Mississauga Mississauga Transitway | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | IBI Group

rbt said:
That's true too.

Hydro One is likely a little more concerned about the lack of capacity. Only a few years ago (~2006) they were discussing how to go about blazing a new hydro corridor into Toronto because of lack of space in existing corridors. On hot days the transmission capacity was approaching 100% capacity when everything was functioning correctly.

I would imagine Hydro One is expecting to be back in that state within a decade and a BRT in their corridors would make upgrades (1000kv instead of 725kv transmission) or undergrounding additional capacity much more difficult.
Click to expand...

Why should Hydro One help Metrolinx. Its not like they are owned by the government - in which case the total benefits/costs are considered. If it costs Hydro One an extra penny (nickle since the penny will soon be eliminated), then it is understandable that they do not want to help in any way.
 
BurlOak said:
Why should Hydro One help Metrolinx. Its not like they are owned by the government - in which case the total benefits/costs are considered. If it costs Hydro One an extra penny (nickle since the penny will soon be eliminated), then it is understandable that they do not want to help in any way.
Click to expand...

Hydro One is wholly owned by the Ontario Provincial Government.
 
rbt said:
Hydro One is wholly owned by the Ontario Provincial Government.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so the statement that Hydro One does not want transit in their corridors is meaningless. What the Province wants should count. Is the benefit to transit more than the inconvenience to hydro.

I agree with others on this project. If you want a terminal for buses coming down 427, put it close to 427.
 
BurlOak said:
Yeah, so the statement that Hydro One does not want transit in their corridors is meaningless. What the Province wants should count.
Click to expand...

That's not really how crown corporations work. The option to open the lawbooks to force it to happen is seldom used in a majority government and all but impossible with an unfavoured miniority one.

GO isn't exactly going to volunteer track space so Hydro can string up lines in their corridors either.

Is the benefit to transit more than the inconvenience to hydro.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, it's not even close. There are dozens of different, and better, options for transit despite being a little more expensive. Any Hydro corridor usage would need to have a time limit on it because in 20 to 50 years any transit would need to be removed.

EAs for GO to lay tracks are difficult. EA's for hydro to widen electrical corridors are nearly impossible.

For York U, a temporary problem, it was a suitable solution. Long-term transit problems require long-term solutions.
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
In my opinion, it's not even close. There are dozens of different, and better, options for transit despite being a little more expensive. Any Hydro corridor usage would need to have a time limit on it because in 20 to 50 years any transit would need to be removed.

EAs for GO to lay tracks are difficult. EA's for hydro to widen electrical corridors are nearly impossible.

For York U, a temporary problem, it was a suitable solution. Long-term transit problems require long-term solutions.
Click to expand...

TTC proposed rapid transit in the Hydro corridor north of Finch about 50 years ago. If it was built, it would have easily lasted 50 years without any significant obstruction to Hydro.

Also, with limited funding, the options in real life are rapid transit in a Hydro corridor or no rapid transit at all.
 
BurlOak said:
TTC proposed rapid transit in the Hydro corridor north of Finch about 50 years ago. If it was built, it would have easily lasted 50 years without any significant obstruction to Hydro.
Click to expand...

So you're implying that electricity tranmissions in the GTA is in the same shape as it was 50 years ago? It's not 1960 anymore and the situation has changed. Quite specifically, transmission voltages are still essentially unchanged since 1960 (750kvolt seems to be the upper practical limit; 1000kv is still very experimental); and even 750kv isn't practical in many of those corridors.

All land which can be used by towers has been used. Towers are at the maximum height and carrying capacity in many cases.

The recession deferred a multi-billion dollar transmission grid upgrade in the GTA. It didn't eliminate it; this thing is coming back.

Please actually read IESO reports. 18 month and 10 year outlooks going back to 2004 would be sufficient. Won't take more than an afternoon and you will understand what Hydro One is up against and why they've made that decision. IESO is fully independent of Hydro One and reports the facts as they see them. Hydro One reports don't have quite as rosy of a picture as IESO presents.



This doesn't even get into devaluation of Hydro One due to land sharing agreements and how that might impact a fire-sale of the company; which is proposed nearly every year as a solution to the Ontario budget.


No matter how much you jump up and down; it's not happening unless Hydro One executives are onboard with it. McGuinty doesn't have the power to force the issue and I don't see NDP accepting an increase in electricity prices and Conservatives will be against it on principal.


Write to Hudak demanding better use of Ontario land resources.
 
Last edited:
Theres a hydro corridor from the allen all the way to keele street and beyond which was converted into an express bus only lane directly to york university. too bad they can not do this on the west of the school, they rent the land for out door gardens and green houses and stuff.
 
Paolo said:
Theres a hydro corridor from the allen all the way to keele street and beyond which was converted into an express bus only lane directly to york university. too bad they can not do this on the west of the school, they rent the land for out door gardens and green houses and stuff.
Click to expand...

Yup, and keep in mind that it was sold as being temporary (both to York U and Hydro One) until the subway is in place.

There will be a couple of routes using it after the subway is open but Hydro One reserves the right to rip it out at any time with limited notice.

It's also entirely possible that their experiences with that corrior (moving the natural gas line, having to schedule an officer to watch tower fixes due to there being intersections now, etc.) have caused the "no more" policy.
 
Last edited:
that explains why the mississauga Bus Transit way was not built on the hydro right of way corridor, it was built on the left of way instead, and they even expropriated some land and sherwood towne and highway 10 to make way for it. wow.
 
Paolo said:
that explains why the mississauga Bus Transit way was not built on the hydro right of way corridor, it was built on the left of way instead, and they even expropriated some land and sherwood towne and highway 10 to make way for it. wow.
Click to expand...

I think there is more co-operation between rival companies than between government departments. Either they jointly promote their industry through an association, or they co-operate at times in joint ventures. These private companies have a job to put the people first - their people being the shareholders and customers.

It would be nice if Governments put the people first instead of the needs of their department.
 
BurlOak said:
I think there is more co-operation between rival companies than between government departments. Either they jointly promote their industry through an association, or they co-operate at times in joint ventures. These private companies have a job to put the people first - their people being the shareholders and customers.
Click to expand...

Shareholders milk a company and walk away when it gets in trouble (at least, that's what I and many others do). Maybe a few will hold ownership for a decade but that's increasingly rare.

Most governments have centuries ahead of them. Any problems they create today will be lived with until they pay to change it.


This difference in time scales between the 2 entities creates very different priorities and risk analysis.
 
aleesia said:
Well, GO held a PIC last month for the BRT West segment, with some conceptual service and construction implementation attached,
Click to expand...

Crazy amount of service planned there (p.21). As I've said before, huge benefit for GO, less for MT. Hopefully they eventually build the complete the transitway and the Creditview and Mavis stations so that I can actually use it.
 
doady said:
Crazy amount of service planned there (p.21). As I've said before, huge benefit for GO, less for MT. Hopefully they eventually build the complete the transitway and the Creditview and Mavis stations so that I can actually use it.
Click to expand...

Hear hear.
 
But (GO) Route 45 going via Winston Churchill? That's some wild detour!

And 25 running express to Square One then Renforth and Kipling? Maybe it's because the running time is too long to serve both W. Churchill and Erin Mills Stations...

I see one new route though: Hamilton/North York via Square One and Pearson.
Also a new branch of 21 as well.

And yeah, only 4 MiWay routes are running along the transitway (the tentatively-numbered 100, 107, 109, and 110), compared to GO's 8.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top