News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

bobbob911 said:
Agreed. How long has it taken for the TTC fare to increase by $1.75? Or even 55%? Seems like an awful lot longer than 10 years. There's political hell to pay whenever you try to raise it by a dime!
Click to expand...
Cash fare? It went up 54% overnight in 1992 from $1.30 to $2. I guess it wasn't that memorable!
 
Funding is one thing, but physically building it to not crash into GO is another, unless TIF can also fund separate corridors and tracks.
 
Interesting this has come up as Translink has announced a new station at Cambie &57th along the Canada Line that will be paid entirely by a developer. The station was already "roughed in" as was 0one further along the line at 33rd. Still it's a big chunk of change that Translink/City Hall will not have to fork over to bring the needed station.

I don't know the ins and outs of TIF but as long as it's just being used for the infrastructure itself, I think the premise of relying on increased property taxes along the route is a valid one. Property values will rise over a 30 year period and it's the city that has final control over property tax rates if they ever need to be increased. Also it is based on the city loaning the money and getting it back over time and there has NEVER been a cheaper time to borrow funds for infrastructure than there is today.
 
robmausser said:
Not needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_train_control
Click to expand...
Actually, GO wants to go beyond PTC and implement CBTC GO-wide. $800bn of the $13.5bn GO RER budget.

CBTC is far more flexible, increases capacity more, supports migration path to moving-block technology, and provides the majority of traditional PTC features (safety). I understand that it is not a perfect superset of PTC but can serve the function of PTC, while providing benefits that GO RER needs.
 
So the trains can be timed to conveniently avoid each other so the GO Express and GO local trains won't even have to wait behind any SmartTrack trains as they stop.
 
mdrejhon said:
Actually, GO wants to go beyond PTC and implement CBTC GO-wide. $800bn of the $13.5bn GO RER budget.

CBTC is far more flexible, increases capacity more, supports migration path to moving-block technology, and provides the majority of traditional PTC features (safety). I understand that it is not a perfect superset of PTC but can serve the function of PTC, while providing benefits that GO RER needs.
Click to expand...

Thats excellent news. However $800 Billion sounds a bit pricey :)
 
RyanM12 said:
I liked the idea of the City Hall station on the Relief Line. Even better would be to double track the Queen section of the line to route some GO trains there, combining the Relief Line with that proposal for a GO Lakeshore Queen tunnel.
Click to expand...
That would now only be possible if they had dual height doors on EMU bi-levels. Based on the RER business case, it looks like they're aiming for low-floor EMU bi-levels, so door heights level with the current GO fleet. A relief line would almost certainly be high floor subway.

Besides, my understanding is the constriction where they'd ideally want to to bypass trains from the Union corridor is more of a concern on the west side of union, not the east side, so they'd probably only consider it if the relief line was extended to either the corridor at Queen/Dufferin (to re route Kitchener, Milton or Barrie trains). If you rerouted Lakeshore West into the Relief Line tunnel at Roncy, you'd bypass Exhibition altogether, so I'm not sure they'd do it.

That said, might be prudent to develop a relief line tunnel that DOESN'T PRECLUDE routing EMUs through it sometime in the future.
 
GO's RER (2015 version) was to have been similar to this diagram:

go_rer_infographic.png
 
RyanM12 said:
I liked the idea of the City Hall station on the Relief Line. Even better would be to double track the Queen section of the line to route some GO trains there, combining the Relief Line with that proposal for a GO Lakeshore Queen tunnel.
Click to expand...

In my opinion having any kind of tunnel for the GO RER system is a waste of money and a poorer option than the Bathurst North Yard idea.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/studies/studies.aspx

Many transit systems, like Montreals AMT and Chicagos METRA have two stations downtown connected by a subway line.

Some trains serve one station and others serve another.

I also think that Toronto North station should be reopened, and every 3rd train or so from Milton, Kitchener, Barrie line service this station, once we get less than 10 minute frequencies of course. Then of course eventually Seaton/Peterborough GO lines in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Toronto_railway_station

All of this relies on the Relief Line however: to link Bathurst North station to Union, and to not cause overcrowding on the Yonge line when Toronto North station offloads people who will take the line at Summerhill station.

We already need the DRL, and so to me, creating a spread out web of 3 stations, Bathurst North, North Toronto, and Union station, will much better disperse commuters throughout downtown Toronto rather than building an expensive tunnel under Union and cramming more people into that god awful busy place.

Perhaps another layout would be that the Express Diesel trains from particular services go to Toronto North and Bathurst North and all the inner city RER trains go to Union. Perhaps people from out of town would not be concerned with getting to Union or vice versa.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top