News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

Too short to be much use regionally, too expensive to make long enough to be useful regionally, and there is no question that local trips are not well served by a line with cavernous stations 2km apart.

A specialized regional bus line and a specialized local LRT would do everything the subway purports to, but would serve both needs better, plus would cost half as much to build both.

The idea of having both LRT and busway puts the best transportation mode in its ideal place.

Granted that some trips will be short and others will be long, I disagree. Nothing helps transit of any sort more than having a reliable and fast option, which also has the capacity to handle rush hour crowds of today and tomorrow. It's not going to work in every location, however nothing short of underground rapid transit will suffice in a select few corridors, and these include Eglinton, the extended DRL "U", and eventually Sheppard. There should be no alternative in these corridors.
 
4786475122_2a2811255e_b.jpg


We had this discussion last year after the opening of the Finch-York University transitway.
There are many potential locations where Bus transitways could be placed where they would interfere little with traffic while in construction and the cost would be a fraction of either light or heavy rail. I still think there are places where this could be the best option for rapid improvements.

While these routes may not be the best option for short convenient trips, I think it can be a useful tool for moving commuters between hubs.

Read and weep: GO's ALRT transit plan:

gotransit-2107-12.gif


http://transit.toronto.on.ca/gotransit/2107.shtml

:(
 
843623834a5fa982207e1cda7c7f.jpeg

From thestar.com
A rapid transit fix for Toronto
Greg Gormick

In the quest to resolve the transportation problems bedevilling Toronto, our politicians and planners have proposed every solution except the most obvious one: greater use of our underused urban rail corridors.

While GO was expanded geographically after its launch on the Lakeshore Line in 1967, its growth rate has been glacial and inadequate funding has shackled it to an outdated, long-haul suburban service pattern. It provides only morning-in, afternoon-out weekday service to Union Station on all its rail lines except the Lakeshore, where there’s a paltry hourly service off-peak. Less appealing bus service fills the wide gaps elsewhere.

Just bulking up this bare-bones rail operation with more 10-car diesel trains would still leave serious flaws, one of which is that GO’s oversized trains fail to serve many transit-starved Toronto neighbourhoods. They are likely to remain so under Mayor Rob Ford’s expensive and geographically challenged subway scheme, which has replaced the broader and more affordable light rail transit (LRT) vision of former mayor David Miller.

What Toronto requires is the conversion of GO into an urban railway. The concept was born in 1924 with the creation of Berlin’s Stadtschnellbahn or S-Bahn — the world’s first “fast city railway.†The S-Bahn converted key suburban lines into a network that vastly increased urban transportation options and benefits.

The urban rail principles first proved on the Berlin S-Bahn include:

• High frequency, usually 5-10 minutes within the city and 15-20 minutes beyond.

• Extended service hours, running from approximately 5 a.m. until after midnight.

• Numerous stations within the city for short-haul trips.

• Dedicated tracks alongside those used for other passenger and freight trains.

• New line segments in tunnels or on the surface to strategically improve routings.

• Grade crossing removal to eliminate conflicts with road traffic.

• Electrification for rapid acceleration, elimination of fumes and cost-effectiveness.

• High-capacity electric multiple unit rolling stock.

• Integration with other city transit routes through a common fare system and connecting stations.

The Berlin S-Bahn became what has been described as a surface subway. This successful template has been applied in 14 other German urban regions, numerous cities throughout Europe and as far afield as Hong Kong and Sydney. The latest is London’s Overground, launched in 2007. Others will open in Brussels and Denver in 2016, followed by San Francisco.

Like these cities, Toronto possesses the rail corridors — many now owned by GO — to create an urban railway cheaper and faster than is possible with subways. It would mesh snugly with any new TTC lines that may get built, making direct connections with these and existing subway, streetcar and bus routes. Furthermore, its construction won’t snarl up great swaths of the city because the rail corridors are independent of the street grid.

Ontario’s regional transportation agency, Metrolinx, fleetingly endorsed an urban rail concept in its 2008 master plan, The Big Move. It called for “express rail†on GO’s Oshawa-Hamilton line and from Union Station to Brampton, Mississauga, Richmond Hill and Markham, to be built on a leisurely schedule of 25 years or more.

A Metrolinx study team has recently gone even further in response to a looming capacity problem. Population growth and increased travel demand will drive GO rail ridership to a level that will overwhelm Union Station within 20 years. Inspired by the urban railways of Madrid, Melbourne and São Paulo, Metrolinx has contemplated an electrified east-west GO tunnel somewhere between the existing rail corridor and Queen Street through the heart of downtown.

Vision such as this isn’t new in Toronto. In 1986, GO proposed expanding and realigning portions of GO’s Georgetown and Richmond Hill lines to provide high-frequency service from Malton to Union Station and up through Leaside and Don Mills to Thornhill.

The success of urban railways from Munich to Melbourne is proof of the tax dollars to be saved and the dividends to be reaped. Now’s the time for the creation of an electrified Toronto rail express — T-REX, to give it a brand name. Delay will only condemn Toronto to more gridlock, higher costs, lost productivity and increased car-fuelled environmental degradation.

Greg Gormick is author of the report No Little Plan: Electrifying GO Transit, commissioned by Transport Action, the Clean Train Coalition and the Canadian Auto Workers.

I think there are options still out there for expanding the transit network that are cheaper, faster to put in place and that will serve a larger number GTA citizens than some that have been put forward up to this point.
By making use of Hydro and rail corridors which already cover a large portion of the region, I think we can make better use of the resources, financial and logistical and environmental, already in place.
 
If there is any city in Canada which is in need of an "express metro," it is Toronto. Through a mix of poor land use and unprecedented growth, the Toronto urban area has become too massive to service even with rapid transit. Last week I had to get back to Richmond Hill from downtown in the early afternoon. Not including transfers or wait times, it took about an hour from Union Station to Bernard Terminal by subway and BRT-lite - about a 30km trip. In most cities, even many large sprawling American ones, 30km would be the very edge of the outer suburban area, if not into the ring of exurban commuter towns. In Toronto, you find yourself around the edge of the mid-suburbs while places like Aurora and Newmarket find themselves as part of the outer suburbs now (and further beyond that are exurban commuter towns like Bradford and Keswick).
 
If there is any city in Canada which is in need of an "express metro," it is Toronto. Through a mix of poor land use and unprecedented growth, the Toronto urban area has become too massive to service even with rapid transit. Last week I had to get back to Richmond Hill from downtown in the early afternoon. Not including transfers or wait times, it took about an hour from Union Station to Bernard Terminal by subway and BRT-lite - about a 30km trip. In most cities, even many large sprawling American ones, 30km would be the very edge of the outer suburban area, if not into the ring of exurban commuter towns. In Toronto, you find yourself around the edge of the mid-suburbs while places like Aurora and Newmarket find themselves as part of the outer suburbs now (and further beyond that are exurban commuter towns like Bradford and Keswick).

I would consider yonge and elgin mills to be the edge of the suburbs at which time Newmarket and Aurora really are jsut small pockets of resdiential communities that can easily be focused around the GO Train. Even in Vaughan the extent is around Jane and Major Mack.
 
843623834a5fa982207e1cda7c7f.jpeg

From thestar.com


I think there are options still out there for expanding the transit network that are cheaper, faster to put in place and that will serve a larger number GTA citizens than some that have been put forward up to this point.
By making use of Hydro and rail corridors which already cover a large portion of the region, I think we can make better use of the resources, financial and logistical and environmental, already in place.

Toronto Rail Express? T-REX? I like it.

And I definitely agree we need to S-Bahn the GO Train.
 
I would consider yonge and elgin mills to be the edge of the suburbs at which time Newmarket and Aurora really are jsut small pockets of resdiential communities that can easily be focused around the GO Train. Even in Vaughan the extent is around Jane and Major Mack.

Maybe 15-20 years ago I'd agree with you, but today Newmarket, Aurora, and north Richmond Hill have grown their urban areas tremendously. Most GTA suburbs have their roots as being small communities based around railway and streetcar lines and have become absorbed by conurbanization. Officially, Statistics Canada considers Keswick as part of Toronto's (sub)urban area!

Still, I will admit that both Aurora and Newmarket still retain some of their small town charm compared to some other outer suburbs such as Oakville.
 
Maybe 15-20 years ago I'd agree with you, but today Newmarket, Aurora, and north Richmond Hill have grown their urban areas tremendously. Most GTA suburbs have their roots as being small communities based around railway and streetcar lines and have become absorbed by conurbanization. Officially, Statistics Canada considers Keswick as part of Toronto's (sub)urban area!

Still, I will admit that both Aurora and Newmarket still retain some of their small town charm compared to some other outer suburbs such as Oakville.

I think what will help keep it this way is the Greenbelt. There will be a defined edge between the inner and outer suburbs. It's this way in Ottawa, albeit on a much smaller scale. It's very clear when you've entered the outer suburbs because you need to pass through around 2km of green space in order to get there.

In the GTA when you pass from east to west, you don't really ever see a break in the urbanness. There's no defining geographic feature that outlines what is inner suburbs and what is outer suburbs. The only place where this even remotely happens is along the 401 between Ajax and Whitby, but even that is being filled in by that monsterous distribution centre that was built a couple years ago on the south side of the 401.
 
Going back to the S-Bahn idea (which is something I fully support, especially seeing how well it worked in Berlin), it would be interesting to see what kind of capacity issues this would raise at Union.

The combination of increased frequency and increased ridership (both from the addition of stations inside of Toronto and the increase in riders from suburban communities just because of the convenience factor), may or may not overload Union. On one hand, the biggest issue at Union is the time it takes to load and unload bi-levels. But would trains from that many different lines coming in every 5-10 minutes bottleneck the station?

Friedrichstrasse Station (English Spelling) is separated into two distinct levels for travel. North-south trains operate in a tunnel, while east-west trains are elevated. Union wouldn't have this luxury, as all travel would be east-west.
 
Going back to the S-Bahn idea (which is something I fully support, especially seeing how well it worked in Berlin), it would be interesting to see what kind of capacity issues this would raise at Union.

The combination of increased frequency and increased ridership (both from the addition of stations inside of Toronto and the increase in riders from suburban communities just because of the convenience factor), may or may not overload Union. On one hand, the biggest issue at Union is the time it takes to load and unload bi-levels. But would trains from that many different lines coming in every 5-10 minutes bottleneck the station?

Friedrichstrasse Station (English Spelling) is separated into two distinct levels for travel. North-south trains operate in a tunnel, while east-west trains are elevated. Union wouldn't have this luxury, as all travel would be east-west.

I've always felt that a second level of platforms either above the existing platforms, or ideally below the underground passages that are under the existing platforms. Unfortunately with the Union redevelopment plan that faint hope is now quite dead. However there are a number of locations that could serve as alternate stations for GO which would cut demand at Union. Summerhill for one could take some of the crosstown and Airport travel. Even Dundas W and Main could flank Union and absorb some of the demand, Downtown Toronto would only be a short subway ride from there. Too bad those regions (Dundas W, Main) weren't identified as a potential hub/node when Toronto went all multi-nodal in it's planning.

WRT to BRT. It has it's place. It's definately a more point to point transit mode than local busses or streetcars/LRT. I think GO for one could benefit from BRT to fill in those areas that don't quite qualify for regular (or even peak) regional rail service. If demand is something like 600 people per day doesn't it make more sense to run a reliable service as a BRT every 30 mins or so using 30 odd busses vs. trying to fit the demand into a 12-car train service (or even a shorter train length)
 
I think what will help keep it this way is the Greenbelt. There will be a defined edge between the inner and outer suburbs. It's this way in Ottawa, albeit on a much smaller scale. It's very clear when you've entered the outer suburbs because you need to pass through around 2km of green space in order to get there.

In the GTA when you pass from east to west, you don't really ever see a break in the urbanness. There's no defining geographic feature that outlines what is inner suburbs and what is outer suburbs. The only place where this even remotely happens is along the 401 between Ajax and Whitby, but even that is being filled in by that monsterous distribution centre that was built a couple years ago on the south side of the 401.

Ultimately, each geographer can have their own definition of what constitutes as the boundaries between different different kinds of suburban and urban areas. Beyond the fact that there is no hard definition, every city and one's experiences with them is different. My personal view of Toronto:

Inner city (areas built prior to 1950) - Toronto, York, East York
Outer city (areas built out between 1950-1980, usually within the city proper or in nearby municipalities) - Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough
Inner suburbs (areas built out between 1980-2000, further out) - Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Markham, Pickering, Ajax, Whitby*, Oshawa*
Outer suburbs (areas built out from 2000-present, extend from the urban area like an arm or wing) - Oakville, Newmarket, Aurora, Bowmanville*

I once saw a map of the GTA from 50+ years ago, and it was quite shocking to see the similarities in urban form compared to today. However, the northern arm suburbs were Willowdale and Newtonbrook rather than Aurora and Newmarket...

For more theories on urban structure, check out Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_structure

*
 
I've always felt that a second level of platforms either above the existing platforms, or ideally below the underground passages that are under the existing platforms. Unfortunately with the Union redevelopment plan that faint hope is now quite dead. However there are a number of locations that could serve as alternate stations for GO which would cut demand at Union. Summerhill for one could take some of the crosstown and Airport travel. Even Dundas W and Main could flank Union and absorb some of the demand, Downtown Toronto would only be a short subway ride from there. Too bad those regions (Dundas W, Main) weren't identified as a potential hub/node when Toronto went all multi-nodal in it's planning.

The above and below idea is interesting, and this is pretty much what Friedrichstrasse Station is. The ground level is the concourse, and you either go up or down depending on what train you want. Because really, 1 level up or 1 level down makes no difference if you're doing a round trip, because it's always up the stairs once and down the stairs once.

With the other hubs, I would imagine that, with the exception of Summerhill (because the Crosstown wouldn't go downtown), that there would be more people transfering onto GO then there would be transferring off of it.

WRT to BRT. It has it's place. It's definately a more point to point transit mode than local busses or streetcars/LRT. I think GO for one could benefit from BRT to fill in those areas that don't quite qualify for regular (or even peak) regional rail service. If demand is something like 600 people per day doesn't it make more sense to run a reliable service as a BRT every 30 mins or so using 30 odd busses vs. trying to fit the demand into a 12-car train service (or even a shorter train length)

With Toronto setting up a very nodal suburban system, BRT makes a lot of sense because it can link these nodes effectively and inexpensively. These links would require a relatively high frequency, high speed, and medium capacity service in order to be effective. Now that's not to say that there can't be a more local route running parallel to it, but the ability to run express and local on the same corridor without adding in a tonne of additional infrastructure is something that's unique to BRT.
 
I'm in the process of designing a TMP for the GTA based around the "S-Bahn concept". The idea of subway-like lines with wide stop spacing running high frequency along current GO routes. One thing I'm grappling with is trying to figure out in my head what kind of effect these would have on more local rapid transit demands in the area.

For example, if you re-routed the Richmond Hill line through the Don Mills area to use the west side of the Don Mills 'bulb' (where the tracks have been taken out, but in a sense that's almost easier to build than where tracks are existing), and then you have a station just north of Eglinton which would serve the Midtown and Richmond Hill lines, would the DRL really need to be heavy rail? Couple that with a station complex at Main and Danforth (Lakeshore Express train and B-D subway). It's just really hard to judge how much of a 'pull' effect that line would actually have on parallel services. I'm almost leaning towards the fact that it would really only need to be grade-separated LRT, just because of the amount of 'pull' those 3 lines would have, and how much ridership they would potentially take away.

Same thing goes with the DRL West. If you had both the Milton, Georgetown, and Barrie lines running at ~6 minute headways, would the DRL West really be needed? This type of model would seem to make subways almost redundant, and would favour much towards feeder LRT and BRT routes creating a supplementary network. The exception to this of course is Eglinton, as that's an area where no E-W rail line exists anywhere near it.

I still have a few days of work to go, but this is just something I seem to be facing more and more when I start to plan out the secondary network, especially once the primary express rail is set.

As an aside, I'm also racking my brain trying to figure out the best way to come up with a naming convention for all of these routes. Right now I'm going with the express GO routes being listed as 'E' routes (for Express, ex: E1 is the Lakeshore route, etc). Subway routes I'm showing with an S (S1, S2, etc). I'm still debating if I should show LRT routes as an L or as an R. BRT routes are shown with a B.

Thoughts?
 
I'm in the process of designing a TMP for the GTA based around the "S-Bahn concept". The idea of subway-like lines with wide stop spacing running high frequency along current GO routes. One thing I'm grappling with is trying to figure out in my head what kind of effect these would have on more local rapid transit demands in the area.

For example, if you re-routed the Richmond Hill line through the Don Mills area to use the west side of the Don Mills 'bulb' (where the tracks have been taken out, but in a sense that's almost easier to build than where tracks are existing), and then you have a station just north of Eglinton which would serve the Midtown and Richmond Hill lines, would the DRL really need to be heavy rail? Couple that with a station complex at Main and Danforth (Lakeshore Express train and B-D subway). It's just really hard to judge how much of a 'pull' effect that line would actually have on parallel services. I'm almost leaning towards the fact that it would really only need to be grade-separated LRT, just because of the amount of 'pull' those 3 lines would have, and how much ridership they would potentially take away.

Same thing goes with the DRL West. If you had both the Milton, Georgetown, and Barrie lines running at ~6 minute headways, would the DRL West really be needed? This type of model would seem to make subways almost redundant, and would favour much towards feeder LRT and BRT routes creating a supplementary network. The exception to this of course is Eglinton, as that's an area where no E-W rail line exists anywhere near it.

I still have a few days of work to go, but this is just something I seem to be facing more and more when I start to plan out the secondary network, especially once the primary express rail is set.

As an aside, I'm also racking my brain trying to figure out the best way to come up with a naming convention for all of these routes. Right now I'm going with the express GO routes being listed as 'E' routes (for Express, ex: E1 is the Lakeshore route, etc). Subway routes I'm showing with an S (S1, S2, etc). I'm still debating if I should show LRT routes as an L or as an R. BRT routes are shown with a B.

Thoughts?

I would say the "pull" effect would depend entirely on fare integration and the ease of the switch.

Most people are not right beside these locations and would be en route with the TTC in some form. If I'm on the TTC, at say Victoria Park station, and I could get off at Main cross a tunnel (would probably have to make the connection really straight forward) and hop on the next GO Train straight to Union without paying more (maybe only slightly more) then I could see that freeing up capacity on BD from Main to Yonge and then easing some of the load on the Yonge line.

Same thing could be said at Dundas West, it all come down to cost and access (mainly cost). Even if it would save people 20 mins and prevent them from being jammed in a sweaty subway, if it meant more money, 90% of people wouldn't do it (imo).

I dont think the DRL would ever be redundant however, as much as I see the DRL pulling passengers from the BD line at Dundas West and Pape, the entire length of the line will have ridership. If anything the DRL would serve to relieve the King/Queen/Dundas streetcar lines. Additionally, and off topic, I dont think the DRL should go to Union. In and around Queen and King would be the more valuable location, especially to really see this line put to use outside of rush hour.

I think gweed you are right that a change in GO operations would change the travel patterns within the Toronto, if promoted properly
 
Its possible to replace the central portion of King and Queen with the DRL as long as there are both Queen and King Street exits and then we could have the King/Queen West and East mentality like the bus routes
 

Back
Top