|
|
|
GO Transit Midtown Corridor
- Thread starter DonValleyRainbow
- Start date
Sunnyside
Active Member
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.
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.
micheal_can
Senior Member
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.
This would be a good station to resurrect. It is only 200m from Summer
As far as the challenges, remember, much of the waterfront was industrial only 20 years ago.
skto
New Member
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
drum118
Superstar
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.
What use to be downtown for businesses is shifting to other parts of the waterfront and the centre that some buildings are becoming residential.
The problem with Summerhill is CP since it on its mainline. If I remember correctly without digging of the track layout photos I shot years ago, there are 4 tracks for the station plus CP Main Line. There are a few pinch point to make the corridor 4 tracks wide, but can be fix with $$.
Is CP the better route over CN?? Regardless of either RR, you need a new ROW to have a pure 300-350km line that will cost big $$ and take a few decades to build it, but it will run on existing lines at various locations like the rest of the world does.
robmausser
Senior Member
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.
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.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
The trouble is that the only other significant E-W line in the region is the CN York Sub which is way out in the 'burbs. Though I do think there would be value for a Northern GTA line on the York Sub, the midtown line has more utility, even if there is some overlap with the lakeshore line and line 2.
crs1026
Senior Member
Dense urban cities that run out of transit capacity have several choices. One is to dig new tunnels. A second is to expropriate whatever privately owned land is necessary to create a new surface corridor.
By the time Union Station fills up (not that many years away, I would say) - the concept of treating existing privately owned rail 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.
But before that happens, I would expect that ML will attempt to add platform capacity to the east or west of Union, at least until the tracks themselves have no further capacity. All of that together will be a long time away.
I really like (in concept) the idea of a relief line and station at North Toronto, but I don't see an actual business driver for doing this for several decades. It will only happen when it's absolutely necessary.
PS - Bragging rights - I did ride the previous regularly scheduled transit service on the North Toronto Sub. It ended fifty years ago this November.
- Paul
Davenport Diamond, 1971
By the time Union Station fills up (not that many years away, I would say) - the concept of treating existing privately owned rail 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.
But before that happens, I would expect that ML will attempt to add platform capacity to the east or west of Union, at least until the tracks themselves have no further capacity. All of that together will be a long time away.
I really like (in concept) the idea of a relief line and station at North Toronto, but I don't see an actual business driver for doing this for several decades. It will only happen when it's absolutely necessary.
PS - Bragging rights - I did ride the previous regularly scheduled transit service on the North Toronto Sub. It ended fifty years ago this November.
- Paul
Davenport Diamond, 1971
Last edited:
TRONto
Active Member
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.
crs1026
Senior Member
My point was - that legal stuff can be changed. There simply isn't the resolve right now to change it, but people may see things differently in 20 years.
- Paul
just east of the creek
Active Member
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.
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.
drum118
Superstar
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.
Copenhagen airport in on normal rail with very few HSR stopping there and are mainly coming from Sweden. Most of Sweden HSR X2000 stay in Sweden.
Zurich has various trains stopping at the airport on normal rail and to the city station.
There will never be a privately owned corridors to Union Station on the surface and it will have to be underground to do so. It will have to use the existing corridor to where its own ROW is somewhere in the east from Union station.
There are airport stations in many places, but not service by HSR. I can't speak to all of them since never been there, but can to the ones I have been to.
micheal_can
Senior Member
I guess it is a good thing that Via is a Federal crown corporation.
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
I'm not sure I see a strong case for HFR to go to Pearson. Air passengers from Montreal and Ottawa are not likely to use it, so that leaves the good folk in Peterborough. On the other hand the legacy passengers along the lakeshore between Kingston and Scarborough will want to get to Pearson. Having Kitchener services stop there makes sense but I think passengers coming from the east are likely to find transferring to GO at Union a better option than waiting for a VIA connection. And VIA seems more interested in beefing up the southern route and leaving Kitchener and Guelph to Ontario.
crs1026
Senior Member
Certainly, if CP saw that government wanted to push them off their tracks, they would demand a very high price.
But it might lead to a negotiated outcome that is somewhere in the middle.
Declaring a market value for land that is being transitioned from freight rail to transit is different than transitioning to developed real estate. CP will never be able to claim a developed market price so long as it runs freight on that line.
However, it would be a great place for development on the air rights - and if the freight were gone, and only a transit line remaining, that development would be far easier to accomplish, and more lucrative.
That outcome is still likely lower cost than tunnelling a new line under the city. My sense is that once the Ontario Line is complete, there will be very little interest in adding any more crosstown subway capacity in the downtown. It's just too pricey and time consuming to add more subways.
All of this is a bit academic because, as I say, I'm not sure the business case is there so long as Union's capacity can be increased. And Line 2 is already there, and I'm not sure that a business case could be made for an "express" Line 2, until the existing line is at capacity and needs relief.
- Paul