790 1,548




23

Revenue forecasts for Scenario 2 were based on a similar methodology used in the 2009 Feasibility

Study, but updated using the 2014 fare structure. For comparison purposes, the estimated revenue

using the fare assumptions used in the 2009 strategy are noted in brackets in Table 9 below.

Appendix B describes the methodology used to calculate revenue.

Table 9 – Scenario 2 Revenue Forecasts

Horizon

Year



2021 555 1,206 134,800 293,100 $1,580,200

($1,157,300)

$3,446,300

($2,539,800)

2031 790 1548 192,000 376,200 $3,571,300

($2,019,000)

$4,442,200

($3,226,813) 1.




4.2 Scenario 3: Hybrid Service with DMU’s and 12 Car GO Trains in the Peak

Period


Scenario 3 is a hybrid of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 and involves the extension of two (2) existing 12-car

GO Trains from Milton to Cambridge and the addition of two DMU trains. This service operates

eastbound only in the AM peak period and westbound only in the PM peak periods. With this strategy,

some riders will be able to avoid the ‘train-to-train’ transfer and there will still be DMU vehicles

available to test the potential advantages and limitations of this technology in an intercity passenger rail

application.


This scenario includes three station locations:

Cambridge Central (near Water/Samuelson);

Cambridge East (near Franklin/Townline);

Campbellville or Tremaine; and

Milton (existing).

The assumption is that these station locations would initially be to a minimal design in the context of

what may be provided at a traditional GO Rail station (assumed to contain fewer amenities, less parking,

no buildings, etc.).




24

4.2.3 Proposed Train Schedule

In the AM peak period eastbound direction, the service would include a 12-car GO train departing

Cambridge Central Station at 6:09am and 6:39am which would then depart Milton Station towards

Union Station at 6:43am and 7:13am respectively. DMUs would depart Cambridge Central Station at

6:54am and 7:24am and connect to an existing GO Train at Milton Station, which would then depart

Milton towards Union Station at 7:38am and 7:58am respectively.

In the PM peak period westbound direction, the service would extend the trains arriving from Union

Station to Milton Station at 5:28pm and 6:23pm, which would then arrive at Cambridge Central at

6:03pm and 6:58pm respectively. DMU trips westward would depart Milton at 6:18pm and 7:23pm and

arrive at Cambridge Central Station at 6:52pm and 7:57pm respectively.

The following train schedule includes timings for these trips. For clarity, GO Train trips are shaded yellow

and DMU trips are shaded green.

Figure 4 – Proposed Scenario 3 Schedule




25

4.2.4 Capital Costs

Capital cost for this scenario ranges from $35M to $89M depending on the final inclusion requirements

of rail corridor infrastructure costs previously carried in the 2009 study. These figures do not include the

costs of rail equipment. With the costs of DMUs included, the range is from $53M to $107M.

CAPEX costs for this scenario do not include provision for a layover yard as previous discussions with GO

Transit indicated that there was sufficient storage at the existing Milton GO layover facility for GO

Trains. DMUs will be stored at the Cambridge Central station area, or somewhere along the line

preferably near this end of the service. A detailed capital cost breakdown can be found in Appendix A.

4.2.5 Operating Costs

For the two 12-car GO Trains, operating costs are estimated to be in the order of $2M per year based on

the cost data provided in the 2009 study and prorated for the number of trips in this scenario. As in

Scenario 2 above, DMU operating costs are unknown but anticipated to be less than the costs for 12-car

trains due to crewing and energy savings.


The calculation of ridership and revenue for Scenario 3 used a similar approach as for Scenario’s 1 and 2.

This approach is detailed in Appendix B.

Ridership forecasts for this scenario are illustrated in Tables 10 and 11. These include trips made to all

stations along the Milton line.

Scenario 3 provides the highest level of ridership among the three new scenarios due the higher level of

service and access to additional stations. While travel time is slightly higher on the two DMU trips

compared with the two 12-car GO Train trips (due to the need to transfer), the two extra trips

(compared to Scenario 1) and the presence of a Campbellville station will help increase overall ridership

on this section of the corridor.

Trips to Union Station continue to represent approximately 88 percent of total ridership along the

corridor. While a higher level of service was provided between Milton and Cambridge, it is anticipated

that this will not support a high level of ridership in the short-term until the land use around both

Cambridge Central and Milton Stations changes to become more transit supportive and the two-way

service is provided along the GO Rail line between Milton Station and Union Station. Once an intercity

passenger rail service is established and station locations identified, some families will alter their live-

work relations and relocate which will also increase ridership potential between intermediate stations.




26


Destination

Station



Milton 8 20 8 20 17 40

Mississauga 14 29 14 29 29 57

Kipling 13 25 13 25 25 51

Union 273 547 273 547 547 1,093

Total 309 621 309 621 618 1,241


Destination

Station



Milton 31 60 31 60 63 119

Mississauga 38 61 38 61 76 122

Kipling 26 45 26 45 51 90

Union 307 612 307 612 614 1,223

Total 402 777 402 777 803 1,554

Revenue forecasts for Scenario 3 were based on a similar methodology used in the 2009 Feasibility

Study, but updated using the 2014 fare structure. For comparison purposes, the estimated revenue

using the fare assumptions used in the 2009 strategy are noted in brackets in Table 12 below.

Appendix B describes the methodology used to calculate revenue.

Table 12 – Scenario 3 Revenue Forecasts

Horizon

Year



2021 618 1,241 150,100 301,600 $1,706,400

($1,274,300)

$3,482,500

($2,605,200)

2031 803 1,554 195,200 377,700 $3,347,800

($1,620,600)

$4,297,200

($3,173,633) 1.







27

4.3 Summary Tables for New Approaches Using DMU Technology

The following tables summarize the key characteristics of the non-traditional approach to introducing

GO Train service to a new market area. For two new scenarios involving four DMU’s or two DMU’s and

two 12-car GO Trains, the capital costs, operating costs, ridership and revenue estimates are provided

for 2021 and 2031 horizon years. Revenues are expressed in current $ and capital cost are in 2009$.

Operating costs of DMU are not currently available but will be lower than operating costs of 12-car

trains.


Expansion to Cambridge

Scenario Annual Ridership Annual Revenue


Scenario 2 134,900 293,100 $1,580,200

($1,157,300)

$3,446,300

($2,539,800) $20M to 73M

Scenario 3 150,100 301,600 $1,706,400

($1,274,300)

$3,482,500

($2,605,200) $35M to 89M

Note: Annual Revenue based on the 2014 GO Transit fare structure. The revenue reported in brackets

calculated using the 2009 GO Transit fare structure for ease of comparison to the 2009 study.


Expansion to Cambridge

Scenario Annual Ridership Annual Revenue


Scenario 2 192,000 376,200 $3,571,300

($2,019,000)

$4,442,200

($3,226,813) $20M to 73M

Scenario 3 195,200 377,700 $3,347,800

($1,620,600)

$4,297,200

($3,173,633) $35M to 89M

Note: Annual Revenue based on the 2014 GO Transit fare structure. The revenue reported in brackets

calculated using the 2009 GO Transit fare structure for ease of comparison to the 2009 study.




28





29

5.0 STAKEHOLDER POSITIONS

5.1 Metrolinx/GO Transit

During this study, discussions were held with Metrolinx/GO Transit staff to provide background

information and an update since the 2009 Feasibility Study. It was noted that an extension of GO Train

service from Milton to Cambridge is not part of the Metrolinx Big Move Strategy and the City/ Region

should pursue its inclusion in the next update of the Big Move planned for 2016.

A further complication is that the transportation planning mandate for Metrolinx does not extend to the

Region of Waterloo and this would also need to be addressed. The recent extension of GO Rail service to

Guelph and Kitchener was at the direction of the Minister of Transportation.

GO Transit is currently negotiating with CP for capacity improvements required to introduce additional

service between Union Station and Milton, and does not want to add consideration of expansion

requirements west of Milton to this negotiation. It was also noted that in introducing a new intercity

passenger rail service, an initial complement of four peak period trains is considered a minimum for

market entry to a new service area.

5.2 CP Rail

The existing CP Galt Subdivision from Milton to Cambridge consists of double track from the

Milton GO station (Mile 31.2) to Guelph Junction (Mile 40.2) and single track from Guelph Junction west

through Cambridge. The Galt Subdivision is part of the CP Montreal/Chicago main corridor and freight

operations are approaching capacity on this corridor.

Freight rail operations on this corridor are not scheduled and would typically occur on-demand as per

shipper’s requirements. Unit trains have been noted on the corridor which would commonly operate on

more of a predictable schedule. CP would have significant concerns with the suggestion of DMU

operation on its freight mainline. Further discussion with CP is required to determine whether this

concern relates to all DMU’s or only those DMU’s that are not FRA-compliant (see Section 3.3).

Through a review of the capacity and discussions with CP, the 2009 Study indicated that additional

infrastructure would be required in order to accommodate GO passenger trains between Milton and

Cambridge. As part of this current study, CP was contacted to provide an update on capacity and

corridor availability. CP indicated that previous information was still valid and did not wish to provide

any new information at the time of writing this report.




30

As a result of previous discussions with CP and confirmation that previous assumptions are still valid,

preliminary infrastructure requirements have been identified for the passenger rail scenarios identified

in this report.

5.3 Municipalities Along the Corridor

During the study, discussions were also held with municipal staff from the Town of Milton/ Region of

Halton and the Township of Puslinch/County of Wellington.

Based on this these discussions, a conclusion was reached that any new intercity passenger rail station

in Puslinch should be integrated with the design of the proposed Hwy 6 Morriston Bypass. A new station

which would increase current traffic congestion and safety concerns should not be constructed until this

bypass facility is in place. There will not be significant residential intensification of Morriston or

Aberfoyle.

The Town of Milton is interested in a new station further west from the current Milton station to reduce

auto travel along local streets and parking requirements at its existing Milton Central Station. Milton

Central station is planned as a Metrolinx Mobility Hub and as such a new western terminus for the GO

Train service is highly desirable to allow intensification and better utilization of lands around the existing

station.

Potential new station locations at Tremaine/Steeles (new Hwy 401 interchange) and at Campbellville

(Guelph Junction Rd and CP yard area) would each have advantages and disadvantages. There are

several competing Big Move priorities in Halton Region such as two-way all-day service from Union to

Milton and a new Trafalgar Station. Strong labour force linkages between Milton and Cambridge are

evident.




31

6.0 STATION CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Typical GO Station Configuration

The following sections pertaining to site design and development are extracted from the GO Transit

Design Requirement Manual (DRM).

Procedure CI-0201 states:

Typically, any site design and development must address the convenience and safety of the users,

accommodation of vehicle movements, parking facilities, bus infrastructure, while ensuring ease of

maintenance and servicing.

Site design must respond to both the urban design and environmental challenges associated with

developing given site. The Guidelines’ intention is to achieve site layouts that are not only efficient, but

also safe, attractive and environmentally responsible.

Site design and development must respond to the following considerations:

Site layout;

Accommodation of vehicle movements and parking;

Pedestrian and cycling infrastructure;

Stormwater management;

Landscaping;

Reducing the urban heat island effect; and

Using sustainable materials and technologies.

A basic objective of GO sites is the integration of rail service, bus transit and other modes of

transportation. In order to implement this objective, especially the station facilities should be designed

to promote convenient and efficient transfer of patrons between different modes of transportation.

SITE LAYOUT

In developing a site layout, the convenience and safety of the users or passengers, along with

economy of the overall layout shall be the prime considerations.

The overall layout should respect any existing natural assets of the site, and complement the

form of the adjacent community. It should allow for emergency, service, parking and

maintenance access.

Site development also will include fencing, landscaping, snow clearing and storage, as well as




32

illumination and acoustical buffers.

The location of the rail platform access, tunnels and stairs, parking access and pedestrian routes

and station facilities shall be located to reflect safety and convenience of the users and

operational constrains.

The station building should be centrally located with respect to parking facilities, taking into

account future expansion (parking growth, tunnels, etc.).

Pedestrian and bicycle access from the surrounding community, and from the surrounding

sidewalk/path network should be encouraged by providing short, convenient paths from each

applicable direction.

Bicycle parking/storage should be provided in the vicinity of the station and should be located

where station staff can observe it directly or by CCTV.

Bus service to the station by local transit and by GO where warranted, shall be directed to a bus

platform close to the station building, with a separate access from the street to facilitate bus

access and egress.

Passenger drop-off and pick-up facilities, including taxi and accessible accommodation, should

be provided close to the station building. A convenient accessible pathway with curb cuts should

be provided from the accessible parking spaces and accessible drop-off and pick-up location to

the station building, and continue throughout the station facility.

Station egress should be designed to mitigate the peak volumes of vehicles leaving the site after

arrival of a busy train; multiple egress points should be provided where feasible, and

intersection design should reflect the high peak volumes.

Provisions shall be made for access by emergency vehicles. Designated fire access routes shall

meet OBC and local fire department requirements.

The excerpts from Procedure CI-0201 above note the general principles and accommodations that a

typical GO Rail site would address. While these are standards that are applied generically, it is equally

important to realize that each GO Rail site location will be unique and the design would be customized

to suit the opportunities and constraints at each site.

The following preliminary sketch details a typical GO Rail site accommodating 12-car trains, surface

parking lots on either side of the corridor and an integrated bus facility.




33

Figure 5 – Typical GO Station Layout: Double sided with Integrated Bus Facility

A typical site rail station site may include the following provisions:

Tracks

Island platform

Mini-platform (AODA compliant)

Elevators as necessary (depending on the number of tracks and side of access)

Tunnels as necessary (depending on the number of tracks and side of access)

Passenger shelters

Parking (typically 500-1000)

Accessible parking (10)

Vehicle access and egress




34

Kiss and Ride, Taxi lane, Accessible drop off

Bus loop and drop off

Bus bays

Bus shelters

Station building as required

Within this study, station areas were identified and basic key plans of these areas can be found in

Appendix C. Regarding the Cambridge East (East Boundary Road) location, the Region of Waterloo is

currently undertaking an Environmental Assessment to identify a preferred corridor for the proposed

East Boundary Road. All of the preliminary alignment options under consideration would intersect with

the CP Rail Galt Subdivision and may present future opportunities to create a GO Rail station.

Scenario 1 and 3 considered in this report contain the extension of 12-car GO Train service from Milton

to Cambridge. While the exact station locations and layout will be highly dependent on the site

selected, the above principles will be followed. These scenarios contemplate stations at the following

locations:

Cambridge Central;

Cambridge East;

Campbellville/Tremaine; and

Milton.

Scenario 2 is the addition of train service involving only DMU technology from Milton to Cambridge.

This scenario includes only one (1) station at Cambridge Central and as a result will observe the relevant

principles from the above highlighted sections of the DRM.

While specific station details have not been developed, discussions with Municipal stakeholders have

indicated a number of important considerations to be taken into account when developing the station

concepts. These are discussed in Sections 5.3 and 6.2 in more detail.

The following figures illustrate a widening, realignment and new Hwy 401 interchange project

CAMBRIDGE TO MILTON PASSENGER RAIL BUSINESS CASE AND ...€¦ · CAMBRIDGE TO MILTON PASSENGER RAIL...

Documents

Transcript of CAMBRIDGE TO MILTON PASSENGER RAIL BUSINESS CASE AND ...€¦ · CAMBRIDGE TO MILTON PASSENGER RAIL...