[gweed123]

Fully agree. I have always seen this as a far bigger hole than our subway/lrt gaps. And this is also exactly why I believe that the GO rail and subway networks should come under a single authority.

I don't think they need to come under a single authority, I just think they need to come under a unified and consistent fare structure. The back ends can still be separate, but as long as the user doesn't feel like they're switching systems (have to pay a double fare, etc), then I see no reason to create a single massive transit agency.

It makes no sense for example to spend billions trying to get LRT to Malvern when a GO station and regular GO Rail service connecting to the subway network, along with better bus service would serve Malvernites so much better. Transit should be configured to have local buses get riders to their nearest subway/GO rail station (for the most part). And have that station as the focal point of the community. That's kinda how the S-bahn works.

It's too bad Metrolinx never looked at this. Instead we have money being thrown at a laundry list of projects that often are justified on their socio-economic impacts than their impacts on mobility.

I agree completely. The S-Bahn stops in the more suburban areas of Berlin are at the centre of the community, usually located on the main street of the community. They then have secondary transit (LRT or buses) that connect community to community and S-Bahn to S-Bahn. And while I think that the secondary network is important, right now we need to focus on the primary network.

 

[Northern Magus]

It makes no sense for example to spend billions trying to get LRT to Malvern when a GO station and regular GO Rail service connecting to the subway network, along with better bus service would serve Malvernites so much better.

Realistically, both will be beneficial.

The order they're built in, however, is certainly open to debate.

 

[gweed123]

Realistically, both will be beneficial.

The order they're built in, however, is certainly open to debate.

They're both beneficial, but I think that having an adequate GO network is the first step.

Ideally, what I'd like to see is an electrified GO network coupled with modest improvements to existing bus routes that lead to these GO stations (queue jump lanes, etc). Nothing big, but just make the current bus routes more efficient and reliable. Keep improving GO (probably one line at a time), and keep making targeted improvements to bus routes until the GO network is complete.

Once the GO network is sufficient, then we can better evaluate which bus routes need upgrading to a full BRT or LRT. Who knows, depending on where the GO stations end up going it may alter the travel patterns drastically from what they are now, and may bring another route to the top of the priority list compared to what it is now.

But at this point in time, I think that spending $4 billion on electrification of the GO network is a better allocation of financial resources than spending $4 billion on suburban LRT lines (just pulling $4 billion as a random number for example purposes).

 

[ssiguy2]

Lengthening the stations doesn't require any "down time" for the line itself. Vancouver's busy Expo SkyTrain line is having all it's stations upgraded and extended from their current 75 to 100 meters to carry 3 MK11 trains {the quivalent capacity of 10 MK1s} and there will be no disruption in service at all.
If it actually takes them 3 years to redo 6km of line then I want in on the action.
Vancouver's 18km SkyTrain Millenium Line was built from word go in just 22 months which included a 700 meter tunnel and a bridge over HWY #1.

 

[nfitz]

Lengthening the stations doesn't require any "down time" for the line itself.

As explained above. Lengthening them isn't the issue that requires down time. It's changing the stations to support low-floor vehicles instead of high-floor vehicles.

 

[Rainforest]

They're both beneficial, but I think that having an adequate GO network is the first step.

Ideally, what I'd like to see is an electrified GO network coupled with modest improvements to existing bus routes that lead to these GO stations (queue jump lanes, etc). Nothing big, but just make the current bus routes more efficient and reliable. Keep improving GO (probably one line at a time), and keep making targeted improvements to bus routes until the GO network is complete.

Once the GO network is sufficient, then we can better evaluate which bus routes need upgrading to a full BRT or LRT. Who knows, depending on where the GO stations end up going it may alter the travel patterns drastically from what they are now, and may bring another route to the top of the priority list compared to what it is now.

But at this point in time, I think that spending $4 billion on electrification of the GO network is a better allocation of financial resources than spending $4 billion on suburban LRT lines (just pulling $4 billion as a random number for example purposes).

Just two notes:

1) It is not easy (if possible at all) to make room for the 5 min at peak / 15 off peak frequency on each of the GO lines radiating from Union. The train corridor may be wide enough to sustain a very frequent service, but the Union station is not built with that kind of passenger volume in mind. In particular, the stairwells are very narrow compared to the platform size. Widening them, or adding more stairwells to the existing structure might be difficult. Also, the station space is organized to emphasise retail, which is perfectly fine for the intercity + commuter hub, but won't work well for the central rapid-transit hub as it will get way too crowded. For the latter situation, you need passenger flows moving in and out very quickly, preferably short distances.

In fact, the Lakeshore and the Brampton / Airport GO services, the primary candidates for electrification and ehnancement, might consume much of the potential expansion room at Union.

2) Even if it was possible to implement the above 5 / 15 GO network, it would be very Union-centric. It is not uncommon for cities of Toronto size, or even larger, to have most or all of their rapid transit lines converging in the city centre. But usually they have multiple interchange stations within (or near) the city centre, rather than a single hub for all lines and all transfers. That would become the case in Toronto (except for Bloor subway).

 

[kEiThZ]

Realistically, both will be beneficial.

The order they're built in, however, is certainly open to debate.

Sure. But there's the issue of value here. Originally, Transfer City called for 3 multi-billion dollar LRT lines to Malvern. All of which, only promised to shave mere minutes off the bus ride to the connecting subway network. Ask any Malvernite, he or she will tell you that the most important transit priority to them is getting down to the subway network (STC or Don Mills or Finch) to catch the subway. They aren't complaining much about trundling down Sheppard to a mid-rise condo with a cafe at the bottom.

For the cost of those 3 lines alone, we could have built a fully electrified GO Crosstown, with a Malvern stop, and offered significantly improved bus service in the community. That would have cut commute times in half. Heck, for the price of Transit City, we could have done that and fully electrified the entire GO Rail network. After doing that, it would have been valid to see where more subway, BRT, LRT was needed. Unfortunately, Metrolinx decided to turn itself into a giant rubber-stamping exchequer for municipalities.

For a massive region like the GTA it's utterly moronic to focus on intensely local transit as a priority when the vast amount of congestion, grid lock, lost productivity, etc. arises from the lack of a proper long-haul transit capability.

 

[kEiThZ]

Just two notes:

1) It is not easy (if possible at all) to make room for the 5 min at peak / 15 off peak frequency on each of the GO lines radiating from Union. The train corridor may be wide enough to sustain a very frequent service, but the Union station is not built with that kind of passenger volume in mind. In particular, the stairwells are very narrow compared to the platform size. Widening them, or adding more stairwells to the existing structure might be difficult. Also, the station space is organized to emphasise retail, which is perfectly fine for the intercity + commuter hub, but won't work well for the central rapid-transit hub as it will get way too crowded. For the latter situation, you need passenger flows moving in and out very quickly, preferably short distances.

In fact, the Lakeshore and the Brampton / Airport GO services, the primary candidates for electrification and ehnancement, might consume much of the potential expansion room at Union.

GO Crosstown with Summerhill as a hub. That would increase demand on the Yonge line to be sure. But it might actually reduce pressure on Union.

2) Even if it was possible to implement the above 5 / 15 GO network, it would be very Union-centric. It is not uncommon for cities of Toronto size, or even larger, to have most or all of their rapid transit lines converging in the city centre. But usually they have multiple interchange stations within (or near) the city centre, rather than a single hub for all lines and all transfers. That would become the case in Toronto (except for Bloor subway).

Summerhill would be a good start. We'd have to look at creating other nodes.

That said, not everybody is heading downtown. And not everybody needs to go to Union. They do so today because of the current network configuration and fare rules. How many people would get off at Bloor, Danforth, Sheppard West (in the future) or Kennedy if we had integrated fares? Or at Agincourt if the Sheppard line reached there and we had integrated fares?

Also, more frequent service with greater service availability throughout the day might actually smooth out demand.

There's a lot of things we could do to manage this demand. We shouldn't be making excuses to not even attempt these changes.

 

[DavidH]

For a massive region like the GTA it's utterly moronic to focus on intensely local transit as a priority when the vast amount of congestion, grid lock, lost productivity, etc. arises from the lack of a proper long-haul transit capability.

Absolutely. Local transit is certainly important but with a proper long-haul grid, local transit can be handled relatively effectively by buses. The problems we have with local transit are mostly due to having an inadequate grid, forcing local routes to cover long distances.

 

[sixrings]

I would like the NDP and the PCs to comment on if they plan on keeping the Eglinton LRT if they get elected.

 

[gweed123]

Summerhill would be a good start. We'd have to look at creating other nodes.

That said, not everybody is heading downtown. And not everybody needs to go to Union. They do so today because of the current network configuration and fare rules. How many people would get off at Bloor, Danforth, Sheppard West (in the future) or Kennedy if we had integrated fares? Or at Agincourt if the Sheppard line reached there and we had integrated fares?

Also, more frequent service with greater service availability throughout the day might actually smooth out demand.

There's a lot of things we could do to manage this demand. We shouldn't be making excuses to not even attempt these changes.

Exactly. In fact, there are many locations within Toronto that could be some pretty major transit hubs if properly integrated. The 3 that immediately come to mind for me are Agincourt (Crosstown GO, Stouffville GO, Sheppard transit), Dundas West (Milton GO, Georgetown GO, B-D Subway, possible DRL), and Eglinton-Black Creek (Georgetown GO, Barrie GO, Eglinton LRT, possible DRL west, Jane LRT).

And of course with each of these hubs would hopefully come increased density surrounding them, be they office or residential.

 

[nfitz]

Sure. But there's the issue of value here. Originally, Transfer City called for 3 multi-billion dollar LRT lines to Malvern.

Your grossly exaggerating here. And none were more than $1-billion, except perhaps for the SRT extension.

And now we've got a $12-billion project instead ... which goes no closer to Malvern that the Scarborough Centre?

 

[gweed123]

Just two notes:

1) It is not easy (if possible at all) to make room for the 5 min at peak / 15 off peak frequency on each of the GO lines radiating from Union. The train corridor may be wide enough to sustain a very frequent service, but the Union station is not built with that kind of passenger volume in mind. In particular, the stairwells are very narrow compared to the platform size. Widening them, or adding more stairwells to the existing structure might be difficult. Also, the station space is organized to emphasise retail, which is perfectly fine for the intercity + commuter hub, but won't work well for the central rapid-transit hub as it will get way too crowded. For the latter situation, you need passenger flows moving in and out very quickly, preferably short distances.

In fact, the Lakeshore and the Brampton / Airport GO services, the primary candidates for electrification and ehnancement, might consume much of the potential expansion room at Union.

Doesn't the Union redesign incoporate a lot of the needs for electrification? It was my understanding that it did.

2) Even if it was possible to implement the above 5 / 15 GO network, it would be very Union-centric. It is not uncommon for cities of Toronto size, or even larger, to have most or all of their rapid transit lines converging in the city centre. But usually they have multiple interchange stations within (or near) the city centre, rather than a single hub for all lines and all transfers. That would become the case in Toronto (except for Bloor subway).

Addressed in post above.

 

[gweed123]

Just two notes:

1) It is not easy (if possible at all) to make room for the 5 min at peak / 15 off peak frequency on each of the GO lines radiating from Union. The train corridor may be wide enough to sustain a very frequent service, but the Union station is not built with that kind of passenger volume in mind. In particular, the stairwells are very narrow compared to the platform size. Widening them, or adding more stairwells to the existing structure might be difficult. Also, the station space is organized to emphasise retail, which is perfectly fine for the intercity + commuter hub, but won't work well for the central rapid-transit hub as it will get way too crowded. For the latter situation, you need passenger flows moving in and out very quickly, preferably short distances.

In fact, the Lakeshore and the Brampton / Airport GO services, the primary candidates for electrification and ehnancement, might consume much of the potential expansion room at Union.

Doesn't the Union redesign incoporate a lot of the needs for electrification? It was my understanding that it did.

2) Even if it was possible to implement the above 5 / 15 GO network, it would be very Union-centric. It is not uncommon for cities of Toronto size, or even larger, to have most or all of their rapid transit lines converging in the city centre. But usually they have multiple interchange stations within (or near) the city centre, rather than a single hub for all lines and all transfers. That would become the case in Toronto (except for Bloor subway).

Addressed in post above.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't think they need to come under a single authority, I just think they need to come under a unified and consistent fare structure. The back ends can still be separate, but as long as the user doesn't feel like they're switching systems (have to pay a double fare, etc), then I see no reason to create a single massive transit agency.

Spoken like a planning professional. As a citizen on the other hand, I see no hope at all for a unified fare structure and coordinated service unless both networks are under one authority. Such is the way Toronto works.

Also, beyond that, an agency that control both the subway network and the GO rail network would probably focus on the long and medium-haul issues facing this city and region. This frees up the cities to deal with local transit and keeps various local issues (funding for example) from impacting the whole regional network. No silly tantrums about closing down a stubway, just because a mayor didn't get provincial funding, would be allowed.

Personally, I really do see LRT in a different league from subways and heavy rail. Transit City was really an upgrade to the bus routes on those corridors. It's biggest benefit (speed) came from increased stop spacing and a dedicated lane. Not from the technology being used per se (since most of TC wasn't grade separated). In any event, I see the management of LRT lines (at least the ones at-grade) as not all that removed in complication from the existing streetcar lines. So the city would be fully able to build, manage and even fund the LRT network by itself.

Heck, putting the subway and Go networks under one roof might actually promote regional coherence for once. Something even Metrolinx basically sucks at, at the moment. It's a crazy idea I know.