407 Rail Freight Bypass/The Missing Link

[drum118]

^ Do you have a copy of that 3rd track early 2000s study? I don't recall seeing the 4th track/fly under by 2021/22 in the 2014 platform at a cost of $2.2B. I only recall them mentioning GO RER on lines they own.

Here's what I posted when we discussed this in July 2017.

407 Rail Freight Bypass/The Missing Link

I love the pitiful dollar figure for Milton versus virtually every other line.

urbantoronto.ca

I have no info on the 3rd track plan, other than seeing it in person as well stated at Council and GO Meetings. No idea where that 2014 election platform detail list is, but its not part of your list. I did use it as part of my written section for the Western GTA Transit Report that got water down in the end by others.

RER was part of the 4 track expansion.

 

[Allandale25]

^ I know it's not part of the list I provided, partly because I don't think any of the major parties keep their platforms on their websites after elections. That's why I included the media articles. The media may have unintentionally shortened the promise to "on all corridors" as I noted here:

In some media reports, this was said: "Liberal: Regional Express Rail (electrification and two-way, all-day service on all GO lines within 10 years);" (source) or "One aspect of the plan would see two-way, all-day GO train service every 15 minutes as opposed to the more recently instituted 30-minute intervals." (source)

Also, as I noted above, OLP was much more clear after the election that electrified GO RER was really for corridors GO owned. It was only years later "off-corridor" projects started being referenced and "Extensions" started being listed (Kitchener, Niagara Falls, Bowmanville). While there is an amount in the Capital Projects Group for the Milton Line, it's only $4,000,000 out of this:

And the 2014 budget before the campaign wasn't as clear as it could have been (quoting from myself from the link above):

The 2014 budget, which was released right before the campaign and OLP effectively ran on, said this on page 47:
The government recognizes continued expansion towards two‐way, all‐day GO Transit rail service as a priority. GO Transit improvements on all corridors would include additional track, grade separations, improved signalling, station improvements and additional fleet, which are all building blocks towards two‐way, all‐day service. In addition, analysis is underway on a proposal to electrify the GO rail system to deliver service at intervals as frequent as 15 minutes.

Emphasis added. Thanks though for confirming you don't have a copy of the 3rd track plan or the 2014 platform detailed list. Just wanted to contextualize your original statement.

 

[crs1026]

I don’t know if this report is old news - I don’t recall seeing it before - but it alludes to a 2009 study.

The hunt continues.

- Paul

PS and this article puts a date on the 4-track planning

 

[Allandale25]

^ Good find Paul! Helpful clarification. Here's the passage:

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.

 

[Allandale25]

Wynne 2014 election platform call for 4 tracks to Milton with a fly under at Humber River to be completed by 2021/22 at a cost of $2.2(?) billion. GO would use the north side of the corridor and see a few more stations added to the line. There was to be a number of grade separation to take place as well under a different program.

To be clear, the 2014 OLP platform did not specifically have text saying there would be "4 tracks to Milton with a fly under at Humber River to be completed by 2011/22 at a cost of $2.2(?) billion" as quoted above. That quote does not appear in the platform.

Here is the complete infrastructure section of the platform. It was found via this helpful website. While the platform didn't have specific language about the above-noted item, I do agree that they were less than clear on what they would build given it said:

• We will create two dedicated funds: one for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA), with up to $15 billion available for investment in transit; and one for the rest of the province with nearly $14 billion available for investment in roads, bridges, transit and other critical infrastructure. This investment will introduce train service every 15 minutes on all GO lines. [emphasis added]
  [*]› Expansion of GO all-day, two-way service, including regional express service every 15 minutes, and electrification on all lines starting with the Union Pearson Express

As I've previously posted, it was only after the campaign they clarified that this was for GO lines they "owned". That said, they didn't mention tracks or fly unders in the written platform. I think I recall seeing one media interview where one OLP candidate implied verbally the same thing as the platform in terms of "all". I just think it's important to be clear.

 

[Allandale25]

Given the current Provincial government's position of not pursuing the bypass references to it are fairly sparse. Here's a recent one from a TED talk Brian Crombie did. I'm not sure what all the triangles on the map are.

Video timemarked to where he talks about the bypass:

 

[Allandale25]

This Metrolinx report includes information on the bypass and compares it to adding capacity to the existing Halton Sub.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20191122/20191122_BoardMtg_Kitchener_IBC.pdf

 

[blaixx]

From a quick scan, it seems like Metrolinx is saying they can get the same benefit at half the cost by working with the Halton Sub vs. the new "407 Sub"

 

[drum118]

I said since day one back in 2002? EA of adding a 2nd track to the Georgetown Line that there should be 4 tracks in this corridor as well all others that would give CN 2 tracks and GO 2 tracks. I still say the same thing as its far cheaper than doing the bypass and in service sooner than later.

Even if the bypass is built with Metrolinx money, CN will own it like the current corridor and will cost more if Metrolinx wants to add their own tracks down the road to it.

The whole corridor for the Halton Sub can support 4 tracks with the exception of Downtown Brampton that would require major expropriation and tearing buildings down, as well closing streets off. You can get get 3 tracks in the Downtown area without expropriation and tearing buildings down..

If the 2 tracks for GO is on the north side with a fly-under at Bramalea, there would be little to no interference between CN and GO. VIA Rail would have to be relocated to the north side in Georgetown so there is no interference with CN.

The one big cost is building the bridge over the Credit River, as well the fly-under. Then there is the relocation of Georgetown and Brampton stations. A couple of overpass will have to be rebuilt to allow 4 tracks under them.

I will say the final cost to build this bypass will be higher than current cost stated in the business case at the end of construction.

There are a few places in the corridor where a 5th track can be added for GO and will require some expropriation or buying property to do it.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

The thing ignored above and in the report is how much of a contribution to moving CP the 407 Sub would be. Ultimately we are going to have to do 407 sooner or later to relocate CP and open Milton for full GO service. I rather suspect that even in a worst case where CP demands fully seperate double track everywhere the total cost is less than building both corridors.

I'd also question how far we'll get on electrification without 407... In theory it's feasible, but no one seems wiling to push the legislation we need to force CN to accept it on their corridors, and the three track section in Brampton seems likely to remain a showstopper for electrification beyond Bramalea so long as CN won't run freight on electrified rails.

OTOH there aren't many upgrades in the Halton optiont that GO wouldn't need eventually even as full owner, so I'm note quite frothing at the mouth right now.

 

[Allandale25]

I said since day one back in 2002? EA of adding a 2nd track to the Georgetown Line that there should be 4 tracks in this corridor as well all others that would give CN 2 tracks and GO 2 tracks. I still say the same thing as its far cheaper than doing the bypass and in service sooner than later.

Even if the bypass is built with Metrolinx money, CN will own it like the current corridor and will cost more if Metrolinx wants to add their own tracks down the road to it.

The whole corridor for the Halton Sub can support 4 tracks with the exception of Downtown Brampton that would require major expropriation and tearing buildings down, as well closing streets off. You can get get 3 tracks in the Downtown area without expropriation and tearing buildings down..

If the 2 tracks for GO is on the north side with a fly-under at Bramalea, there would be little to no interference between CN and GO. VIA Rail would have to be relocated to the north side in Georgetown so there is no interference with CN.

The one big cost is building the bridge over the Credit River, as well the fly-under. Then there is the relocation of Georgetown and Brampton stations. A couple of overpass will have to be rebuilt to allow 4 tracks under them.

I will say the final cost to build this bypass will be higher than current cost stated in the business case at the end of construction.

There are a few places in the corridor where a 5th track can be added for GO and will require some expropriation or buying property to do it.

The relocation of the Brampton Station would only be required with a fourth track. Likely not a third because a 2014 report said it would be located to the south of the existing track.

 

[Northern Light]

I rather suspect that even in a worst case where CP demands fully seperate double track everywhere the total cost is less than building both corridors.

In terms of 4 tracks across the entire York Sub, some of that could be pricey, there are corridor constraints. Portions would put the tracks well within current allowable safety margins of people's homes, there are bridges that need to be widenened, sound/derailment barriers, probably some outright expropriations where the railway would tower over someone's home/yard, not to mention the connecting tracks to CP's mainline on the east side would wipe out the existing golf course.

Don't take that to oppose your idea, in fact, I support it, I'm merely pointing out it would not be cheap.

Also, it should be compared with adding 2 extra passenger tracks along the existing CP Mainline; also pricey, but would it be more expensive than the 407/York Sub combo? Mind, you, widening the CP corridor through Rosedale might cause a bit of a dust up.....

I'd also question how far we'll get on electrification without 407... In theory it's feasible, but no one seems wiling to push the legislation we need to force CN to accept it on their corridors, and the three track section in Brampton seems likely to remain a showstopper for electrification beyond Bramalea so long as CN won't run freight on electrified rails.

I doubt CN is really unwilling to run under wires; I expect they won't be surrendering all the business on Metrolinx-owned corridors where the wires go up.

I think they'd prefer not to; for what reason I'm uncertain; but it really shouldn't interfere w/their operations so far as I know, assuming the wires are set to allow full-height, double-stack clearance.

 

[Allandale25]

 

[Allandale25]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1215323429186035712

 

[Tuscani01]

Between Crombie and Vankoeverden, I have no doubt that the Federal Liberals are giving this some thought. With Mississauga swinging PC Provincially, it would also be a no-brainer for the Ford government to give its support to as well.