Undead
Senior Member
On the contrary, apparently there's a lot of work, both overt and behind the scenes on this project. Take with a grain of salt of course.
|
|
|
- Thread starter crs1026
- Start date
McGillicuddy
Active Member
I suppose it's worth questioning whether a Midtown line would use GO's current bilevel coaches.
While implementing a second fleet would be a huge pain, Metrolinx is already chafing against the limits of what they can do with huge 12-car commuter trains while still achieving their political mandates. Given that this line would initially attract low ridership, they would perhaps have an opportunity here to try out some DMUs on a line which is fairly isolated from other GO services. (Then, if it goes well, they can invest in expanding this second fleet for projects like summer service to Stratford, off-season service to Niagara Falls, etc.)
While implementing a second fleet would be a huge pain, Metrolinx is already chafing against the limits of what they can do with huge 12-car commuter trains while still achieving their political mandates. Given that this line would initially attract low ridership, they would perhaps have an opportunity here to try out some DMUs on a line which is fairly isolated from other GO services. (Then, if it goes well, they can invest in expanding this second fleet for projects like summer service to Stratford, off-season service to Niagara Falls, etc.)
nfitz
Superstar
GO could cause a subway issue for inbound arrivals in AM peak, when GO trains arrive. Not as much for PM peak, as the load would be spread out over more trains.
I don't think Alto would be an issue. I don't think there'll be too many passengers arriving from Montreal before 9 AM. Some from Ottawa.
Say, a 4-car 240-person train. At that time the subway is going about every 2 minutes. How long will it take for all the passengers to disembark? 5 minutes?
How many will head south on the subway (as opposed to uber, taxi, heading north). Let's be generous and guess 50%.
Let's assume that 120 passengers gets spread out over 3 trains. That's an extra 40 people per train - or less than 2 passengers per door. Each Line 1 (TR) train has a peak capacity of 1,100 passengers. So about 4% passenger increase?
Another way of putting that, is that there'd be no impact to TTC if they increased the frequency from 1 train every 2 minutes, to on train ever 1 minute, 59.6 seconds.
It's a rounding error.
GO is much more complicated. Especially as anyone travelling from north of Summerhill to Milton is already going to be going to Union (or at least Yonge-Bloor). So this will both increase and reduce southward travel; probably more increase than decrease. Also, anyone travelling from Summerhil to Kennedy now would head south to Yonge-Bloor and change to Line 2. But here they could now change to GO at Summerhill, and get to Kennedy quicker.
At the same time, would Milton line passengers be changing at Summerhill? Or Dupont? I'd think the latter would be quicker, with it being 8 stops to King on both legs of Line 1. Could also mitigate by having GO stop on the Ontario line, just north of Wynford Drive (for Peterborough traffic).
It would be interesting to see what a transport demand model would show.
Ultimately though, if densification continues, Line 1 is going to need some relief, even if Summerill is a no GO(
). I can see one day that there might be an express subway alongside Line 1 on Yonge (either deep under Yonge, or put bits on Bay, Yonge (between Wellesley and Davisville), Duplex, etc. Stations at Queens Quay, Union, Queen, Dundas, Bloor, Summerhill, Eglinton, Sheppard ...smallspy
Senior Member
Not everything has to do with ALTO.......
No, I was referring to the conversation with GO running on CP's North Toronto Subdivision, and having a station at Summerhill. And presumably, a direct connection to the subway station there.
Dan
NY99
Active Member
One can hope.
Below is my transitway concept, connecting the 407 and 403 transitways into a single "spine" across the region. It hits every single GO line except the Lakeshore Lines, 4 rapid transit lines, 5 BRT lines, 5 urban growth centres, improves access to much of the Pierson Economic Zone, and has a convenient connection to Pierson Airport itself.
I didn't get into specific alignments, and there are perhaps some facets of the plan that are less feasible than others. All in all, though, this would be far more useful than GO 2.0, even if it's a "lowly" BRT.
The "New Toronto Bypass" -- Transitway Concept - Google My Maps
Feasible Near-Term Concept. Dark green = current ROW. Light Green = reserved ROW. Blue = conceptual ROW
www.google.com
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
Thanks - I was thrown off by your reference to Eastern Ontario farmers - I hadn't realised this discussion was not related to Alto.
If only GO was to run that far east ... farmers used to like milk runs.
Vortex112
New Member
I’m not sure how the 407 transitway fills the “cross-region” demand considering its purpose is to essentially bypass the region. As much as Brampton/Vaughan/RH/Markham will grow any transitway serving them basically miss the entire developed population of the GTA. The Midtown line is needed to serve the region through the core of the GTA.
duffo
Active Member
If the future 407 Transitway could be seen as an evolution of the Ontario Line Loop concept from MTO's GGH Plan, it would directly connect Pearson, Vaughan Metropolitan Centre, future Concord GO, Richmond Hill Centre, the Commerce Valley/Beaver Creek business park, Downtown Markham/Unionville GO, and the YRT Cornell Bus Terminal.
But I think the wider issue with a radial suburban rail line in Toronto is that first/last-km suburban transit connections are quite bad in many areas. It would really need to be accompanied by structural changes to our regional transportation and land use systems, to bring in frequent local buses which connect to denser walkable neighbourhoods (beyond MTSAs directly around the stations). At present, tons suburban density is often being dropped into the edge of farmland, with no serious transit in sight (see: Oakville's Uptown Core, Oshawa's Windfields, etc.)
urbanclient
Senior Member
This potential evolution I am supportive of. But I question the platforms being built for 100 metre long, 5 car trains. They really were inventing things picking that platform/train length. Best I can tell, the baseline should be 6 car trains, 120-140 m long, for high capacity metros transiting downtown.
And yet the Ontario Line is going 4->5 car trains.
Assuming an opening in the mid 2030s, I wouldn't be surprised if there are crush loads within a month.
afransen
Senior Member
407 is a bit too far north for much of the city.
afransen
Senior Member
The loop doesn't make all that much sense, as the capacity and service requirements are not aligned between downtown section of OL and the northern crosstown function.
Adjei
Senior Member
Is Line 2 now supposed to go to Renforth ?
Bureaucromancer
Active Member
But more sense than OL out Queensway/QEW hitting Kipling than going up the 427? I suppose theres a decent chance its shorter enough that it does pencil out cheaper... But if we're doing CHEAP Id think Mississauga Transitway to Kipling would be the way to go
taylortbb
New Member
I wonder if a Line 2 extension to Long Branch, with a stop at Sherway Gardens, has been evaluated.
It seems logical to me with the Sherway Gardens major redevelopment to serve that node, and then it's not much further to connect to the GO line. The GO connection would facilitate a lot of western suburbs to western Toronto travel, and provide a fast route into downtown from the Sherway Gardens redevelopment.
Northern Light
Superstar
Past evaluations of a Line 2 western extension have modeled it out to Dixie GO, following the rail corridor. I don't recall if there was a specific station considered at LB, but the more detailed assessment (still far short of schematic drawings) was only employed to Sherway.