[reaperexpress]

Given that Doug Ford was the one who cancelled the Missing Link in the first place, this is presumably pre-election empty promises, similarly to how he promised to upgrade the tracks between Kitchener and London during the last election.

I'm concerned that this announcement will put the brakes on the current plans for all-day two-way service to Kitchener. Reading between the lines of the Kitchener expansion business case, CN's approval for that service is dependent on upgrades to the CN Halton sub between Georgetown and Bramalea, including expensive items such as triple tracking Brampton station, quad-tracking Mt Pleasant and building a rail-to-rail grade separation west of Mount Pleasant. If a Missing Link were going to be built, all those upgrades would become redundant and would presumably be cancelled.

 

[rbt]

Given that Doug Ford was the one who cancelled the Missing Link in the first place, this is presumably pre-election empty promises, similarly to how he promised to upgrade the tracks between Kitchener and London during the last election.

Ford is known to change course on a regular basis.

 

[Sauga89]

Would it not be possible for both CP and CN to have separate parallel bypasses along the 407, each with their own set of tracks, between Milton and Bramalea? The 407 hydro corridor looks pretty wide (caveat: I am not an engineer) so maybe there is space for both to have their own tracks, without having to share? That would mean the government would have to build 2 tracks for each of them, and probably leave them space to each add 2 tracks (for 8 tracks total) if they wanted to expand later on. Then you'd have to have CP's bypass continue in the 407 corridor from Bramalea all the way to Pickering, so that it wouldn't have to use the York subdivision. You could also add a couple tracks for GO too perhaps.

I know this would be exceedingly expensive (though maybe cheaper than the 401 tunnel he's already proposed), so I'm not really recommending it. I'm more asking if it's possible from an engineering perspective to build a 10-track rail corridor along the 407 from east of Milton to Bramalea, and a 6-track corridor from Bramalea to Pickering.

Note that he uses the the phrase "Greater Golden Horseshoe" rather than GTA in his tweet. This suggests that this tweet is related to the 2022 MTO Greater Golden Horseshoe plan which also included a 407 transit proposal. See @innsertnamehere 's post in GO construction thread, quoted below. He lays it out better than I have.

Exactly this.

We can look to MTO's 2051 GGH transportation plan for inspiration:

View attachment 624318

I Imagine we would see:

1. Milton Electrification
2. Toronto Northern GO route - a new commuter rail / metro route from Hamilton to Oshawa via North Oakville, Mississauga, Pearson, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Markham, Seaton, and Brooklyn
3. GO RER extension to Downtown Hamilton GO
4. GO RER Extension to Kitchener

View attachment 624319

Other potentials which aren't identified in the GGH 2051 TMP:
1. GO Midtown Line
2. Bolton GO line
3. Brantford GO service (connections to Downtown Hamilton?)
4. Niagara RER
5. Uxbridge GO extension
6.Guelph - Cambridge GO
7. GO RER to Bowmanville
8. London GO service

 

[Bojaxs]

Would it not be possible for both CP and CN to have separate parallel bypasses along the 407, each with their own set of tracks, between Milton and Bramalea?

Between Milton and Bramalea, allowing both CP & CN to run parallel freight lines would be problematic once the CP track gets to CN's Intermodal facility near Airport Rd. & the 407. Perhaps CN and CP could work some kind of a deal out and have their tracks setup in a similar fashion as in Montreal. CP's tracks run elevated over the tracks heading towards CN's main yard in Montreal.
If CN agrees to share the missing link with CP, then CP trains absolutely cannot interfere with CN's intermodal operations. CP would have to construct either an overpass or an underpass for their trains while passing tracks heading to/from CN's intermodal facility. Same for CN's Mac Yard in Vaughan.

Also another point of contention is the currently under construction Goreway Dr. bridge. It's only being built wide enough to accommodate the existing CN tracks to go underneath it.

Map of tracks in Montreal. I put an arrow showing where the CP tracks go over top the CN tracks heading into CN's Montreal yard.

Image from Google maps

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.ca

 

[guavadelic]

Where this gets silly in my view is the premise that this will lead to CPKC yielding the whole line across North Toronto and GO immediately building a cross town line. There is first the reality that CPKC needs to get from Vaughan to Oshawa to head eastwards, and a tight curve to the bypass at Woodbridge may not be doable. Then there is the reality that even if CP had the ability to cease using the Mactier and North Toronto and Belleville Subs through the city, and repurpose its Agincourt Yard, the market value of that asset as developable real estate is well beyond what Ontario can afford to buy for a transit line. So, no.... I don't believe that this is laying the ground work for a North Toronto GO line. That idea may have been studied, but IMHO it's not affordable and won't be needed for decades, if ever.

It definately would be expensive and could ultimately be unaffordable, but why wouldn't a GO cross town line be needed for decades?

The current 401 traffic seems to indicate that an east-west GO Line through midtown is badly needed. The existing system that funnels most riders downtown doesn't really match the real travel patterns of today. For example, over two-thirds of West GTA commuters travel over the top of Toronto or through midtown compared to the amount that heads downtown. But the lack of transit options currently forces almost all of them to drive.

This current gap in the regional transit system is the biggest contributor to our debilitating congestion.

 

[drum118]

It definately would be expensive and could ultimately be unaffordable, but why wouldn't a GO cross town line be needed for decades?

The current 401 traffic seems to indicate that an east-west GO Line through midtown is badly needed. The existing system that funnels most riders downtown doesn't really match the real travel patterns of today. For example, over two-thirds of West GTA commuters travel over the top of Toronto or through midtown compared to the amount that heads downtown. But the lack of transit options currently forces almost all of them to drive.

This current gap in the regional transit system is the biggest contributor to our debilitating congestion.

The question you need to ask is where are drivers coming from and where that are they going using the 401? You will find those driver are coming from all over the place and going all over the place that the Crosstown line will mean nothing to them since it will not meet their needs or take 2-3 time their current commute time to do it.

For me, mostly bypassing the city using the 401 unless I am doing any photographing in the east end that is on the decline these days. From time to time, I need to be in the east end and GO will not cut it for me.

Who is get on the Crosstown line and go end to end?? The bulk of drivers getting off at Yonge from both ends will creating a problem for the Yonge Line. Even a station at Dupont will effect the Spadina line some what. If line 3 had a station that connects with the Crosstown line, it will take traffic off the Yonge Line some what, but not in the cards at this time considering the yard area is next to CP tracks. If and when Line 3 gets extended north, a station could be built for the Crosstown Line and close to the Science Station.

End of the day, don't need 12 car trains on the line with the odd few at peak time if that.

Cost to move both CPKC and CN is huge and has to be paid for by the province 100%. Getting CPKC past CN yards is a major issues starting with the fact CN doesn't want CPKC next to them in the first place.

The idea of running CPKC and CN in the existing ROW along the 407 is out of the question as it cannot support 4 tracks nor 6 tracks for the GO 407 plan service which is currently plan as BRT that can be upgraded to LRT if and when it every gets built.

As for the idea of CPKC using the 413, cannot see it as it adds too much traveling time compared to the current route. I said in early 2000's that all rail corridors needs to be 4 track and easy to be done if funding is in place. The Milton Line is partly 3rd track today with most all new bridges in place built for 4 tracks along with most existing bridges on the line.

 

[Bojaxs]

I said in early 2000's that all rail corridors needs to be 4 track and easy to be done if funding is in place. The Milton Line is partly 3rd track today with most all new bridges in place built for 4 tracks along with most existing bridges on the line.

The issue with the Milton line isn't capacity. It's over ownership of the track. We can quad track Milton line, but the line is still owned by CPKC and the train movement on the line is controlled by CPKC employees. CPKC may be accommodating to GO trains today after triple or quad tracking the line, but what if they see a spike in freight 10 years from now? Look at the games CN is playing with VIA attempting to make their life miserable. Subtly telling them to get off their tracks.

MX wants full ownership of the tracks and their GO trains. That's probably their main motivation for the freight bypasses. They can guarantee service, where as they can't if the line in controlled by a freight operator.

 

[drum118]

The issue with the Milton line isn't capacity. It's over ownership of the track. We can quad track Milton line, but the line is still owned by CPKC and the train movement on the line is controlled by CPKC employees. CPKC may be accommodating to GO trains today after triple or quad tracking the line, but what if they see a spike in freight 10 years from now? Look at the games CN is playing with VIA attempting to make their life miserable. Subtly telling them to get off their tracks.

MX wants full ownership of the tracks and their GO trains. That's probably their main motivation for the freight bypasses. They can guarantee service, where as they can't if the line in controlled by a freight operator.

There is more than enough capacity today and tomorrow for the Milton Line with out GO using any tracks tacks at all, let alone one a peak time.. Adding 2 more tracks will deal with GO service needs even with a fly under/over at the Humber.

The number of CPKC trains on the Milton Line is almost 50% less than in the past as the trains are 2-4 times longer today that requires less trains. Its possible from time to time CPKC could use a 3rd track, but rarely it will happen. What ML will want from the 4 track corridor is able to run express trains on a 3rd track. Electrify the line is an issues and by the time the corridor is 4 track, battery power or other type of power will replace the need for the line to be electrified.

Keep in min, CPKC will be using that line on a daily base to service the Streetsville yard and various industries along it regardless if ML owns that corridor. Not all movements can take place at night.

The last cost to 4 track the corridor was $2,5B and take 3 years to do it.

 

[crs1026]

The number of CPKC trains on the Milton Line is almost 50% less than in the past as the trains are 2-4 times longer today that requires less trains. Its possible from time to time CPKC could use a 3rd track, but rarely it will happen. What ML will want from the 4 track corridor is able to run express trains on a 3rd track. Electrify the line is an issues and by the time the corridor is 4 track, battery power or other type of power will replace the need for the line to be electrified.

A challenge for CPKC is that while it runs fewer trains than previously on the Milton line, there are few places where those longer trains can stop without blocking level crossings. So unlike past years, every freight now needs a "clear alley" through the length of the route. Plus, stopping a longer freight is operationally less desirable - a trickier proposition for the operator. While the line may look underused, that trackage is needed to keep traffic moving.
Judicious grade separation might help, but CP is unlikely to give up its two dedicated freight tracks.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

It definately would be expensive and could ultimately be unaffordable, but why wouldn't a GO cross town line be needed for decades?

The current 401 traffic seems to indicate that an east-west GO Line through midtown is badly needed. The existing system that funnels most riders downtown doesn't really match the real travel patterns of today. For example, over two-thirds of West GTA commuters travel over the top of Toronto or through midtown compared to the amount that heads downtown. But the lack of transit options currently forces almost all of them to drive.

This current gap in the regional transit system is the biggest contributor to our debilitating congestion.

A high performance crosstown line is indeed needed. Putting it on the CPKC line, however, simply replicates the TTC Line 2, and is not far enough north to attract riders from 401 and beyond..

TTC can greatly mitigate the problem by joining the Sheppard line to Line 1 in the west, and by driving it further east, and by doing likewise with the Finch LRT.

For a more limited express GO, I would put a line aling the CN line and leave CPKC alone. Or, build in the Hydro corridor that crosses the city. That would capture more cross-the-top traffic.

- Paul

 

[JJTheJetPln]

After reading this release, I'm concerned about what this means for the Kitchener line, among other projects. It seems we're in a constant state of, "yes, no, maybe so" because we have Metrolinx either getting projects closer to completion, shelving projects for whatever reason, committing to projects, but taking years to ever get shovels in the ground, and as a consequence, the projects taking much longer due to inflation, among other systemic issues that have plagued Metrolinx for years, if not decades.

It feels like nobody is learning that the more we push projects further down the road, the more things cost, the more resources that are involved, the more Metrolinx, their subsidiaries, and other stakeholders have to delegate and make changes because of other construction projects that ended up receiving approval, or being constructed while transit projects were shelved. It's a recipe for disaster if Metrolinx is not out in the community actually doing research on what is happening, and is instead steamrolling other projects just because they're a government agency and suddenly have a sense of urgency for a few weeks.

An example of this is downtown Brampton along Railroad Street. I can't find the document right now, but there's a proposed project for three highrises that was supposed to be starting sometime within the next year or two. Due to the need for an additional track or two along that exact corridor, along with the proper buffer, the new proposal is to instead change the orientation of the highrises, and instead of constructing three, they construct two.

That being said, I have no idea what the future holds, or if this missing link will even be constructed. I don't see any business use case that will make CN/CPKC want to use anything that Ford/Metrolinx will propose if it takes them so far out of the way and as a result extends their fuel, crew time, and so on. I can understand that CN was at one point a crown corp, and Ford/Metrolinx may want to use that as leverage, but 1995 was 30 years ago.

 

[lenaitch]

Oh fergawshsakes.... I hope those are your creations and not an official proposal ????

The idea of adding a transit corridor to the 413 to make it more palatable sounds like.... a Ford tunnel idea. Or a ferris wheel.

Putting a freight line there, and asking CP to add those miles of roundabout (and feet of vertical elevation) when it currently has a through route.... not gonna happen.

But so very Ford.

- Paul

Besides, it would cut into the land adjacent to 413 that his developer friends have gobbled up.

Part of issue of creating a bypass or expanding MX on CN or CPKC property is land ownership; tracks sit on land. Does MX buy or expropriate a slice of the corridor from the current owner? Do they pay to build infrastructure on their land and be tenants? Who makes the rules (electrification, etc.). Does a greenfield bypass corridor get bought or expropriated by the government then simply gifted to the railroads? I don't know enough about expropriation law, tax law, etc. whether that would even be possible. Again, title and ownership would be an issue. Two, parallel, privately-owned corridors? Even for a 407 bypass, similar issues would be present.

build in the Hydro corridor that crosses the city.

Certainly wouldn't be cheap if it is even feasible. Safety clearances would come into play, by TC, the railways and Hydro One. Lots of grade separations. There are also a number of pipelines buried there.

 

[Allandale25]

Besides, it would cut into the land adjacent to 413 that his developer friends have gobbled up.

Part of issue of creating a bypass or expanding MX on CN or CPKC property is land ownership; tracks sit on land. Does MX buy or expropriate a slice of the corridor from the current owner? Do they pay to build infrastructure on their land and be tenants? Who makes the rules (electrification, etc.). Does a greenfield bypass corridor get bought or expropriated by the government then simply gifted to the railroads? I don't know enough about expropriation law, tax law, etc. whether that would even be possible. Again, title and ownership would be an issue. Two, parallel, privately-owned corridors? Even for a 407 bypass, similar issues would be present.


Certainly wouldn't be cheap if it is even feasible. Safety clearances would come into play, by TC, the railways and Hydro One. Lots of grade separations. There are also a number of pipelines buried there.

On that last point, in a deck presented to Waterloo or Kitchener Council, while Metrolinx didn't show a map of what needed to be relocated and bridged over, they did quantify it. I can try to dig it up.

 

[lenaitch]

On that last point, in a deck presented to Waterloo or Kitchener Council, while Metrolinx didn't show a map of what needed to be relocated and bridged over, they did quantify it. I can try to dig it up.

Regarding the north Toronto corridor (i.e. east-west roughly north of Finch between Cherrywood and Richview TSs or just generally? I don't know if Hydro One calls it the Gatineau Corridor.

 

[crs1026]

Regarding the north Toronto corridor (i.e. east-west roughly north of Finch between Cherrywood and Richview TSs or just generally? I don't know if Hydro One calls it the Gatineau Corridor.

I have lost sight of exactly where the pylons run. But I do recall the Davis Government's plan to run a ITCS system along it. The routing made a lot of sense, even if it was beyond the technology of that day and a bit fanciful as to cost.

It may be Hydro doctrine not to run transit in a Hydro corridor, but if today's government is actually looking for solutions, I would give it a look.

Cost is always relative. It's a continuous right of way that doesn't impinge on CN or neighbouring landowners, roughly the right distance north of the 401 and south of Markham/Vaughan. If I were drawing a line on the map, it is in about the right place..

Doesn't need to be 12-car bilevels - if ML intends to procure a different train mode, this might be compatible.

- Paul