[Coolstar]

^ We need seamless fare integration if we want GO RER to work. That's not even guaranteed as of right now. We need frequent feeder buses and TODs at GO stations instead of gigantic parking lots.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'll defer to this.

https://www.rccao.com/research/files/RCCAO-STATION-TO-STATION-REPORT-APRIL2020.pdf

That report is utterly silent about the issue - and increasing the sizing (by which I meant having 130m platform length) doesn't meant building TYSSE-styled cathedral stations. Also keep in mind - platform length is a constant - it hasn't changed much from the original Yonge subway (low cost) all the way to TYSSE - even the interregnum Sheppard stations built full-sized but with knock out walls were fairly cheap by today's standards, and that's barely 20 years ago. Also Vancouver isn't that cheap anymore either - the 6 station Millennium extension to Arbutus is going to be what, close to 3B for a line that can handle what, 20K pphpd max.

And back to the issue of incremental cost of new lines - think OL, even at stripped down level is a 10+B project. I cannot envision significant new lines through the urban core costing any less given the contraints inherit.

AoD

 

[ARG1]

Unfortunately, GO Expansion will be hardly used within Toronto and will serve mainly the outer suburbs. A lot of the station choices and the way they are planned to be integrated is currently poorly planned. There should be TTC/suburban bus integration at every new and existing GO station within and outside Toronto, in addition to having one fare system. Otherwise it's not going to be anything other than commuter rail.

As I've said many times I highly doubt we won't have Fare Integration. Many Metrolinx projects like the Ontario Line and GO Expansion are being designed purposefully with Fare Integration in mind, and without fare integration both of these projects will have absolute nonsensical sore points. Obviously its a massive if to whether or not it will happen due to competancy, but at the very least the goal with GO Expansion is to have Fare Integration ready when it does open, or at the very least soon after opening.

 

[Coolstar]

As I've said many times I highly doubt we won't have Fare Integration. Many Metrolinx projects like the Ontario Line and GO Expansion are being designed purposefully with Fare Integration in mind, and without fare integration both of these projects will have absolute nonsensical sore points. Obviously its a massive if to whether or not it will happen due to competancy, but at the very least the goal with GO Expansion is to have Fare Integration ready when it does open, or at the very least soon after opening.

I remain optimistic fare integration will indeed be set in place once GO RER is complete but for now, won't believe it until I see it. Again, these tidbits is the most recent status of fare integration we have so far. Baby steps.

 

[44 North]

And back to the issue of incremental cost of new lines - think OL, even at stripped down level is a 10+B project. I cannot envision significant new lines through the urban core costing any less given the contraints inherit.

AoD

The report is ok in that it acknowledges depth (and by default vertical size of stations), as well as related issues of soil removal. Cut/cover could be a future. Since a full closure of the road a la early Yonge isn't happening, maybe close half the road and do one track. Still allowing 50% vehicle traffic. Then once done alternate to the other side. All accomplished in sections that move forward weekly/monthly. Similar with the stations, focus energy one at a time vs a multi-km, decade-long perma construction site.

 

[Coolstar]

There should be TTC/suburban bus integration

Though I'm also confident the TTC will achieve this. If anything, the TTC planned to run frequent feeder buses to the SmartTrack stations back then.

 

[Johnny Au]

Fairbank station on May 16, 2021:

Southeast corner:

Southwest corner:

Northwest corner:

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the Globe:

Eglinton LRT decision could set precedent for other projects, analysts say

Four companies involved in Eglinton Crosstown LRT could trigger contractual procedure to give them more time to finish, as COVID-19 has created delays, added unexpected costs

www.theglobeandmail.com

“With so much capital going into infrastructure development in Canada, U.S., U.K. and Australia, risk transfer strategies that would have been acceptable 10 years ago as players were vying for a piece of the public-private partnership pie no longer suffice.”

I am not sure why the private sector need a slice of the pie if the one key rationale for their involvement is removed in the first place.

AoD

 

[TRONto]

Yes I know the central part will be underground as it should be but the rest should have been elevated. The CT has too many stations both at grade and underground adding to the costs for little return. Also the underground stations themselves had to be made significantly larger than needed than if the system was grade separated because the system will suffer from much lower frequency capacity.

Miller proclaimed that LRT would offer the best of both worlds.......... high capacity, high frequency but lower costs and faster construction than subway but as Torontonians are quickly realizing instead it offers the worst pf both world.............high costs, lower capacity, less frequent service, less reliable but coming in a subway costs and timetables.

For Eglinton West, comparing elevated vs at-grade it was estimated that elevated cost 2x at grade. You can argue that there is value there or that the numbers are skewed but it's at least a billion dollars in difference.

We are getting better transit, changes can be made to improve the at grade service without spending the billion dollars. Although saying that, I would agree with your potential view that those surface upgrades are not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[daniel_kryz]

God I really wasn't expecting to see the different font. It gives such a strong feeling of visual dissonance, I really don't like it.

You'll see more new signs with the application of Metrolinx's new Wayfinding Standard across all their projects. To make matters worse, the other agencies haven't signed on to Metrolinx's program, meaning that the region's wayfinding will only get more complicated.

Great new signs for line... line... why don't the signs say line 5

Metrolinx (according to their Wayfinding Standard) doesn't think you should know the line # until you're inside the station. I know, it's ridiculous.

 

[robmausser]

Well at least we still have GO Expansion to take pride in, meanwhile Montreal still has... whatever exo is...

The key difference between GO and EXO is the York CN Bypass built in 1967. That completely transformed the situation here. Its crazy to think about what a single train line has done to Toronto. No CN Tower, no Skydome, no All day GO service, or GO-RER without the York Bypass.

REM is being built in Montreal specifically because they never built a freight bypass. They can't do with EXO what we are doing with GO-RER. Because the lines downtown are still being used for freight.

While REM will be done first, our advantage with owning the rail lines downtown will showcase how much better the GO-RER situation will be (if done right of course) It just takes more time to rebuild an existing transit system, compared to starting from scratch.

 

[tsm1072]

Metrolinx (according to their Wayfinding Standard) doesn't think you should know the line # until you're inside the station. I know, it's ridiculous.

The sign does show what types of services are accessible at the station (in this case Bus and Subway). It is pretty standard for other agencies just to have the station name and not list the line (see: Montreal, London, Paris). When the start thinking about stations as network transfer points (between various lines and bus routes), signage can quickly get complicated and messy:

Even more so if you wanted to include important bus routes or transfers to other systems (viva, miway, GO, etc.). I can understand why they wanted the standard to be simplified to show the mode(s) and station name from the outside, with routing information presented in detail when you get into the station.

 

[JSF-1]

The key difference between GO and EXO is the York CN Bypass built in 1967. That completely transformed the situation here. Its crazy to think about what a single train line has done to Toronto. No CN Tower, no Skydome, no All day GO service, or GO-RER without the York Bypass.

REM is being built in Montreal specifically because they never built a freight bypass. They can't do with EXO what we are doing with GO-RER. Because the lines downtown are still being used for freight.

While REM will be done first, our advantage with owning the rail lines downtown will showcase how much better the GO-RER situation will be (if done right of course) It just takes more time to rebuild an existing transit system, compared to starting from scratch.

Now all we need to do is get the "Missing Link" built to open up Kitchener to electrified RER service; and figure out how to get CP off of Mid-town to open up Peterborough to GO Service (as well as give GO a bypass around the Union Station corridor) I am also certain Mid-Town will be the main line used for train service to the airport in Pickering whenever it is built.

 

[daniel_kryz]

The sign does show what types of services are accessible at the station (in this case Bus and Subway). It is pretty standard for other agencies just to have the station name and not list the line (see: Montreal, London, Paris). When the start thinking about stations as network transfer points (between various lines and bus routes), signage can quickly get complicated and messy:
View attachment 320879

Even more so if you wanted to include important bus routes or transfers to other systems (viva, miway, GO, etc.). I can understand why they wanted the standard to be simplified to show the mode(s) and station name from the outside, with routing information presented in detail when you get into the station.

I agree that it can get cluttered, but the service/line indicator is the second most important information one needs before entering a station. Especially in a city like New York, with subway entrances sometimes being on every corner, the service indicator lets you know you're going down the right stairs. I know we have far less stations in Toronto, but still the indicator reassures riders that they're entering the right building.

Also, indicating the mode (subway, light rail) isn't enough. For most people, it's irrelevant what specific technology is provided in the station. They want to know where they're going; what destinations this station has to offer. So displaying a light-rail symbol doesn't do the job. They should just display the Line 5 icon, and in the future... the Line 3 icon.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

According to information posted in this thread in 2016, the 5 AVENUE ROAD bus will be renumbered to the 13 AVENUE ROAD bus, when the Line 5 Eglinton Crosstown LRT opens. The 7 BATHURST bus will be renumbered the 19 BATHURST bus. What about the 6 BAY bus?