by

How Many Trains Will Fit Through Union Station?

During the Metrolinx Electrification Study, those of us who attended various workshops became aware that there was a parallel study of capacity issues at Union Station.  The electrification plans are, among other things, in support of operating better service on GO generally, but if that service won’t physically fit through Union Station and its approach corridors, there’s a big problem.

That problem is independent of electrification per se because The Big Move from Metrolinx depends on substantially improved commuter rail service.  No capacity, no additional service.

At the recent Metrolinx Board meeting, GO’s President, Gary McNeil, presented an update on GO operations and construction activity.

GO President’s Report & Presentation Deck

The report includes a reference to Union Station capacity:

… Retaining wall construction is well underway to allow for an additional track in this corridor. The Union Station capacity study has been completed, with the result that in the near term, there is capacity at this station to meet needs. With the start of design of double berthing and new south platform, this will provide access required for service expansions. This work is anticipated to be completed in the next five years.  [Page 8]

After the meeting, I requested a copy of the study to learn what conclusions it might have reached. Various working papers from the study had been leaked, but they were neither definitive nor entirely coherent on how to deal with the problem.

Metrolinx has now replied that:

At this time, a detailed public component of the Union Station study is premature as we are undertaking on-going research. Specific information will most likely be available for the public when future potential projects develop from this study.

The purpose of the study is to assess the Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) train capacity at four time points:

  • existing;
  • completion of planned infrastructure in 2015 and implementation for service improvements, including the ARL;
  • Electrification Reference Case (ERC);
  • and 2031 (Big Move planning document).

In doing so, we hope to identify opportunities to increase capacity by making more effective use of existing and planned infrastructure.  We also hope to identify the infrastructure needed to address any capacity shortfalls.  This study provided only a technical analysis, and Metrolinx will consider its opportunities after further assessment.

However, there is a good deal of material to get started on.

First off, the capacity problem is not some far-distant issue, but one that GO must address today.

  • Current schedules and operating patterns use all available capacity in peak times (24 GO Trains per hour in peak time). Bottlenecks are happening in the Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC), not in the Union Station train shed and there cannot be any additional peak trains without negatively affecting the on-time performance.
  • By 2015, there will 24 GO Trains per hour in peak time, plus 4 Air Rail Link trains. At this time, service levels can be accommodated with the planned infrastructure.

This means that if you were hoping for additional peak hour service in the next four years, you shouldn’t hold your breath.  Existing runs may be extended to more remote destinations, but there isn’t capacity for more trains in that peak hour.  This also means that the number of commuters entering Union is capped by what these trains can carry.  Extension to 12-car trains will help, but that is of limited benefit on corridors that already have long trains.

Looking at the higher service level in the Electrification Reference Case, the study concluded that:

  • the service did not operate with an acceptable on-time performance level (based on the RTP/GO 2020 planning documents).
  • the ERC provided a conceptual service level, not an operational schedule.
  • with minor adjustments, an actual ERC schedule could function with an acceptable on-time performance.
  • [the service] requires a new south platform and changes to both GO and VIA operations.
  • up to 44 GO Trains per hour in the peak is the approximate capacity upper limit.

The Big Move requires an even higher level of service on the GO corridors than in the Electrification Base case, and this brings more challenges.

  • significant capacity shortfall inside and outside of the USRC
  • additional tracks under Union would need to be installed (4 tracks required). Entraces to the underground would likely be problematic as extra property is required in developed areas. The minimum level below the existing track level would be 23.5 metres and the vertical access requirement would conflict with the City retail area.

Something not mentioned here, but definitely a problem for any construction, is that the ramps to access new underground platforms would have to start well east and west of the station in order to be low enough once they reached the heart of the rail corridor.  There is also the small matter of building under a working corridor already at capacity, and the high water table.

It is unclear whether any allowance was made in the study for the different performance characteristics of electric versus diesel trains.

Other findings from the study include:

  • Turning trains (versus through trains) increases track occupancy time by 56%, reducing capacity.
  • With double berthing, turning trains allows 8 trains per hour compared to 6 through trains per hour, which does increase capacity.
  • Wider platforms achieved by track removal is found to reduce train capacity.

Recommendations are:

  • Develop a new south platform by removal of Track 16 (planning and design work is underway).
  • Improve capacity (and reliability) with infrastructure modifications to increase straight routing.
  • Make relatively minor infrastructure changes to improve the utility of the two connecting tracks for commuter service, while protecting for freight operation.
  • Change the GO platform assignments (by 2015) to make better use of capacity.
  • Investigate ways to increase platform use with VIA (conversation is underway).
  • Proceed with double berthing (work is underway).

Little of this is much surprise to those who have watched and cared for Union Station.  With the disappearance of the rail yards and the construction of the CN Tower nearly 40 years ago, preserving capacity in the rail corridor was not high on the priority list.  The railways still owned the corridor, and their interest was to maximize development potential.

GO Transit itself was less than 10 years old, and the idea that Union Station would someday need to accommodate vastly more trains and passengers was not on their radar.  Only the Lakeshore route operated until Georgetown joined the network in 1974 (the year the CN Tower was topped off), and the double-deck coaches didn’t come into service until 1979, the year GO moved into its “new” east concourse.

Growth in commuting to downtown has been almost entirely handled by GO over past decades while demand on both streets and transit was limited by capacity and parking supply.  But even GO has its constraints.  While much attention has focused on parking lots and garages all over the GTA, the capacity at Union wasn’t on the table.

With the station’s reconstruction, now underway, GO will get over double the concourse space of the old east wing station, but the trains will require new approaches to operations.  Metrolinx planning can no longer afford to assume unlimited capacity in the rail network (or the transit network for that matter).  The Big Move 2.0 must include plans for new local and regional infrastructure, not just the movement of virtual passengers in a demand model.

Downtown Toronto continues to grow and it will remain the centre of jobs and office space for decades to come.  Yes, there are new schemes in the outer suburbs, but any of these would fit comfortably in the core area and vanish among what is already there.  If nothing else, the growth of a “Metropolitan Centre” beyond downtown Toronto simply cannot occur because there isn’t enough transportation capacity in one place to support such a scheme.

Future growth in downtown will depend on having more people living closer to where they work rather than a train ride away in the 905.  This has already begun with condos in walking or short transit distance of the core, and will spread to the eastern waterfront.  However, if transit doesn’t increase to match this demand, the TTC (and Metrolinx for that matter) will have failed.

Metrolinx crows about its importance in reducing commute trips, pollution and energy needs, but ignores the most important asset right outside its doors — the local transit system.  Toronto scrounges for money wherever it can be found, and gets distracted by dreams of new subways and dubious financing schemes.

Just as the expressway, road and parking networks have filled, and today’s challenge is how to wean drivers onto transit, the transit system itself has constraints, some physical, some financial.  We are reaping the joys of suburban expansion, but it’s time to take capacity into downtown Toronto much more seriously.

49 thoughts on “How Many Trains Will Fit Through Union Station?”

  1. Is anything resembling a GO train subway underneath, say, Wellington St. on Metrolinx’ radar at all? To me, it would seem a more sensible option than tunnelling underneath Union.

    Steve: I believe that some of the folks involved with the study mused about a GO subway under Queen from Parkdale to Riverdale. This could divert service on some of the busy northern branches to a separate downtown entry. Of course, electrification would be essential, almost certainly with EMUs. Whether this made it into the final study we won’t know until, if ever, it is released. I suspect that like the TTC with the DRL, GO will move heaven and earth to avoid discussion this sort of option or anything that forces electrification on them.

    Like

  2. Dwell time at the platforms themselves is easily understood but I am surprised that track capacity leading into and out of union is an issue given they have a minimum of 6 tracks to work with (6 east, 7 on the west).

    While expensive, why can’t GO fully separate their tracks from VIA/freight service (over/underpass), install ATO on their equipment for the union station corridor, and run these 4 tracks with 2 minute headways each (120 trains per hour)?

    Let VIA, freight, and Blue 22 fight for space on other 3 (west) or 2 (east) segments.

    Obviously Union Station itself would be completely overwhelmed but I’m trying to understand how the corridor space would be a restriction. A reconfiguration, possibly a large one-time cost ($1B?), should be able to take care of that.

    More than one electrified commuter service seems to be able to operate at actual 2 to 3 minute headways per track including station dwell issues (RER A being an obvious example).

    Steve: Although there are many tracks, the paths trains must take through them create conflicts. GO seems to recognize this, but I’m not holding my breath for improvements. All those slip switches allow anywhere to anywhere paths, but in crossing the diagonals, trains block many tracks. The station design suits a busy intercity operation with comparatively long dwell times, not a commuter operation that needs to get in and out with minimal conflict and fast platform service. However, we need to make the best of what we have.

    Like

  3. Was there any mention of reactivating North Toronto station (or at least ensuring measures are in place to protect the option), or the diversion of some GO traffic to other Toronto stations?

    Steve: Not in the material I received, although it’s an obvious option. However, there are two problems. One is capacity on the CPR’s main line across Toronto, something they will not give up. Even though there are schemes for an alternative, nothing will happen on that front in the time frame needed to get more capacity. Then there’s the small problem that trains are full inbound to the core at Summerhill. There is provision for a knockout panel in North Toronto Station to get into Summerhill, but I can’t see this being an ideal place to dump more riders on the Yonge line. Dupont may be a tad better, but still not ideal. Union has the advantage of being counter-peak for GO-related flows on the subway.

    Like

  4. Of course, this sounds pretty similar to the TTC’s situation on the Yonge line. And perhaps this is a good place to ask about the status of the TTC’s downtown transit capacity study.

    The growth in downtown population, to reduce the need for commuting trips downtown, has already been occurring and with some success (significant increase of late in commuting on foot). However, there are a couple of negative consequences:

    a) While most of the new downtown residents are also working downtown, there is a not insignificant number that are commuting out of the city to suburban jobs that are both widely dispersed and poorly accessible by transit. There is now a traffic jam every morning on the westbound Gardiner at the ramp to the 427 because of all the additional residents commuting northwest to all the jobs in north/east Mississauga, Brampton, and Vaughan.

    b) A recent study by the Canadian Urban Institute bemoans residential development downtown because it takes away land that could be used for employment growth in the most transit-accessible location of the GTA (instead of in the 905, or even in outlying 416, where transit use is lower for commuting trips).

    Steve: The TTC is dragging its feet on studying the DRL claiming that it is not needed until all of the options for added YUS capacity are in place. These include completely new signalling, physical changes to allow for higher passenger loads (such as a new platform at Yonge Station), many more trains (so that a closer headway can be scheduled), more yard space, and improved turnaround procedures so that a close headway is physically possible. Then there’s their pet project, the platform doors, alleged to be needed for crowd control or for keeping garbage off the tracks or whatever this week’s story might be. Actually providing a new line into downtown is about as far as possible from TTC plans right now.

    As for the idea of “losing” core area space, I think that’s crap. The only way, long term, we will deal with congestion and demand into the core is to have as many people as possible living near their jobs, preferably within the limits of the old city of Toronto and not much more. Yes, people out-commute to the 905, but we shouldn’t attack that problem by banning residential development downtown. In any event, we can’t really do that anyhow unless you have a far more interventionist approach to planning than anything we’re likely to see here.

    Like

  5. I still believe that any capacity improvements at Union Station and throughout the regional rail network would still be much more affordable and as effective than building new subway lines to also serve long-distance trips.

    Steve: I concur, but there is a limit to what will fit at Union Station, and future plans need to avoid over-committing this site. All day service on GO will encourage commutes that lie outside the peak, and in the process make demand for endless subway extensions somewhat less. Certainly if people have the option of a fast trip on GO that runs frequently enough all day to be an option, then they may not regard a subway line with guaranteed 5 minute service all day as the only acceptable goal.

    Just look at the whole LRT vs subway debate. People want what they know, and right now what they know of commuter rail is that it’s not much use outside of the peak period.

    Like

  6. Did you see the employment mapping on the Wellbeing Toronto website?

    175,515 jobs in the Bay St. corridor between Front and Bloor; another 83,326 jobs in the waterfront, and 56,050 jobs in the Church-Yonge corridor. That’s almost 315,000 jobs within a reasonable catchment area for Union Station. It would certainly appear that the gnashing of teeth about jobs moving out of downtown and out to Mississauga or wherever is a little overblown.

    The vast majority of GO Transit’s 180,000 daily train passengers use Union Station, certainly well over half of the total workers in the downtown core. At least many of these passengers walk the final stretch from Union Station to their workplace most or all of the time, which takes some pressure off the TTC.

    I guess that when I see documents like The Big Move calling for almost 400,000 people using Union Station by 2031, I wonder whether downtown Toronto can really support that level of growth in population and employment or if that Metrolinx prediction is just unrealistically large.

    Like

  7. A few thoughts/questions:

    1) Through-routing produces the most capacity, I gather. So if Stouffville were paired w/Barrie or Georgetown, could this not produce some new capacity? Arguably, the same again w/Richmond Hill and one of the north-western services?

    Steve: This only works for all day service. During the peak periods, trains are all inbound, or all outbound on most routes, and there are no trips to hook up with each other. Once GO gets around to operating bi-directional and off-peak service on more lines, then more hookups will be possible.

    Another consideration is the need to move trains from Union to Bathurst or Don Yards for storage between the AM and PM peaks. These moves must traverse the west or east approaches to the station, and add to the total number of moves the rail corridor must handle. Of course, trains that provide counter-peak or off-peak service don’t have to go to storage tracks, and this will eliminate some yard moves.

    2)How many tracks can USRC realistically hold and the corridors just to the east/west as well? If, as Metrolinx proposed, I believe, you went to 8 tracks to the west, and at least 6 directly in USRC east, and 4 on Lakeshore east to Stouffville…..

    Steve: Metrolinx has created or plans more tracks feeding into Union than can possibly fit on a dedicated basis in the rail corridor. Between provision for the Barrier, Georgetown, Milton and Airport services, there are four pairs of tracks planned through Parkdale so that each service can have its own dedicated path. To this, we must add two dedicated tracks for the Lake Shore service. The pinch point is at the foot of the CN Tower, and it is physically impossible to widen the corridor. Similarly, there is a pinch point on the east side, although it is not quite as severe in part because less service is planned on that side of the station.

    Could you not organize the track layout so that VIA had exclusive access to 4 platforms from 2 tracks that never conflicted w/GO Lakeshore, or any other passengers service (within the USRC)?

    And have an alignment that essentially produced something like Lakeshore East, Track 5 to Platform 5, to Track 5, Lakeshore West Track 6 to Platform 6, etc. etc. so that was very little cross-over (essentially only for VIA/ONR and within that set of tracks/platforms allocated to them)?

    Just wondering.

    Steve: The Lakeshore corridor is the southernmost of the routes out of Union, but it is also the major route for both VIA and GO. They can’t both be “south of” each other to eliminate conflicts. Another problem for VIA trains is that they use up a lot of platform time for boarding. Far fewer VIA trains can be dispatched from one track than GO trains. Like GO, VIA also has extra movements to shuttle trains to and from Mimico Yard.

    Like

  8. I was in Japan 4 years ago with the family. Our Tokyo hotel was close to Shinjuko Station. Three subway lines stop at this station. Three railways use this station.

    JAPAN RAIL   -  7 platforms, 14 tracks, 1.5 million passengers per day
ODAKYU RAIL  - 10 platforms, 5 tracks, 490,000 passemgers per day
KEIO RAIL    -  3 platforms, 6 tracks(?), 720,000 passengers per day

    You just missed your 9:00 am train heading north. You wait and expect the next train to arrive at the platform and are looking southward as you assume that’s where it will come from. No. At 9:03 a train pulls up the the platform and it came from the north.

    The Shinkansen from Tokyo to Kyoto leaves from Tokyo Station. Your train departs at 10:10 Am. You are on the platform at 9:55 just in time to see the 10:00 am Shinkansen depart heading south. So all the tourist types waiting for the 10:10 are looking north and are ready with their cameras as they assume that’s where the next train will come from. Nope. At 10:03 am a new Shinkansen backs quietly into the platform (ie. from the south) and all the tourist types miss their photo. At 10:10 am your bullet trains blasts off. Every ten minutes, all day, this is happening.

    Steve: A few important points are obvious here without even seeing the station. On close headways like this, trains don’t sit for very long boarding passengers. Also, there must be good circulation between the platforms and the concourse area of the station to handle the number of passengers you cite. Finally, the station is organized to simplify flow both for passenger-carrying trains, and for yard movements. Looking at the satellite view, the track layout appears to be much simpler than at Union (in part thanks to grade separations), and I would welcome comments from anyone familiar with operations in Tokyo to comment on how traffic through the station is managed.

    Like

  9. I think that the way GO uses the existing tracks is strange and seems designed to create conflicts. The southern most trains, the two Lakeshore lines should use the southern most tracks. This would avoid the use of the slip switches as the trains would not need to cross the other tracks. This unfortunately puts GO’s premier service the farthest from the north end of Union.

    Logically the Milton and Uxbridge trains should get the next set of tracks to the south then Georgetown/ARL and Richmond Hill lines and finally the Barrie line. There is unfortunately a much larger flow from the west than the east but then there are more people to the west.

    I believe GO says it can empty a fully loaded train in 90 seconds but it takes upwards of 5 to 6 minutes to empty the platforms. GO has to stop thinking like a mainline railway and start thinking like a transit service. They own almost all of their tracks, except for Lakeshore west of Burlington or Oakville, Milton, Georgetown west of Bramalea and Richmond Hill. They should convert all of the service that they run exclusively on their own tracks to meet transit specs and not DOT/FRA specs. This would reduce the buff loading strength from 1,000,000 lb to 200,000 lbs which would reduce the weight and power usage of the trains, EMU’s of course. They could also run headways less than once every 10 minutes on a track.

    I think if GO converted a couple of tracks to wider platforms they could clear platforms faster and get a higher through put on the remaining tracks if they would put in the other improvements. If you could put a train through every 5 minutes on one track that is the same as every 10 on two tracks. They should be able to do better than that.

    I think that it might be nice to have some people at GO Metrolinx who new nothing about mainline rail operations but everything about good transit planning.

    Steve: Widening platforms is only possible if you eliminate, not move, tracks because the structural columns supporting the tracks would also have to be shifted. This is not going to happen. One problem GO has is that some of the “platforms” were originally designed only for baggage, and they are narrower than the “passenger” platforms. Also, of course, intercity passengers don’t arrive and leave in the numbers and the mad rush of commuters.

    Like

  10. If GO were a reasonably audacious transit agency, it might do something like the following:

    – convert some subset of the Lakeshore West, Lakeshore East, Georgetown, and Richmond Hill lines to more-frequent single-level EMU operation

    – run the EMUs through a DRL-style tunnel that runs east-west under Wellington, then swings past the main Lakeshore corridor (to allow Lakeshore East trains to continue east on the main line via a portal), then runs north-south past Pape and eventually connects to the Richmond Hill line. Add short-turning trains to this tunnel until frequency is adequate for it to function as an actual Downtown Relief Line. Thus also dodging the TTC’s strange aversion to building and operating a DRL.

    – Union Station is left to serve the less than half of the previous ridership that is served by the outer portions of the Lakeshore & Georgetown lines, and the other peak-only lines.

    Obviously, my major question is: why is GO currently averse even to the basic idea of electrification? Obviously the above proposal requires GO to also dig & operate a subway tunnel, pursue fare integration with the TTC, convert to (possibly high-platform) EMUs &c &c none of which it is even capable of considering right now.

    Steve: GO has spent decades just managing to hold together a commuter rail operation on a shoestring budget. Money flows generally for election goodies as we have seen with recent announcements of new services. Electrification does not “make sense” unless one plans to operate frequent, all day service, and that’s a concept GO has yet to get its head around. Never mind that it’s in The Big Move, GO doesn’t believe they will ever see the funding necessary to operate at this level, let alone to electrify.

    Like

  11. And also, is a significant amount of capacity at Union taken up by VIA’s intercity services? Could the number of intercity platforms at Union be reduced if long distance trains such as The Canadian and Ontario Northland were rerouted to use Summerhill station? (Similarly to the arrangement in Vancouver, where VIA rail uses a station separate from the main commuter hub downtown.)

    Steve: Intercity trains park on platform tracks for extended periods to board or detrain passengers. There is no space at Summerhill for additional tracks that could handle this type of train. Moreover, it would make connections between the intercity services and other trains (GO plus whatever VIA service you leave at Union) very difficult.

    Like

  12. People point out that all these new condos mean more people can live close to their downtown jobs – but these condos are almost entirely aimed at childless households. If a couple has a one boy and one girl, they will want a three-bedroom place to live – and 3-bed condos are extremely rare. So, they move out the ‘burbs, and commute instead. Toronto is building itself into a child-free downtown.

    Going back to Steve’s post, the study mentions that turning trains takes up 56% more capacity than through trains. It also says that you can 6 single-berthed through trains per hour, or 8 double-berthed turned trains per hour. Obvious question: how double-berthed through trains per hour can you do? (The back of my envelope says 8, because of time spent by the rear train waiting for the front train to go. However, it would be nice to have something official).

    The point about VIA/GO sharing platforms is a good one. For some reason, it seems that if a platform is in use by VIA, GO passengers cannot set foot on it to board/alight a train on the platforms other track. Seems a very silly waste to me. (VIA has staff at every door (!), so it’s not like you could sneak on board). VIA could help it’s case by improving dwell times… although having only one door per carriage (!!) doesn’t help boarding times. Still, they spend far too much time sitting at the platforms with doors shut.

    Robert Wightman says: “two Lakeshore lines should use the southern most tracks.”

    Those tracks are used by the Barrie and Milton lines trains. Those trains spend the day in the storage tracks east of Union of the south side. They use the flyover west of Union to pass over the Lakeshore trains.

    The northernmost tracks are used by Richmond Hill trains (which saves them doing any crossing over in or out) and Georgetown trains (ditto).

    Consequently, Lakeshore trains (and VIA trains) use the middle tracks, which minimises interference with other lines.

    Like

  13. Would it help to move Via to North Toronto?

    Steve: I have already replied to this idea. In brief, it’s not practical for reasons of platform and track occupancy. Another issue would be routing the Via trains to/from North Toronto Station and the CN Lake Shore corridor where most of them run.

    Like

  14. Lakeshore trains, electrified, should use a new 4-track underground level beneath Union.

    I’d like to hear how the people proposing a tunnel under a street (rather than Union itself) plan to actually get the trains under that street in the first place without unreasonable grades or curves. Pretty expensive undertaking to rework a large array of existing grade separations, a problem substantially minimized (particularly in the west part of the corridor, where it is avoided altogether) by going directly beneath Union.

    The new underground level can’t be put off forever, and will take a long time to build (as well as costing a ton of money – someone floated $1B earlier, that’s pretty optimistic, I’d say expect well over double that). Best to start discussing it now.

    Like

  15. “VIA could help its case by improving dwell times”

    To say the least. It’s been years since I took VIA, but their whole approach to use of Union Station lacks … urgency. I cannot imagine how things worked in the 1940s when way more trains went through than now (I think—although maybe with GO the total now is back up — I’d be interested in knowledgeable commentary on this point).

    In particular, why aren’t the platforms level with the coaches? All that climbing has to waste time. If the platforms were raised then one run up the escalator (which of course should be installed in all the normally-used departures staircases) would get one all the way to car floor level.

    Another question: how long can passenger trains reasonably be? I know freights can be 100 cars long, no problem at all. Is there any reason a GO train can’t be as long as the train shed plus a bit more? I’m guessing that a scheduling slot for sending a train down a track doesn’t care too much how long the train is, since most of the time the track at any given point will be occupied by the empty space protecting a train rather than by the train itself.

    Steve: The limits on GO train length are that every station on the line must be able to handle very long trains, and the locomotives must be able to pull them. Also, when such a train arrives at Union, it has a lot more passengers than the Canadian, and they all want to get off of the platform at once. The longer the train, the bigger the pedestrian demand.

    Like

  16. To everyone who is suggesting that Via rail should just “move out of the way” for Go transit, Via will never go along with it if it will impact their ability to service the Canadian which is 20+ cars during the summer and only one platform at Union can handle it.

    Like

  17. This is incredible – the capacity report is to be kept secret. We can guess they now realise their monstrous faux pas and have no capability to resolve it. They have spent hundreds of millions over three years to replace virtually every foot of rail in the USRC – all like for like, instead of grouping tracks and platforms per route and avoiding most conflicts. Now they are carrying out a $600m renovation of the station without a clue of how it will be used, except the retail part, of course.

    And the faux pas’s continue to show. Two new tracks and platforms could be built over the GO bus station, just like the old CP express tracks and shed, except they sold the critical approach land (east of Yonge) to a condo developer. And had the recently completed platform 24/25 been placed one track to the south, so that platforms 23 and 24 could each serve separate tracks, then there would today be one extra platform, and track 16 could remain.

    Work proceeds to install a third track through the underpass, but, as I understand it, inbound Newmarket or Georgetown trains must move over from track 2 to track 4 (numbered from the north), incurring numerous conflicts, in order to use it. Had the extra track been place beside the single surface level track to the north of the underpass, then both inbound and outbound trains would be conflict free.

    While the TTC is saddled with, and avoiding the DRL issue, one form it might take is an intensively worked (15min?) service on the Richmond Hill and Newmarket lines (though stopping short of Newmarket). By building useful interchanges along the way, these two services might well relieve the Yonge line by drawing off longer distance subway users.

    I would suggest work on Union Station should cease once tracks 11 and 12 are done, and Metrolinx immediately commence broad, long range planning for the GTA, and deal openly with all the questions including DRL, Electrification, Summerhill and Union Station. Then, when Union Station’s future is clear and defined, proceed to renovate according to the new plans.

    Like

  18. For correction: Shinjuku Station does not have Shinkansen service. There are Odakyu, Keio, JR and Tokyo Metro operating from the same area. The stations are close to each other (think walking from Union to Air Canada Center), but they do not share the same tracks. If I wanted to transfer from Odakyu (inbound from Kitase Enoshima) to Tokyo station. I would have disembark at the Odakyu station and walk to the JR station for the Chuo line to Tokyo station.

    I will use the JR Chuo line as an example since it is quite complex with local, express and super express. It is still not as complex as say Union Station since the Chuo line has many dedicated tracks. An express train bound for Nakano and Takao can stop at platforms 11 and 12. This allows for closer operation headway. Once the trains depart platforms 11 or 12, the two tracks merge into one. This express track is separate local service track for part of the route. The platform screen will inform the rider which platform to use.

    The local service boards at platform 16. Basically, what we know as the Chuo line has 4 tracks, 2 per direction. The only trains that share tracks with others are lines like the Narita Express and special liners. These are usually operated on the express tracks. In addition, the frequency of the service is so low that it is irrelevant and ATC can deal with it. The Narita Express only runs every 30 minutes or so.

    One last note, the Shinkansen operates on a different gauge than other JR trains. So, there is no chance they can share tracks.

    Like

  19. Karl, they have already started building a concourse etc 4 meters underneath Union.

    While this will add more shopping space, and a Via rail ‘lounge’, it’s not adding to the tracks etc. This area should be used only for trains (in my opinion.)

    Steve: The space under construction below Union cannot be used for trains, even assuming GO suddenly decided to embrace electrification. Although there is a double height concourse under the east and west wings, the central part is under the existing Via concourse and will be only one “floor” high. I strongly recommend people with ideas of what might, or might not, fit under Union Station familiarize themselves with the plans via other articles on this site.

    Other issues, which I know Karl is aware of, is the length of the approach ramps east or west of the station to get down low enough, as well as other deeply buried utilities that get in the way.

    Like

  20. If we are building a tunnel under the rail corridor, there really need to be multiple stations along the tunnel (e.g. at Spadina and somewhere between Jarvis and Cherry) as well as Union to reduce the overcrowding problems associated with having all passengers using one central station. In any case downtown office space growth is bound to be at the edges of downtown (since there is little remaining room within walking distance of Union to build more office buildings) so this would make sense.

    I’m a little astonished that the maximum possible capacity of the existing station is 44tph, I presume that this is because of the extremely narrow platforms and the long time it takes to clear them of passengers. A 4 track tunnel should have a maximum capacity of 120tph (30tph x 2 in each direction) assuming that it is designed with very wide platforms and automatic train operation and EMUs with many doors are used to reduce dwell time. This would be comparable to Chatelet-Les Halles in Paris (6 tracks, but RER B and D share 2 tracks north of Chatelet reducing capacity).

    Like

  21. Relocating VIA is ludicrous for many reasons, chiefly that by far the greatest number of VIA trains arrive from Montreal, Ottawa, Windsor/London etc. along the lakeshore. Rerouting those trains to North Toronto—even if CP would allow it or if there was track capacity there, which they won’t and there isn’t—would involve incredibly circuitous routes for intercity trains and would kill VIA.

    Another level of tracks and platforms under the current level is impossible because the passenger concourses are below track level now. The current dig-down adds another concourse level beneath that. Want to dig down even deeper than they are digging right now? Watch out for Balrogs! Also, railway grades to access a lower level would be impossibly steep or have to start impossibly far out.

    No, the only solution is to reduce employment in the downtown core to a level that Union Station can accommodate. Fortunately, Mayor Ford is now taking steps to do just that.

    Like

  22. Union Station could handle much more capacity. It is a poorly utilized station, with bad platforms and narrow stairs leading up. The simple solution is to go back to looking at how the station was built. Use the lower level Via area for ALL arrivals including GO trains. The upper level for all departures. Duplicate the whole layout once again to the east concourse. Take a look at large downtown stations in other countries like Germany. Passengers share the big hauls with both Inter City trains and “S” Trains. Keep people flowing through the station, that will speed up dwell times of trains.

    Also, less tracks might mean more capacity if it would allow for wider platforms and stairways. The track layout was for a time when locomotives uncoupled mail cars and diners and sleepers were passed on to other trains with other destinations, hence that large network of crossovers so trains could go from any track to any track and swap coaches. Now the track design should be simpler, cheaper, fully signaled (ie no “restricted” speeds) for faster through put. And if our transit management can’t figure it out , copy someone else’s station design that works.

    Like

  23. At a recent public meeting MX said that the “1.5 million car trips” that would be eliminated by the expansion, a cornerstone of their PR campaign, is well, not so reliable and in fact they can’t even supply where that number came from. I think it originated in a marketing study for Blu22 years and years ago. But for all intents MX has been crowing about a number that is not substantiated. An electric system would have provided more stops in the city and I know THAT would have reduced car trips.

    Steve: Metrolinx has used that sort of claim for their entire Big Move scheme, and its original intent was to show how they would reduce congestion and pollution. However, the situation, which they acknowledge, is more complex. Thanks to growth in population and travel demand, all that TBM will do is to reduce the rate of growth by cars, and thereby limit congestion and the need for new roads. This effect is quite selective and is lower in areas where the new transit network will not provide a high proportion of total trips. Running an express bus along a highway now and then doesn’t make a dent in auto travel.

    Like

  24. Andrew said: If we are building a tunnel under the rail corridor, there really need to be multiple stations along the tunnel (e.g. at Spadina and somewhere between Jarvis and Cherry) as well as Union to reduce the overcrowding problems associated with having all passengers using one central station.

    I partially agree, but you have to be very, very careful on this angle, because underground stations need to be close to level. With GO train stations being hundreds of metres long, and slope transitions probably taking some 70-80m on each side, you’re looking at additional tunnel length of around a half-kilometre per underground station – very big money.

    I strongly agree with the idea of a station between Parliament and Cherry, but it is possible to be out of the tunnel – including clearing portal approach – by this point (just barely).

    I don’t think Spadina is workable given that this is the tightest area of the corridor (creating virtually impossible construction challenges), but Bathurst could be (Exhibition would need to be relocated to Dufferin, however, else it would be considered too close). Underground tracks at Bathurst would have the added benefit of still being fairly shallow.

    Platforms at an underground Union level would be significantly wider than what’s at the current track level. Column locations are predetermined by the existing structure, which tracks would have to be threaded between, and stairways have to dodge columns as well, meaning the maximum number of tracks that one might ever conceivably add to Union are 6 (maaaybe 7). Luckily Metrolinx is projecting a need of 4 additional tracks. If the wider platforms do yield significantly higher train throughput than is possible in the existing train shed, the capacity of these underground platforms would go a long way.

    Andrew Jeanes said: Another level of tracks and platforms under the current level is impossible because the passenger concourses are below track level now. The current dig-down adds another concourse level beneath that. Want to dig down even deeper than they are digging right now? Watch out for Balrogs! Also, railway grades to access a lower level would be impossibly steep or have to start impossibly far out.

    Having gone through the exercise of determining what’s involved, I can speak to this in some detail.

    It is not impossible, physically (although it’s by no means simple). Financially may be another matter, but that’s for politicians to wrangle over.

    Yes, I believe we should want to dig down even deeper than we are right now. I had previously determined a depth of 25m beneath the existing track level would required; Metrolinx has now determined this to be 23.5m below. That’s significant because the columns currently don’t go anywhere near this depth. This is what will make construction a particularly time-consuming exercise. Column extensions to deeper levels are not impossible, but they are quite complicated. Such work has some similarities to that taking place right now where entire columns are being replaced.

    The grades can be kept to 2% – this is very reasonable for electric vehicles (our subway regularly handles steeper than this). This would take you slightly east of Parliament St to just west of Strachan Ave., or to a point near the east end of the current Exhibition platform if there’s an underground station at Bathurst (see above). You are talking about a covered section 3-3.5km plus about another kilometre’s worth of portal approaches (~half-a-km on each end). I would certainly consider this significant, but not “impossibly far out.”

    Like

  25. AllanVS said: While this will add more shopping space, and a Via rail ‘lounge’, it’s not adding to the tracks etc. This area should be used only for trains (in my opinion.)

    There’s a streetcar tunnel in the way for trains to use that space at that level.

    Steve: In addition, the headroom under the Via concourse is considerably less than under the east and west wings.

    Like

  26. How much would it help if we built the DRL line, with excellent GO connections?

    I’m thinking of a DRL that starts near Dundas West station, runs under the GO corridor, then through the downtown under a major street (Queen, Adelaide, whatever), then northeast under the GO corridor before turning north and ending at Pape station.

    We build two intercepting GO stations, with a subway station underneath. One in the west, either at Lansdowne or near Dundas St W & Sterling, and one in the east, near Gerard & Carlaw. In order to encourage GO passengers to transfer, we create a special fare zone so that it’s noticeably cheaper to get off at either of these two stations than to use Union. (It wouldn’t help the people on either the Lakeshore West or the Richmond Hill lines, but it would for the others.)

    Steve: There are a few problems here. First off, people tend to think of inbound trips, but forget about what an outbound trip would look like. You would ask a large number of people to bet that they could still get a decent accommodation on an outbound train at, say, Dundas West or Lansdowne when it had already filled up at Union. Essentially, you are saying that in return for helping out with our capacity problems, these people will both have an extra transfer in their trip and will probably have to stand on the longer segment of their journey.

    Second, the DRL is proposed to resolve a subway problem, not a GO problem. If we fill up the DRL with GO passengers, this defeats the purpose of the DRL as part of the subway network. The DRL must go north not to Danforth but to Eglinton where it can provide a one-transfer ride to downtown for people coming west on the Eglinton line, as well as serving areas whose bus services now pour riders onto the Danforth subway.

    What Metrolinx must own up to is that they have been so focused on capacity in the outer suburbs (which Metrolinx assumes to be their transportation and political market), and have forgotten about downtown. The real irony here is that GO was conceived as a way to limit growth in traffic to downtown Toronto, and that represents the vast majority of GO’s business.

    Like

  27. @Karl:
    You are right, it’s quite challenging to direct the Lakeshore line into a tunnel that goes anywhere other than directly under Union.

    However, a tunnel under a Wellington could be feasible for pairing Richmond Hill and either the Barrie, Bolton, or Waterloo line.

    Like

  28. Will be politically challenging and expensive, but perhaps the answer is to simply put a tunnel under Union to handle VIA trains and then reallocate VIA’s tracks and track slots to GO. It might look something like this:

    1. Electrify VIA. This could be done in conjunction with GO. Electrification needs at a minimum to go from the Michigan border to Toronto; from Niagara Falls to Toronto; from Toronto to Ottawa/Montreal. Anything beyond the electrified segment will require and engine change or a transfer. This could also be done with bi-mode locomotives and a much shorter electrified stretch in and around Toronto as an interim solution. VIA should be planning for HSR.

    2. Build a two track bored tunnel from west to east branching to perhaps 6 tracks under Union itself. The 6 tracks could be serviced by 3 wide island platforms. Let passengers stand on the platform waiting for a train much like everywhere other than North America. This keeps dwell times waaaay down compared to current practices. The reduced # of tracks compared to the upper station allows flexibility around the column layout. The 6 tracks should still allow more than enough tph for any foreseeable VIA service, even if frequency is upped greatly from today’s travel patterns. A 2 track tunnel and decent signalling won’t be a bottleneck for this service level. Most VIA trains should be through routed.

    3. Since VIA does not need extra stops “close” to Union, problems of gradients are reduced. Speed of access from the new tracks to the surface is less of an issue due to travels patterns of VIA passengers compared to GO and TTC passengers. Portals should be designed to allow conflict free access to Lakeshore West, Georgetown and Lakeshore East. Bored tunnel should minimize construction impacts on existing services.

    4. Taking the 6 tracks to 8 could even allow ARL to be moved to this lower concourse, and the 2 track tunnels should still be adequate. Perhaps even through route these to the East (to the future Pickering airport :).

    Steve: Electrify Via? The whole idea of electrification is for frequent services where the cost of infrastructure is offset by benefits to as many trains as possible. This is a complete non-starter.

    Like

  29. Steve said: Electrify Via? The whole idea of electrification is for frequent services where the cost of infrastructure is offset by benefits to as many trains as possible. This is a complete non-starter.

    I have to disagree…..Electrifying VIA allows expanded intercity rail with potential for higher speed operation. This alone could relieve airport congestion and environmental impacts by replacing shorter regional and commuter flights by time competitive HSR. This has been studied to death by various levels of government (much like local transit studies!). The electrified VIA will share many corridors (or portions) with a future electrified GO. I did start by post by saying “…politically challenging and expensive…”

    Steve: And the likelihood of it happening is several orders of magnitude lower than GO’s electrification. Don’t hold your breath.

    Like

  30. Steve: There are a few problems here. First off, people tend to think of inbound trips, but forget about what an outbound trip would look like. You would ask a large number of people to bet that they could still get a decent accommodation on an outbound train at, say, Dundas West or Lansdowne when it had already filled up at Union. Essentially, you are saying that in return for helping out with our capacity problems, these people will both have an extra transfer in their trip and will probably have to stand on the longer segment of their journey.

    On the other hand, not all trains that depart from Union would have to stop at, say, Dundas West or Lansdowne. Because inbound trains will fill up at suburban stations like Clarkson, GO runs express trains to take care of those passengers. I should think that with enough “express” trains there would be enough room on “local” trains for passengers who wish to board at other stations (especially those within the 416 area-and inner-905 area codes).

    Steve: Second, the DRL is proposed to resolve a subway problem, not a GO problem. If we fill up the DRL with GO passengers, this defeats the purpose of the DRL as part of the subway network. The DRL must go north not to Danforth but to Eglinton where it can provide a one-transfer ride to downtown for people coming west on the Eglinton line, as well as serving areas whose bus services now pour riders onto the Danforth subway.

    The DRL really doesn’t get a lot of love in Toronto but you are right about it being proposed as a resolution to a subway problem … while a North Toronto line is proposed as a resolution to a GO problem. What they both offer is alternative gateways to Toronto and options for getting across Toronto – both of those are badly needed.

    The Weston sub, North Toronto line and Toronto Terminals Railway combine to cover “downtown” Toronto on three sides. What I would love to see is a GO “overground” line that orbits the “downtown” area of Toronto with the DRL serving both GO and Subway passengers to bring them into downtown from the east & west.

    By the way, I recently took another look at an updated DRL proposal that uses the Vincent Yard, tunneling under the Weston sub, one-way lines under Richmond and Adelaide (with concourses in between) and uses the Greenwood Yard to get back to Bloor – with a possibility of a spur line running up to Eglinton & Don Mills. Also in the proposal was an incomplete “circle” line that would run from Keele to Keele via the DRL & Bloor-Danforth segments.

    I’m sure there are a lot of reasons the proposal might/would not work, but it’s better than anything else I have seen so far.

    Steve: What Metrolinx must own up to is that they have been so focused on capacity in the outer suburbs (which Metrolinx assumes to be their transportation and political market), and have forgotten about downtown. The real irony here is that GO was conceived as a way to limit growth in traffic to downtown Toronto, and that represents the vast majority of GO’s business.

    This is very true but we also have to look at what “downtown” Toronto has become in the years since GO was built. Yes, the Union to King (maybe even Queen) version of “downtown” is still going to grab the lion’s share of passengers but at the same time, the limits of downtown now stretch to the railway corridors to the north and the west. “Downtown” is not going to stop growing outwards and the current subways are not going to be enough.

    So even with the DRL, Metrolinx is going to have to expand GO service to meet the growth of “downtown” Toronto.

    Regards, Moaz

    Like

  31. Would not more frequent GO service be better matched with shorter trains? Less empty cars off-peak and more frequent service on-peak. In other words, instead of double berthing 12 car trains at Union, we should look at triple berthing 7 car trains. However, double or triple berthing doesn’t increase capacity much without mid station crossovers so rear trains can leap-frog front trains. That is impossible with the legacy train shed. I was completely in favour of preserving this architecture but it should have been taken down and repurposed in smaller pieces at various 416 GO stations such as Weston or Bloor. The Bathurst St. bridge used to go over the Humber…

    If the Union GO bus station was moved or lowered, the effective platform area could practically go from Simcoe to Yonge. In fact most platforms should end with staircases down to these two street. I know the plan is to funnel everyone to Harvey’s but some people could benefit by a more direct path to where they are going.

    Steve: Actually the plan is to have as many stairs from track to street level or to the concourses as possible. The Harvey’s is gone. That space will become a new link between the main hall of Union Station and the new GO west concourse. A similar change will eventually happen at the east end of the hall where the security office is today.

    Yes the train shed/track configuration horse has already left the station, pardon the pun, but that is the real limitation to capacity. I’m sure we’ll build it as currently designed and it will quickly be prove unworkable. However, tearing down a train shed and reconfiguring tracks is a heck of lot cheaper then deep bore tunnels though a dense downtown.

    Steve: It’s not the shed that is the constraint. It is the rows of columns under the tracks.

    But if people want to tunnel, I’d go for a single bore track under Front from Bathurst to the foot of University where the ARL would park and connect to the PATH network.

    Like

  32. The solution to the Union Station problems lies not in enormously expensive tunnels or other grandiose schemes, but in finding ways to significantly increase the train capacity of both the station and the approaches. To increase the number of trains per platform per hour depends on electrification (acceleration), thru and not terminating trains, absence of routing conflicts in the corridor, approach speed (absence of speed limiting switches), platform entry speed, platform widths and stair/escalator capacity, and to exit the station either in service or to a storage siding, again with speed and without conflicts. While the suggested 30 trains per hour is only possible with automatic subway trains on single routes (our subway one day maybe), it should be quite possible to very significantly increase the 44tph for the whole station.

    Imagine a small two platform Union Station serving a double track line from Burlington to Oshawa. Such a station could easily handle 6 trains each way per hour (12tph), a 10 minute headway, 5 minute dwell. Next imagine six such stations side by side, each with its own tracks and without switches, each serving unique destinations. That’s 6 times 12 tph or 72 tph. Whereas Union facilitates routing trains from all tracks to all platforms, what we need is track and platform pairs dedicated to routes with no conflicts. Obviously it is not quite that simple, but the example shows there is plenty of scope for improvement.

    Like

  33. Given all the problems mentioned here regarding tunneling extra track, why not build an elevated section? Via is the obvious candidate, given it’s relative infrequency and less need for additional nearby stations, but any of the services could be routed to a new platform either above the new train shed or above the GO bus terminal. I’m no engineer, but is there any good reason this shouldn’t be considered?

    Steve: You might have problems with bridges over the rail corridor for a start, and you would need a new circulation system to get people to and from the trains. Via uses the Weston corridor, and you would need to fit in a ramp from your “el” to both the Oakville and Weston subs on the west, and to the Bala and Kingston subs on the east. Those new structures would have to fit within available space on the existing “surface” corridors without taking space and capacity away from GO.

    Like

  34. There is a new GO concourse being planned. GO trains will be extended to 12 cars and double berthed to increase capacity and there is a possibility of more through trains to reduce dwell times.

    So everything that can reasonably be done to increase the frequency of train services (short of tunneling or building new stations in other parts of Toronto) has either been done or is being done.

    The other constraint is the platforms.

    Efforts have also been made to extend the platforms so people can exit Union Station to the west and east.

    Dumb question time:

    What about finding ways to send people upstairs (above the new train shed) so they can walk to Union or westwards to Simcoe (and the Skywalk)?

    That way you get a third level of access along with the new concourse.

    Regards, Moaz

    Steve: The first problem is that the stairs and escalators up to the new level have to land somewhere on the platforms, although they might fit above existing ones. Next, you would still have the same number of people trying to get off of trains, albeit with more closely spaced exit points from the platform. Finally, a scheme like this would require abandonment of the old train shed as piercing it in so many places would not leave much to “preserve”. Remember also that the Skywalk does not actually begin until the east side of York Street, near the west end of the station. You might also bring more people in through the great hall from the new upper level, but at limited points given its layout. There would also be a ventillation issue if you roofed over the station.

    Looking back at various schemes for Union, there was also a time when developments including a hockey arena were proposed for the space above the train shed, not more circulation space for commuters.

    All this is interesting in theory, but extremely unlikely in practice. It’s the sort of design that would have been input to the station reconstruction project, but given that it’s only quite recently anyone acknowledged we had a problem with capacity, it’s unlikely we would have built it.

    Like

  35. Leo said: However, a tunnel under a Wellington could be feasible for pairing Richmond Hill and either the Barrie, Bolton, or Waterloo line.

    That could very well be feasible, but this would entail a longer tunnel than if staying in the rail corridor. Also, utilities are a far bigger issue under Wellington.

    In cities, it’s common practice to build utilities beneath streets. Wellington, being a downtown and dense corridor, probably has a lot of utilities running along it, and may even include a deep trunk sewer. The rail corridor, in stark contrast, has only a few utilities crossing the corridor roughly perpendicularly. Railway companies don’t allow utilities to run in their corridor parallel, as the two would have conflicting maintenance requirements (take a look at what’s unfolding at Ashbridge’s, similar principle with the problems there).

    Another consideration is that Wellington, like almost every street downtown apart from Spadina and University, is 20m wide. Only 2 tracks will fit in there assuming room for platforms under the street is needed as well (which would likely be the case). Metrolinx has said they need 4 tracks, 2 more than would fit under Wellington.

    There isn’t any depth to be saved by not going under the train shed, either; it still has to go under the subways.

    Like

  36. There are two issues in play:
    1. The network is highly radial which means Union will always be a chokepoint.
    2. The lowest density services (VIA in particular) are the ones with highest dwell times because of terminating services.

    Before we commit to countenancing grandiose schemes costing tens of billions, we have to establish better O&D numbers. The fact that midtown commuters use slack subway capacity northbound isn’t much use if they are also clogging Union GO platforms, so alternatives such as express buses to the Eglinton LRT termini or, yes, CP Summerhill might have to be considered. Similarly PRESTO data has to be rigorously examined to see if passengers passing through Union to get, say, from Mississauga to Bowmanville, can’t be offered some other alternative such as additional 407 routes. The problem with this of course is that loss making alternates will never be properly compared against the ruinous cost of massive capital projects.

    Here are some other suggestions:
    What would it cost to accelerate ONR’s timetable (with track improvements etc.) so Northlander wouldn’t be standing at/departing from Union Station at the height of rush hour?
    What would it cost to induce VIA to start/terminate more services in Aldershot/Oakville or Oshawa?
    Maybe we could throw VIA some dollars to terminate the Canadian at Niagara Falls – it even works from a marketing perspective 😀 At the very least the CTA and the Federal Ministry of Transport should be leaned on to reduce the ridiculous lengths of summer VIA Canadians by permitting additional frequencies even if Mountaineer won’t like it.

    Like

  37. Scott Watkins said: I’m no engineer, but is there any good reason [a new upper level] shouldn’t be considered?

    Yep. Not structurally possible. The columns that support the current track level are located directly beneath the tracks (mostly), which obviously prevents them from extending through track level. Adding columns through platforms, besides being hideous (in both complexity and aesthetics), would interfere with stairs and negatively impact passenger circulation (potentially reducing capacity by longer platform clearing times).

    Like

  38. Ok, seeing as there seems to be such a limited budget and many structural restrictions. Just REMOVE every second track at the station to allow wider platforms and stairs. If each train can unload and leave/arrive every 2 mins instead of every 6 mins per track, you still would gain capacity with half the tracks.

    Like

  39. Looking at the arguments about space constraints, the depth you’d need to go to fit new tracks under the concourses (and the approach distances required to get down that deep), and the shortsighted sell-off of so much of the corridor and the associated condo development, it sounds pretty much impossible to get Union Station’s capacity up to what is needed. And the corridor’s an even bigger issue than the Station.

    But here’s my crazy, never-going-to-happen, horribly unpopular and not-particularly-good option:

    We have two terminal stations in the downtown core, instead of one through station. Union only serves traffic entering the City from the west, with two tracks retained as through-tracks, and the rest terminating there. Between Yonge Street and Jarvis Street, Lake Shore Boulevard is closed, as are the on/off ramps for the Gardiner.

    New tracks and platforms are constructed in this area, moving south into the land currently occupied by Lake Shore Blvd. A new station, serving only traffic entering the City from the East and the two through tracks, is built on either the TorStar/LCBO parking lots or in the giant GreenP parking garage north of the tracks, with main access north on Church St and south on Cooper.
    Union Station and the new station are connected by a walkway above the current GO bus area, and the tail tracks between them are used as storage during the rush periods.

    It’s not a great location, especially as the core is stretching west, not east, and I suspect office workers from Durham would be furious about the added walk and lack of connection to the subway.
    It also doesn’t address the pinch point at the CN Tower/MTCC, although something similar built under Front St west of Spadina possibly could.

    Either way, it’s no good at all for providing frequent bidirectional, all-day service. The only solution for that involves demolishing a few condos and the MTCC.

    Steve: There is a future for you as a consultant. This is precisely the sort of scheme that would keep many agencies and an army of engineers in small change for decades. You might call it something like “The Big Move” except that the name is already taken.

    Like

  40. Mark Dowling said: What would it cost to induce VIA to start/terminate more services in Aldershot/Oakville or Oshawa?
    Maybe we could throw VIA some dollars to terminate the Canadian at Niagara Falls – it even works from a marketing perspective

    You’re suggesting Windsor-Oakville trains, Montreal/Ottawa-Oshawa trains, and Vancouver-Oshawa (the Niagara Falls idea seems very far fetched) trains? That would really damage VIA’s already delicate market.

    Like

Comments are closed.