I like the idea of having a station for Toronto that isn’t Union, but I just can’t see a functional reason. Is Summerhill really the ideal transit centrepoint of Toronto? Should it become a key centre? It being south of St. Clair means very little, imo- I can simultaneously say it’s north of Bloor, or Queen, or King. I don’t mind the idea of using the midtown line for GO service, but intercity is not a great idea, unless its for something other than HFR. A few reasons:Summerhill TTC Station and the North Toronto Station are located SOUTH of St. Clair Avenue. With an addition of a HSR line to Montreal (and Windsor), would make the neighbourhood an important centre of Toronto.
View attachment 458098From link.
And most importantly, there's a LCBO store there.
See link.
Summerhill TTC Station and the North Toronto Station are located SOUTH of St. Clair Avenue. With an addition of a HSR line to Montreal (and Windsor), would make the neighbourhood an important centre of Toronto.
View attachment 458098From link.
And most importantly, there's a LCBO store there.
See link.
Alstom's concept, to my eyes, looks to be using the Don Branch that Metrolinx proposes for its GO train layover.If you look at Alstom's concept, it seems to me they are suggesting at least partially tunneling the HSR approach to Union through the Don Valley.
Maybe it would be an opportunity for a new straightened high speed approach to downtown and a regional relief line, similar to what Seoul is doing with high speed regional subway (GTX) that shares alignment with their HSR network. Probably not so necessary between Union and Pearson, but could be useful for the eastern approach through downtown, and maybe an additional relief line for the Ontario Line in the distant future.
Great Train eXpress - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Paris has a number of stations with each servicing various parts of France or other countries. Same for London UK as well a number of other cities.I like the idea of having a station for Toronto that isn’t Union, but I just can’t see a functional reason. Is Summerhill really the ideal transit centrepoint of Toronto? Should it become a key centre? It being south of St. Clair means very little, imo- I can simultaneously say it’s north of Bloor, or Queen, or King. I don’t mind the idea of using the midtown line for GO service, but intercity is not a great idea, unless its for something other than HFR. A few reasons:
1. The built form (as mentioned) has demographic and development barriers, requiring a push into affluent neighbourhoods for land.
2. The financial core of Downtown is already where major firms prefer to be and where travellers are likely going. Any vacant parcels are primed for this context. Summerhill is not.
3. All regional transit is oriented around Union- 7 GO lines, 2 subway routes (both halves of Line 1) and streetcars, with the OL not far to the north. Summerhill has 1 subway connection (already at capacity) and possibly a GO line. The intermodal prospects are just far worse without significant changes to how GO operates (read: lots and lots of money).
This whole exchange and commentary from me is probably more fitting for the VIA thread. It’s a question of whether it is a good idea to pull downtown further north than it already has been. I think it’s an unecessary exercise.
I thought the city/province didn't have the rights to expropriate from CN/CP due to the federal regulations. Same way that Milton (?), couldn't do anything about the intermodal terminal.By the time Union Station fills up (not that many years away, I would say) - the concept of treating existing privately owned corridors as an asset for the public good may be better understood and more politically popular. So expropriating CP (and likely forcing them onto CN across the top of the City) may be a more popular proposition... and likely still cheaper to make CP and CN whole than tunnelling anything new downtown.
I thought the city/province didn't have the rights to expropriate from CN/CP due to the federal regulations. Same way that Milton (?), couldn't do anything about the intermodal terminal.
There are 3 lines in Europe where HSR goes to the airport. Berlin built a rail corridor that service various rail service to the airport with HSR using regular rail corridor. Frankfurt Airport service S-Bahn, RER, Intercity and HSR on normal rail lines. Amsterdam sees HSR on normal rail line.I really think any full corridor HSR plan that doesn't go to both Union and Pearson is a failure. As well as one that requires you to take the REM and go to another station in Montreal.
It will go to Union and it will take a long painful trip around Mont Royal to access Quebec City because any other way will be a pain for people and a logistical nightmare.
I thought the city/province didn't have the rights to expropriate from CN/CP due to the federal regulations. Same way that Milton (?), couldn't do anything about the intermodal terminal.
Expropriation, whether federal or provincial is going to be very expensive based on market value, damages attributable to disturbance, relocation disturbances/difficulties and any other damages or allowances a court would grant. Use of the corridor for GO transit seems to be a an idea that has more traction then running HFR through it, at least for the foreseeable future. Paris has roughly the same population with a couple of stations and painful changes between them. London has 3 or 4 times the population, with multiple stations, and a transit culture much less tuned to the car.
If the corridor has room for 4 lines (or needs some work to become 4 lines), a working agreement with CP to assume two of the lines for transit purpose, might be more cost effective then trying to say goodbye to CP. Saying goodbye to CP will entail major upgrades to cross GTA freight connections from Milton to Oshawa. Perhaps Metrolinx would look into a freight division, assume all the rail lines within the GTA, and charge any and all freight users to use these lines to move through the area quickly and efficiently. Could they do that with a higher degree of skill and customer satisfaction, say compared to a CP/CN consortium? Maybe not. But it might help rationalize rail use and access in the GTA between the competing groups and deliver a better product for both.