doady
Senior Member
There's plenty of unused space along the Credit River. Just build a new rail corridor through there.
|
|
|
- Thread starter M II A II R II K
- Start date
There's plenty of unused space along the Credit River. Just build a new rail corridor through there.
Dan416
Senior Member
That'll go over well with the landowners, golf courses, environmental groups, and all the City-owned parks along the Credit....
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Hey gweed123
Hope I didn't come across as being argumentative for that definately was not my intent. I very much appreciate the work you put into making that map, god knows I couldn't do it.
You are right that is could be done by GO as long as the fare is the same as a standard TTC ticket/pass.
My concern with using current GO trains are:
1} The current GO trains are so huge that it will cause big problems at Union. It is far easier to have 2 trains carrying 500 people each as opposed to one carrying a thousand passengers in terms of loading/off loading.
2} It will take much longer to electrify the entire GO system than just the parts in Toronto and just beyond the city limits. Ridership on the GO trains will increase so much that it will require far more frequent service and currently that means more diesel trains.
3} By dividing the 2 systems it allows far fewer stops in the city of Toronto for people coming in from the 905. After the first initial stop all 905 trains would be non-stop to Union. The 905 ers will have a big problem with adding even more stops to their ride.
4} By using current GO trains it makes unloading and loading for inner Toronto travels more difficult because the trains are double-decker with fewer doors and due to having 4 seats across, they often have thinner ailes as well.
5} By using OTrains the vehicles are much more identifiable to people as to whether they are for 905 or 416 service.
Hope I didn't come across as being argumentative for that definately was not my intent. I very much appreciate the work you put into making that map, god knows I couldn't do it.
You are right that is could be done by GO as long as the fare is the same as a standard TTC ticket/pass.
My concern with using current GO trains are:
1} The current GO trains are so huge that it will cause big problems at Union. It is far easier to have 2 trains carrying 500 people each as opposed to one carrying a thousand passengers in terms of loading/off loading.
2} It will take much longer to electrify the entire GO system than just the parts in Toronto and just beyond the city limits. Ridership on the GO trains will increase so much that it will require far more frequent service and currently that means more diesel trains.
3} By dividing the 2 systems it allows far fewer stops in the city of Toronto for people coming in from the 905. After the first initial stop all 905 trains would be non-stop to Union. The 905 ers will have a big problem with adding even more stops to their ride.
4} By using current GO trains it makes unloading and loading for inner Toronto travels more difficult because the trains are double-decker with fewer doors and due to having 4 seats across, they often have thinner ailes as well.
5} By using OTrains the vehicles are much more identifiable to people as to whether they are for 905 or 416 service.
No no you didn't, I was just trying to understand where you were coming from, that's all. No worries!
See, to me, it seems like having 1 longer train is actually easier, at least from a scheduling perspective. It means you can have larger headways, and if you have a platform that's long enough to handle a train like that, why not? The new GO concourse is certainly being built to handle influxes of people like that. And loading and unloading is simply a function of the number of people in each car divided by the number of exits in each car. The length of the train shouldn't have any factor in that at all. Articulated buses unload just as quickly as standard length buses, because despite having added capacity, they have an extra set of doors.
Longer or cost more? This isn't like tunnelling where you only have a couple of TBMs, and project duration is determined by how fast the machines can bore. You can have one crew working at Exhibition and another crew working at Oakville, largely working completely independently. The restricting item in this type of project is manpower, not mechanical like it is when building a subway.
This is dealt with by the FastTrack trains that I added to the map. Make all station stops in the 905, and once they hit the short-turn terminus stations, they run express to Union. GO REX is actually 3 systems in 1: a milk run, a 905 express, and a 416 local. They just all happen to run on the same corridors and under the same service provider and banner.
And for 905ers outside of rush hour, having 15 min service I think will more than make up for having to make a couple extra station stops.
This is why I would prefer that GO REX use S-Bahn style trains, which are single level and a hybrid between GO trains (nicer seats than a subway car), while still maintaining a more subway car-like layout for easier passenger flow.
The main reason why bi-levels are needed now is because the main restriction on GO is the number of trains they are able to/are allowed to operate. They need to maximize seating on every train. If that restriction is removed, bi-levels will no longer be a necessity, at least on GO REX routes.
But like I said earlier, O-Train vehicles are rather short, and have a significantly lower capacity than either bi-level coaches or S-Bahn cars. You could probably fit the entire capacity of an O-Train vehicle into a single bi-level GO car. Yes, you can pair the vehicles, but it would make travel between them impossible, because they have cabs at both ends.
I get what you're trying to do with the separate branding of the 905 and 416 services, I just don't think that using different vehicles for each is the way to go. Personally, I'd be fine with just having the Lakeshore GO REX labelled as E2, and the Lakeshore Toronto GO REX labelled as E22. This follows the S-Bahn convention of numbering the short-turn or branch routes a double digit number, with the first number being the same number as the parent branch (another example would be the Brampton-Markham GO REX would be E4, with the Pearson-Unionville GO REX being E42). Passengers would know that anything double digit means the shorter route, which would mean a 416 route. Also, the train would have the terminus station on the front (like the subway does), so it would say something like "E22: Port Credit" or "E2: Hamilton Centre" or "E2E: Express to Union".
Last edited:
TOareaFan
Superstar
I'll throw a "+1" at this statement......as much as I have been advocating for a long time for full Lakeshore level service on the GTown/KW line....I have paired that with the proviso that, at least, two additional stops be added to the route (Black Creek/Eglinton and a Liberty Village stop).
There may be more that make sense but those two could drive more ridership which makes the viability of the additional service stronger.
I am no train expert but I understand that one of the advantages of electrification is better acceleration between stops so those stops may not even add any time to the total trip length...but even if they did add a couple of minutes I think most would see that as a fair trade off for the additional service levels.
Exactly. Right now when taking the Lakeshore West GO train outside of rush hour you need to plan your entire trip around hitting the once an hour train. That means chances are you either have to cut whatever you're doing short in order to make it on time, or you're sitting around waiting.
I'd gladly spend an extra 2 to 3 minutes on the train making a few extra station stops in Toronto (some of which I'd actually use, depending on where I was going, for example if I'm visiting someone at High Park, getting off at Roncesvalles would be awesome), if it means being able to catch a train every 15 minutes instead of every hour. Sitting an extra couple minutes on a train is much better than an extra 15-20 minutes on a platform or in the Union concourse.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Feel the need to clarify......I (and I suspect many others not on the Lakeshore line(s) ) would accept a slightly longer trip time created by a couple of additional stops just to get the same level of service that Lakeshores currently get.....my acceptance of longer trip times is not tied to getting 15 minute off peak service.....any offpeak service would do.
Good point, haha. What I'd like to see if this GO REX plan is implemented is (all numbers off-peak) 15 min service on all GO REX lines, and 30 min service on GO Local lines.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Ya, I think the idea of S-Bahn type trains would be fine but I don't think any GO-Rex trains should be double deckers that's all. Double deckers are definately more for long haul travel and are much more difficult to load and unload passengers.
So the system you are suggesting is essentially to just have some of the trains on the GO routes short-turn and if you travel within that short-turn areas then it's standard transit fare is that it?
So the system you are suggesting is essentially to just have some of the trains on the GO routes short-turn and if you travel within that short-turn areas then it's standard transit fare is that it?
CDL.TO
Moderator
Many S-Bahn and RER trains are double-decker. I don't know why you would think double deckers are for long haul travel.
Last edited:
doady
Senior Member
I think the Milton Line should be a priority for S-Bahn-style service. It's the line with the highest ridership potential.
For proper REX service the Milton station will have to be moved closer to downtown though. Park-and-ride alone isn't good enough for rapid transit. Likewise, they should probably move Meadowvale station closer to Derry Road to allow bus riders from Derry to transfer. Dixie station should also be easier to access on foot from Dixie Road (seriously, Dixie is one of the buisest bus corridors in the 905).
A lot of GO stations are pure park-and-ride like that, and that will have to change for REX.
For proper REX service the Milton station will have to be moved closer to downtown though. Park-and-ride alone isn't good enough for rapid transit. Likewise, they should probably move Meadowvale station closer to Derry Road to allow bus riders from Derry to transfer. Dixie station should also be easier to access on foot from Dixie Road (seriously, Dixie is one of the buisest bus corridors in the 905).
A lot of GO stations are pure park-and-ride like that, and that will have to change for REX.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
It would also act as a Mississauga express to downtown, and not having to bother to sit through the BD, at least once you finally connect with it at the border.
Somewhat, yes. The entire regional transportation system would use a single, unified fare zone system, so from Point A in Zone 1 to Point B in Zone 1 would cost the same, regardless of if you used GO REX or the TTC. If you're travelling through 2 fare zones, GO REX would cost 50¢ more (express vs local rapid transit). So for example, going from Agincourt to Union would be 50¢ more by GO REX (because it's in Zone 2E) than it would be by using the SEBRT, Sheppard Subway, and Yonge Subway. To a lot of people, that's would be an extra 50¢ well spent. Just to clarify again, Local Rapid Transit for each additional zone is $1, Express Rapid Transit for each additional zone is $1.50.
And the short turns aren't so much about fares, it's about layering service. By having a route that goes just into the very inner 905 and stops, you create an overlap on top of a much longer route. The end result is that the service levels within Toronto are doubled compared to that of the 905, bringing you close to, or even in some cases at, subway level frequency (something that wouldn't work in the 905).
Agreed, but the issue is how do you deal with the freight? Or the widening of the corridor so that freight isn't an issue? The Milton line and the Crosstown line are the only 2 GO routes that really have to deal with that as much as they do.
If you seriously think the freight issue will be resolved within the next 15 years though, I'll add it to my map, because I'd definitely like to see GO REX service out to Milton, I just have trouble seeing a situation under which it gets done reasonably quickly.
As for moving stations, I totally agree. There are quite a few stations on the GO system that work well as commuter parking lots, but aren't very good for pedestrian connection or connection to surface routes/other RT routes.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
This all so incredibly logical to me. This would mean that Toronto would actually use the rail corridors it has for moving people, something that the TTC has never quite understood.
This would be such an incredibly better use of $2 billion than building Finch or Sheppard LRTs when a BRT would work fine on both those routes. It would bring true mass and rapid transit to every area of the GTA and would serve hundreds of thousands of more passengers to say nothing of making transit a true and viable alternative.
Tell me, is this just us transit-geeks discussing this or is this a true and viable plan that is being considered? I know Murray wants the UP Link electrified by 2017 and by some of his comments I don't think he is very impressed with the idea of premium service. He gives me the impression that he would rather see it as a regular transit route and not tourist route.
This would be such an incredibly better use of $2 billion than building Finch or Sheppard LRTs when a BRT would work fine on both those routes. It would bring true mass and rapid transit to every area of the GTA and would serve hundreds of thousands of more passengers to say nothing of making transit a true and viable alternative.
Tell me, is this just us transit-geeks discussing this or is this a true and viable plan that is being considered? I know Murray wants the UP Link electrified by 2017 and by some of his comments I don't think he is very impressed with the idea of premium service. He gives me the impression that he would rather see it as a regular transit route and not tourist route.