[diminutive]

You are not entirely right about Europe. La defense near Paris for example receives 180,000 workers daily, compared with 100,000 in financial district Toronto. As to Asia, Tokyo has the entire population of Canada, so do you think it is possible to have a train station just by the CBD so that everyone can walk to their offices? Toronto can do it because it is a mid sized city.

I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing about. You were the one suggesting Union Station was out in the boonies when by global standards it's pretty good. I don't think anyone from Toronto would suggest that Paris or Tokyo have bad transportation and I don't think anyone from those cities would think Union's a bad location for a major train station.

Also, as for Tokyo, while it does have multiple major stations, most of them aren't terminals like Union is treated. It's not like all commuters just get dumped at a few unconnected terminals, which is what Metrolinx is suggesting with this secondary Union nonsense. Most major commuter lines hit up multiple major stations. The Chuo line for instance hits up Shinjuku, Akhibara and Tokyo stations plus god knows how many smaller connections. Paris is kind of similar in that it's RER hits up tons of regional, local and national networks.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ities-and-roads-must-be-fixed/article9734159/

 

[nfitz]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ities-and-roads-must-be-fixed/article9734159/

I think you have the wrong URL. This article doesn't seem to be about the downtown relief line.

 

[gweed123]

Hey gweed123, that a very impressive map, congrats.

What I do not quite understand is what is the difference between GO REX and the current GO rail commuter lines? Are you proposing that all GO REX be part of the standard subway system with standard subway fares? If so I'm all for it!

Thank you!

What I'm proposing is that GO REX be much like the Berlin S-Bahn. It would be integrated with the subway system, but technically be a separate system (much like the S-Bahn and U-Bahn are interdependent, but are technically separate systems). The non-electrified lines would run either hourly or 30 min service, in the same format as the current GO lines.

Ideally, off-peak GO REX would run 15 min service on each of the 4 lines (Lakeshore, Lakeshore Short Turn, Brampton-Markham, Pearson-Scarborough). That would mean a combined 7.5 min service within the City of Toronto, which is nearly subway level service. In the 905, it would be 15 minute service, which is really all the 905 needs. It would perform a commuter rail function in the 905, and an express subway function in the 416.

Obviously, peak frequencies will be increased so that it would be roughly equivalent to off-peak subway level service.

I will make a new map showing the '2nd Terminal' and how that would look within the downtown system.

 

[gweed123]

Another thing I considered last night is this: If the GO tunnel is built underneath Queen St, it may make sense to build it as a 4-track subway, with the outer 2 tracks being GO REX, and the inner 2 tracks being LRT. That way you can have express and local rapid transit along the same corridor. The local tunnels may extend a bit beyond the GO REX tunnels, but for the enormous cost of tunnelling, it would be nice to get a Queen LRT out of the deal as well (becoming the Waterfront West LRT in the west end).

 

[innsertnamehere]

Yes I'd love for the TTC to approach metrolinx if they ever end up building the queen go tunnel, and get a streetcar tunnel built for the busy part of queen. The streetcar tracks would likely be best for the outside tracks mind you because they would have much more frequent stops.

 

[gweed123]

Yes I'd love for the TTC to approach metrolinx if they ever end up building the queen go tunnel, and get a streetcar tunnel built for the busy part of queen. The streetcar tracks would likely be best for the outside tracks mind you because they would have much more frequent stops.

I figured that the 'local' stations would be a centre island platform with the LRT on either side, and then the GO on the outside of that. For 'express' stops, it would be two island platforms, with LRT on the inside and GO on the outside.

But yes, it certainly does make sense to add an LRT tunnel to whatever Queen tunnel is built. I have no doubt it would be more expensive than just a GO tunnel, but would certainly be significantly less expensive than building both of them independently on separate corridors.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Interesting idea. With my GO REX scheme, it may be possible to do this (NOTE: This map does not include the 'diversion' described below):

View attachment 10672

Notice how I have the 'short turn' routes that run an abbreviated version of the full route. It may be possible to route all of those short turn routes into a tunnel under King, Queen, or Dundas Sts. The short turn routes would diverge and reconnect to the main Union-bound routes at Bathurst and Riverdale, respectively.

This would in effect route every 2nd train away from Union, while still:

1) Maintaining frequency on the outer parts of the line (in the outer 416 and inner 905)

2) Still have every route serving Union in one form or another.

3) Create a second satellite main station somewhere within downtown, thereby increasing travel options and distributing the load.

Under this scheme, nobody would be 'forced' away from Union, as every station on the overlapping parts of the line (where the short turn and full routes are interlined) would be serviced by routes bound for both main stations, aside from the stops immediately adjacent to downtown.

Why not just put a station around the port lands and run routes through Union but terminating at Exhibition or Port Lands station depending on which direction they come from.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Why not just put a station around the port lands and run routes through Union but terminating at Exhibition or Port Lands station depending on which direction they come from.

When the Union Station was built, they land south of it was landfill and railroad tracks.

 

[diminutive]

But yes, it certainly does make sense to add an LRT tunnel to whatever Queen tunnel is built. I have no doubt it would be more expensive than just a GO tunnel, but would certainly be significantly less expensive than building both of them independently on separate corridors.

I don't think this would be as easy as you suggest. Since the tunnels would almost certainly be bored there wouldn't be any huge cost savings from piggybacking a second set of tracks. You would literally be doubling the amount of tunneling required. Stations may be a little cheaper on the whole but not much. There would also be issues with things like crossovers depending on exact alignment (S-F-F-S vs. FF-SS vs. F-S-S-F) since you may have to have GO or LRT trains cross over one another.

I'm totally in favor of consolidating GO improvements and a new dt rapid transit line into one project but the easiest way to do that would be to just have regional trains run through whatever route the DRL ends up taking. The DRL's layout east of downtown is pretty wide station spacing already. West of downtown things would be a bit slower but no worse than currently.

I don't think stop spacing would be a huge issue, but if it was then it would be easier to build bypass tracks around lower volume stations then to have two systems running on top of eachother. Isn't that just the definition of redundancy.

 

[gweed123]

Why not just put a station around the port lands and run routes through Union but terminating at Exhibition or Port Lands station depending on which direction they come from.

You mean the 'overlap' scenario that was recently discussed in another thread? Yup, that's certainly a viable option. I'm not sure how much that would reduce the capacity crunch at Union though. It could be enough to solve it though, I don't know.

I don't think this would be as easy as you suggest. Since the tunnels would almost certainly be bored there wouldn't be any huge cost savings from piggybacking a second set of tracks. You would literally be doubling the amount of tunneling required. Stations may be a little cheaper on the whole but not much. There would also be issues with things like crossovers depending on exact alignment (S-F-F-S vs. FF-SS vs. F-S-S-F) since you may have to have GO or LRT trains cross over one another.

I'm totally in favor of consolidating GO improvements and a new dt rapid transit line into one project but the easiest way to do that would be to just have regional trains run through whatever route the DRL ends up taking. The DRL's layout east of downtown is pretty wide station spacing already. West of downtown things would be a bit slower but no worse than currently.

I don't think stop spacing would be a huge issue, but if it was then it would be easier to build bypass tracks around lower volume stations then to have two systems running on top of eachother. Isn't that just the definition of redundancy.

Theoretically couldn't they use larger TBMs so that it's still twin tunnels, but each tunnel carrying 2 tracks? The TBMs would cost more, and the per km cost of tunnelling would be higher, but it would still only be 2 tunnels. Don't parts of the Montreal Metro run in a single larger tunnel?

Crossover tracks does complicate things, but they would only be needed at the ends, where presumably they could do a cut-and-cover doubled up with the TBM launch and extraction sites.

And yes, a GO DRL would be a solid way to go as well.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

You mean the 'overlap' scenario that was recently discussed in another thread? Yup, that's certainly a viable option. I'm not sure how much that would reduce the capacity crunch at Union though. It could be enough to solve it though, I don't know.

Yes exactly. I don't know I suppose it depends on the dwell time differences between using Union as a terminal station vs through station. Combined with use of Summerhill station (the great rail hype of regional transit in the GTA) could that not relieve pressure off of Union by up to, say, 25%?

 

[diminutive]

You mean the 'overlap' scenario that was recently discussed in another thread? Yup, that's certainly a viable option. I'm not sure how much that would reduce the capacity crunch at Union though. It could be enough to solve it though, I don't know.

I think that would depend on geological conditions. Toronto hasn't had a single bore tunnel in... decades? If Crosstown is twin bore not sure why a Queen-Crosstown wouldn't be.

Anyways, the same relative cost increase would apply. Whether the cross section looked like (F)-(F)-(S)-(S) or (FF)-(SS) it would still require twice the tunneling of a single technology system (F)-(F) or (FF). F being fast tracks and S being slow tracks. In other words, if you could fit two tracks in one tunnel, then you'd still be doubling the amount of tunneling from one to two by running an LRT beside a GO tunnel.

 

[M II A II R II K]

You could have one set of GO tracks for local and express service under Queen with a 3rd track in the station to bypass trains parked in stations.

 

[diminutive]

^
I'd be curious what "local" stops people would want to omit for regional services, though.

Dundas West would have to be a regional stop because of B.D connection. Dundas West & College West would be important for streetcar transfers. Depending on exact alignment (Rail vs. Queen/King) you'd want stops at Dufferin, Ossington, Bathurst, Spadina and then however the line intersects the YUS. Dufferin, Bathurst and Spadina would be obvious for streetcar transfers. On a rail corridor alignment Ossington would also be more like King n Sudbury, which would warrant a transfer to the 504.

East of downtown you're looking at stations around Church/Jarvis/Sherbourne and around Parliament/Cherry. Cherry seems obvious due to future streetcar transfer. Maybe a bypass around Sherbourne? Turning north after the Don River, Queen East, Gerrard and Pape are all warranted due to streetcar and subway transfers. North of Pape, Cosburn station could probably use bypass tracks. Flemingdon should just be abandoned for a direct route between Thorncliffe and Don Mills/Eglinton.

All of this is debatable but I think it shows that the DRL is very 'express' as is, especially on the eastern half. Maybe you would want bypasses around Ossington, Sherbourne and Cosburn. But that wouldn't speed the line up hugely anyways so why bother? There don't seem to be any stretches of the DRL which ought to run express since it bisects a lot of high-volume local transit routes, and the point of regional transit is to connect local transit.