Allandale25
Senior Member
Small's Creek prep work starting.
|
|
|
GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
reaperexpress
Senior Member
I can't help but to debunk some of the claims here:
"Parking lot for diesel trains"
No, Metrolinx specifically included this yard into the scope for electrification so that it can store electric trains. Although the yard is adjacent to the Richmond Hill line, it's actually not intended for that line. It's more likely to be used by the Barrie and Kitchener lines.
"The proposal is based on flawed ridership projections"
No, actually even the present ridership would justify the yard. The primary purpose of the facility is to allow peak-period trains arriving at the northern platforms at Union (e.g. the Barrie Line*) to continue straight through Union and to a nearby layover facility which does not involve crossing the busy Lakeshore East / Stouffville corridor at-grade. So the justification for the yard is based on the difference between peak and off-peak ridership demand, not the total demand. GO has long proven that it can fill massive peak-period trains, and the Barrie corridor's off-peak ridership demand will never come anywhere near its peak-hour commuter surge. It is safe to assume we will always run at least a couple extra 12-car loco-hauled behemoths per day on commuter express services from Barrie. And even the basic 15-minute local service could benefit from the yard. For example, 10-car (2-unit) EMU trains coming in near the end of the morning peak might split in half at Union, with one unit continuing forward to this yard, and the other unit heading back toward Aurora/Newmarket as a midday service.
*The Barrie line currently serves platforms further south in the trainshed, but once the new dedicated Barrie Line tracks are added along the Weston Subdivision and the north side of the USRC, it will relocate to the north side of the station.
Here in the Netherlands, surprisingly little extra service is added during peak periods. Yet even here, there are massive passenger rail yards in the centres of most major cities. These are used to store the extra trainsets which are used to lengthen peak-period services.
"[The project] is completely unnecessary but taxpayers [sic] money must be spent".
Precisely the opposite. The entire point of this project is to save [taxpayers'] money by reducing the amount of out-of-service train operations, and reducing the number of at-grade conflicts which could create delays. If money were no object, GO would just deadhead trains to all the way Willowbrook or Whitby, and schedule enough time for the not-in-service trains to eat any delays resulting from at-grade conflicts. There is not enough capacity at Bathurst, and Don/Wilson yards to store the entire difference in capacity which will be required between peak-direction and off-peak services. Whether that be trains providing extra frequency, or train units providing extra consist length during peak periods.
"Emperor Ford enabled Metrolinx to disregard the City of Toronto, the TRCA and the voices of the people who use this park"
Actually Metrolinx as always been able to steamroll their projects through, long before the election of Ford. His government only slightly exacerbated this fact as part of their streamlining of the transit project assessment process. It's worth noting that this fact also saves a considerable amount of taxpayer money, precisely because their projects don't constantly get stalled by NIMBY groups such as this one.
It's notable that they fail to mention any actual impacts of the facility on the park. The site in question is already a railway, on an existing embankment next to an existing expressway, far away from the areas of the park which people actually use. I think these people are mostly upset about the concept of there being trains sitting in the park. Heaven forbid they see trains sitting on the railway tracks as they look down from the Bloor Viaduct.
Last edited:
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Is there not enough space in Wilson yard and lower Don Yard?
reaperexpress
Senior Member
There's no real answer to this question because if money were no object we wouldn't need any of the yards at all. We would just run exceedingly long trains all day even when they're not required. It's a sliding scale of how expensive you want GO train operations to be.
Allandale25
Senior Member
I can't seem to find quickly confirmation of this online from Metrolinx, but Steve Munro wrote in a June 2021 post that he believes the Don Valley Layover will be used for the Milton Line trains which will remain diesel.
Metrolinx noted in a June 2021 presentation why the Don Valley Layover is needed.
crs1026
Superstar
^The intrusive part of the yard is not the choice of motive power - if diesels, they would be shut down while laying over, and if electric, there is still the OCS intrusion.
The intrusion is the addition of service buildings and roadway where it doesn't exist at present. That infrastructure makes it more than just a parking spot for trains.
Personally, I think it's an unnecessary choice at the expense of the greenery of the valley - there is likely room to squeeze three trainlengths of storage just up the road at Leaside - but the trackage needs to be retained against possibly VIA HFR and possibly a rethink of the Richmond Hill line (which will be an exercise in NIMBYism if it ever happens). The rail row should not be surrendered to parkland, and there will always be the necessary separation of trail and rails.
As much I appreciate the tongue-in-cheek spirit of the sign (and the trail dance, if you followed the link) the suggestion of pedestrian intrusion on that bridge is not going to win any credibility, either. It's amusing, but it's not a very constructive injection of ideas into planning for the Don Valley - nor does it really rebut any of ML's arguments for needing to put it in that location.
- Paul
The intrusion is the addition of service buildings and roadway where it doesn't exist at present. That infrastructure makes it more than just a parking spot for trains.
Personally, I think it's an unnecessary choice at the expense of the greenery of the valley - there is likely room to squeeze three trainlengths of storage just up the road at Leaside - but the trackage needs to be retained against possibly VIA HFR and possibly a rethink of the Richmond Hill line (which will be an exercise in NIMBYism if it ever happens). The rail row should not be surrendered to parkland, and there will always be the necessary separation of trail and rails.
As much I appreciate the tongue-in-cheek spirit of the sign (and the trail dance, if you followed the link) the suggestion of pedestrian intrusion on that bridge is not going to win any credibility, either. It's amusing, but it's not a very constructive injection of ideas into planning for the Don Valley - nor does it really rebut any of ML's arguments for needing to put it in that location.
- Paul
reaperexpress
Senior Member
My statement was based on the fact that Metrolinx specifically added "Richmond Hill Electrification" as part of their recent New Track & Facilities TPAP.
I assumed that it was leading to the Don Valley Layover, but if there is a new Bala sub layover then it could be leading there instead.
Nomad_87
Active Member
It's a shame that the arguments against the Don Valley layover site has devolved to just dumb nimbyism because there's a legitimate conversation in there on if this is the best location for it. As well, aside from Half-mile bridge what is the point of this being a trail? There's a trail that already follows the Don Branch, and goes much further up the valley. The corridor is far more useful as a rail corridor. Especially if the North Toronto/Belleville subs are opened up for passenger rail
Allandale25
Senior Member
generalcanada
Senior Member
^ okay so the tunnels are almost done, im assuming the new rail lines to be used in them will only start construction with the go expansion itself?
Nomad_87
Active Member
Etobicoke North will need to me demolished before the new tracks can be installed and that is not happening until Woodbine GO opens
EnviroTO
Senior Member
How can this study not include a look at a Leaside Yard but include looking at Whitby? They go halfway up the line to Leaside but don't consider Leaside despite it being right next to the Ontario Line yard. I don't get it.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
With the new tunnels under 401/409 on the Kitchener Line I'm wondering how grass that green has grown there and if planted why it was planted. Seems like a sign that these tunnels aren't going to be used anytime soon.
Allandale25
Senior Member
Probably because CP Rail wasn't interested or was unwilling to share the land at the Leaside Yard. It's also a further deadhead trip to/from Union.
Allandale25
Senior Member
Maybe it's an environmental measure to help with rainfall absorption? Given Metrolinx has already said the OnCorr winner will build the track for the tunnels it will be a few years.