steveintoronto
Superstar
There is an answer for this, and I've read no mention of it as an alternative to the tunnel option that has been mentioned: A two-track flyover as a southerly by-pass around the present shed. The constriction isn't just platform space and slots, it's the mouths through the bridges to the west of Union. One of the advantages of RER is that it will be electric EMUs, and so have the ability to handle greater gradients than diesel hauled loco stock with a more distributed and higher tractive ability. Whether the bridges would have to be raised slightly to do this, or the ground tracks lowered to clear a flown pair is a good question, but no matter how this is done, it will be a lot cheaper and easier than tunneling, especially through that area with so much density above it, unless tunneling through bedrock, which would make it even more expensive, not in terms of digging, which would be easier, but in terms of platform access that deep. Think East Side Access under Grand Central Terminal. (Which would not be repeated today, if they knew how much that is eventually to cost)
Ostensibly a platform could be flown too above the three tracks already by-passing the south of the shed. It's a wild idea, but compared to relying on a DRL shuttle or any other option being touted, it's no harder than building the Gardiner....hey...lol...now there's an idea...sling it under the present Gardiner alignment to get around obstacles, and sink the Lakeshore where necessary to clear it. The Chicago Loop is probably a good comparator in many respects in everything but appearance.
Again, if the Missing Link were built, these trains could loop across the present CP mid-town line to Summerhill Station. The Missing Link makes so much possible.
On the politics of the Feds new 'Investment Bank': Since private money is being touted to be greater than the Fed's own amount being invested, one wonders as to who calls the shots? This might be a good thing in the big scheme of things esp as that relates to the Missing Link, the ring that binds them all. If I were investing private capital, I'd look at the Link as being one of the best possible investments of them all, and not to have any government ownership of it, make it a stand-alone private investment that then leases rights to users.
*(See link at bottom)
Does this complicate things operationally? No more than passenger over freight is already! Perhaps even less, as if enough demand were there for passenger as well, dedicated leasing for that could/would also be accommodated. Would the Feds have a say in how this is allocated? Absolutely, it would take an amendment of present acts to allow this, perhaps an Act of its own would be best, so that any later dispute would be settled by Federal courts if necessary. Complicated? Not really, the present private railways operate already under such regulations and terms, and when times are good, make an excellent financial return. The Link would be even more of a steady investment, as the passenger load, if passenger is also accommodated, ballasts the freight usage over time.
This new Investment Bank may be far more favourable *indirectly* to Metrolinx overall just by rationalizing freight operations around the GTHA. That would allow provincial monies to go a lot further in doing what would then remain necessary for GO to be far more efficient.
*Link for above reference:
(Like it or not, due to limited Gov't monies, this is the way things are headed)
http://www.hfw.com/Australias-new-dawn–port-privatisation-November-2013
It's time to privatize Canada's leading ports and airports
The Globe and Mail-Feb 17, 2014
By international standards, Canada's two largest ports – Vancouver ... it time to completely privatize Canada's main airports and ocean ports?
Last edited:
