GO Transit Midtown Corridor

[M636RF]

Maybe a future compromise with CP would be 1 freight track for access to certain customers, alongside 2 for Smartrack (there should be enough space for that over a lot of the right of way). I still doubt that CP would go for this though.

 

[lenaitch]

This picture from Ray Kennedy's Old Time Trains website adds a further dimension. Note who was here first : CP, not the city.

At the end of the day, I'm sure CP would jump at the offer if the price were right. That "right price" would probably make the taxpayer gag. And there's the obstacle.

- Paul

Exactly this. The CP North Toronto Sub. (and later the Agincourt yard) and CN York Sub. were built in farmer's fields. Both are the mainline routes for both companies. If some kind of shared by-pass corridor is proposed, both will want its capacity to be sufficient to meet both of their unconstrained traffic and be reasonably future-proofed. Any purchase price (or consideration) would have to be favourable - they are both for-profit companies. And, of course, a willing host municipality.

Whenever people see a train of sea containers go by, they have to remember that a lot of the contents are consumer goods and destined for the GTA. The farther the terminals are pushed out, truck traffic will increase.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Exactly this. The CP North Toronto Sub. (and later the Agincourt yard) and CN York Sub. were built in farmer's fields. Both are the mainline routes for both companies. If some kind of shared by-pass corridor is proposed, both will want its capacity to be sufficient to meet both of their unconstrained traffic and be reasonably future-proofed. Any purchase price (or consideration) would have to be favourable - they are both for-profit companies. And, of course, a willing host municipality.

Whenever people see a train of sea containers go by, they have to remember that a lot of the contents are consumer goods and destined for the GTA. The farther the terminals are pushed out, truck traffic will increase.

5 track York Sub and Missing Link fully funded by the Province?

 

[Rainforest]

We don't know if a bypass would ease grades and reduce overall track investment for CP (I suspect it would, because the climb from Yonge to Agincourt is a fair grade also). But the North Toronto line represents very expensive real estate. So even if CP got a better route, for free, they would likely prefer to sell the old ROW to developers instead of to the Province for continued rail use. Developers would offer more money than the taxpayer will. And again, how much capacity will the new line offer over the longer term?

The province may legislate away the ability of developers to use this corridor for condos and towers etc, thus making the lands unappealing for the developers and reducing the market price.

Railways are federally regulated, but if the land was turned up for development, it wouldn't be a railway anymore, and thus would fall under provincial regulations on the land usage. Wouldn't it?

 

[crs1026]

The province may legislate away the ability of developers to use this corridor for condos and towers etc, thus making the lands unappealing for the developers and reducing the market price.

Railways are federally regulated, but if the land was turned up for development, it wouldn't be a railway anymore, and thus would fall under provincial regulations on the land usage. Wouldn't it?

There are lots of legal avenues that the government could use to take over the land, yes.... but in the end any land owner (CP in this case) has a right to maximise the worth of its asset. So a legal workaround that eroded the land’s theoretical market value would likely be thrown out by the courts. CP’s shareholders would undoubtedly sue if they thought the sale price was being manipulated.

I am guessing that CN would also oppose a two railroad bypass on the grounds that it’s their land and they are owed compensation for any benefit that their competitor gets from using it. Again, the law likely supports this.

Lastly, I doubt that either railroad would view two tracks as sufficient capacity over the longer haul. They will want space for three, and possibly four tracks each. That is quite reasonable....a hundred years goes by pretty quick. If the bypass is to end up being the sole rail corridor across the GTA, it’s not in the public interest to underestimate future demand.... the cost of adding more capacity later, after all the adjacent land has been developed, would be crippling, and our economy would bear that cost if we can’t move goods.

(Yeah, I know, if the railways were compelled to cooperate to make joint use of a shared assett, things might be easier..... but that simply is not Canadian rail policy and no federal government of any stripe would impose that any time soon. Maybe in 2050. Ask the Senate about that one....)

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

Because I like digging up existing/old threads, question and response relevant to this one from last night's townhall.

 

[Northern Light]

Because I like digging up existing/old threads, question and response relevant to this one from last night's townhall.

At one point it was discussed just how busy the CP corridor is through here.

But I thought they gave the question about its use short-shrift.

There is room for 4+ tracks from Lansdowne to almost Leaside.

There is room for a third track on most of the rest of the corridor.

Also, a quick purview of google's look at the corridor is to show zero active trains through the central stretch on the day they took their pics.

That would suggest to me there is some slack there; particularly if advanced signalling were deployed.

The US has mandated all railways moving to PTC, that same level of tech can allow for both more efficient train movement and tighter spacing between trains, creating more capacity.

If we simply mandated this type of operating on mainline tracks, it would free up quite a bit of room.

 

[robmausser]

At one point it was discussed just how busy the CP corridor is through here.

But I thought they gave the question about its use short-shrift.

There is room for 4+ tracks from Lansdowne to almost Leaside.

There is room for a third track on most of the rest of the corridor.

Also, a quick purview of google's look at the corridor is to show zero active trains through the central stretch on the day they took their pics.

That would suggest to me there is some slack there; particularly if advanced signalling were deployed.

The US has mandated all railways moving to PTC, that same level of tech can allow for both more efficient train movement and tighter spacing between trains, creating more capacity.

If we simply mandated this type of operating on mainline tracks, it would free up quite a bit of room.

Something that I am surprised they didnt address, but while the issue of track managment on the CP line is important, I really don't think the Bowmanville extension will add any traffic issues to the existing Lakeshore East Line, in terms of overcrowding of Trains.

One would have to imagine that with 15 minute frequency on the Lakeshore Line to Oshawa, and the Bowmanville extension slated initially for about 5 or 6 peak commuter trains (6 into Union in the morning and 6 out to Bowmanville at night) those would not be trains that are being added to the whole line new, but rather simply taking the existing express trains that run on Lakeshore East and having them continue out to Bowmanville.

So the number of trains on the existing line would not change.

However, the only issue is if there are delays on the Bowmanville portion, that would cascade down the entire line. And of course these trains have to go farther and that of course increases the time for them to effectively become the opposite direction trains in service. But that would essentially mean less trains on the line at any given time, not more. Quite obviously the opposite problem.

Just the person asking the questions at the meeting seemed to either mispeak or was confused, as it sounded like his concerns were that any extension of a line would add trains to the service, which is rarely the case, they would obviously first extend the existing trains out along the new extension.

 

[crs1026]

^To be a bit simplistic- at first, the bowmanville extension is not as likely to build ridership as it is to empty the parking lot and platform at Oshawa. The extension represents a benefit to these commuters, and it may attract some who find the parking at Oshawa full and so just carry on by auto altogether. So many people boarding at Oshawa actually start their commute towards Bowmanville, they represent potential seats filled further east but not new ridership from today.
This does represent an opportunity for GO, in that if the Bowmanville trains are largely full by the time they reach Oshawa, they might as well carry on as express runs.... or make only a few stops to either full the trains completely, or serve places other than Union that Bowmanville riders need to get to.
That, in turn, changes the demand and volume at Oshawa, which might see a new service pattern from today. That might look more like LSW which sees turnback trains at various points.
I did hear Verster allude to this, although his remarks rambled a bit and might not have been completely clear.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

@robmausser and @crs1026

At the meeting, Verster discussed that the analysis showed that extending to Bomanville for rush-hour only service did not meet the standards for cost-recovery.

However, he said, the good news was that the Business case supported 2WAD, frequent service (ie. full LSE corridor service) all the way to Bomanville.

He also said they had modeled 4 different ways to make the extension happen and were having on-going discussions w/stakeholders as to how that will be done.

He did not say what those options were, but off hand, I would assume one was the last discussed variation via CP's track, another would be using CN's tracks, perhaps there's an option to extend the GO Sub further east, I'm uncertain but that would be a #3, and I have no clue what a 4th option would be here.

Greg Percy spoke about needing a 3rd track in more sections of LSE in order to support express runs from Oshawa. He was unclear on where he feels that would be needed. Verster, more generally implied (not specific to LSE) that more advanced signalling could work with short bursts of 2nd and 3rd track as required.

 

[steveintoronto]

Just the person asking the questions at the meeting seemed to either mispeak or was confused

I did hear Verster allude to this, although his remarks rambled a bit and might not have been completely clear.

Greg Percy spoke about needing a 3rd track in more sections of LSE in order to support express runs from Oshawa. He was unclear on where he feels that would be needed.

If someone knows of a transcript of these proceedings, please link. Failing that, if anyone can flag the time of the comments above, I'd be most appreciative, as there's such a huge amount of 'noise' that some of the gems are missed. I almost have to wonder if that is 'allowed' to happen. 'Bury it'.

I've gone over a number of quotes to ascribe them exactly, only to find a buried nuance that accidentally reveals something unintended. For example, Verster's talking of the Ontario Line surfacing at East Harbour, an interesting point in itself, but for him to then describe the *SmartTrack* "East Harbour Station" as "Union East" in importance. Whoa...it took me a few listens for the bridge reference to realize the SmartTrack aspect of his revelation. It's out there now, he can't 'unsay it'. In the event, I think he was just 'jamming it' up at the mike, but he is now on record of stating those things on at least two occasions. You can allow anyone a 'slip-up' once. But not twice...

A transcript allows finer examination...if it hasn't been altered.

 

[crs1026]

If someone knows of a transcript of these proceedings, please link. Failing that, if anyone can flag the time of the comments above, I'd be most appreciative, as there's such a huge amount of 'noise' that some of the gems are missed. I almost have to wonder if that is 'allowed' to happen. 'Bury it'.

The discussion of the Bowmanville options begins at 09:52 and extends to about 19:00
There is a discussion of first mile/last mile begins at 19:00
35:00 Union Station and control of projects
48:00 Disposition of USRC West projects
1:09 Discussion of Bowmanville (more) plus North Toronto Sub,
1:14 Decision not to widen line through Rouge Hill but to manage traffic through there

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

^Excellent! I've got to find a quiet half an hour to go over those. I've heard them all before, but so much is lost in passing...and whether 'fair' or not as to the context, it can always be said "We'll we stated that, but you weren't listening". To listen to the whole events again (including the Empire Club one) gets very tedious, whereas having 'markers' allows 'zooming in' on the detail.

Perhaps that's a project for some of the younger astute forum participants? Make an edited digital composite of these quotes and include @crs1026 's references posted in the Metrolinx Service string, and post it online accessible from a link posted here.

I can tell you that certain parties in the Opposition are reading, and taking note. In light of Metrolinx being so evasive (perhaps from Stockholm Syndrome, speak out, and they will lose their jobs) it's all the more apt fodder for questions in the Legislature.

A very clear pattern is emerging...

Addendum:

The discussion of the Bowmanville options begins at 09:52 and extends to about 19:00

OMG...It gets more painful every time listening to it. He's talking in circles, slippery ones, as it's next to impossible to quote him saying anything of substance. He certainly hasn't answered the question! "Good News"...and then the sermon...Even the Good Shepherd drop-ins don't go on that long before the starving can eat their free meals.

I'll listen to the other segments again later when my tolerance is higher.

Meantime:

Is Dr Phil a real doctor?
Dr. Phil is not a doctor — but he plays one on TV. Dr. Phil has the cachet of the "Dr." moniker at the front of his name — even though he holds a doctorate in psychology and is not a licensed psychologist.Feb 26, 2016

Dr. Phil is not a medical doctor. But he is now a paid spokesperson ...
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/11119788/dr-phil-diabetes

 

[Allandale25]

"Among them are the discovery of groundwater at the site of Avenue Station, and work related to a CP rail bridge at Mount Dennis."

Eglinton Crosstown LRT could be $330 million over budget and open seven months late, internal documents warn | The Star

 

[W. K. Lis]

If the Midtown GO Line's "Don Mills" Station is built, expect the "Science Centre" Station on Line 5 AND the Ontario Line to become a very busy transfer station.

Expect Peterborough to become a new commuter destination, IF this happens. Maybe even someplace called Scarborough as well.

The powers-that-be better start gathering real estate around the railway and between the railway and the "Science Centre" Stations (plural) today.

From link.

Maybe by the 22nd century, they could build a Toronto Zoo GO Station, located to the north near Meadowvale Road & Plug Hat Road. May need a zoo train extension to reach it.

From link.