[Urban Sky]

I didn't reply to this comment initially, felt no need............but in an amusing to me coincidence...........this map came across my social feed:

View attachment 661701

It occurred to me to look up the numbers for Union then the above post came to mind.

Union has 300,000 people pass through daily (that's combined TTC/GO/VIA/Bus etc.

~72M per year.

That wouldn't even see as last on the above list of 20.

Perhaps our capacity expectations are too low?

The European figures of railway (i.e., heavy rail) passengers exclude local transit modes such as Subways, Trolleys, Streetcars, LRTs or any bus services. Here are the daily numbers of “travelers/visitors” for the German rail stations, which more than double the figures of your graphic (e.g., Hamburg Hbf from 196k to 537k):

Source: German (federal) Parliament
Note: Ostkreuz and Alexanderplatz are located in Berlin

 

[micheal_can]

Toronto needs at least 4 stations in the city

I read that as "Toronto cannot have HSR through it". Every stop slows the train down, and increases travel times.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I don't know how you would adjust those figures for things such as level of rail infrastructure, municipal population, municipal population densities (in particular near the station), public transit access to and around the station, regional and national population demographics, overall intercity rail passenger numbers, station designed for such large passenger #'s, etc. That all impact passenger use of the station. While I believe we should look to Europe as a model for an intercity rail network, I also think that we need to take that model and adjust it for Toronto's situation.

Just because Union Station doesn't come near Roma Termini, London Waterloo, or Paris Gare de Nord, doesn't mean that secondary stations such as Pearson Airport and E, W, N shoulder stations shouldn't also be built or are unneccessary.

I read that as "Toronto cannot have HSR through it". Every stop slows the train down, and increases travel times.

Not every train needs to stop at every station.

Milan to Rome for example has multiple tiers of stopping patterns.

• Level 1 is direct service between the two
• Level 2 has stops just outside Milan and/or one in Bologna
• Level 3 and on add stations in between like Firenze, Reggio Emilia, Modena, Parma, etc

 

[crs1026]

Union has 300,000 people pass through daily (that's combined TTC/GO/VIA/Bus etc.

~72M per year.

That wouldn't even see as last on the above list of 20.

Perhaps our capacity expectations are too low?

LOL. A little googling tells me that not even one of those railway stations has a Cinnabon. The price of greatness, I suppose.

The GO expansion business case claims a potential doubling of ridership, although how much of that will run through Union is a good question.

It would be interesting to compare data on number of tracks, number of platforms, throughput capacity of signalling, etc. And GFA, number of entrances, etc.

My guess is that Toronto Union is a "small" station in its built form in comparison to most of those top performers. We could, of course, expand again.... but that would likely require removing much of the heritage structure, and a whole new round of construction. It's probably wise to be thiinking of a whole second structure somewhere..... which is not to say imitating the European model of radial stations that only connect by other means is a good one. Maybe something more like the proximity of Ogilvie and Union in Chicago. Or Euston, St Pancras, and Kings Cross in London.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

Not every train needs to stop at every station.

We are building one service that will stop at all stops. Doing more is scope creep and will only make the project longer and more expensive.That does not mean they cannot be added in the future. It also does not mean that it should not be designed with infil stations in mind.

 

[Urban Sky]

Just because Union Station doesn't come near Roma Termini, London Waterloo, or Paris Gare de Nord, doesn't mean that secondary stations such as Pearson Airport and E, W, N shoulder stations shouldn't also be built or are unneccessary.

Oh absolutely! The suggestion that Union Station would rank sixth in passengers/visitors among Germany’s main rail hubs and at par with Berlin Hbf as its newest (opened just in time for the 2006 FIFA World Cup) and thus most modern representative should fill us with pride and finally allow us to accept that Union Station will always be the number one waypoint for pasengers arriving in the city by any mode, if not as destination, then as this city’s by-far most important transfer point. However, the center hub stops should indeed be supplemented by secondary/satellite stops. Just count how many Berlin stations made it into Germany’s Top 20…

 

[Northern Light]

@crs1026 - agreed. Though, when thinking of Union, you may need to think differently spatially..........

****

@Urban Sky you have to catch up on your messages, LOL

 

[nfitz]

Oh absolutely! The suggestion that Union Station would rank sixth in passengers/visitors among Germany’s main rail hubs and at par with Berlin Hbf as its newest (opened just in time for the 2006 FIFA World Cup) and thus most modern representative should fill us with pride and finally allow us to accept that Union Station will always be the number one waypoint for pasengers arriving in the city by any mode, if not as destination, then as this city’s by-far most important transfer point…

This is the Urban Toronto discussion. Not the cherry-picking foreign cities discussion (as much as I like cherry-picking foreign cities). Union will always be the most important transfer point discussed here. Not that there isn't a lot to learn elsewhere.

It's interesting to see stations that aren't traditional terminals, such as London Bridge and Stratford show up on that list!

And I wonder how current the Paddington numbers are, in terms of including the mainline Elizabeth line services (and if perhaps it only includes Elizabeth line services from the traditional Great West mainline platforms, or if it includes the services on the same line (as the majority are) from the new Paddington mainline platforms under Eastbourne Terrace.

It is odd how Paddington is listed 7th in London on wordpress.com's list, but second for mainline services in the UK by the UK Government, two or three years ago - behind Liverpool Street.

Numbers are a bit different - but the UK numbers are during Covid. And I'm not sure if the other one is Entry/Exits or includes transfers.

 

[WB62]

LOL. A little googling tells me that not even one of those railway stations has a Cinnabon. The price of greatness, I suppose.

Neither does Toronto Union haha

 

[sche]

The only down side that I see to using the Don route is the need to build bridges. Yes, more expensive, perhaps.....but after deciding to spend liberally (pun intended) on double track all the way to Quebec City, is that cost element a showstopper ?

I have more concern that Alto going along the Kingston (and either up the Stouffville route, or a new alignment further east) is bolting on to (and forcing further redesign and rework of) a GO Expansion system that was designed with a certain capacity for commuter and regional service. Adding Alto puts the squeeze on that. Whereas using the Don Branch gives Alto its own, unencumbered routing into downtown Toronto and on its own rails. Are we really happy with putting so many eggs in one basket ? ML seems indifferent to VIA today, how seriously will they support both HSR and legacy VIA service on the Kingston Sub?

The Kennedy route seems to imply speed limiting curves at Agincourt, and again at Scarborough Jct.... and doubtless a less than optimal speed between Agincourt and Kennedy, even with new tracks added, Whereas a Leaside route could support HSRish speed much closer into the city. Again, it seems odd to accept a constrained speed and hence longer timimgs on the Toronto access after going to the max the rest of the way.

The tunnel under the 401 will be almost as expensive as a bridge over the Don.

As to Pickering-Ajax-Oshawa - do not discount the need to unbundle CN freight and legacy passenger before scheming to build HSR tracks. The obvious first step would be to extend the York Sub further east, restoring the ability for freights to pass in this area (requiring a bridge span over Duffins Creek) and then a flyover to route VIA to the north side of the row to reach Oshawa station without level crossing of the freight path.

There will need to be provision for regional service, probably GO taking over the VIA legacy service which Ottawa seems quite happy to sacrifice. I would imagine this will eventually demand new track construction eastwards from Oshawa, perhaps sharing with CN but more likely dedicated regional rail.

(There are likely more autos using the 401 to reach destinations along the Cobourg-Belleville-Kingston path than through drivers to Ottawa and Montreal. I am determined to tenaciously make noise about the need for enhanced legacy service on this route, up to and including hourly or bihourly service all the way to Kingston, to seize this modal share. Alto should not be allowed to preempt this regional system, it is equally important).

I would be far more dismissive of the whole Kennedy idea if the suggestion was coming from anyone other than @Urban Sky , whose detailed knowledge and inside insight into the actual planners' thinking exceed all us other posters. So maybe this is truly what is planned and should be taken very seriously. It may be doable, but it seems like an odd place to pinch pennies, and is the inferior route, to this guy in the bleachers anyways.

- Paul

Perhaps I should expand a bit on my original post. I'm assuming that what we really want is a full build out true S-Bahn-ification of GO, and that HSR should minimally conflict with that goal, so long as doing so does not drastically increase costs. If every GO line runs 10 minute frequency local service combining onto even higher frequency trunks with 2-3km stop spacing, sharing local tracks with high speed services becomes operationally untenable, and thus high speed services can only share tracks with express trains.

The Don Branch is needed for rerouting the Richmond Hill line and for connecting the eastern part of a Midtown/Belleville Sub line to Union; even if these are still hypothetical projects, it seems short-sighted to use the corridor for high speed services when other options exist with fairly minor differences in cost.

The Stouffville line option has the same problem, in that mixing high speed and local services on a two track line would pose significant operational constraints in the future. While it would be fine with the current number of local stops and trains running every 15 minutes, there should probably be 4-5 more infill stations between Agincourt and East Harbour, and local services should ideally be running every 5 or 10 minutes. Once you assume that, mixing high speed services into that becomes impractical.

But the LSE line is so much easier to work with if you want both very high quality GO service and HSR - there's ample room for 4 tracks, meaning intercity trains (including HSR and services to Kingston) only need to share with express services. Local trains from Ajax/Pickering can merge into the Stouffville line after Scarborough Junction. And, while Scarborough Junction is inferior to Kennedy as a Scarborough stop, Pickering is much better suited to serving Durham Region than anywhere in Scarborough or up in northern Durham. Pickering is also much more accessible by car, which will help make HSR more attractive for people in autocentric areas versus driving to the airport (especially those in York and Durham).

** The Stouffville line could also be quad tracked up to Agincourt, thus eliminating the problems I suggested for that alignment. While I thought the corridor was too narrow when writing my previous post, upon further inspection it could probably be done with some expropriation if the SRT busway is removed, although it would be tight in some locations.

A few other notes:
- Bad interagency cooperation is such a bad reason to choose one corridor over another - there's a good reason for the Swiss maxim orgainzation before electronics before concrete. Surely the correct solution to bad interagency cooperation is better interagency cooperation?
- I agree that regional service to Kingston etc. is needed. I think these services honestly make more sense under GO, and they should operationally just be super-express GO trains that keep going. The end of the GO tracks past Oshawa just needs to be connected to the CN tracks for this to work (I imagine a flat junction would be fine; the existing junction west of Pickering station is flat), and eventually a dedicated track could be built.

 

[north-of-anything]

Just because Union Station doesn't come near Roma Termini, London Waterloo, or Paris Gare de Nord, doesn't mean that secondary stations such as Pearson Airport and E, W, N shoulder stations shouldn't also be built or are unneccessary.


Not every train needs to stop at every station.

Milan to Rome for example has multiple tiers of stopping patterns.

• Level 1 is direct service between the two
• Level 2 has stops just outside Milan and/or one in Bologna
• Level 3 and on add stations in between like Firenze, Reggio Emilia, Modena, Parma, etc

In my mind, Level 1 is Alto directly to Ottawa, Level 2 is Alto stopping in Peterborough, and Level 3 is Via. No need to build any shoulder stations, if deemed necessary we can use one of the GO stations with a major transit connection like Oriole or Unionville.

 

[Towered]

I didn't reply to this comment initially, felt no need............but in an amusing to me coincidence...........this map came across my social feed:

View attachment 661701

It occurred to me to look up the numbers for Union then the above post came to mind.

Union has 300,000 people pass through daily (that's combined TTC/GO/VIA/Bus etc.

~72M per year.

That wouldn't even see as last on the above list of 20.

Perhaps our capacity expectations are too low?

Germans sure love their trains

 

[zang]

Germans sure love their trains

Considering Deutsche Bahn’s service is notoriously terrible, I’d say it’s love-hate at best.

 

[nfitz]

In my mind, Level 1 is Alto directly to Ottawa, Level 2 is Alto stopping in Peterborough, and Level 3 is Via. No need to build any shoulder stations, if deemed necessary we can use one of the GO stations with a major transit connection like Oriole or Unionville.

As they announcement was clear that Alto would take over VIA's Toronto-Quebec City existing corridor services (on the off-chance Alto isn't singing soprano by the 2030s), then I'd assume VIA wouldn't be running milkruns on the backwoods Peterborough route.

 

[Urban Sky]

The Don Branch is needed for rerouting the Richmond Hill line and for connecting the eastern part of a Midtown/Belleville Sub line to Union; even if these are still hypothetical projects, it seems short-sighted to use the corridor for high speed services when other options exist with fairly minor differences in cost.

May I ask you how many future stations you envision along the Don Branch?

The Stouffville line option has the same problem, in that mixing high speed and local services on a two track line would pose significant operational constraints in the future. While it would be fine with the current number of local stops and trains running every 15 minutes, there should probably be 4-5 more infill stations between Agincourt and East Harbour, and local services should ideally be running every 5 or 10 minutes. Once you assume that, mixing high speed services into that becomes impractical.

Again, how many future station stops do you envision between Union Station and the Belleville sub? If we assume EMUs with 3 stops at Kennedy, Scarborough and East Harbour (and reasonably fast track speeds east of East Harbour), then their superior acceleration and much shorter dwell times should mostly compensate for the 2 additional stops compared to an ALTO train stopping at Kennedy only.

But the LSE line is so much easier to work with if you want both very high quality GO service and HSR - there's ample room for 4 tracks, meaning intercity trains (including HSR and services to Kingston) only need to share with express services. Local trains from Ajax/Pickering can merge into the Stouffville line after Scarborough Junction.

I’m somehow skeptical of a third and fourth track between Guildwood and Pickering.

And, while Scarborough Junction is inferior to Kennedy as a Scarborough stop, Pickering is much better suited to serving Durham Region than anywhere in Scarborough or up in northern Durham. Pickering is also much more accessible by car, which will help make HSR more attractive for people in autocentric areas versus driving to the airport (especially those in York and Durham).

I guess this is where European (satellite stations should serve secondary hubs which are served by high-quality transit corridors preferably not already serving the main hub to ease access by transit) and North American intercity rail service planning ideology (satellite stations should be placed next to a busy Highways with giant parking facilities, to ease access by car) clash. You won’t overcome car-centricism by pre-emptively obbeying to anticipated car-centric demands.

As a side note, the threat that “they will just drive to the Airport if you don’t stop close enough to them” is much less credible in Durham than, say, York, Peel or Halton…