TheHonestMaple
Active Member
yep. And it also used to have two tracks way back in the day (although the trains were obviously significantly smaller).
|
|
|
GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
6ixGod
Active Member
Not sure how old some folks are here, but the majority of young people (ie. late millennials after that) view Hamilton no different than how the older generations viewed Mississauga/Pickering. It’s pretty much one big urban area now. Even places like Waterloo and Peterborough are increasingly becoming part of the larger “Greater Toronto” now.
If this were the United States, “Greater Toronto” by US definitions would probably include all the places I mentioned above.
So, anything happening in Hamilton should be viewed no differently than anything happening in downtown Toronto. The entire region needs to work together to continue the regions growth.
This ain’t 1988 anymore.
If this were the United States, “Greater Toronto” by US definitions would probably include all the places I mentioned above.
So, anything happening in Hamilton should be viewed no differently than anything happening in downtown Toronto. The entire region needs to work together to continue the regions growth.
This ain’t 1988 anymore.
Northern Light
Superstar
I don't think anyone with any sense would disagree with any of that.
The issue here has solely been one of skewed 'facts'.......and utter antipathy towards anyone not from Hamilton.
Kindness and respect go alot further in discussions.
smallspy
Senior Member
This seems to be a rather common railfan trope about how the work was done to fit the GO service.
It wasn't.
The autoracks posiitioned behind the locos was the actual reason for the work (as well as, more importantly, remedial structural work) being doing in the way it was. The top of autorack is several feet taller than a BiLevel is. In fact, a BiLevel is only a small handful of inches taller than the SD40s pulling that train.
I guess it could also be noted that Hamilton has better bus service to and from it than almost any other city in the GTA.
Dan
DirectionNorth
Senior Member
As a former Ottawan, I am sympathetic to the concern that the provincial government is showering the GTA in transit while ignoring the rest of the province.
However, terms like "deserve" get thrown about, and as the Rob Ford saga showed us, this is the wrong way to approach this question.
Firstly, @TheHonestMaple, West Harbour has 2WAD service - a massive win that I did not see coming even in 2020. From an ideal network planning perspective, is 2WAD service to Hamilton Centre better? Sure, but even in a reasonable cost country, CPKC doesn't want us there, and widening would still be $100s of millions, let alone at the cost of modern Canadian infrastructure. We'd be much better off funding the buses to go into the new MSF, and feeding the shiny new 2WAD service (a concern I have voiced in the past - woah, has it really been a year?)
Also, the secondary cities have to want transit (and for the record, VIVA capital funding should stop until York Region gets serious about operations). Kitchener is doing fine, though ION Phase II is 5x or more of what it should cost, but when I jokingly suggested last year that Hamilton was "recancelling" the LRT, I wasn't really joking; Ottawa is self imploding and London doesn't think bus lanes to Western is a good idea.
There is more investment coming. Confederation GO and the West Harbour tie-in is close to being a meme here on UT, but it'll happen, and the province does seem to want to fund Hamilton LRT this time around. Talking about who "deserves" transit, and using emotional arguments, takes away from a serious conversation about where the limited supply of transit money can be best put to use.
As for reverse peak service into Hamilton, I can only say that there are (urban) projects, even in Hamilton, that will receive higher ridership first - the few billions it would take for new connections into Hamilton Centre, as well as the job density for a mass-scale reverse GO service to pencil out, doesn't really exist.
And I concur - I hate it when I feel I have to defend Bloomington GO.
However, terms like "deserve" get thrown about, and as the Rob Ford saga showed us, this is the wrong way to approach this question.
Firstly, @TheHonestMaple, West Harbour has 2WAD service - a massive win that I did not see coming even in 2020. From an ideal network planning perspective, is 2WAD service to Hamilton Centre better? Sure, but even in a reasonable cost country, CPKC doesn't want us there, and widening would still be $100s of millions, let alone at the cost of modern Canadian infrastructure. We'd be much better off funding the buses to go into the new MSF, and feeding the shiny new 2WAD service (a concern I have voiced in the past - woah, has it really been a year?)
Also, the secondary cities have to want transit (and for the record, VIVA capital funding should stop until York Region gets serious about operations). Kitchener is doing fine, though ION Phase II is 5x or more of what it should cost, but when I jokingly suggested last year that Hamilton was "recancelling" the LRT, I wasn't really joking; Ottawa is self imploding and London doesn't think bus lanes to Western is a good idea.
There is more investment coming. Confederation GO and the West Harbour tie-in is close to being a meme here on UT, but it'll happen, and the province does seem to want to fund Hamilton LRT this time around. Talking about who "deserves" transit, and using emotional arguments, takes away from a serious conversation about where the limited supply of transit money can be best put to use.
As for reverse peak service into Hamilton, I can only say that there are (urban) projects, even in Hamilton, that will receive higher ridership first - the few billions it would take for new connections into Hamilton Centre, as well as the job density for a mass-scale reverse GO service to pencil out, doesn't really exist.
And I concur - I hate it when I feel I have to defend Bloomington GO.
Northern Light
Superstar
Good post.
Just to revisit what I hinted at earlier........there will be a significant improvement in service to Hamilton, likely early next year, but we'll see how many engineers are trained up.
WB62
Senior Member
That alignment was studied in 2010 along with a few other alignments that used the CP line to Niagara:
Last edited by a moderator:
crs1026
Superstar
At the risk of repeating - we have to recognise just how much of the envelope we would consume for some of these much desirable but more extensive projects.
GO RER was originally said to be a $15B project (in what year’s dollars I forget, it doesn’t matter).. That is the equivalent to 100 $150M sub-projects. Sounds ample, right?
When we try to squeeze a $1B sub project into that envelope, we withdraw several of those $150M sub-projects.
I have no idea what an enlarged Hunter St tunnel would cost - there are lots of precedents for railways deepening a two-track arched tunnel to accommodate two high loaded tracks, but few of these are under a major urban area, and many are in more solid rock - but I’m speculating at least a half Billion, likely much more if one tries to connect back to the Grimsby. Should we try to accomplish that within the envelope, given that some other things will fall off the table.?
I give some credit to ML for wisely deferring the biggest single-cost items so the funds can be spread more broadly. Beyond Hamilton, Milton 2WAD is the item that people in UT most bitterly complain isn’t getting done. But realistically, pulling $2B or more out of that $15B plan to build Milton would leave a lot of other things unfunded.
ML isn’t necessarily spend its money wisely (cough Bloomington cough) but we have to accept that some things will have to wait.I would see Hunter St as one of those things.
- Paul
GO RER was originally said to be a $15B project (in what year’s dollars I forget, it doesn’t matter).. That is the equivalent to 100 $150M sub-projects. Sounds ample, right?
When we try to squeeze a $1B sub project into that envelope, we withdraw several of those $150M sub-projects.
I have no idea what an enlarged Hunter St tunnel would cost - there are lots of precedents for railways deepening a two-track arched tunnel to accommodate two high loaded tracks, but few of these are under a major urban area, and many are in more solid rock - but I’m speculating at least a half Billion, likely much more if one tries to connect back to the Grimsby. Should we try to accomplish that within the envelope, given that some other things will fall off the table.?
I give some credit to ML for wisely deferring the biggest single-cost items so the funds can be spread more broadly. Beyond Hamilton, Milton 2WAD is the item that people in UT most bitterly complain isn’t getting done. But realistically, pulling $2B or more out of that $15B plan to build Milton would leave a lot of other things unfunded.
ML isn’t necessarily spend its money wisely (cough Bloomington cough) but we have to accept that some things will have to wait.I would see Hunter St as one of those things.
- Paul
TheHonestMaple
Active Member
Well said. One thing I really hope Metrolinx prioritizes is electrified rail between Aldershot and West Harbour. I hope they'll be able to work out a deal.
Metroscapes
Active Member
A good and interesting myth disspelled.
Not to stir the pot, but my (quick) take is West Harbour should be the future of GO train service in Hamilton from an efficiency perspective. It is the direct line to/from Niagara. Someday, if we ever get serious about achieving common goals of passenger and freight in this country, the Hamilton sub should be abandoned below the brow in favour of a bypass right adjacent to Hamilton Airport (to enable direct or indirect rail-to-air freight). The lower Hamilton sub can then be used as a light rail line between some appropriate point east in the city and Bayview Junction / Aldershot. I've always thought Bayview was a good candidate for a simultaneous grade separation and GO-VIA interchange station project, but that's my pie-in-the-sky dreaming.
nfitz
Superstar
I'd disagree with it. I'm of the earlier generation and I've always viewed Mississauga as a totally unwalkable suburban hell - except perhaps in the old Port Credit area.
Central Hamilton has always been far cooler than that. That said, I don't think two central GO stations benefits the city. Especially with neither connecting well to the LRT.
TheHonestMaple
Active Member
Hamilton is an actual city. It has a real urban fabric, a downtown walkable core, a very old history, architecture, etc etc. Mississauga, Vaughan and Brampton are like you said, suburban hell. Sprawling suburbs, with a network of major 4 lane wide roads that are not walkable. They just aren't cities, they're suburbs to Toronto. Nothing wrong with that, that's just how it is.
Northern Light
Superstar
I didn't agree with a comment that said every area is identical or has equal appeal as living or shopping area to everyone, I agreed with the idea that the region (Toronto) could generally be seen as one Metropolitan area, which it is, the Greater Goldenhorseshoe.
If one is seeking maximum commuters to Toronto, stations on the Lakeshore line are preferable, if one is seeking people to be in-bound to downtown Hamilton for work or play, then a station downtown makes more sense.
I don't really see, in the fullness of time, why both can have reasonably frequent services. (every 15M in peak, and every 30M off-peak). I just don't think a major investment to expand service in the downtown area of Hamilton is pending anytime soon.
TheHonestMaple
Active Member
Exactly. That's the issue we're trying to bring attention to. Despite the obvious need for increased service, there is no plan for it. For some reason that the public is not being made aware of.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Does that exist, anywhere? Given that much of Canadian rail freight is large tonnage of containers and bulk commodities, and aircraft are the modern equivalent of less-than-carload or 'loose' cargo, I'm not sure I see much compatibility between the two modes.