|
|
|
- Thread starter dunkalunk
- Start date
TOareaFan
Superstar
All regional municipalities have to go through the exercise of deciding what services are offered at the regional level and which ones are offered at the city/town level......I really don't know why York, for example, went the way of regional transportation but in Peel a couple of factors probably played into leaving it at the city level.....for one, Caledon has expressed absolutely zero interest in having local public transit and, as a Brampton resident, it would appear that Brampton is more interested in a filling out routes with higher frequencies to grow ridership than Mississauga is........I have said it many times.....if Peel transit existed I don't think I would be walking 5 minutes in the morning from my very suburban home to a bus route that runs every 7 minutes.
That said, the region in all other aspects is very coherent and, as someone else pointed out, the fact the two transit systems exist has not stopped them from working together....they have had fare integration (acceptance of each other's transfers) for a very long time, each have several routes that cross into the other's "territory" and there are a couple of routes that they operate in partnership. Look a little deeper before you declare a lack of coherence.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
This is very true. As sprawled out as Brampton is, it's so easy to get around for the most part.
muller877
Senior Member
I used to live backing right onto the tracks. And not once was I given a letter or a briefing on the strategy. To have a successful strategy the residents around the area should know what to do (and what the alarm is).
I was young and dumb back then so I don't know if there was one...but a key part of an evacuation strategy is telling everyone how to evacuate. (e.g. fire drills, fire wardens, etc at the office)
smallspy
Senior Member
I suppose that is fair. OPG is required to do just such a thing for people living within a certain radius around Pickering and Darlington.
But to say that they don't have a plan isn't true, either. Just ask any firefighter. In fact, I believe that CP is required by law to teach and update their various emergency plans to the local first responders every year.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Fair point but the primary purpose of having an emergency plan is to ensure that responding resources are adequate, available and coordinated. Most large public and private organizations that I am aware of have a disaster recovery or emergency response plan that is consistent with their business. In the case of Pickering/Darlington, it's easier to have - and distribute - a definitive evacuation plan because they are fixed points. The only significant variable is wind. I would doubt CP or the Toronto emergency services have detailed evacuation routes because the incident site could be anywhere along the ROW. Short answer - pick a road that isn't closed and go that-a-way.
Some sort of communication system with residents is probably technically do-able and I thought they had that now. Some kind of information package seems reasonable although I have my doubts how beneficial it would be - it would likely be looked at once and shoved in an actual or electronic drawer. There are general guidelines published by Emergency Management Ontario, but how many people have a 'go-bag' prepared, food and water for 72 hours and cash on hand? Not many I would speculate.
I can't imagine trying to organize an evacuation exercise involving tens of thousands of people in a dense urban area. My guess is that most would ignore it. The only reason fire drills in schools and offices work is that they are a captive audience.
crs1026
Superstar
There have been emergency planning exercises (some table top, some with field activities) in the GTA dealing with rail emergencies.
The TYSSE had significant emergency planning exercises before it opened. This was a particularly useful exercise, because it was the first time that Toronto agencies and 905 agencies had to integrate around a subway disaster. TTC, Toronto Fire and EMS had their procedures for subway emergencies, but no one north of the city knew what they were. Now they are all on the same page.
I do believe the agencies involved are on top of this.
There is no widespread public communication of an emergency plan for a rail disaster, equivalent to what OPG has for a nuclear disaster, but that doesn't mean that the agencies aren't prepared.
I wouldn't expect that anyone would install sirens, develop evacuation plans, and inventory iodine pills (or the equivalent) for a rail disaster.
Personally, for rail safety I would prefer the money and effort went into safety analysis and incident prevention.
- Paul
The TYSSE had significant emergency planning exercises before it opened. This was a particularly useful exercise, because it was the first time that Toronto agencies and 905 agencies had to integrate around a subway disaster. TTC, Toronto Fire and EMS had their procedures for subway emergencies, but no one north of the city knew what they were. Now they are all on the same page.
I do believe the agencies involved are on top of this.
There is no widespread public communication of an emergency plan for a rail disaster, equivalent to what OPG has for a nuclear disaster, but that doesn't mean that the agencies aren't prepared.
I wouldn't expect that anyone would install sirens, develop evacuation plans, and inventory iodine pills (or the equivalent) for a rail disaster.
Personally, for rail safety I would prefer the money and effort went into safety analysis and incident prevention.
- Paul
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
I just noticed this June 11, 2018 press release from the "All Board St. Marys" group. It included an "independent analysis" by Greg Gormick on the Missing Link/Bypass and the CN Milton intermodal yard proposal. Apparently the analysis was commissioned by PC candidate and now MPP-elect Pram Gill who was running in Milton.
Gormick argues the Missing Link isn't worth it because adding two tracks to the Milton Corridor is cheaper, as it would be to add tracks to the Kitchener Line. He puts a lot of blame on the government and political footdraging. He also implies that CP was supportive of adding the tracks ("The answer to this classic example of political foot dragging is what CP and the highly-qualified GO management teams of the past proposed: Build two more tracks on the existing right-of-way all the way from West Toronto to Milton." emphasis added)
No mention on if CN was supportive in the case of the Kitchener Line. There doesn't appear to be any specific confirmation CP was supportive. There's no indication he's spoken directly with CP and CN. Given the previous government's tendency to increase spending near the end of its term, I would have thought that if there was permission to go with the cheaper option(s), they would have done it given the number of seats the Milton Line passes through.
Look forward to reading any and all comments on Gormick's analysis.
Gormick argues the Missing Link isn't worth it because adding two tracks to the Milton Corridor is cheaper, as it would be to add tracks to the Kitchener Line. He puts a lot of blame on the government and political footdraging. He also implies that CP was supportive of adding the tracks ("The answer to this classic example of political foot dragging is what CP and the highly-qualified GO management teams of the past proposed: Build two more tracks on the existing right-of-way all the way from West Toronto to Milton." emphasis added)
No mention on if CN was supportive in the case of the Kitchener Line. There doesn't appear to be any specific confirmation CP was supportive. There's no indication he's spoken directly with CP and CN. Given the previous government's tendency to increase spending near the end of its term, I would have thought that if there was permission to go with the cheaper option(s), they would have done it given the number of seats the Milton Line passes through.
Look forward to reading any and all comments on Gormick's analysis.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
Even if I agree with some of Gormick's points, crying foul is an odd way to win friends and influence the new governing party. I would not begin a relationship with Mr Ford by taking shots. When one contributes material to a campaign, it may or may not get used. I don't see a conspiracy here.
ML has so consistently downplayed the Milton Line in its plans that I have to think that the double track price tag and CP's wish list was probably high in the first place. The more recent strategy of removing all conflict between freight and passenger, even at higher overall cost, is a better long term strategy IMHO. CP has played nice towards adding peak capacity, so the most urgent need is being addressed - I disagree that the peak ridership makes this line the highest priority for implementing 2WAD. ML's priorities weren't wrong, the plan has just been terribly executed.
As for South Halton, CN may have any number of agendas .... but one can't dispute that Milton is becoming Brampton 2.0 as a logistics center. Putting intermodal ramps close to Milton makes a lot of sense. I have heard other mumblings about what CN might care to do further west around Woodstock, so they may not disagree with Gormick - and they are likely not playing all their cards about their intermodal plan - but I find it far fetched that CN would pull out of BIT altogether. Especially with CP just up the road in Vaughan.
A friend who lives in Milton, and has attended the PIC's to date, has made a point of asking why the proposed yard isn't planned for north of the 401, which is closer to these logistics centers and is far more innocuous wrt urban land use. He describes the response as somewhere between a non-answer and a condescending dismissal of the issue. I do expect that the PC's will get dragged into this issue by the locals. I can't imagine that Ford owes CN any favours, one would expect he would back the constituents.
I was surprised that there wasn't a last-minute bypass deal with CN before the election. Certainly, Wynne was in the mood to spend money to buy a victory. Either CN simply doesn't want to play, and figured a Ford victory would end the whole bypass business.... or CN's price was just too high, even for desperate free-spending Liberals.
- Paul
ML has so consistently downplayed the Milton Line in its plans that I have to think that the double track price tag and CP's wish list was probably high in the first place. The more recent strategy of removing all conflict between freight and passenger, even at higher overall cost, is a better long term strategy IMHO. CP has played nice towards adding peak capacity, so the most urgent need is being addressed - I disagree that the peak ridership makes this line the highest priority for implementing 2WAD. ML's priorities weren't wrong, the plan has just been terribly executed.
As for South Halton, CN may have any number of agendas .... but one can't dispute that Milton is becoming Brampton 2.0 as a logistics center. Putting intermodal ramps close to Milton makes a lot of sense. I have heard other mumblings about what CN might care to do further west around Woodstock, so they may not disagree with Gormick - and they are likely not playing all their cards about their intermodal plan - but I find it far fetched that CN would pull out of BIT altogether. Especially with CP just up the road in Vaughan.
A friend who lives in Milton, and has attended the PIC's to date, has made a point of asking why the proposed yard isn't planned for north of the 401, which is closer to these logistics centers and is far more innocuous wrt urban land use. He describes the response as somewhere between a non-answer and a condescending dismissal of the issue. I do expect that the PC's will get dragged into this issue by the locals. I can't imagine that Ford owes CN any favours, one would expect he would back the constituents.
I was surprised that there wasn't a last-minute bypass deal with CN before the election. Certainly, Wynne was in the mood to spend money to buy a victory. Either CN simply doesn't want to play, and figured a Ford victory would end the whole bypass business.... or CN's price was just too high, even for desperate free-spending Liberals.
- Paul
cbrown2009
Active Member
Just one observer’s humble opinion, but... In light of the recent news that Toronto’s commute overall has been ranked among the worst in the world (6th worst worldwide, worst in North America), it needs to be said again that Go trains are the biggest game changer we have. More trains, all day, all lines. That the (previous) Liberal provincial government enabled ML to get some new additional service moving is ok, but many instances & opportunities have been and continue to be ignored in favour of more home run improvements. They should be 4 tracking Milton as we speak. More track should have been laid on the Barrie Line to mitigate freight conflicts. Trains should be running to Malton right now, instead of just trying to wait for Bramalea or farther. Richmond Hill should be running more as long as it’s technically feasible. Trains idling at Unionville for over 50 minutes during the midday have enough time to get to Mount Joy and back. The continued foot dragging on all of these seemingly simple improvements (among others) continues to be very frustrating as trackage sits empty and plans are not being implemented in a timely fashion.
rbt
Senior Member
Oddly, quad tracking Milton would likely make the Toronto results even worse within that study.
Key components included distance, time, and cost. Putting more people on GO trains (without other changes) increases average distance, time (travelling further), and average cost. Roadway congestion would be reduced BUT that particular study did not consider private vehicle commutes in their rankings. To improve our score we could terminate all long-distance GO service and the longer TTC routes and force them to drive instead.
I'm strongly in favour of added GO service; and personally rank it higher than anything else we could do (including the DRL) but that particular study rewarded short lines with very frequent service.
Original study:
https://www.expertmarket.co.uk/focus/best-and-worst-cities-for-commuting
Breakdown:
https://stevemunro.ca/2018/06/23/the-sixth-worst-city-myth/
TOareaFan
Superstar
It was an odd study indeed and even more odd is the reaction of the Toronto media....no one, it seems, has bothered to read it but they all want to talk about it!
And, yes, you are correct....if our average transit commute now is 96 minutes return....making it easier for more people to take 2 hour train rides each direction (eg 240 minute daily commutes) will not lower that average!
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
I'm looking forward to the analysis too, because I'd expect that the conclusion was driven by the assumptions. As a reminder, the IBI Feasibility study said the following:
So expert consultants, likely with more informatio behind them, say that the costs are equal within a margin of error, and then your analysis says one option is cheaper. How much of that conclusion was not accounting or ignoring certain costs?
TOareaFan
Superstar
Couldn't they both be true statements:
1st : they cost the same within a margin of error
2nd: what's your margin of error
1st: 15%
2nd: so if you don't make a mistake one is 15% cheaper than the other?
M636RF
New Member
I do agree about adding additional tracks to Milton. Even if its just one more, it would certainly make a difference.
As far as the Barrie Line goes they have been adding more double tracked segments. The best way to stop freight conflicts on it would be the Davenport Junction separation (where the Barrie Line crosses the CP on a diamond). The last figure I heard for that project was about 130 million. Other than that there aren't many areas on that line where freight gets in the way. There are a few local freights that use parts of the line, but they tend to run during off-peak hours.