[Filip]

do you know:

a) who and how that ridership "study" was conducted?
b) 300 out of how many are local?
c) is "elsewhere" one place or just "not within walking distance of Mimico station"?

a) I believe it was part of a transit study/survey done for residents of HBS/Mimico - a few years ago (2012, 2013?).
b) 300 (or possibly was 500, but no higher) out of whatever the ridership of Mimico is.
c) Elsewhere means not within 5 mins drive of Mimico GO, from what I remember.

I can't find a source on this, but a well placed email to Milczyn's office should get you an answer. He was pretty forthcoming with those stats when we had words to exchange with the Mimico Residents Association.

I am willing to bet that whenever Park Lawn GO opens, Mimico ridership will plummet so fast they will be looking at closing the station the following year. I hope, for their sake, and the sake of public money, no more $$$ is being spent on Mimico until the Park Lawn situation materializes. For example, the new east access point should be scuttled if it looks like Park Lawn is going ahead. There is no other reason to give a very lightly used station two methods of ingress.

 

[Amare]

I am willing to bet that whenever Park Lawn GO opens, Mimico ridership will plummet so fast they will be looking at closing the station the following year. I hope, for their sake, and the sake of public money, no more $$$ is being spent on Mimico until the Park Lawn situation materializes. For example, the new east access point should be scuttled if it looks like Park Lawn is going ahead. There is no other reason to give a very lightly used station two methods of ingress.

And that in it of itself would be a disaster with all of the developments proposed within the immediate radius of the station. Mimico is (wrongly in this case) being used to justify all that intensity, and if the station were to be removed while the developments were in progress you would get another Humber Bay situation.

As much as I think Mimico should go, it wont due to all the proposed residential developments in the pipeline.

 

[Filip]

And that in it of itself would be a disaster with all of the developments proposed within the immediate radius of the station. Mimico is (wrongly in this case) being used to justify all that intensity, and if the station were to be removed while the developments were in progress you would get another Humber Bay situation.

As much as I think Mimico should go, it wont due to all the proposed residential developments in the pipeline.

I doubt many of those developments will proceed, especially at the heights developers are asking for. From what I've heard the city has a very strong case given that none of the developments are following the secondary plan for the Mimico GO area. Add to this a very mobilized and angry NIMBY scene... You do the math.

 

[raptor]

Union Station Rail Corridor TPAP update

 

[crs1026]

One small bit of work that is edging forward is the restoration of double track on the Milton line in the Dupont-Junction area. The second track has been relaid from the West Toronto interlocking (just a touch east of Keele St) eastwards around the bend to about Dupont St. There are two new concrete signal piers in place. When I visited on Monday, crews were working further south doing cleanup of earlier construction materials along the sound wall (ie behind the camera).

One would expect that the new track will eventually be mated with the existing track in place towards Union, and a new track will be built alongside it between the sound wall and the existing track, to mate up with the current track running around the bend to the west..

This is one of the projects that the Auditor General pointed to as having absolutely no detail justifying the invoices CP has submitted for the work. From what I can find online, CP has the contract for building as far as the former Dupont interlocking. The work from there to Strachan Ave was put out to RFQ in 2016 but there has been no announcement of it actually getting awarded.

Having a two-track connection at Dupont is helpful to CP to improve the flexibility in routing between Dixie and West Toronto, but the extension eastwards has no real value unless CP agrees to allow GO to run a bi-directional service, either as revenue service or just to turn back equipment moves at peak periods. The latter would really help equipment utilization. But who knows if that will actually happen.

- Paul

 

[TOareaFan]

https://blog.metrolinx.com/2018/03/07/pickering-pedestrian-bridge-another-step-closer-to-completion/

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Province to fast-track high-speed rail assessment

A major tidbit in here:

Transportation Minister Kathryn McGarry says the high-speed rail line will use existing rail tracks between Toronto and Waterloo Region, allowing for an expedited planning process.

That means the GO Kitchener line. Very interested in how this is packaged with GO capital improvements and funding.

I had presumed that they would use the Freight bypass/missing link to some degree.

 

[Allandale25]

^ I posted about this in the HSR thread as well. Noted that I guess this means the government is *really* hoping for a deal with CN Rail on the Bypass...

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...n-airport-toronto.20558/page-130#post-1313506

 

[rbt]

Province to fast-track high-speed rail assessment

A major tidbit in here:


That means the GO Kitchener line. Very interested in how this is packaged with GO capital improvements and funding.

I had presumed that they would use the Freight bypass/missing link to some degree.

It might be entirely coincidental but changing ministers appears to have sped up Kitchener work quite a bit; or at least made it much more visible.

 

[raptor]

It might be entirely coincidental but changing ministers appears to have sped up Kitchener work quite a bit; or at least made it much more visible.

I think more to do with the upcoming elections

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

I cross-posted this to the 407 bypass thread, and I'm bringing something GO Construction-related back:

Yeah, Guelph is a tough one, but the last story I read on it they were adamant about slamming it through the middle of town, leaning on the faster EA for using existing RoW.

It's not just the heritage listed properties, but also the grade west out of Guelph. To the east the RoW was from the Toronto and Guelph Railway, engineered to much higher spec. To the west, it was a continuation built later by the Grand Trunk to lesser specs.

Addendum for Northern Light's point: Even though this is and will be further a huge issue in Guelph (with a distinct identity based on 'doing it alone without interference, a form of 'isolationism') the Mayor, cognizant of the consequences of being by-passed for prosperity, very much supports the 'heart of town' route, even with the destruction it would reap.

Guelph is vexed on the point, I'll see if I can find and post a local article on it. I was there for five years, and I do see both sides of the issue. There's two issues, the engineering one, and the 'heritage' one.

I am very familiar with the area through the heart of west Guelph. I think it's feasible, it's just going to be a bit of an inconvenience. I'm going to dissect this.

First things first: the problem area, and the absolute fixed grade points unlikely to be changed. In the east, it's Norfolk, just west of Guelph Central Station. In the west, it's the Hanlon Expressway. That's about 2.2 km.

Challenges, from east to west:

1. Guelph Junction. It's a city-owned shortline that can interchange with GEXR on the Kitchener line. Any HSR/GO changes should probably accommodate that, as having the option to interchange the GEXR (and therefore CN) or CP via the OSR that goes out southeast from the city is a strategic advantage. Try to eliminate or make it difficult to switch with one of them and the city will cry foul.

2. Edinburgh Road. This will need to be grade-separated. It is a major north-south arterial. There are also wye and siding tracks in Guelph Junction that need to be accomodated.

3. Yorkshire Road. A local street. You may or may not be able to close this, but at the very least, pedestrian access will likely need to be maintained. You don't want to attempt a Blue22/UPX move and propose cutting the neighbourhood in half.

4. Glasgow, and Dublin and Kent streets.
4A. Glasgow and Dublin are local streets, arguably with the same function and traffic. However, Dublin is closer to Norfolk/Gordon (~190m), so any idea of grade-separation is just outright crazy. Plus, the hill on the north side is super steep, I've seen cars get stuck trying to get up/barely maintain control trying to come down. The argument to close it is strong, there's safety considerations on its side. Galsgow is further west, ~380 metres from Norfolk. You could maintain it for local low-height cars I think if you sunk the road a bit/raised the track a bit, the crossing is a bit raised as it over the surrounding grade. May take some driveway modification, but I think you could do it.

4B. Kent is two access road segments sandwiching the tracks. No way you'll be able to get 3 or 4 tracks in there (I'm assuming 2 for HSR, 1/2 for GO). You could eliminate the south segment, as it only provides access to 5 houses vs. 15 on the north side. Plus, you could maybe provide some alternate access to them via existing lanes from Dublin or Waterloo. But if the space is required, I think you could get away with eliminating the north segment too, just as long as you maintain a pedestrian pathway; it is a main route for pedestrians between the neighbourhood and the downtown. Those north side homeowners could be accommodated with compensation or some kind of parking lot. But overall, you will need to mitigate against vibration impacting some heritage homes, and place fences to restrict access to the tracks in an aesthetically pleasing way.

So overall, I think a trench or elevated tracks are out of the question and unnecessary; too much cost for little benefit. I think shoehorning a 3 track corridor through here is do-able, it's just going to make some noise and rile some NIMBYs. The province just needs to take care and effort to:

• Accomodate transfers from Guelph Junction Railway
• Make Ediburgh an underpass
• Make Yorkshire a pedestrian culvert
• Maintain pedestrian access, at a minimum, at Dublin, Glasgow, and north Kent
• Close south Kent and either buy out those 5 property owners, compensate them, or modify access
• Minimize vibration and aesthetic impacts

 

[crs1026]

^Before I respond to the good points above, can we keep the discussion in only one thread?

- Paul

 

[Streety McCarface]

One small bit of work that is edging forward is the restoration of double track on the Milton line in the Dupont-Junction area. The second track has been relaid from the West Toronto interlocking (just a touch east of Keele St) eastwards around the bend to about Dupont St. There are two new concrete signal piers in place. When I visited on Monday, crews were working further south doing cleanup of earlier construction materials along the sound wall (ie behind the camera).

One would expect that the new track will eventually be mated with the existing track in place towards Union, and a new track will be built alongside it between the sound wall and the existing track, to mate up with the current track running around the bend to the west..

This is one of the projects that the Auditor General pointed to as having absolutely no detail justifying the invoices CP has submitted for the work. From what I can find online, CP has the contract for building as far as the former Dupont interlocking. The work from there to Strachan Ave was put out to RFQ in 2016 but there has been no announcement of it actually getting awarded.

Having a two-track connection at Dupont is helpful to CP to improve the flexibility in routing between Dixie and West Toronto, but the extension eastwards has no real value unless CP agrees to allow GO to run a bi-directional service, either as revenue service or just to turn back equipment moves at peak periods. The latter would really help equipment utilization. But who knows if that will actually happen.

- Paul

View attachment 136578

Can someone explain why they're still using wooden ties over concrete ones? I get the outer borough lines, but for the Weston sub...come on CP.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

^Before I respond to the good points above, can we keep the discussion in only one thread?

- Paul

I brought it back here because it was in the 407 bypass thread, not HSR or GO. I only crossposted it to 407 for the fact that HSR isn't using the bypass.

 

[steveintoronto]

1. Guelph Junction. It's a city-owned shortline that can interchange with GEXR on the Kitchener line. Any HSR/GO changes should probably accommodate that, as having the option to interchange the GEXR (and therefore CN) or CP via the OSR that goes out southeast from the city is a strategic advantage. Try to eliminate or make it difficult to switch with one of them and the city will cry foul.

Excellent points save for GJR and "interchange" with GEXR. As much as the tracks connect (and btw, I think the City still owns the industrial track in the NW industrial zone) even though the NW Industrial Zone is serviced by both GJR and GEXR, I'm unaware of any interchange per-se. I'll dig on that. Specials might be laid over on the stub to the north of the City, mostly used for wagon storage at this time (although there are plans for Cargill to open a facility there)

You point out many of the challenges that would have to be addressed. To make this simpler though, any plan for *true* HSR through there is fanciful, to say the least. "Higher Speed"? Absolutely, provisos pertaining, and large ones. I don't think three tracks are possible, it's going to have to be two, something we can discuss, and freight is going to have to be temporally separated, something not that difficult to do in the big picture of things. It would be a lot easier to do a freight work-around than an HSR one, doubtless.

Here's the Mayor's press release on it, albeit as stated prior, this is a polarizing issue for Guelph:

High speed rail will unlock extraordinary new opportunities for Guelph


Guelph, Ont., May 19, 2017 – Mayor Cam Guthrie is applauding the inclusion of Guelph as a station stop on a proposed high-speed rail line along the Toronto-Windsor corridor.

A Guelph stop is included in a report from David Collenette, Ontario’s Special Advisor on high speed rail. The report notes that high speed rail could cut travel time between Guelph and Toronto to a minimum of 39 minutes.

Today, the Province of Ontario released the report and announced it is moving ahead with preliminary design work on the project as well as a comprehensive environmental assessment. The proposed stops include Windsor, Chatham, London, Kitchener-Waterloo, Guelph, and Toronto, with a connection to Pearson International Airport.

“This is the culmination of more than a year of work to literally put Guelph on the map for high speed rail,” said Mayor Guthrie. “Two years ago, a Guelph stop was not on the table. Together with our MPP Liz Sandals, the Chamber of Commerce, and the University of Guelph, our city made a compelling case to Mr. Collenette and the Province for a stop in our city. I want to thank the Province for listening and being receptive when Guelph came knocking.”

In February 2016, the Mayor attended a roundtable discussion on high speed rail hosted by Mr. Collenette in Kitchener, along with the CEO of the Guelph Chamber of Commerce and the Vice-President External of the University of Guelph. Mayor Guthrie asked Mr. Collenette about the possibility of a Guelph stop on the line. Two months later, Mr. Collenette came to Guelph City Hall to meet with Mayor Guthrie and City staff to discuss the feasibility of a Guelph stop further. On May 30, 2016, Guelph City Council passed a resolution endorsing in principle the inclusion of an alignment through and stop in Guelph for consideration in the Toronto to Windsor high speed rail report.

In the months since, the Mayor, City staff, and MPP Sandals continued to make the case for a Guelph stop, as Mr. Collenette studied its feasibility. Mr. Collenette’s report recommends a stop in Guelph at Guelph Central Station, noting that this is an integrated station with local and inter-city bus and rail transit services.

“Imagine getting to downtown Toronto in 39 minutes, and Pearson International Airport in 23 minutes – all while avoiding the traffic of the 401. This would unlock extraordinary opportunities for jobs, economic development, and quality of life in our city. High speed rail would revolutionize residents’ ability to travel to Toronto – and west to Waterloo Region and London – quickly, safely, and easily,” said Mayor Guthrie.

The Chamber of Commerce and University of Guelph were equally pleased with the news.

“Today’s announcement is an important step forward in further unlocking the economic potential in communities like Guelph, as a leading jurisdiction in Canada and noted jobs powerhouse, Guelph is well positioned to leverage the opportunities this announcement will have in bolstering regional economic development, helping to attract top talent and improving interconnectivity options,” says Kithio Mwanzia, President & CEO, Guelph Chamber of Commerce.

University of Guelph President Franco Vaccarino added, “This is wonderful news for the University of Guelph and greater Guelph region. Connecting the Toronto-Guelph-Waterloo innovation corridor in this way will help us attract and retain talented researchers and promote collaboration among leading businesses and experts. It will enhance our global competitiveness in fields such as agri-food, clean technology, digital technology and health/biosciences.”

While the high speed rail environmental assessment work is being done, the Province has pledged to continue its proposed delivery of two-way, all-day GO rail service between Toronto and Waterloo Region, with a stop at Guelph Central Station.

The Special Advisor’s final report can be viewed on the Province of Ontario’s website at http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/publications/high-speed-rail-in-ontario-final-report/

https://guelph.ca/2017/05/high-speed-rail-will-unlock-extraordinary-new-opportunities-for-guelph/

Is this discussion more apt in the HSR string? I don't think so, as this stretch is extant, and already prone to discussion within Guelph, as much as this relates to GO Transit as it does to HSR....which I still think "HSR" will manifest within, as an extension of HFR in whatever form it takes.

Guelph high-speed rail stop hinges on major upgrades at level crossings
NEWS May 24, 2016 Guelph Mercury

A proposed high-speed rail project from Windsor to Toronto through London and Waterloo might stop in Guelph, but only if the city agrees to costly rail upgrades including dealing with the city’s numerous at-grade crossings.

That’s the message in a new city staff report that goes to a special meeting of council on May 30.

The change to perhaps having the high-speed line stop in Guelph after all followed an April 27 meeting of Mayor Cam Guthrie and city staff with David Collenette, who was appointed last October as the province’s special adviser for high speed rail, the report says. Collenette is currently seeking input to guide his recommendations on the preferred route and alignment, which will be submitted to Premier Kathleen Wynne this fall.

Collenette first met in February with the mayor and city staff as well as University of Guelph and Guelph Chamber of Commerce staff, and the route alignment discussed at that introductory meeting bypassed Guelph, the report says. It was indicated the high-speed rail corridor would include stops only at Pearson Airport, Waterloo, London and Windsor.

However, during the April 27 meeting it was revealed that forthcoming recommendations to Wynne about the high-speed rail plan “may consider an alignment on the current CN tracks through Guelph and include a station stop in Guelph,” it says.

A potential high-speed rail route through Guelph “would require upgrades to the current rail, including addressing the numerous at-grade crossings in the city,” the report points out.

But, it adds, “regardless of the final high-speed rail alignment, the rail line (within Guelph) will need to be upgraded at some point in the future for safety issues and compliance with recently introduced Transport Canada grade-crossing regulations. Implications will be addressed in the future.”

Council will be asked on May 30 to support, in principle, the inclusion of a high-speed rail route alignment through Guelph with a stop here.

Council will also be asked to have the mayor write a letter to Collenette asking him to endorse the change in route to have it pass through Guelph.

https://www.guelphmercury.com/news-...-hinges-on-major-upgrades-at-level-crossings/

As to Paul's question in the 407 Bypass string on the grade to Guelph's west. The Toronto and Guelph had planned an extension to Kitchener before being absorbed by the GTR, and they planned going around that hill, as the grade was above their acceptable limit. The GTR was tight on cash at the time, and took the shortest route available, up that hill.

I'll see if I can find reference, the grade only lasts for a couple of kms. It would be absolutely no problem for HSR, save for trying to trench the section east of Glasgow Rd being an engineering challenge, let alone the aquifer running close to the surface through there.