[smallspy]

With the tracks out, could this not be retrofitted to be useful as a busway, similar to the O-Bahn in Adelaide Australia. The O-Bahn is an elevated guided busway handling over 30,000 commuters daily. And although numbers are not directly comparable, the line handles 30,000 plus commuters per day. And its a pretty neat ride. Efficient, frequent, pretty comfortable.

Or streetcars for that matter?

I understand that line 3 is designated to be a linear park. With due respect, as parks are important, are we overlooking a better alternative. Or does the non-political driven engineering say otherwise?

I just seems as if there is no imagination to solving these transit issues, but then again, this thought may be completely unfair to the TTC and any forward thinkers they have. I forget at times in my 'fantasy' world, that this is a Doug Ford nation, and if the project is not focused on a single operator vehicle, or a tunneled subway, he has zero interest, unless the political winds say yes (so a tunnel in Brampton y'say!)

My apologies if this was previously discussed ad nauseum.

The at-grade section of the line is being re-configured as a bus roadway.

The tunnel north of Ellesmere and the elevated section are too narrow to safely use as a busway without the use of silly gimmicks such as those used on the O-bahn.

And then there's the fact that the ridership of the line will be considerably lower than the 40,000people/per day that it used to carry as the SRT as there will be a paralleling subway line that will link the two endpoints in a far faster manner.

Dan

 

[T3G]

Linear park doesn't strike me as a useful use for this corridor. Who would go there? It's an industrial wasteland, unpleasant to look at and be in. Maybe the section east of Brimley...

 

[Sauga89]

The reason to keep it I can see would be for people who plan on using Line 5 when it opens. Anyone traveling by bus would have to switch twice without it, once to the Scarborough extension, and again to Line 5. If you keep the busway open, you'd save the hassle of an extra transfer. That's probably important for any future Scarborough-Durham BRT.

The tunnel north of Ellesmere and the elevated section are too narrow to safely use as a busway without the use of silly gimmicks such as those used on the O-bahn.

It seems a shame the elevated guideway can't be retrofitted for buses and linked directly into the SDBRT, but I leave that question for the engineers.

 

[just east of the creek]

The at-grade section of the line is being re-configured as a bus roadway.

The tunnel north of Ellesmere and the elevated section are too narrow to safely use as a busway without the use of silly gimmicks such as those used on the O-bahn.

And then there's the fact that the ridership of the line will be considerably lower than the 40,000people/per day that it used to carry as the SRT as there will be a paralleling subway line that will link the two endpoints in a far faster manner.

Dan

Well you are correct. An engineering friend of mine suggested that the Harry Potter Bus might have to be acquired to fulfill the proposal. I should have dropped this in the fantasy thread!

It is a shame, though, that the subway extension does not have two or three more stops. The O-Bahn was interesting. Gimmicky or not, and I only had a few rides on it, it appeared to fill a useful niche in the transit program in that city (and I gather more adventurous light rail options had been thwarted with changes in the political landscape, which seems pretty familiar).

 

[yurt2022]

Linear park doesn't strike me as a useful use for this corridor. Who would go there? It's an industrial wasteland, unpleasant to look at and be in. Maybe the section east of Brimley...

I agree, a permanent busway would be immensely more useful and logical instead of replacing it with a park (at least between Kennedy and the former Ellesmere stations). I don't think demand would particularly drop either once the subway opens since the routing has been shifted considerably to the east. There is still lots of local demand along the Line 3 ROW that wouldn't be served by the Line 2 extension.

 

[ARG1]

I agree, a permanent busway would be immensely more useful and logical instead of replacing it with a park (at least between Kennedy and the former Ellesmere stations). I don't think demand would particularly drop either once the subway opens since the routing has been shifted considerably to the east. There is still lots of local demand along the Line 3 ROW that wouldn't be served by the Line 2 extension.

"A lot" is honestly a stretch, and I'd argue that these places would be better served by infill Stouffville Line Stations.

Its important to keep in mind that part of the reason why Line 2 shifted its alignment (and why the old plan of it being a 1 stop extension to STC was even considered) is because every station that wasn't called "Kennedy" or "Scarborough Town Center" was basically irrelevant, and for the vast majority of riders, that's all Line 3 was: A shuttle running from the end of the Subway to STC. Whilst stations like Kennedy and STC had 50k and 30k daily riders respectively, stations like Ellesmere would pull 3k in comparison.

 

[Bojaxs]

"A lot" is honestly a stretch, and I'd argue that these places would be better served by infill Stouffville Line Stations.

No! Stop adding stops on GO lines. Just have people get off at Kennedy and take the busway if this is your suggestion.

No where on the proposed busway warrants a GO station. It's all low density, industrial zones better served by a busway.

 

[yurt2022]

"A lot" is honestly a stretch, and I'd argue that these places would be better served by infill Stouffville Line Stations.

Its important to keep in mind that part of the reason why Line 2 shifted its alignment (and why the old plan of it being a 1 stop extension to STC was even considered) is because every station that wasn't called "Kennedy" or "Scarborough Town Center" was basically irrelevant, and for the vast majority of riders, that's all Line 3 was: A shuttle running from the end of the Subway to STC. Whilst stations like Kennedy and STC had 50k and 30k daily riders respectively, stations like Ellesmere would pull 3k in comparison.

No! Stop adding stops on GO lines. Just have people get off at Kennedy and take the busway if this is your suggestion.

No where on the proposed busway warrants a GO station. It's all low density, industrial zones better served by a busway.

Exactly, GO trains aren't suited for inner-city commuting at all, especially in that area...

 

[Northern Light]

No! Stop adding stops on GO lines. Just have people get off at Kennedy and take the busway if this is your suggestion.

That's a potentially reasonable perspective; though it would work better with a bit more supporting evidence as to impacts on travel times for GO riders, costs of an infill station vs the busway , etc.

No where on the proposed busway warrants a GO station. It's all low density, industrial zones better served by a busway.

You do know that will change, right?

There's a long standing, if slow moving plan w/density approved for Lawrence and Midland, (south-west corner), and another at the north-east corner, (Freshco Plaza), and still another is coming........but you'll have to wait for that one.

There is also action stirring on the Kennedy side.

***

As such, while its fair to weigh the trade-offs of one choice vs another; if the basis of your preference is the current land use, that argument will not likely work out in the next few years.

 

[Bojaxs]

That's a potentially reasonable perspective; though it would work better with a bit more supporting evidence as to impacts on travel times for GO riders, costs of an infill station vs the busway , etc.



You do know that will change, right?

There's a long standing, if slow moving plan w/density approved for Lawrence and Midland, (south-west corner), and another at the north-east corner, (Freshco Plaza), and still another is coming........but you'll have to wait for that one.

There is also action stirring on the Kennedy side.

***

As such, while its fair to weigh the trade-offs of one choice vs another; if the basis of your preference is the current land use, that argument will not likely work out in the next few years.

My argument is about "stop spacing", and how Toronto residents want to hijack the GO train and turn it into a quasi subway and have stations less than 1km apart. Negatively impacting the people who live further away and extending their trips, making the GO train less viable compared to driving.

People in Toronto don't want to take a bus to a GO station and insist on having a station built right across the street from their home.

 

[Northern Light]

My argument id about "stop spacing", and how Toronto residents want to hijack the GO train and turn it into a quasi subway

Ok....backup, you're not going to be taken seriously when you use words like 'hijack'.

This is like the person who I quoted in the 710 Lansdowne thread who claimed a 4-storey multiplex would utterly destroy the neighbourhood.

Its possible to disagree w/the position of others without use of such extreme language.

For the record, a hijacking is a crime, typically associated with terrorism in which physical force (violence), threatened or employed is used to obtain control of a moving vehicle, and take the passengers and crew hostage.

No one is doing any such thing here, and the comparison is over the top.

***

Also, last I checked Toronto commuters pay the same taxes and fares as residents from York Region and elsewhere and are equally entitled to gain some benefit from the asset they sustain.

and have stations less than 1km apart.

Hold on, where are stations being proposed?

I'm re-reading @ARG1 's post, I don't even see a specific station mentioned; just the general idea that one or two infill stations may make sense.

That said, the distance between Kennedy GO and the existing Lawrence SRT station is 1.9km, not less than 1km.

Meanwhile Lawrence to Ellesmere is essentially the same:

And the distance from Ellesmere to the existing Agincourt GO is a smidge larger at just over 2km:

Unless someone proposed intermediate stations between those, there are no sub-1km intervals, nor anything close to that.

Negatively impacting the people who live further away and extending their trips, making the GO train less viable compared to driving.

Perhaps, but that depends on stopping patterns.

Also, additional, better rail, grade separations, and modern signalling, along with electrification should significantly reduce travel times (increase speeds, particularly acceleration/deceleration) which should allow some additional stops without adding to current travel times.

People in Toronto don't want to take a bus to a GO station and insist on having a station right across the street from their home.

You know that reads like a BlogTO statement 'Toronto Loves' , 'Toronto Hates'.

Just a wee bit of a generalization, not to mention a rather insulting tone towards every resident of Toronto.....

Dial it back, please.

 

[mossynukes]

There is still lots of local demand along the Line 3 ROW that wouldn't be served by the Line 2 extension.

Really? Are you sure of this? Last I recall there was virtually no demand along the line 3 ROW that wasn't already adequately served by the 43 and to a lesser extent the 57

 

[yurt2022]

Ok....backup, you're not going to be taken seriously when you use words like 'hijack'.

This is like the person who I quoted in the 710 Lansdowne thread who claimed a 4-storey multiplex would utterly destroy the neighbourhood.

Its possible to disagree w/the position of others without use of such extreme language.

For the record, a hijacking is a crime, typically associated with terrorism in which physical force (violence), threatened or employed is used to obtain control of a moving vehicle, and take the passengers and crew hostage.

No one is doing any such thing here, and the comparison is over the top.

***

Also, last I checked Toronto commuters pay the same taxes and fares as residents from York Region and elsewhere and are equally entitled to gain some benefit from the asset they sustain.



Hold on, where are stations being proposed?

I'm re-reading @ARG1 's post, I don't even see a specific station mentioned; just the general idea that one or two infill stations may make sense.

That said, the distance between Kennedy GO and the existing Lawrence SRT station is 1.9km, not less than 1km.

View attachment 611328

Meanwhile Lawrence to Ellesmere is essentially the same:

View attachment 611329

And the distance from Ellesmere to the existing Agincourt GO is a smidge larger at just over 2km:

View attachment 611330

Unless someone proposed intermediate stations between those, there are no sub-1km intervals, nor anything close to that.



Perhaps, but that depends on stopping patterns.

Also, additional, better rail, grade separations, and modern signalling, along with electrification should significantly reduce travel times (increase speeds, particularly acceleration/deceleration) which should allow some additional stops without adding to current travel times.



You know that reads like a BlogTO statement 'Toronto Loves' , 'Toronto Hates'.

Just a wee bit of a generalization, not to mention a rather insulting tone towards every resident of Toronto.....

Dial it back, please.

Those 1-3 kilometer spacings are way too short for a GO train to operate efficiently over. You're forgetting a GO train isn't a subway and takes much longer to accelerate/brake, with a typical set needing up to 2KMs to brake and stop safely within a station. If we add stop density within that corridor we're going to be seeing the trains move at a snails pace essentially, increasing travel times and defeating the purpose of the GO rail network as a whole which is to be a rapid interurban rail service, not a subway replacement.

This might be solved with electrification of trains as you said but that is at least 7-10 years away from happening.

A busway would be much more appropriate, and I don't think people would be wanting to hop on a GO train for local travel anyhow, with headways after electrification proposed to be at most every 15 mins during rush hour in the peak direction only.

 

[reinventingthewheel]

This might be solved with electrification of trains as you said but that is at least 7-10 years away from happening.

NEWSFLASH:
Any new GO station without an existing proposal or EA is also at least 7-10 years away

Electrification and shorter consists do essentially nullify your concerns.

 

[Northern Light]

Those 1-3 kilometer spacings are way too short for a GO train to operate efficiently over. You're forgetting a GO train isn't a subway and takes much longer to accelerate/brake, with a typical set needing up to 2KMs to brake and stop safely within a station. If we add stop density within that corridor we're going to be seeing the trains move at a snails pace essentially, increasing travel times and defeating the purpose of the GO rail network as a whole which is to be a rapid interurban rail service, not a subway replacement.

I am not forgetting anything.

Electrified, and shorter trains (but more frequent) trains will have much shorter acceleration and stopping times.

I'm also not championing building out the network to that density in any event; I was simply reigning in some very assertive overreach by others.

Adding any one infill station between Agincourt and Kennedy is potentially reasonable. That's not the same as saying its a priority, or that we should add 2 additional intermediate stations.

This might be solved with electrification of trains as you said but that is at least 7-10 years away from happening.

If the political decision were arrived at, tomorrow, to add an infill station on the Stouffville Corridor, it would undergo (whether necessary or useful) a Business Case process, followed by a TPAP level Environmental Assessment.

Those will consume a good 2 years, then the station moves into queue for design, and funding, which if you look at other approved stations like Caledonia, and Park Lawn and Bloor-Lansdowne is potentially a years long wait, followed by at least 2 full years for construction.

There will not be any infill stations on this corridor in the near term.

Barring a government making a very bold move, six years would be highly optimistic.

Since, I don't believe any such political decision is forthcoming, in the near term, that date is pushed back to no earlier than 7 years anyway.

A busway would be much more appropriate, and I don't think people would be wanting to hop on a GO train for local travel anyhow,

The point of any infill station (and I'm not arguing the merits here) is not to serve someone travelling from Kennedy Stn (Eglinton) to Lawrence. That would be a marginal benefit to a small group of riders.

Rather it would be to allow people going downtown to board at Lawrence (or Ellesmere) instead of having to get to Kennedy first.

Likewise for people travelling to Markham. It would also make some trips for Markham residents to this area of Scarborough more convenient, though lets concede that's likely a small number.

with headways after electrification proposed to be at most every 15 mins during rush hour in the peak direction only.

There have been changes to the headway plans...........the forward thinking is now more ambitious than that.