[Woodbridge_Heights]

I'm pretending all the lines are subways.

This is great! This is the subway network Toronto needs.

Minor things I would change;

- Extend line 5 to the Eglington GO station.
- Extend western portion of line 3 up to the Sheppard line.
- Sheppard line should continue straight instead of dipping south, west of Sheppard-Allen in order to connect with a future Bolton GO line at Sheppard & Rivalda Rd. Afterwards head south towards the airport.
- If the Richmond Hill line were rerouted onto the Leaside Spur/ Don Mills trail, then you could connect the RH line with the Ontario line over in Thorncliffe Park.

With your suggestion that both ends of the Ontario line be extended up to the Eglinton line, then lines 3 & 5 effectively create an orbital route going around the downtown core. It's a real shame that the Eglinton crosstown isn't being constructed to the same standards as the Ontario line.

The issue is that Sheppard W ends at Weston Rd and the Humber River valley stands in the way of getting to the other side. A station on a Bolton line could go on Wilson.

 

[micheal_can]

The issue is that Sheppard W ends at Weston Rd and the Humber River valley stands in the way of getting to the other side. A station on a Bolton line could go on Wilson.

They had a problem with the Don Valley and they built a bridge over it and future proofed it with a lower deck for rail.

They had a problem with the Humber River, and built the Old Mill station there.

River crossings are not that formidable these days.

 

[Islington Express Bus]

They had a problem with the Don Valley and they built a bridge over it and future proofed it with a lower deck for rail.

They had a problem with the Humber River, and built the Old Mill station there.

River crossings are not that formidable these days.

It's less about crossing the valley and more about the fact that the alignment of Sheppard continues over the Humber Valley at a weird angle where it's very wide.

Density on Sheppard drops off significantly west of Downsview Park anyways, so shifting to Wilson makes sense.

 

[micheal_can]

It's less about crossing the valley and more about the fact that the alignment of Sheppard continues over the Humber Valley at a weird angle where it's very wide.

Density on Sheppard drops off significantly west of Downsview Park anyways, so shifting to Wilson makes sense.

I see what you mean. There is no reason that the line couldn't do that.

 

[Sauga89]

This is a unique solution, thank you for posting. But I think its benefit is limited in the St Catharines context, given it's twin-flight locks, i.e. two points of shipping disruption. I still think a tunnel is a way to go because...



I think this is the crux of the problem for Niagara. We could go on and on about the ridership potential from locals, in a city dominated by single-family housing, but the tourism ridership is hampered by the lack of higher order transit to the main tourist destination.

The simple solution IMO would be an elevated rapid transit that a) takes you there, and b) offers breathtaking views of the river and falls.

The pipe dream solution that's long been in my mind is a tunnel and fresh right-of-way to a station on the escarpment, right by the falls. Unfortunately:

• A big capital cost here
• Involves expropriation of some houses for sure
• While this could be paired with a new expressway linking the Thorold Tunnel to Highway 420, some of the pathway for extending 420 west has been sold for housing.
• I can imagine the Niagara Escarpment Commission shrieking about it.

View attachment 627750

I've thought a bit about a new Niagara Falls station too. I posted about this briefly in the General railways thread a while ago. The cheapest option to me would be to re-build the CN rail bridge over the canal south of Thorold. You could use the re-built bridge for GO (as opposed to gifting the re-built bridge to CN to reduce freight traffic on the existing bridge). From there, a GO train could follow the CN Thorold spur to Port Robinson. There's an industrial spur line which runs east from Port Robinson. I was thinking you could extend that spur a couple kilometres south-east over the Welland River to join the CP Montrose spur, which ends just 300 metres from the falls. The new route would be 12 kilometres longer than the current route, but would deliver passengers 4 kilometres closer to the Falls than the current station, without any transfers required to reach the falls. You could also have new stations in Thorold and Port Robinson. I'll add the caveat that I'm not an engineer, but I think this could work.

Alternatively to re-building the bridge at Thorold, I also thought you could dig a 1 km tunnel underneath the canal just northwest of Port Robinson.

 

[micheal_can]

I've thought a bit about a new Niagara Falls station too. I posted about this briefly in the General railways thread a while ago. The cheapest option to me would be to re-build the CN rail bridge over the canal south of Thorold. You could use the re-built bridge for GO (as opposed to gifting the re-built bridge to CN to reduce freight traffic on the existing bridge). From there, a GO train could follow the CN Thorold spur to Port Robinson. There's an industrial spur line which runs east from Port Robinson. I was thinking you could extend that spur a couple kilometres south-east over the Welland River to join the CP Montrose spur, which ends just 300 metres from the falls. The new route would be 12 kilometres longer than the current route, but would deliver passengers 4 kilometres closer to the Falls than the current station, without any transfers required to reach the falls. You could also have new stations in Thorold and Port Robinson. I'll add the caveat that I'm not an engineer, but I think this could work.View attachment 627872

View attachment 627873
Alternatively to re-building the bridge at Thorold, I also thought you could dig a 1 km tunnel underneath the canal just northwest of Port Robinson.

Would the new station be in the same location as the existing station?

 

[Sauga89]

Would the new station be in the same location as the existing station?

No, the point of this idea would be to get a station closer to the falls. I would suggest building a stub-end station just south of the Fallsview Casino, where the CP Montrose spur ends. You could also then replace the Falls Incline funicular with elevators and escalators to take people from the new station to the falls more quickly.

Here is a full map of what I imagine the route could be, starting from where it would diverge from the current route into Niagara Falls.

 

[micheal_can]

No, the point of this idea would be to get a station closer to the falls. I would suggest building a stub-end station just south of the Fallsview Casino, where the CP Montrose spur ends. You could also then replace the Falls Incline funicular with elevators and escalators to take people from the new station to the falls more quickly.
View attachment 628211

Here is a full map of what I imagine the route could be, starting from where it would diverge from the current route into Niagara Falls.

View attachment 628212

Now I understand what you mean.Although this is your fantasy, can I add something?
An LRT from the old station to this new station and then down along the Falls area.

 

[Diez Mil Cantos]

Now I understand what you mean.Although this is your fantasy, can I add something?
An LRT from the old station to this new station and then down along the Falls area.

I'd also add an additional station along the new alignment either in Thorold or Thorold South, as those areas are generally under-served by Regional Transit.

By building a station, you give the area transit, while also encouraging the rerouting/creation of local transit to Thorold, Welland, and Western Niagara Falls, with possible opportunities for Pelham and Fort Erie

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Now I understand what you mean.Although this is your fantasy, can I add something?
An LRT from the old station to this new station and then down along the Falls area.

I was going to say... I see NOTHING about this that is preferable to building some kind of local fixed guideway system, be it APM, Streetcar or some gadetbahn. Even on the basis of transfer reduction this doesn't really get all, or even the most significant, destinations within walking distance of the station while on the other hand the existing station is really VERY well placed in terms of the railway network.

 

[Sauga89]

Even on the basis of transfer reduction this doesn't really get all, or even the most significant, destinations within walking distance of the station

Is there a more significant destination in the city of Niagara Falls than the falls themselves? Really? It would also be right next to the Fallsview casino and several other hotels. Clifton Hill would be furthest at about 1.4 km away, and even it would be closer than from the current station. (I'll note that the line in the close-up map of the falls was meant to represent the outline of a platform, not a 150-metre walk)

I was going to say... I see NOTHING about this that is preferable to building some kind of local fixed guideway system, be it APM, Streetcar or some gadetbahn.

To be honest, I think some kind of streetcar or LRT isn't a bad idea. But it should take people from a GO station near the falls, rather than to the falls from a distant GO station. I also imagine a streetcar or LRT would have a bad capacity problem in the situation you describe, since a typical streetcar or LRT vehicle is smaller than a GO train and runs more frequently. The first streetcar to arrive at the current station after a GO train would wind up dangerously overcrowded, and many would run empty between GO trains. You could maybe have multiple cars waiting for a train, but then wouldn't you have a bunching problem? It would be easier just to have a GO station near the falls.

I did think about heavy rail along roughly the route you describe. But I thought it would be politically difficult to re-lay GO track along Palmer Avenue, which is very residential, and then you'd have to do a cut and cover tunnel underneath Victoria Avenue to get past Clifton Hill, which would be expensive and disruptive.

It wouldn't exactly be cheap either to build two bridges, one over the Welland Canal, and one over the Welland river, or to acquire a 2 km stretch of rural land, but it strikes me as more realistic. Plus, the new station would be right next to the falls.

 

[micheal_can]

I was going to say... I see NOTHING about this that is preferable to building some kind of local fixed guideway system, be it APM, Streetcar or some gadetbahn. Even on the basis of transfer reduction this doesn't really get all, or even the most significant, destinations within walking distance of the station while on the other hand the existing station is really VERY well placed in terms of the railway network.

View attachment 628225

Niagara Falls LRT - Google My Maps

Niagara Falls LRT

www.google.com

Avery quick sketch of what I mean.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

I also imagine a streetcar or LRT would have a bad capacity problem in the situation you describe, since a typical streetcar or LRT vehicle is smaller than a GO train and runs more frequently. The first streetcar to arrive at the current station after a GO train would wind up dangerously overcrowded, and many would run empty between GO trains.

This is basically why I'm not all that comfortable explicitly saying 'streetcar' in a definitive way on this service... As much as the Palmer segment would be problematic grade separation and automation would go a LONG way to addressing how painfully peaky the demand is going to be.

 

[micheal_can]

I am visiting Boston. I noticed that within the same ROW, some of their RT runs along side the Commuter rail. Specifically the Red, Orange and Green lines. Is this something that could be done in the GTA with any success? Which ROW would it not work? Could those parts be decked to allow for it?

 

[kaptrice]

I am visiting Boston. I noticed that within the same ROW, some of their RT runs along side the Commuter rail. Specifically the Red, Orange and Green lines. Is this something that could be done in the GTA with any success? Which ROW would it not work? Could those parts be decked to allow for it?

Yes, it can be done, which is why it is being done with the Ontario Line and YNSE, and has been done on the west end of the B-D.
Widening is a highly preferential over decking.