[Northern Light]

It might well happen around 2050.... but some of us may not plan to be riding very often by then.

- Paul

Paul, you'll barely be a hundred years young then........... you won't have turned into a home body yet.

 

[crs1026]

Paul, you'll barely be a hundred years young then........... you won't have turned into a home body yet.

Lol... rest assured, I am not going quietly.....

I do think a regional rail service (and much better transit infrastructure) across the top of the GTA is both desirable and doable. I would compare this challenge to Crosslinx in London.....the business case for the Elizabeth Line was probably just as solid in 1980, but some things just take longer due to their scale and complexity.

- Paul

 

[Leo_Chan]

What are the cost differences between quad tracking CN York and CP Midtown?

 

[crs1026]

What are the cost differences between quad tracking CN York and CP Midtown?

Your guess is as good as mine, but both are so far into the billions that cost alone may not be the key decision factor.
I would say that the CP midtown line isn’t far enough north to really add much mobility, other than moderate relief of the Lakeshore, while the CN route adds a quantum to the potential travel patterns across the GTA and brings east-west mobility to the north end of the GTA.. So I would argue the CN route delivers more value.
The other consuderation is whether it makes sense to put all the freight eggs in one basket. Seems to me it’s less risky to have two separate freight corridors. Also, try convincing Vaughan-Markham that they should bear all the risks and impacts of running freight thru their towns, while relieving midtown Torontonians of that burden. That would be a hugely divisive proposition.

- Paul

 

[drum118]

Your guess is as good as mine, but both are so far into the billions that cost alone may not be the key decision factor.
I would say that the CP midtown line isn’t far enough north to really add much mobility, other than moderate relief of the Lakeshore, while the CN route adds a quantum to the potential travel patterns across the GTA and brings east-west mobility to the north end of the GTA.. So I would argue the CN route delivers more value.
The other consuderation is whether it makes sense to put all the freight eggs in one basket. Seems to me it’s less risky to have two separate freight corridors. Also, try convincing Vaughan-Markham that they should bear all the risks and impacts of running freight thru their towns, while relieving midtown Torontonians of that burden. That would be a hugely divisive proposition.

- Paul

You are correct about not putting all the eggs in one basket and I have been saying that since idea arose.

It is not simple as some people think having CN and CP in the same corridor and it will have to be 4 tracks to deal with various issues along the corridor. It only takes one major derailment to shut both system down with both system then messing up GO System using their option to run trains on the GO lines,

CP corridor would be cheaper to do than CN, but both corridors require major expansion for bridges on their own lines, let along underpasses or overpass that would have to be widen to support 4 tracks.

Both corridors offer GO an options for them to service different markets as well offering fast travel time across the city. ML has already own land at CP Agincourt yard on the north side that can be use for GO future expansion. The Midtown Line idea has been around since the 80's

Looking at CN corridor, you could have service from Markham to Hamilton, let alone to Oshawa and beyond at both ends.

Since the cost to do this bypass that is in the billions with neither CN or CP willing to do it at this time and if they were to do it, it would be on the Province dime to do it.

I have stated since 2002 that all corridors under CP/CN control need to be 4 track with GO get 2 tracks and the RR getting 2 who will take advantage of using one of GO tracks as needed to meet their needs.

The Milton line is up to about $2.5 Billion now, if not more than the $2.1 Billion back in 2018.

Going out on the limb, you are looking at close to $10 Billion for this bypass that includes rebuilding existing bridge, some grade separations, upgrading existing crossing and widening the corridor. Then there is the need for new alignments of tracks to get to/from the 3 yards for CN to allow CP not having to slow down or stop when CN trains are trying to entre/leave the yards as well hung up on the line waiting for permission to do so.

 

[Metroscapes]

What are the cost differences between quad tracking CN York and CP Midtown?

Your guess is as good as mine, but both are so far into the billions that cost alone may not be the key decision factor.
I would say that the CP midtown line isn’t far enough north to really add much mobility, other than moderate relief of the Lakeshore, while the CN route adds a quantum to the potential travel patterns across the GTA and brings east-west mobility to the north end of the GTA.. So I would argue the CN route delivers more value.
The other consuderation is whether it makes sense to put all the freight eggs in one basket. Seems to me it’s less risky to have two separate freight corridors. Also, try convincing Vaughan-Markham that they should bear all the risks and impacts of running freight thru their towns, while relieving midtown Torontonians of that burden. That would be a hugely divisive proposition.

- Paul

You are correct about not putting all the eggs in one basket and I have been saying that since idea arose.

It is not simple as some people think having CN and CP in the same corridor and it will have to be 4 tracks to deal with various issues along the corridor. It only takes one major derailment to shut both system down with both system then messing up GO System using their option to run trains on the GO lines,

CP corridor would be cheaper to do than CN, but both corridors require major expansion for bridges on their own lines, let along underpasses or overpass that would have to be widen to support 4 tracks.

Both corridors offer GO an options for them to service different markets as well offering fast travel time across the city. ML has already own land at CP Agincourt yard on the north side that can be use for GO future expansion. The Midtown Line idea has been around since the 80's

Looking at CN corridor, you could have service from Markham to Hamilton, let alone to Oshawa and beyond at both ends.

Since the cost to do this bypass that is in the billions with neither CN or CP willing to do it at this time and if they were to do it, it would be on the Province dime to do it.

I have stated since 2002 that all corridors under CP/CN control need to be 4 track with GO get 2 tracks and the RR getting 2 who will take advantage of using one of GO tracks as needed to meet their needs.

The Milton line is up to about $2.5 Billion now, if not more than the $2.1 Billion back in 2018.

Going out on the limb, you are looking at close to $10 Billion for this bypass that includes rebuilding existing bridge, some grade separations, upgrading existing crossing and widening the corridor. Then there is the need for new alignments of tracks to get to/from the 3 yards for CN to allow CP not having to slow down or stop when CN trains are trying to entre/leave the yards as well hung up on the line waiting for permission to do so.

A few additional comments:

• NOT quad-tracking CP and going with the bypass is preferable (IMO and, as per the original bypass thinking) because:
  • Sending CP northwards would eliminate them and their hazardous cargo from a number of existing and up-and-coming residential uses in midtown
  • It not only opens up the Milton Line, but unlocks the potential for GO service between West Toronto and Malvern. I don't believe the cost estimates being thrown around account for going that far west, which would involve at least two major river and two highway crossings ($$$$)
  • It could unlock adjacent active and passive land uses (trails, reduced crash requirements, etc).
• I always believed running Milton Line trains to North Toronto (Summerhill) Station would have been a quick win for relieving Union Station and USRC capacity.
• Running GO service along CN is not necessary. The 407 Busway has been in the works for some time. I wish it was built and futureproofed as a GO corridor would have been ideal.
• If two railways companies don't want to run beside each other due to derailment risk:
  • Is our regulatory regime and safety requirements not good enough, or are railway companies doing a lousy job on mainline safety?
  • Mitigation measures could be implemented to ease these concerns
  • If they want to eliminate this risk, go build a new rail corridor outside of the most populous metropolitan area of Canada

 

[lenaitch]

Sending CP northwards would eliminate them and their hazardous cargo from a number of existing and up-and-coming residential uses in midtown

And adding it to the rapidly growing density in south York Region. They would not likely be willing hosts.

If they want to eliminate this risk, go build a new rail corridor outside of the most populous metropolitan area of Canada

Most, if not all, major metropolitan areas in North America have active freight rail. Many still active marine ports that need to be serviced.

 

[Metroscapes]

And adding it to the rapidly growing density in south York Region. They would not likely be willing hosts.

Most, if not all, major metropolitan areas in North America have active freight rail. Many still active marine ports that need to be serviced.

And I'm talking about the potential for re-aligning freight rail outside a metro area that doesn't have active marine ports.

 

[crs1026]

And I'm talking about the potential for re-aligning freight rail outside a metro area that doesn't have active marine ports.

Point taken, but, I think you are mapping the wrong variables. Density or some empirical measure of number of residents within x meters of a rail line is not the determining factor. One might try mapping electoral boundaries, voting patterns, and significance of the affected federal and provincial ridings as swing ridings in past and projected elections. Lots of influencers live north of Steeles.
There is a case to be made that Vaughan and Markham are the makers of their own beds.....in that, after the bypass was built, CN repeatedly and emphatically went on record to the effect that it was unwise to build residential areas adjacent to the freight corridor. Local politicians, sometimes with egregiously cozy relations to developers, ignored this input.
On a technocratic level, the numbers may favour getting all freight out of Midtown, but I do think that is a somewhat urbancentric and dismissive 416 viewpoint which if pushed into action would be very divisive. And from. safety and environmental perspective, it may be more productive to have bureaucrats and politicians and communities fixated on the risks and impacts of the midtown corridor.... as opposed to thinking they have solved the problem by diverting the freight to somewhere else where the risks matter less (in some stakeholders'' eyes).

- Paul

 

[drum118]

A few additional comments:

• NOT quad-tracking CP and going with the bypass is preferable (IMO and, as per the original bypass thinking) because:
  • Sending CP northwards would eliminate them and their hazardous cargo from a number of existing and up-and-coming residential uses in midtown
  • It not only opens up the Milton Line, but unlocks the potential for GO service between West Toronto and Malvern. I don't believe the cost estimates being thrown around account for going that far west, which would involve at least two major river and two highway crossings ($$$$)
  • It could unlock adjacent active and passive land uses (trails, reduced crash requirements, etc).
• I always believed running Milton Line trains to North Toronto (Summerhill) Station would have been a quick win for relieving Union Station and USRC capacity.
• Running GO service along CN is not necessary. The 407 Busway has been in the works for some time. I wish it was built and futureproofed as a GO corridor would have been ideal.
• If two railways companies don't want to run beside each other due to derailment risk:
  • Is our regulatory regime and safety requirements not good enough, or are railway companies doing a lousy job on mainline safety?
  • Mitigation measures could be implemented to ease these concerns
  • If they want to eliminate this risk, go build a new rail corridor outside of the most populous metropolitan area of Canada

Please draw using a line on a a map of your imagination route as there is no such thing as a train has to go through someone backyard to be pickup and be delivery. Then figure what the cost will be to built it as well how long to do it. At the same time figure how long that trip will be at 40 mph and how does that compared today travel time.

What type of land are you removing that exist today that could effect everyone at the end of the day or have to go through?

Regardless of all safety provisions, accidents will happen. Risk of an accident happening is there when one train pass another for the same system, but higher for 2 system as you not only shut down one line until the mess is clean up, but 2 lines now. For those 2 lines to get around that mess, they will use their running rights to run on GO System if there is no other option open to them which will have an impact on GO service badly. Just think what happen in East Palestine Ohio, let alone the Mississauga 1979 evacuation for CP derailment if both railway trains carrying the close to the same type of material on each train what the results be.

The Milton to Summerhill as well to the east has been on the books since the 70'/80's to deal with Union issues only create a further issues for TTC as to where they put those new riders on overcrowded trains as well how long will that trip be compared today travel time?

As for the 407 busway, what decade do you expect to see it up and running since it will be many decades till it get built if at all with most of this board not being around when it opens. Some sections may get built, but not all of it in our life time based on past performs so far.

End of the day, hazardous cargo has to go through someone backyard if people wants the goods made from them or for their use and you can't have your cake by running trains elsewhere that will take longer to ship at a higher cost.

 

[Metroscapes]

Please draw using a line on a a map of your imagination route as there is no such thing as a train has to go through someone backyard to be pickup and be delivery. Then figure what the cost will be to built it as well how long to do it. At the same time figure how long that trip will be at 40 mph and how does that compared today travel time.

What type of land are you removing that exist today that could effect everyone at the end of the day or have to go through?

If CN's existing sub or the 407 are unworkable, I'd say refer to maps for the 413. As much as I hate a new highway project, might as well co-locate them if Doug's going to ram it through.

Regardless of all safety provisions, accidents will happen. Risk of an accident happening is there when one train pass another for the same system, but higher for 2 system as you not only shut down one line until the mess is clean up, but 2 lines now. For those 2 lines to get around that mess, they will use their running rights to run on GO System if there is no other option open to them which will have an impact on GO service badly. Just think what happen in East Palestine Ohio, let alone the Mississauga 1979 evacuation for CP derailment if both railway trains carrying the close to the same type of material on each train what the results be.

At the end of the day, we're talking about freeing up a line to run GO trains. If an accident happens on the bypass and we have to temporarily route a freight along CP's midtown route, it's still a massive reduction in freight risk when looked at on an annual basis.

The Milton to Summerhill as well to the east has been on the books since the 70'/80's to deal with Union issues only create a further issues for TTC as to where they put those new riders on overcrowded trains as well how long will that trip be compared today travel time?

The Ontario Line is the primary relief for this.

As for the 407 busway, what decade do you expect to see it up and running since it will be many decades till it get built if at all with most of this board not being around when it opens. Some sections may get built, but not all of it in our life time based on past performs so far.

Point taken, file it under "Neglected 905 Belt Transit Needs." But ultimately, the focus for this is improving Milton Line, midtown Toronto and Scarborough transit needs.

 

[lenaitch]

If CN's existing sub or the 407 are unworkable, I'd say refer to maps for the 413. As much as I hate a new highway project, might as well co-locate them if Doug's going to ram it through.

In addition to having to re-work all of the land acquisitions, site plans, EAs and on and on (which many would view as a good thing), to continue a rail corridor eastward from the 413 corridor would drive it right through the spine of the Oak Ridge Moraine/Greenbelt, which many would view as a bad thing.

 

[Bojaxs]

In addition to having to re-work all of the land acquisitions, site plans, EAs and on and on (which many would view as a good thing), to continue a rail corridor eastward from the 413 corridor would drive it right through the spine of the Oak Ridge Moraine/Greenbelt, which many would view as a bad thing.

They're already driving a highway through it. May as well put a railroad through it as well.

 

[TRONto]

If CN's existing sub or the 407 are unworkable, I'd say refer to maps for the 413. As much as I hate a new highway project, might as well co-locate them if Doug's going to ram it through.

At the end of the day, we're talking about freeing up a line to run GO trains. If an accident happens on the bypass and we have to temporarily route a freight along CP's midtown route, it's still a massive reduction in freight risk when looked at on an annual basis.

The Ontario Line is the primary relief for this.

Point taken, file it under "Neglected 905 Belt Transit Needs." But ultimately, the focus for this is improving Milton Line, midtown Toronto and Scarborough transit needs.

@drum118 Could there be a connection at Dupont instead of Summerhill? They seem pretty close and the west side of line 1 likely has the capacity.

 

[drum118]

@drum118 Could there be a connection at Dupont instead of Summerhill? They seem pretty close and the west side of line 1 likely has the capacity.

There has been talk of doing that as there is more room on the Spadina Line than Yonge, but will require riders to do a number of transferring if they want to use the Yonge line in the first place.