|
|
|
I agree. This is such a weird time to go all in on this concept when you've just about done or committed to do everything to avoid needing to do it.After reading this release, I'm concerned about what this means for the Kitchener line, among other projects. It seems we're in a constant state of, "yes, no, maybe so" because we have Metrolinx either getting projects closer to completion, shelving projects for whatever reason, committing to projects, but taking years to ever get shovels in the ground, and as a consequence, the projects taking much longer due to inflation, among other systemic issues that have plagued Metrolinx for years, if not decades.
It feels like nobody is learning that the more we push projects further down the road, the more things cost, the more resources that are involved, the more Metrolinx, their subsidiaries, and other stakeholders have to delegate and make changes because of other construction projects that ended up receiving approval, or being constructed while transit projects were shelved. It's a recipe for disaster if Metrolinx is not out in the community actually doing research on what is happening, and is instead steamrolling other projects just because they're a government agency and suddenly have a sense of urgency for a few weeks.
An example of this is downtown Brampton along Railroad Street. I can't find the document right now, but there's a proposed project for three highrises that was supposed to be starting sometime within the next year or two. Due to the need for an additional track or two along that exact corridor, along with the proper buffer, the new proposal is to instead change the orientation of the highrises, and instead of constructing three, they construct two.
That being said, I have no idea what the future holds, or if this missing link will even be constructed. I don't see any business use case that will make CN/CPKC want to use anything that Ford/Metrolinx will propose if it takes them so far out of the way and as a result extends their fuel, crew time, and so on. I can understand that CN was at one point a crown corp, and Ford/Metrolinx may want to use that as leverage, but 1995 was 30 years ago.
Can I ask you to clarify? Do you mean the 407 hydro corridor can't support 4 tracks, or that the 407 highway corridor can't support 4 tracks? Or that neither one could support even 2 tracks, which would be 4 total between them?The idea of running CPKC and CN in the existing ROW along the 407 is out of the question as it cannot support 4 tracks nor 6 tracks
After reading this release, I'm concerned about what this means for the Kitchener line, among other projects. It seems we're in a constant state of, "yes, no, maybe so" because we have Metrolinx either getting projects closer to completion, shelving projects for whatever reason, committing to projects, but taking years to ever get shovels in the ground, and as a consequence, the projects taking much longer due to inflation, among other systemic issues that have plagued Metrolinx for years, if not decades.
There are 4 crossings in Streetsville where 2 will remain grade crossing as well 2 grade crossing west of Dixie with the rest to be grade separation. Been a long time I seen a train stop on line in Mississauga. Seen them more on line stop in Toronto where it doesn't effect GO. CPKC seems to split the number of trains equal for day and night.A challenge for CPKC is that while it runs fewer trains than previously on the Milton line, there are few places where those longer trains can stop without blocking level crossings. So unlike past years, every freight now needs a "clear alley" through the length of the route. Plus, stopping a longer freight is operationally less desirable - a trickier proposition for the operator. While the line may look underused, that trackage is needed to keep traffic moving.
Judicious grade separation might help, but CP is unlikely to give up its two dedicated freight tracks.
- Paul
Its Hwy 407 as well the hydro corridor considering hydro doesn't want train/transit in the corridor these days.,Can I ask you to clarify? Do you mean the 407 hydro corridor can't support 4 tracks, or that the 407 highway corridor can't support 4 tracks? Or that neither one could support even 2 tracks, which would be 4 total between them?
I guess what I'm also asking is what makes the hydro corridor north of Finch better than the hydro corridor along the 407? Is it that much straighter or are the gradients easier to deal with? These aren't rhetorical questions. I'm genuinely asking.
I also wonder if the 401 traffic might be better relieved by a Sheppard subway extension, since Sheppard is closer to the 401 than the Finch hydro corridor, and a subway would stop more than a conventional GO line (though I suppose a finch hydro transit corridor might not be conventional GO either).
If the Midtown line were to start in Milton and end in Pickering then I think that would attract some 401 drivers.Putting it on the CPKC line, however, simply replicates the TTC Line 2, and is not far enough north to attract riders from 401 and beyond..
Yeah, 4 tracks would be enough, but you didn't address my original point which is about "ownership".There is more than enough capacity today and tomorrow for the Milton Line with out GO using any tracks tacks at all, let alone one a peak time.. Adding 2 more tracks will deal with GO service needs even with a fly under/over at the Humber.
The number of CPKC trains on the Milton Line is almost 50% less than in the past as the trains are 2-4 times longer today that requires less trains. Its possible from time to time CPKC could use a 3rd track, but rarely it will happen. What ML will want from the 4 track corridor is able to run express trains on a 3rd track. Electrify the line is an issues and by the time the corridor is 4 track, battery power or other type of power will replace the need for the line to be electrified.
Keep in min, CPKC will be using that line on a daily base to service the Streetsville yard and various industries along it regardless if ML owns that corridor. Not all movements can take place at night.
The last cost to 4 track the corridor was $2,5B and take 3 years to do it.
You sure about that?by the time the corridor is 4 track, battery power or other type of power will replace the need for the line to be electrified.
They would probably be more likely to agree to having GO run on the subdivision than have CPKC... GO has run on detours before...Excellent! People kept telling me that the proposed flyover at Georgetown would make the 407 freight bypass obsolete, but I never believed it. Even with the flyover, the freight bypass would eventually still be needed.
I can't see CN agreeing to go ahead with the 407 freight bypass if it means having to share the track with CPKC. Allowing CPKC trains to run on the Halton & York subdivisions would have a negative impact on CN operations at the Brampton Intermodal facility and the MAC yard. I don't even think they'll agree to GO trains running on this subdivision. Which is okay IMO. Just taking CN trains off the Kitchener line would be a huge boost to the passenger rail network in the GTA.
Would be about 4-5 miles shorter than the existing Halton sub through Silver which we usually run trains at 35 - 50 mph on the halton sub which means it would be about 7-12 minutes faster for CN.If CN were to construct 407 bypass, then they'll have a much better mainline setup in Toronto compared to CPKC. It'll effectively be a straight east-west line across North Toronto with easy access to their Intermodal facility in Brampton and freight yard in Vaughan.
That's good for local traffic but it would be too many stops to get from Pickering to BramptonIts Hwy 407 as well the hydro corridor considering hydro doesn't want train/transit in the corridor these days.,
The 401 will not be better off with a Sheppard or a 401 elevated subway if they were built. One only has to look where traffic is getting on/off the 401 to see it. You have the 427/400/404 as the main points. Eastbound 401 traffic are using 427/400 higher that the 404 with 400 going west on 401 and south on 427
The idea of running CPKC and CN in the existing ROW along the 407 is out of the question as it cannot support 4 tracks nor 6 tracks for the GO 407 plan service which is currently plan as BRT that can be upgraded to LRT if and when it every gets built.
As for the idea of CPKC using the 413, cannot see it as it adds too much traveling time compared to the current route. I said in early 2000's that all rail corridors needs to be 4 track and easy to be done if funding is in place. The Milton Line is partly 3rd track today with most all new bridges in place built for 4 tracks along with most existing bridges on the line.
Sorry, when I was thinking GO in the Hydro corridor, I was thinking heavy rail GO as we currently know it.I have lost sight of exactly where the pylons run. But I do recall the Davis Government's plan to run a ITCS system along it. The routing made a lot of sense, even if it was beyond the technology of that day and a bit fanciful as to cost.
It may be Hydro doctrine not to run transit in a Hydro corridor, but if today's government is actually looking for solutions, I would give it a look.
Cost is always relative. It's a continuous right of way that doesn't impinge on CN or neighbouring landowners, roughly the right distance north of the 401 and south of Markham/Vaughan. If I were drawing a line on the map, it is in about the right place..
Doesn't need to be 12-car bilevels - if ML intends to procure a different train mode, this might be compatible.
- Paul
My main pushback against those citing the varied origins and destinations of the 401’s drivers is that a crosstown rail service would work the same way. There are 7 GO Lines and 2-3 subways that cross the 401’s vicinity, and more are on the way. While we may not have every major highway o/d pair covered, we do have enough to work with.Its Hwy 407 as well the hydro corridor considering hydro doesn't want train/transit in the corridor these days.,
The 401 will not be better off with a Sheppard or a 401 elevated subway if they were built. One only has to look where traffic is getting on/off the 401 to see it. You have the 427/400/404 as the main points. Eastbound 401 traffic are using 427/400 higher that the 404 with 400 going west on 401 and south on 427
Constructing the 407 freight bypass and allowing more frequent and better service on the Kitchener line would do a lot to take cars off the 401.My main pushback against those citing the varied origins and destinations of the 401’s drivers is that a crosstown rail service would work the same way. There are 7 GO Lines and 2-3 subways that cross the 401’s vicinity, and more are on the way. While we may not have every major highway o/d pair covered, we do have enough to work with.
Generally, I do think you are undershooting how much ridership can be generated by a crosstown service. I appreciate your hard realism, and your commentary is always technical and informed. But, respectfully, no such line could only justify peak service as you claimed. And certainly not so when they’d be done. Perhaps your right if examined in isolation, but not as a part of the network.
I’m not denying that it would take drivers off- rather, that almost any number of deferred drivers is small fry for transit ridership figures— which is why it shouldn’t be used as a be-all-end-all measure.Constructing the 407 freight bypass and allowing more frequent and better service on the Kitchener line would do a lot to take cars off the 401.
I would like to think that once the other lines get up to the same service levels as the Lakeshore line, then Union station will be used more as a transfer point to get from one side of the GTA to the other.
I'm certain there's a lot of people who live west of Toronto who ride the Kitchener, Milton, LSW lines into Union, and then transfer onto the Lakeshore East to go into Durham.
