Glen Murray has only been sitting in his new office as Minister of Transportation and Minister of Infrastructure for Ontario for about 2½ weeks, but already his comments in the mainstream media (Globe Star) and on Twitter (@Glen4ONT) show that business as usual will not be the style of his office. We chatted for about 45 minutes earlier today.
I began by asking about the change of his Twitter handle from the suffix “TC” (for his riding’s name, Toronto Centre) to “ONT” and his recent comments about transportation in northern Ontario. Murray’s focus there is on economic development, and the need for transportation facilities to support investment, especially in mining. On the question of passenger services, it was a bit harder to nail down the Minister’s position.
Murray is a big fan of High Speed Rail, and feels that the Windsor-Quebec corridor needs that sort of investment as an important first step, followed by improved rail and bus feeder services. Yes, but what does this do for the north? Murray sees the need for a spine rail service linking Toronto to the north with bus routes feeding into that spine, but neither details nor any sense of timing emerged.
Two important dollar figures, however, came out. First, in southern Ontario, current spending on the 400-series highways is about $2.4-billion annually, and there is an argument to be made for upping spending on transit. Second, mining now brings in about $1-billion annually, and the industry’s primary complaint is the lack of infrastructure, not their tax burden, according to Murray.
Metrolinx and The Big Move
In a February 20th interview with the Globe and Mail, Murray spoke of “smarter investments”. I asked him to elaborate on this.
An important issue for Murray is that transit investment should be directed to places people want to go and where transit can stimulate better land use. Although Metrolinx has a map of projects, The Big Move, the contribution of each element in that plan is unclear. Which ones do the most to reduce congestion, to improve transit network capacity, to support development? Murray would like to see better data on future ridership and ways to measure the potential of various options. The term “evidence based” rolls by, although it is not quite clear what this means as one cannot always have evidence of a plan’s worth until at least part of it is already built.
Minister Murray does not want to just keep up with congestion, he wants to “get ahead of the curve” by choosing and building the most effective elements in a transportation network.
There is no question about the initial Big Move projects for which $16b was committed by the McGuinty government. Those projects are going ahead and are in various stages of engineering and construction. As for the “Next Wave” and beyond, Murray hopes to see improvements that can focus on development potential and good network connections.
That development potential is central to Murray’s views on financing. He is very concerned about asking “middle class” taxpayers who will, for the foreseeable future, be driving their cars and SUVs through suburbia to pay for transportation systems that are underutilized. Bad choices of routes and projects will only undermine a funding strategy.
Vancouver is an important model to him because of that city’s integration of suburban development with transit expansion. However, Murray’s focus on land use planning and whatever success it may have in Vancouver ignores the actual financing. Generous support from various governments, not development charges or tax increments, paid for construction of the Skytrain system.
I asked about the fundamental problem that, thanks to decades of underinvestment, the locations where more capacity is needed may not be those with development potential. Murray acknowledged this, but offered no indication of how to reconcile the situation. Murray sees some locations, such as central Hamilton, as ripe for new development based on transit access, but what will be needed to lure investors to build, and businesses to occupy new space? Others major transit hubs may have very long lead times before development appears around them. Toronto subway terminals are excellent examples in that regard.
Without getting into specifics, Murray wants the Metrolinx Investment Strategy (IS), due June 1, to not simply list many revenue tools, but to show how the money from whatever tools are chosen will produce measurable benefits. Murray sees the IS not simply as an enumeration of options, but an actual plan for how money would be used and the transportation network developed.
So far, there has been much talk about the type of tools (The Metrolinx “Big Conversation”), but much less about what they would build or how new infrastructure would address transportation problems. Indeed, the GTHA has been presented with a preselected list of “Next Wave” projects without any discussion of whether they are appropriate. A review of The Big Move is due in 2016 (and will presumably begin well before that), and none of the Next Wave projects will get underway until the new plan is in place. There is much room for adjustment and improvement rather than treating the choices as a fait accompli.
Technology Choices
Murray talks about “innovative technologies”, although it’s not clear just what he means by this. To me, “innovation” is code for “something we don’t have now” and often brings along a snake-oil salesman with a dubious product that will “solve all our problems”.
Murray is impressed by the Vancouver system and its use of elevated structures, and was surprised at the resistance to this sort of construction in Toronto. I recounted the history of the SRT and of proposals to build elevated guideways and stations on various streets in the city including Eglinton. There is a huge difference between an elevated running on a rail or hydro corridor with stations on overpasses (such as the SRT Midland Station), and a line running down the middle of a road like Eglinton Avenue. The issue has always been that each technology fits in certain circumstances, and some are more adaptable to a variety of building styles than others. I couldn’t help noticing that Murray did not say anything about LRT systems such as in Calgary and many other cities.
Murray observed that discussions about transit often decline into arguments about specific technologies (the whole subway vs LRT vs BRT debate). I have found that terms like “innovation” and “flexibility” as applied to transit technologies usually mean “my technology is better than yours”, but preempt discussion by asserting an inherent superiority simply because something is new or is more easily implemented on a network designed around its strengths. Oddly enough, when I talk of the “flexibility” of LRT, the result is often a blank stare or a lecture on how BRT will save the known universe. Terms are often what we choose to make of them. I am not sure whether these are simply buzzwords for Murray, or have some specific, measurable meaning in network analysis.
The Union-Pearson Express (UPX) project is well underway, and there is no question that it will be completed to its original design — an express, premium fare service — for its planned opening in late 2014. (After our meeting, the Minister was off to a groundbreaking at the future Airport terminal.) However, Murray sees this as an example of a line that can be rethought with electrification for 2017 and better integration with the overall regional network as well.
On the Waterfront, Murray spoke of development possibilities east of the Don River in south Riverdale and beyond that might be served/stimulated by some sort of “people mover” to downtown. That sort of statement sends up a red flag for me simply because it’s a “solution” that defines an orphan line and may, at best, only fit into some decades-future plan for the waterfront rather than serving today’s needs. What this means for any future LRT network into the East Bayfront and beyond to the Port Lands remains to be seen.
What Are Corridors For?
Metrolinx already owns some of the rail corridors in the GTHA and the hydro lines are also in the public realm. Could these be used not just as today for commuter rail and power transmission, but also for new transit services — transit on hydro lands, local as well as express service on rail corridors? This topic interests Murray, but his thoughts don’t appear to be well advanced on this.
One major problem, especially if we bring road corridors into the mix, is that these lands are by their very nature hostile to pedestrians and to transit-based development in the immediate vicinity. This is the classic gaffe of thinking that an available right-of-way is a “solution” without properly defining the problem it is to address. That said, there is more to be had from some corridors than their present use. The challenge is to avoid having the corridor locations override the actual transportation needs of travellers in the GTHA.
Metrolinx Governance
By this point in our chat, we had already run over time, and the Minister’s next meeting was knocking at the door. As I prepared to leave, I asked one last question about where Murray thought Metrolinx governance should go. The organization started out with some degree of public visibility through a political board, but then retreated into a closed shop where only basic decisions, already arrived at in private, are ratified in public.
Murray replied that he would like to see a “competency based” board with people who have a real passion, knowledge and interest in transportation, and that discussions should be more public. He cited Waterfront Toronto’s board (another agency that reports, provincially, through him) as a good mix of people with an interest in and knowledge of their portfolio.
We shall see where this outlook takes Metrolinx in the future.
Postscript
A number of questions I had prepared went unasked due to time constraints, but I plan to send them to Glen Murray’s office to continue the discussion. These include several related to local transit financing and the integration of local services with Metrolinx regional operations and planning.
As I walked back out onto Wellesley Street, I had mixed feelings about our conversation. On one hand, Murray’s desire to see Metrolinx put more flesh on its plans – to convert a cafeteria menu of transit lines cobbled together from many local wish lists to a truly integrated plan with defined outcomes and benefits – is long overdue. There is an “Emperor’s New Clothes” feeling about a lot of Metrolinx’ work, and the sense that what we will get is a lot less impressive than what we are promised.
However, some of Murray’s comments about technologies and financing put him uncomfortably close to the Ford camp of transit planning where vague ideas and ideologies supplant detail. Moreover, we risk talking about the network of 2050 without recognizing the need for better travel options in 2015, and of financing that depends on development that might not materialize in our lifetime. I don’t think that’s what Murray intends, but that’s how he sounds a bit too often for comfort.
On the bright side, Murray does not want to stop the work already underway. Toronto has seen far too much delay. I mentioned that many years ago, in the spring of 1990, I attended an announcement by then-Premier David Peterson of the rapid transit network that would blanket Toronto with subways. Peterson lost an election soon after to Bob Rae, who in turn lost to Mike Harris five years later. All we got was the Sheppard line to Don Mills. Ontario is very good at not building.
That is not the intention of the self-styled “new” government at Queen’s Park. Whether they get the chance to deliver on their promises depends on political calculations much bigger than those of The Big Move, and on the government’s will to stay with transit and transportation as essential parts of investing in the GTHA.
Steve Munro 
Funny thing, I remember that being mentioned back in 2008 by Premier McGuinty, but nothing has happened since on that, and nothing further will happen on that, most likely, except this.
LikeLike
Were I whispering in Minister Murray’s ear, I would advise against a Northeast Corridor style high speed megaproject in his term of office – it’s a recipe for decades more aspiration and damn all achievement in a region longer than the NEC and far fewer people, particularly given the shelf life over your average transport minister in a political culture obsessed with “if you’re not moving ministries every shuffle your career is stalled”.
An Amtrak Illinois/Amtrak California style partnership between VIA Rail and Ontario is overdue, surely achievable and could produce results in months or years, not decades. The steady tempo of improvement between Chicago and Detroit is what should be the goal between London, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. Shave the journey times, raise on time performance, tighten the headways from the current yawning gaps. From there, hopefully, higher ridership and a more favourable political landscape for bolder steps.
Steve: I agree. Murray seems pre-occupied with a long-term vision will almost totally ignoring improvements that could easily be implemented within years, not decades, and show real progress, not the typical pipedreams of promise-heavy, delivery-light governments.
LikeLike
Steve said:
If he genuinely feels that way about Windsor-Quebec corridor service, he might want to consider removing the federal conservatives from his Christmas card list if the rumours of how hard VIA is going to be hit in the next budget turn out to be true.
Also, it’s nice that he’s talking about a spine rail service linking Toronto to the north only a few months after the Ontario government ended Ontario Northland’s Northlander train linking Toronto to the north.
LikeLike
Considering how crappy the Northlander train looked the last few times I saw it, maybe people didn’t find it appealing enough to want to ride it enough for the government to keep it as a service.
LikeLike
Steve, this article makes it feel like you asked a question, Murray gave an answer – then you’ve commented on that answer here in the article, rather than putting across those to point to Murray. IS this what happened, or am I missing something?
Steve: My responses to Murray were more extensive in our chat as I wanted the article to focus on his voice, but with my running commentary. In some cases, I have drawn together threads from different parts of the conversation that belonged together to illuminate themes or conflicts in his positions. I had thought of having a separate commentary with my voice alone at the end (and that’s what the closing section does), but putting all of my replies there would have lost the thread of how we got from one topic to another.
LikeLike
Maybe if he focused on high speed rail on the tiny part of the Windsor-Quebec that makes up the GO Lakeshore line, then we might get somewhere.
Sounds like he is a transit supporter, but don’t know much more about it then the man on the street. (Of course, knowing more then the man on the street is the quickest way to end your political career.)
LikeLike
A highspeed rail corridor is never going to happen without buy in from the feds … one would almost think it’s not even Ontario’s responsibility to build these types of projects that benefit the whole country …
Ontario shouldn’t waste its time or capital working on these projects for a few reasons …
It won’t get done without the feds
If the feds get involved, Ontario won’t have much of a say anyways
The project will go to VIA or CN/CP — or a seperate “multinational/provincial” company … not GO
Quebec (and perhaps Detroit/New York) also need to be involved
There are more pressing issues to deal with in Ontario — (Union Corridor, Relief Line, Electrification of Lakeshore)
It’s probably going to lose money in the short and mid-term, so why be the person stuck holding the bag — let the feds deal with it
LikeLike
At the Spadina tunneling event Wynne commented about the need for more revenue tools to help the GTHA catch up on missed opportunities for transit investment.
I’d be interested to hear Murray say that he wants to move forward with those easier projects that should have been done years ago.
First, ensure that the 14.7 c/L of gas tax collected is dedicated to roads and transit. Apparently it is being spent on health care now, but I bet that spending the money on transit would have a multiplier effect and reduce the need for health care spending.
In fact, I’d be happy to see the 14.7 c/L increased to 16c/L and divided equally. Overall cost increase of 1.3 c/L or 39 c for a 30L fill-up.
The Kipling terminal is also something that needed to start years ago. Kipling station has been open for 30+ years but Mississauga Transit buses still go to Islington … an extra 10 minutes wasted, requiring additional layover time and fighting more congestion. This project would make a huge difference … especially if combined with a short stretch of BRT-lite from Auckland Road to East Mall Crescent. Transit priority signals at East Mall Crescent would allow buses to move forward first to access the 427 northbound and the curbside bus lanes on Dundas without having to fight traffic.
Steve: The current round of delays at Kipling are thanks to Hydro who are being difficult about building under their transmission lines.
Personally I’d like to see a simple BRT with simple curbstone separation and stations put in quickly instead of the massive rapidway construction on Highway 7.
Another thing Murray ought to bring forward quickly are the Renforth Gateway at Eglinton and Renforth as well the proposed BRT on the west side of Highway 427 north of the 401. Combined with the bus lane on the 427 south of Eglinton (apparently the infrastructure is ready but unpainted and unsigned) this would unlock Malton, East Brampton and north Etobicoke with faster access to the subway.
Think Murray should also encourage Toronto to revisit the Transit City Bus Plan. I also think Eglinton West from Weston Rd. to Renforth should have a BRT-lite operating when the Crosstown opens.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Steve:
A gutsier government would say “okay, forget you” and close Auckland Road from Bloor street to Subway Crescent to all vehicles except buses and then proceed to build the terminal away from the Hydro lines.
Other vehicles can still access Kipling station via Subway Crescent, as well as Bloor and Auckland Road via Kipling.
But since this is unlikely one can only hope this will be resolved soon, so the terminal can be built … 35 years late.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
I agree with Mark that the idea of High Speed Rail in Canada is a non starter, especially west of Toronto. There is not the population density to sustain it and the right of way is owned by CN for a major portion. High speed passenger trains and freights do not mix well and there are too many level crossings. What is needed is a higher speed and more frequent service and this is doable at a much lower cost.
VIA is running the wrong type of equipment. Every car they own is capable of loading at a high level platform but there is only one [station] that I know of in Canada and it is in Montreal. What is needed is a bi-level car that could load at low level platforms directly like GO does. Using wider doors and all door loading would also speed up service. The ticketing system needs to be changed by using automated ticket vending machines and on line ticket purchasing. There is no need to pay a person to sit in a station all day to sell tickets.
With some modifications such as reclining seats and luggage racks by the doors and possibly in overhead bins the GO equipment would be much better for VIA’s Ontario service. The bi-levels would carry more people per car and this would reduce VIA’s wheelage cost that they pay CN. They would allow faster loading and faster service while reducing operating costs. If the costs were lower and the service more frequent then the ridership would increase substantially along with revenues.
Anyone who has ridden trains in Europe knows that they do not sit in stations for half an hour before loading. They are in and out of even major cities in 2 minutes. GO has the perfect model for running VIA’s service in Ontario; unfortunately it is not the best model for their own service. It would better served by something like City Rail In Sydney Australia.
Moaz: don’t worry about building a better MI-WAY terminal at Kipling; just wait for Metrolynx to extend the subway to Mississauga.
LikeLike
Neville Ross said:
The point I was trying to get across is that when Glen Murray was talking about a spine rail service with a network of bus routes feeding into it, that was the sort of thing that should have been implemented before the Northlander was terminated rather than now facing the difficulty of having to build up ridership from nothing.
Steve: Also, a decline in the old service is a perfect example of how to kill demand by providing an inferior product. We see the same thing happening with VIA on the Toronto-Kitchener-London corridor.
LikeLike
Steve said:
Indeed. One has to wonder if the Northlander ever really recovered from the horrific schedule it had during the Harris/Eves years.
LikeLike
@moaz wrote: Another thing Murray ought to bring forward quickly are the Renforth Gateway at Eglinton and Renforth
The TTC cannot even coordinate a simple thing like connecting with Miway at the Skymark Hub (interim terminal until Renforth Gateway built) where every route stops. 32A goes along Eglinton past the Hub to Explorer (NOBODY gets off) and turns north to Skymark and eastward. If you want a Miway Express bus you have to get off mid-block cross the street (no crosswalk) and walk east to the Hub shelters.
If anybody at TTC had a brain 32A would route north on Commerce and west on Skymark stopping at the Hub for a fast transfer to MIway every route. Then continue west to Explorer and NORTH to Matheson and east to Commerce south past Skymark back to Eglinton and east. Reverse for PM rush.
LikeLike
I read that Steve and I can only think of one word to describe what he said.
Newbie
LikeLike
Robert Wightman said:
Robert, I’m in my 34th year and my son is in his 2nd. I sincerely hope that there will be a subway in Mississauga before my future grandson is 34.
Raymond Kennedy said:
Sob … I know. That’s why I’m hoping someone can “get to” Minister Murray and explain these issues to him, and take him through a step-by-step action plan.
MiWay and GO aren’t doing as good a job as they could be either. Case in point: GO train arrives at Port Credit at 21:10. Mi Express 103 leaves Port Credit at … 21:08
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Steve:
Someone has again raised the point about the subway being extended to Mississauga. You said a few days ago that you think this will never happen? Why do you think that? Environmental Assessment approval was given to extend the Bloor line from Kipling to Sherway Gardens Mall 20 years ago. From there, extending it along the GO line to Hurontario seems to make total sense to me. From there, people could transfer to the Hurontario LRT to get to Mississauga City Centre; otherwise, I would have said, why not just curve it up Hurontario to go the Mississauga City Centre, where the main bus terminal is.
Would not extending the subway as far as Hurontario reduce the trip length and the amount of buses needed to take Missisagians to the Bloor line via Burhamthorpe to Islington Station. Given the status of Mississagua as the 2nd largest city in the GTA it seems to make sense to extend the subway there if it is also being extended to Vaughan and Richmond Hill.
Steve: I didn’t say it shouldn’t happen, just that I thought it wouldn’t. First off, although there was a proposed extension west from Kipling, the cost turned out to be very high due to construction issues along the way (it won’t fit on the surface, and there are tunnelling problems). Next, Mississauga has an established demand travelling via GO Transit at a higher level than Richmond Hill, and most importantly it does not have a mayor/regional chair who has made getting a subway a lifetime calling.
Both the Vaughan and Richmond Hill subways have their own political equivalent of a brass band to advance their case (and for Vaughan, the advantage of a well connected MPP and former Finance Minister). The Richmond Hill project is stalled right now because of capacity issues on the existing subway. This would be a concern for a Mississauga subway too, although I suspect not as serious as on Yonge.
LikeLike
Moaz Yusuf Ahmad says:
Moaz, I’m in my 67th year.I hope something gets built while I am still able to appreciate it. Since there is no subsidy from the province for inter city travel within the GTHA there is no reason for one city to build something that benefits another city. I cannot blame Toronto for not spending money to benefit riders from outside even if it means more riders for the TTC. It is a money loser since Toronto has to subsidize the outsiders.
LikeLike
The big problem with an extension of the Bloor Danforth subway west from Kipling is that following the railway doesn’t save a lot of money, requires tunneling (how does it get under the 427 and down to North Queen and Queensway) and once you get there, you’re either stuck at Shrerway for 30 years or trying to run subways on a rail right of way far from any dense commercial and residential areas until you get to Cooksville.
On the other hand, the subway could follow Dundas (busy route with lots of redevelopment potential especially at Honeydale and Cloverdale) or Bloor (high density over to Dixie and a direct route to the Mississauga City Centre) … but how do you get to Dundas or Bloor from the current route without paying a lot of money.
Steve said:
Mississauga benefits from having 3 GO rail lines … Lakeshore West, Milton, and Kitchener (Malton Go) as well as bus corridors.
The best solution is not one short subway extension but rather, an expansion of service on the GO lines as well as the main road corridors (Dundas, Hurontario and Eglinton.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
HSR and now this:
Transportation Minister questions idea of charging GO riders for parking. (The Star, March 19).
The article does say he is waiting for evidence to justify the pay-for-parking … and fitting it in amongst other revenue tools (if at all) but the headline gives a different impression.
It’s funny that the media (and apparently the general public) appear (generally) in support of new revenue tools but also shoot down every proposal that comes along.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: This is a classic case of looking at only half of the problem. Providing all that “free parking” has a cost, one that increases substantially when it is in a structure rather than simply an open field. Another way to get riders to GO is substantial improvement of local transit service. Yes, this is limited by the degree to which such service can be easily accessed from cul-de-sac based subdivisions, but there is a point where there is no room left for parking. Indeed, if we actually believe in “mobility hubs”, parking may not be the best use of the land.
Murray forgets that as GO expands to all-day, two-way service, many riders will arrive at stations at times when there is no parking available, and others will arrive “outbound” expecting to find local bus service. You won’t get a commuter who has flexible hours or a reverse-peak trip out of their car by serving only the peak inbound trips to downtown Toronto with parking, free or otherwise.
LikeLike
Steve:
When I was part of the test run for the Shuttle Challenge, one if the first things I learned (thanks to the vehicle use monitor connected to my OBDII port) was how much a trip cost (in terms of fuel use).
For example, a 5km trip (starting with a cold engine … like a trip to the GO station) took 13-16 minutes and cost $1.50-$1.60 … and that is just for the fuel … and not including maintenance, ownership costs, insurance etc.
Suddenly that $0.75 trip by MiWay made a lot of sense.
Perhaps Glen Murray should take up the Shuttle Challenge so he can see for himself the cost of driving to the GO station. They are going to start the spring campaign soon.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: Glen Murray lives downtown and doesn’t drive to work.
LikeLike
Well, I’m happy to know that. Perhaps some of his staff might be interested in trying … or at least getting a look at the data.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
So, when will he buy the necessary right-of-way from the privatized, US-controlled, passenger-hating freight carrier CN? That would be a start. Under Laliberte and Harper, VIA is basically being run to fail, so the only option would be for the Government of Ontario to acquire and operate its own line.
Toronto to London would be a nice start, being entirely within Ontario and relatively short. I suspect GEXR would sell relatively cheaply, and CN’s residual interest would probably be relatively cheap too. With separate passenger tracks already planned from Brampton to Silver, and Metrolinx owning the tracks east of there, there’s an excellent opportunity to make an electrified, passenger-primary intercity route — it should be easy to get it down to an hour and a half with relatively small improvements (by HSR standards). 🙂
Or he could push for Toronto-Ottawa HSR, also entirely within Ontario, but that would require a lot more new build to get good results.
“Newbie” is a good description of Murray’s remarks. Sounds like he hasn’t thought through any of this stuff.
Steve: GEXR does not own the line it operates, but leases it from CN. That agreement expires in the next few years, and this would be an ideal time to rethink ownership and operation of the Toronto-London via KW corridor.
LikeLike
What separate passenger tracks from Brampton to Silver? Metrolynx has already added an extra track from Bramalea to John St. (Brampton) and from the CP diamond to the far side of Mt Pleasant Station where the new storage yard will be. Aside from doubling the bridge over the Credit River there are no new tracks planned from there to Silver that I can find in any of Metrolynx’s plans. To add a third track through downtown Brampton would require the closure of at least one street, Railway Avenue and the destruction of the current south platform at Brampton. To add a fourth track to have totally separate passenger tracks would require demolition of one building and more elevated track. The section from Bramalea to Silver is going to remain a problem because this is CN’s main line to Chicago and they are not going to let anything slow down their freights.
As Steve said CN still owns the line that GEXR runs on. GEXR is not willing to allow Metrolynx to upgrade the track to higher speed because they do not want the extra maintenance costs involved with it. The best solution is for Metrolynx to buy the line, preferably to Stratford at least.
Metrolynx and GO before them paid to have all the signal gantries and bridges raised to allow overhead while still allowing high freight cars underneath. AMT in Montreal has not done this and this is probably why CN and CP will not let them electrify. They probably should have checked before buying all those locomotives. Using the Stratford route as the main route to London and Windsor is going a long way out of your road.
LikeLike
Sorry, I misread Metrolinx’s plans. You are correct that Metrolinx is not adding additional tracks through downtown Brampton, and is not currently planning a third track west of Mt. Pleasant. (I have been repeatedly confused by reading Metrolinx’s vague and generally slightly overblown plan announcments.)
Anyway, there’s enough ROW for separate passenger tracks west of Brampton. Within Brampton, it seems that power lines are occupying a significant portion of the ROW, which could be a problem; but it doesn’t look insurmountable in the long run.
Do you know which parts of which routes Metrolinx/GO have actually done this clearance on? For instance, does it include the CP line from Aldershot to Hamilton, which has one hell of a lot of bridges and what appears to be an actual tunnel under Hunter Street?
Steve: There is no intention of electrifying to Hunter Street. If anything at Hamilton is converted, it will be the CN line to the James Street Station which is to be reactivated for regular service beyond Hamilton.
LikeLike
I don’t remember all of them off hand but one of the background papers done by GO and Metrolynx had a list of them and the most of them have been done. The Tunnel to Hunter street is a problem though the consultant had a solution by depowering the overhead except when an electric train was under it.
The old CN station at Hamilton does not have clearance for overhead at the existing platforms.
LikeLike