Towered
Superstar
It's like we're somehow still surprised by this in Ontario...
|
|
|
GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
It's like we're somehow still surprised by this in Ontario...
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 13,288
- Reaction score
- 12,080
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
The most up-to-date-plans call for demolishing the 30-year old office building on the corner of Main and Nelson (which the current bus terminal is located) and replacing with a larger, linear bus terminal hugging the rail corridor, with new development on top The property on the south side of Nelson (a former Loblaws store later subdivided into smaller retail units), recently cleared, would be a temporary bus loop/terminal when the north side is being built. That south side property is supposed to be the home of a new central library and "innovation hub."
The City of Brampton itself owns about half the downtown core. There are a lot of moving pieces.
ARG1
Senior Member
There's a few things to look at with this. One of my biggest issues with the Ontario Line when they first showed it off was East Harbour. While I liked having a cross platform connection to GO, it made one of the biggest parts of GO Expansion which is exclusive tracks for each line kind of dropped on its head. The new version of East Harbour does fix this problem, but I wonder if it introduces new problems as well. Yes Metrolinx can now save a lot of money by not building a flyover, but this also means that you no longer have an advantage of having a common platform for the lines running in the same direction. Now if you're accessing East Harbour station, or even Danforth or Scarborough, and you want to catch a train to union, you now have to look ahead of time on which line the next Union Station train will come, rather than have an island platform where the trains arrive on both sides as was suggested in the old Liberal plan. It makes me wonder if the flyover actually makes financial sense if it makes the shared corridor more accessible and more easily navigable.
The other question I have is Verster's comment on the Missing Link and being "commercially astute" because its a big statement that ends up not really saying a lot. That statement implies that alternatives to the Milton Line are being built that are more effective than a theoretical Milton RER, which is A) a massive claim, and B) makes me wonder what these alternatives are. My first guess would be the Eglinton West subway, with the idea being that instead of building the missing link and electrifying the corridor, an alternative is to build the transitway (already done), and then fully grade separate the Eglinton West extension so that you end up with a fully grade separated commute from Square One to downtown, and then worst case scenerio, you also have the Hurontario LRT which would take you to Port Credit, then take the GO train. Now to some extent I actually think this makes a lot of sense. Yes, Eglinton West is foolishly tunneled and would've been cheaper elevated at very minimal service cost, but even then, the project is still cheaper than the Missing Link. The issue really comes up when you consider that if you exclude getting to this line, Going from Square One -> Renforth -> Dundas West -> Union, that's 3 modes and 2 transfers you have to use compared to the Milton Line, however I guess its important to realize that Milton goes to Cooksville so either way you have to take the Hurontario LRT to reach it unless you want to build a Milton RER Subway to Square One which would increase the costs even more dramatically. Unfortunately I do not live in Mississauga so I am in no real position to quantify whether this alternative that Verster is referring to makes sense or not, but at least from a surface level I can see where he is coming from.
On a positive note, I cannot agree with Verster on the whole "building transit as a network" any more. Something a lot of people on this forum miss about projects like Eglinton West, Ontario Line, and Yonge North is that their purpose is to make a cohesive and unifying network. The reason why the grade separation of Eglinton West is so important is because it allows us to have a fully grade separated corridor from Square One to Midtown Toronto, to massive up and coming development nodes, and having fast and reliable transit connections between these nodes is an absolute necessity, and it would be silly to hamper that with an at grade section where the trains are restricted to the whim of cars and traffic lights. Yonge North will extend to Richmond Hill Centre, a transit hub that will connect to 3 BRT routes, a transitway, a GO Line, as well as a major east-west highway. While if you're looking at this from the surface as a "subway extension to suburbs" the extension might seem questionable, when looking at it from a cohesive network perspective, Yonge North is actually extremely important especially if we're looking at the really long term, like 40-50 years where the fruits of our labour today will pay off in the future. Its just unfortunate that there are areas where some of these principles seem to be falling through cracks such as Science Center Station.
This I guess leaves us with the ultimate question about Metrolinx, what is the proper balance between saving money while building an ideal network. What is the bright line standard where you have to stop looking for corners to cut and say that "paying for this is vital to what we're doing and what we're building". A running theme with Metrolinx is unfortunately how standards don't seem to be applied universally. The Ontario Line was changed from the DRL in order to facilitate transfers from GO to the Subway, and on that regard the Ontario Line is absolutely fantastic, but at the same time the Science Center Interchange leaves a lot to be desired. Why are some lines like Yonge North being modified to be more cost effective meanwhile Eglinton West is going full swing with no cost cutting measures in sight that wouldn't impact service or the network its trying to build (well the answer to that is obvious, but let's ignore that at least for now)?
Overall though I do think most of these issues are minor nitpicks, and at the very least I can say that Metrolinx at the very least has their head in the right place at the moment, and while there are a few design hiccups, overall the current transit plans in the region are much stronger than they were years ago.
afransen
Senior Member
It might be expensive, but what about the idea of having the GO tracks heading toward Union be elevated somewhat, and the tracks heading away from Union lowered, with ramps up/down on either end of the station. And a platform bridging the gap between the two. Then OL connections could go to these 'island' platforms and take the next train heading in that direction.
ARG1
Senior Member
So you're proposing a 3 level interchange where Ontario Line is the middle floor, Union trains are bottom floor, and outbound trains are the top floor? That is actually really smart. Of course yes it will be quite expensive, and I wonder if Space efficiency will also be a problem. But I actually like this a lot,
afransen
Senior Member
I take it to be a hint at an as-yet-undisclosed commercial agreement with CP on how to share the Milton corridor, not relying on the 'missing link'. There are some hints with the new Milton station that is under design.
I don't think many are criticizing that EWLRT is grade separated, but that it is TMB tunneled. And that the eastern end of the line is not grade separated (and subject to delays disrupting our very expensively grade separated central and western end), and a lot of compromises entailed in using low floor LRVs. Honestly, Crosstown should have been a light metro line, tunnelled in the central section and elevated to the west and east. For what we're spending, it might have been extended to Pearson & MCC already.
ARG1
Senior Member
That would be interesting to hear about if that's the case.
Oh I absolutely agree with that, however I do see a lot of people especially on twitter that genuinely think that at grade is the best way to go. Maybe calling out UT specifically might've been too harsh.
tsm1072
Active Member
The overall network planning is really important and why projects like the 407 transitway are important. On its own, it doesn't seem like a transit corridor that has any kind of demand, but the fast connectivity it provides between other transit modes, without having to go through downtown, is really important.
Coolstar
Senior Member
ARG1
Senior Member
As a follow up from this, I emailed Metrolinx about it, and I got this response:
Looks like the entire project has been pushed back by a year.
anb
Active Member
I wonder if they’ll ever let the UP express integrate with the rest of the GO network, or wait until RER is complete for the kitchener line. I can’t believe we’ll be getting two 7.5 min corridors in the future (Kitchener-UP and LE-Stouffville between Union and Scarborough). Does anyone know what will actually be happening with UP express when the Kitchener line is finished?
Coolstar
Senior Member
More frequent than that in fact. UPX ran 4tph prior to COVID-19. And since Metrolinx intends on running 6tph on Union-Bramalea once RER is completed, it's more like 10tph or a train every 6 minutes on the Kitchener corridor between the UPX spur and Union. And according to current plans, we'll also see 12tph stopping service between Union and Scarborough or a train every 5 minutes. 8tph for Stouffville and 4tph for Lakeshore.
The whole UPX situation is up in the air really. We know the line will be electrified, but you got the GTAA that instead wants a tunnel to serve the proposed Pearson Transit Hub, you got Metrolinx that wants to convert the UPX guideway to RER standards but we haven't seen much on that plan. It's also possible we could see high-floor EMUs instead and the UPX remains separate from RER.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
Very vague. From as far as I can tell it means a mix of negotiating with CN on good terms and not increasing frequency beyond what CN is willing to offer and which the market hasn't already demanded. If you get along, satisfy the market at your doorstep without stimulating that demand with incentives like frequent and convenient service, voila... you don't need the by-pass.
crs1026
Superstar
My conspiracy theory actually goes along the lines of
ML - look, we want to put CN and CP in a single shared corridor across the top of the GTA, and we actually have deep enough pockets to be willing to take the matter to court if you disagree with the terms, and you seem to have such a corridor....
CN - we don’t like working with you, or having you on our tracks, but we really really don’t like having to coproduce with CP, especially since it’s our corridor that they would be using with us
ML - ah.... so if we take CP out of the mix, we’re not so bad after all?
CN - well, when you put it that way.....
- Paul
EnviroTO
Senior Member
My understanding was that a CP set of tracks on the south side of the corridor would have been added, not that they would share tracks. That would definitely have been a nonstarter and hard to force upon the two companies.