The agenda for November 23rd’s meeting of the Metrolinx Board is now online and it includes several reports of interest. Here I will deal with GO transit performance and capacity issues. In a future article, I will turn to Presto (and the proposed TTC implementation which is also on the TTC’s agenda for November 23), the Air Rail Link, and planning issues at “Mobility Hubs”.
Ridership on the GO rail system for September 2011 is 9.6% above 2010 levels, and for the bus network, the increase is 4.7%. This strong growth in ridership will strain GO’s ability to add service fast enough either by running more trains or, where possible, making existing trains longer. A report later in the agenda addresses the problem of capacity in the rail corridor and station at Union, and shows how the era of simply adding a new train here and there to keep voters in the 905 happy is just about over.
GO’s target for seat availability on peak period trains is 80% (1 in five passengers, on average, would stand). However, they are only achieving 64% (1 in three passengers stands). Although they are looking for more time slots in which to operate trains, this is limited by track layout, conflicts between GO and other services and limitations at Union Station.
Union Station 2031 and Related Studies
Those of us who attended workshops on either the Georgetown corridor plans or the Electrification Study have heard of parallel work on network capacity, but this is the first any report has surfaced publicly. The information here is troubling, but also long overdue as part of the debate on GO’s future.
At long last, Metrolinx is discussing the problems of actually implementing the brave new world we were shown in The Big Move rather than just drawing lines on maps. While some have agonized over “congestion” and road capacity, we have ignored the vanishing ability to offer alternatives by transit. Not only do we have funding problems, we also have physical limits to what existing transit infrastructure can deliver.
Union Station has two limits on its capacity: the number of trains that can operate through the corridor and the number of passengers that can be handled by the network of platforms, stairways and concourses. Downtown population is expected to grow 80% from 2006 to 2031 (from 71k to 130k). While this may contribute some of the growth in commute trips to the core, the employment growth is expected to be 25% on a much larger base (315k to 400k). Peak period transit demand to the core will grow by over 50% (156k to 236k).
All of these factors will place the transit network downtown at or beyond capacity by 2031. Indeed, Union Station is expected to reach capacity after the current 10-year GO expansion plan completes. Although pedestrian capacity in the concourse is more than doubling with the “dig down” and the new west GO concourse, the capacity of the tracks will not increase proportionately.
Union Station Demands and Opportunities
Passenger traffic at Union is expected to double or triple relative to 2006 by 2031 (the actual figure depends on the capacity to run trains that we build). This is a staggering growth in demand, and it will not be solved with band-aid fixes to the transit system. A few more trains here and there will simply vanish in the tidal wave of new customers. Moreover, the historic pattern of treating GO and TTC as separate networks simply must end — they are one network, they must be planned and funded as one network.
There are only two major classes of change that can be made: either we must stuff more trains and passengers through existing facilities, or we must add new capacity via alternate routes.
Six groups of options were considered:
- Better TTC/GO integration notably at Eglinton/Weston, Bloor/Dundas and Danforth/Main.
- Satellite GO stations at Liberty Village, Bathurst and Cherry Streets.
- Service on the North Toronto Subdivision (connecting to the subway at Summerhill or Dupont Station).
- A Downtown Relief Line from the Danforth Subway to Dundas West via Queen or King through downtown.
- A GO tunnel via Queen linking services in the Weston corridor to the Richmond Hill and Lake Shore East corridors.
- A GO tunnel parallel to the Lake Shore route.
The first three of these were rejected as they do not provide sufficient relief at Union, although they may be worthwhile in their own right for other goals.
Two variations of option 4 were studied in more detail:
- A: A TTC DRL line from Dundas West to Danforth
- B: A hybrid configuration with a DRL from Exhibition Place to Danforth, and a new GO station in the current Bathurst North Yard for the Georgetown and Barrie services.
For option 5, services from the Milton and Georgetown corridors would use a tunnel under Queen, and would be through-routed with the Richmond Hill and/or Lake Shore East corridors with subway connections at Osgoode and Queen Stations.
For option 6, there are also two sub-options:
- A: A Lake Shore tunnel that dodges north to Queen to connect with Osgoode and Queen Stations. (This has obvious problems with finding a clear alignment to and from the rail corridor.)
- B: A Lake Shore tunnel that would serve a new Union Station near Yonge Street.
Of this list, options 4B and 6B were deemed the best for a variety of reasons, and these will be studied in more detail. A full DRL (option 4A) does not make the cut in GO’s analysis because it does not address the Union Station problem. Indeed, GO’s main interest in the DRL is that it would provide a distributor/collector service between a new Bathurst station and the downtown core.
Transit integration is essential to making this scheme work, and part of this will be true fare integration between the TTC and GO.
The growing downtown population will contribute a substantial counter-peak flow away from the core. Projections of station capacity (stairs, waiting areas, platforms) must include provision for this traffic.
In brief, if we don’t build new GO capacity both in the central corridor and in our ability to handle passengers, Toronto will not have the capacity to handle the projected growth in core-oriented commuting.
Moreover, any scheme that involves putting GO underground demands electrification, and the foot-dragging that we have seen at GO on this issue must end. Electrification is also a factor in line capacity and speed improvements even for trains running on the surface.
Union Station and Rail Corridor Capacity
This study considered the requirements to serve three future scenarios:
- Completion of current GO expansion plans including the Airport Link (2015)
- Serving the base case scenario of the electrification study
- Serving the full Big Move plan (2031)
The 2015 peak hour capacity provides only slightly more than we have today: 4 Airport Link trains plus 2 more VIA trains. Although trains can be added within the peak period, the peak hour is completely spoken for. This is a major constraint on the growth of peak period GO service.
The Electrification Study base case requires 17 more peak hour trains, and a further 38 (approximately) are implied by The Big Move at full implementation. This is well beyond current capacity.
One option considered was a dig-down to provide four additional tracks and associated platforms. However, this is a very challenging project both in siting the tunnel portals and in providing access down to the platforms. This leads us back to the study of alternative routes discussed above.
The Downtown Relief Line
The TTC’s study of a DRL is now underway and is to be completed in early 2012. The scale of the problem is daunting when one considers the future demand into the core area as well as the possible additions to the network that will pump more demand onto TTC facilities. Although other changes such as resignalling and station capacity improvements are mentioned, there is no sense of when these will be exhausted or which of them provide added capacity at reasonable cost. Until we see the TTC’s study (or at least see a public meeting where an interim version might be reported), it’s impossible to know whether this will do more than support the TTC’s anti-DRT bias.
The maps used by Metrolinx all show the DRL ending at Danforth, and this is extremely short-sighted because it does not provide an intercept for traffic on the new Eglinton line.
Funding
None of this will happen without substantial funding, and the timing of requirements does not sit well with current Provincial plans that push much of the “big dollar” projects into the latter part of this decade (and beyond). Moreover, this is all infrastructure “downtown” although it will exist to serve commuters to and from outlying areas. Politically, the GTAH needs to accept that central Toronto will continue to grow. That growth, plus pressure on transit from the increased cost of auto commuting, demands big spending downtown.
GO’s role as a truly regional carrier will require full fare integration with the TTC, and that has a cost. We cannot demand that people pay double fares within the 416. However, a lower combined fare will also encourage within-416 demand on GO making its capacity problems even more critical.
Steve Munro 
If a DRL is to be built, it should be an express service from Eglinton East AND Eglinton West. I would also leave the streetcars to provide local service.
LikeLike
Have they begun to think about what a connection between the existing Georgetown GO line to a tunnel under Queen Street (as well as the connection between the Queen Tunnel and the Lakeshore East GO line) would look like? I’d imagine things would look pretty ugly if those portals were to be located on/around the rail bridges that currently fly-over Queen Street.
Steve: The presentation makes it quite clear that these schemes have not been subject to feasibility review. Anyone who actually went to look at Queen and Dufferin would know that making the turn off of the rail corridor into Queen Street is very seriously constrained, if not impossible, thanks to brand new condos that have gone up right where such a turn would happen.
I suspect that the hybrid scheme with the northwest services terminating at Bathurst Yard and connecting to the DRL is more likely than a tunnel starting at Dufferin. It does not require any GO tunneling and therefore does not have electrification as a pre-requisite. The tricky part will be getting the DRL from Bathurst Yard up to Queen Street through the forest of new condos in the Entertainment District. Alternately, putting the Lake Shore line in tunnel to a new Union Station would need electric operation, but only on the one main east-west corridor.
LikeLike
Do options 4B (DRT to the Exhibition via Queen) and 5A-2 (Underground GO via Queen) also imply the replacement of Queen and/or King Streetcar service, as option 4A does?
Steve: Not necessarily. If GO only serves from about University to Broadview with a handful of stops, it won’t replace the local service at all.
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
Great summary.
I’m curious about a couple things.
1. When Metrolinx says using the North Toronto Subdivision through Dupont +/- Summerhill won’t relieve congestion at Union; is this in the context of diverting existing services (e.g Georgetown, Barrie, Milton) or in the context of new services they would like to run through that corridor?
Steve: I suspect it is only in the context of proposed new services, not the existing ones. The big problem with North Toronto is the limited track time available from the CPR and hence the limited number of trains that could be diverted onto this route. The most likely candidates would be Milton (because of the direct connection at West Toronto) and whatever new service would run out through Agincourt. Routing other services to North Toronto would require substantial new track connections between the CN and CP lines.
2. Option 4A was rejected on the grounds that it wouldn’t relieve congestion at Union. Could they not potentially have a new terminus station, for at least some trains, at Bloor/Dundas West, particularly during peak times, and have an easy transfer onto a DRL (whether or not the DRL terminates here or goes all the way to Eglinton)?
Steve: A DRL to Dundas West is a huge expense just to intercept GO service. The basic problem with any scheme to “intercept” traffic from trains that would otherwise run through to Union is that it imposes a transfer on a trip that people can complete simply by sitting on the train. The only way to divert a significant number of passengers away from Union Station appears to be for the trains not to go to Union in the first place. Otherwise, there is little incentive for people to use the alternate route. Operationally, there is no room for terminal operations at Dundas West (or Queen/Dufferin) that would avoid having to bring the trains into the congested Union Station rail corridor.
I am looking forward to getting the detailed reports from Metrolinx and will discuss the background rationales for statements made in the presentations.
Cheers!
K.
LikeLike
Undeniably a downtown GO train tunnel is badly needed but due to the high cost, I will believe it when I see it. In the mean time, I am disappointed at how GO is dragging its feet on expanding off peak train service. There is no excuse for having hourly train service on the Lakeshore Line; this line is double tracked (in many places 3 or 4 tracks) and has minimal freight traffic. Increasing service to every 30 or even 15-20 minutes is a simple matter of hiring train drivers. Similarly, once the Georgetown line upgrades are complete it should be possible to run frequent all day service at least as far as Bramalea. Currently (a) many people drive downtown, and this is in large part due to the poor off peak GO service (b) Gardiner and DVP are often congested outside rush hour and (c) many of the GO bus routes are overcrowded, particularly during shoulder peak periods and need to be replaced with trains.
Steve: Actually, it’s not just a matter of “hiring train drivers”. There is a two-year lead time before a conductor can become an engineer, and there is a finite supply of conductors who want to make the change.
LikeLike
Any news on when service starts from / to Kitchener & Guelph? Maybe they will announce start date at meeting?
Steve: Only rumours so far of just before Christmas.
LikeLike
I see it mentioned that the TTC does not support the DRL. Is this senior management or is it the working engineers as well?
I am surprised since engineers as a group usually want to build things. Is TTC dominated by Electrical Engineers and not Civil?
Steve: Building the DRL would divert attention and resources from several pet projects on the Yonge subway. The TTC claims that the DRL is not cost effective, but does not balance its cost against what must be done as an alternative to increase capacity on the YUS, nor the issue of having so much capacity concentrated on one line that is already subject to frequent breakdowns, nor to the network design possibilities of having a new route into downtown.
LikeLike
Not in Georgetown’s case. It’s a single track switch immediately north of St Clair, but the connection physically exists. That said, I don’t support routing Georgetown trains along CP North Toronto. The connecting track exists allow the odd CN train into Lambton Yard.
Bolton would also have an existing connection when/if it materializes as a GO rail service. This might be a good idea because a) service would be peak only and infrequent (which CP may be able to work with) and b) would intercept the Spadina line before Yonge, or even terminate at the Spadina line which has surplus capacity.
Steve: The problem is that you would need a pair of curves and this could be a service pinch point given the frequencies projected for Georgetown. A single track connection is totally inadequate.
Except for the western-most final leg between Aldershot and Hamilton, where freight traffic is major issue.
LikeLike
(Steve) “The TTC claims that the DRL is not cost effective, but does not balance its cost against what must be done as an alternative to increase capacity on the YUS, nor the issue of having so much capacity concentrated on one line that is already subject to frequent breakdowns, nor to the network design possibilities of having a new route into downtown.”
Boy was that ever true last night. If the two crossovers had been in commission it would have helped, but still… add to that that TTC still refuses to tell inspectors to stop all short turns of vehicles with passengers aboard while subway is down. Last night I got off the stopping/staying train at Queen during the Eglinton-Union outage, walked to Dundas and got on the 505EB. With no notice the streetcar dumped everyone at Parliament, with an almost 10 minute wait for the following car. How are we to persuade people that light rail is an alternative to subway when the current visible manifestation of at-grade rail is run in such an anti-passenger way?
LikeLike
To be honest, I don’t believe that Union Station or the rail corridor is at capacity.
I say this, because I don’t think the GO Trains are actually scheduled properly through the rail corridor.
If cities throughout the world can handle not only double the amount of passenger traffic and trains through stations with less tracks and more congested conditions, then why can’t Toronto???????????????
LikeLike
The combined DRL/Bathurst yard option is interesting but I question the Exhibition terminus … If we’re planning to effectively split the DRL with the eastern leg swinging south, why not terminate at the city center airport? Would also provide an opportunity to connect to waterfront LRT.
I await more info on the ARL eagerly as this seems like the logical line to run in some kind of new downtown tunnel, with more stops and reasonable fares. Oh wait, that would just make it the DRL west.
LikeLike
Also, why was there no consideration of running Lakeshore services under Queen? In the west, the approach is a direct line to Queen or King near Roncesvalles. A little further on it looks like even Wellington could be made to work. I guess the disadvantage is missing Union itself. Would avoid problem of flyovers at Queen/Dufferin but might require some creativity in the east end …
LikeLike
Partly agree. Georgetown and Barrie trains inherently get in one another’s way with current track assignments, but otherwise, the current setup mostly works so long as GO continues to assume that there is only one track available in each corridor besides Lakeshore, which is currently the case by and large (either by physical infrastructure availability or, in Milton’s case, restrictions in the operating agreement with the contracted host railway). However, this will change dramatically in the coming years, and GO must re-jig platform assignments at Union significantly in order to increase train throughput. They’ve been reluctant to do this, claiming that passengers actually care what platform their train leaves from (which I’m pretty skeptical of; passengers care about the reliability of their rail service, not what platform their train uses at Union).
The nature of the looming problems should be highlighted though, to be fair (notation note: I’m using the track numbers, not platform numbers):
1. VIA Rail will continue to use tracks 8 and 9 (these tracks have baggage carousels), which are not equipped to handle GO trains and nor will they in the revitalization project (other platforms are having substantial improvements to vertical access from track level)
2. There are 15 tracks at Union (subtracting track 16 as it is about to vanish; it had no platform access anyway), but only 10 tracks will fit around John St., and this is the real limiting factor (although there are insufficient tracks at the station proper as well)
3. Even if in-service movements’ track assignments are optimized, non-revenue movements to and from yards are still a complication that needs to be accommodated, and is tricky in peak periods. This is compounded by the fact that GO assumed they could double the size of the Don Yard in the Electrification Reference Case, but have not shown how they can do this – I have ideas on how this may be possible, but it is certainly challenging. Currently, storage is extremely lopsided to the west between rush hours, although this will eventually change.
4. While improvements to the track layout in the Union Station Rail Corridor have been in the pipe for a while and construction ongoing, this will not enable trains to speed in and out of the station as if it were JR Shinjuku station in Tokyo. The Union Station platforms are a legacy from the 1920s when the station was originally built (and was designed in the 1910s), and due to the elevated nature of the platforms, this cannot be corrected without tearing the whole track level and concourses down and rebuilding them from scratch – obviously not happening. The result is that train speeds are hampered for safety reasons as the platforms are too narrow for the levels of congestion they handle at peak. It will be an interesting “stress test” when counter-peak travel becomes a significant element at Union (I believe this makes shoulder stations a critical mitigation mechanism, but must be combined with growth planning initiatives that will make those shoulder stations convenient for larger numbers of people for both peak and counter-peak trips if it is going to make a meaningful impact – the problem here is that the infrastructure is controlled by the Province while the growth planning is controlled by the City).
LikeLike
How are we to persuade people that light rail is an alternative to subway when the current visible manifestation of at-grade rail is run in such an anti-passenger way?
It’s not as if buses are any better – less than two weeks ago I was on Bathurst 7 heading north when it was suddenly announced that it would be turning around at Finch. We had a 2-3 minute warning, and it extended an already excessively long trip from Wilson to near Steeles to over 45 minutes. There wasn’t much traffic at that time either.
I admit I’m pessimistic about the future of transit in the GTA. Rob Ford hasn’t helped matters, but there has been underinvestment and a failure to develop coordinated workable long-term plans since the mid-90s and before.
LikeLike
Michael says:
The simple answer has two parts:
1) The platforms and stair wells at Union are too narrow and it takes upwards of 6 minutes to clear the platform when a full train comes.
2) North American trains follow the archaic FRA/Transport Canada rules which which require lots of time and distance separation between trains. This limits the platforms to 6 through trains per platform or 8 double berthed trains (two trains enters the same platform for opposite directions) per hour. I was on the last GO train out the Georgetown line today. It arrived from the west and took 8 minutes to complete its brake test before it could take off on the Georgetown run. Could you imagine the subway if it took 8 minutes to turn a train at the terminal?
I believe that GO would be farther ahead to eliminate tracks 3 and 6 in the station and replace them with super wide platforms with larger, wider stair and escalator access. GO is planning on eliminating one track at the south end to widen the platform there. This would give 6 wide platforms for GO with adequate, and safe, stair access. These actions would speed up the off loading of passengers and clearing of the platforms so that the fewer platforms could better handle the service. What else would help is a modernization of the brake test rules for what is essentially a transit service. They do not need the same rules for a 12 car commuter train as they do for a 12,000 foot long freight.
I came in this morning and we pulled into a platform which already had a westbound Lakeshore train on it. The wb took off before we had 1/4 of our passengers off the platform and there was barely enough room for two people to pass each other between the departing train and the stair wells. It was not comfortable to pass there. You are right about capacity. GO says it runs 29 trains during the peak hour. That is one every 2 minutes. If they cannot fit that into 8 platforms then something is wrong with their operation and the problem is that they refuse to look at it as a transit service instead of a mainline rail service.
LikeLike
This is a new platform, not a widening.
I do agree with the conclusion GO/Metrolinx reached about not widening platforms. It’s really a damned if they do and damned if they don’t kind of choice – either way, they’ll still have major challenges.
LikeLike
CGM Gary Webster could very well be part of the problem when he says that a DRL should be considered only when capacity options for existing lines have been exhausted. By the time we realise that, it may be too late.
I have doubts that option 6B (involving a new Union Station just east of the old Union Station) is a good idea. What makes them think that Front Street alone and the existing pedestrian and PATH infrastructure have the capacity to handle all commuter passenger traffic?
LikeLike
The 4B proposal seems like a very interesting one. Combining the DRL proposal with relief for Union Station seems very sensible at first glance.
The extension to the Exhibition grounds (which will be useful for the CNE and possible future development on the CNE grounds and at Ontario Place) seems like a sensible choice as well. There appear to be good connections to the Georgetown line.
It would be very important to have a fast rail connection from Bathurst Yard* station to Dundas West / Bloor GO and possibly onwards up to link with the Eglinton-Scarborough-Crosstown line.
*assuming we call it that for now, as there might be another potential name for it.
But here is where things will get confusing. For example, the proposed Waterfront West LRT would have passed through Exhibition. What if it were redesigned and combined with the DRL proposal, using LRT technology? That could provide a continuous rapid transit corridor across the south of the city.
However, Steve has already said that the DRL east should be extended to Eglinton and that it should be built to subway capacities. If we build a DRL as a subway it could be extended to Eglinton in the east, but that would probably mean that a west terminus at Exhibition may be the best we can get.
On the other hand, I suppose that from Exhibition the subway could connect to a tunnel that would proceed northwards under Dufferin, to say, Eglinton? Or would that be a bit crazy?
It’s probably also worth saying that, while Option 1 may not relieve Union Station, it would still be important for the TTC-GO network in the future.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Also, perhaps some of those Queen-subway advocates are actually advocating for some DRT to be routed via Queen Street, which I can fully support if it would provide additional downtown-bound capacity.
LikeLike
When you link to the Union St presentation by clicking Steve’s link it excludes slide 6A which is included by linking from the Metrolinx site. 6A is the most interesting slide in the presentation I think.
Steve: Metrolinx updated the presentation after I wrote the article. I will fix my link.
LikeLike
Tess Kalinowski’s article in today’s Star indicates, both in the text and the accompanying map, that the Metrolinx DRL would connect to Danforth at Woodbine! This is the first time I have heard of a DRL extending that far east. I am assuming that this is based on her glance at Metrolinx’s schematic map/diagram rather than any direction from Metrolinx (it would not be the first major error or incorrect assumption in one of her columns).
Webster took the position that we should be squeezing every last drop of capacity out of Union Station and the Yonge subway before moving ahead with a DRL. I’m wondering if the “every last drop” includes some of the more substantial platform modifications to Bloor/Yonge station. If so, I would think it would make more sense to do DRL first, to allow the TTC more flexibility in how they do construction at Bloor/Yonge (this includes the major assumption that the conversion would still be required even with a DRL in place). The DRL provides TTC more options to route passengers when the downtown Y-U loop is closed for maintenance or construction (which we have seen with greater frequency of late).
Steve: I now have the full version of the report, and once I have a chance to digest it (there’s a lot going on right now), I will be writing it up in detail. Yes, the line to Woodbine does not make sense at all as this is much less desirable for northward extension serving Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Parks.
LikeLike
Someone on another forum brought up an excellent point: Would a subway under Queen be possible with the underground PATH so developed there? Might not be as ideal, but maybe using Dundas instead of Queen for a DRL make a cross downtown route more fiscally reasonable.
I also wonder if it would be best to use GO to intersect Eglinton and Sheppard to divert people from the inner suburbs from the Yonge line rather than a new subway.
Steve: Actually, Dundas has problems of its own in part because it does not run in a straight line and does not directly serve many major destinations. I agree that, at least, Eglinton must be intercepted to reduce demand on the YUS. This may also reduce demand on Eglinton at its peak point too.
LikeLike
I know most efforts are on the gold plated Lakeshore Line (East/West), and Brampton.
What about improving service on Lines that service the Asian Communities which are mainly in Markham and use the lines that are in Markham. Please don’t ignore the important Asian community.
Steve: This has nothing to do with the race of the communities. As you may have noticed, Brampton has a large south Asian community of its own.
LikeLike
If the goal of the “west” DRL is to act as a relief line for Union Station, I think it would be fair to assume that the line will run along King rather than Queen. After all, how many riders along the Georgetown, Barrie, and Lakeshore West lines walk from Union to their workplace and would thus have a reluctance to make two more transfers as opposed to one more than they already do? At the same time, due to the loop at King and Spadina and at least the dream of a streetcar line along Cherry street, the King car would probably be the best choice for replacement through the downtown core.
LikeLike
I should hope that a King Street alignment gets serious consideration in any detailed study rather than a jog out to Exhibition Place. A King line with “downtown” stop spacing would allow us to get rid of the 504 and still provide okay transfers with GO at Sunnyside and Dufferin. The 507 and 513 could even take over its platform space at Broadview and Dundas West.
LikeLike
The idea of a subway angling in to Bathurst North Yard makes me wonder how deep that subway would have to be to get by deep foundations of high-rise developments between it and Osgoode (or even St Andrew for that matter). I am a bit skeptical of the feasibility of this providing a convenient transfer given its off-grid routing. The vertical transportation involved could undermine the whole concept. As Kennedy has demonstrated, riders are sensitive to quality of transfer.
LikeLike
There is a line on Page 6 of the Metrolinx Union Station 2031 presentation that jumped out at me when I read it :
That one line changes the way I view the rest of the report.
Steve: Yes, that is probably the most important line in the report. Far too much of Metrolinx’ debates and presentations fall apart when the real world intrudes.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t the ideal solution be to run a DRL via Queen between Parkside/Keele and Pape that has a diversion south to Wellington somewhere in the middle (roughly east of Spadina to east of Sherbourne) with connections to St Andrew, Union and King Stns; and have the Georgetown and Lakeshore East Lines through-route via a new GO electrified rail tunnel with new stations within the tunnel at Parkdale (to interface with a Queen/Dufferin DRL stop), Liberty Village at Shaw, CityPlace at Spadina, Union Stn east of Yonge, West Don Lands at Cherry, and Riverdale at Gerrard (which again connects to the DRL)?
I think that a Queen DRL with a brief dip into the CBD is best because a DRL strictly south of King is too close to the rail corridor to be serving a unique purpose within the transit network and is of zero benefit for people trying to get north of Queen (Chinatown patrons or OCAD students for instance).
Steve: Regardless of the alignment, any route that requires a transition from Queen to King except at a point where there is an existing path (such as a rail corridor), would be very difficult to build. Decades ago, this area was filled with half-empty warehouses and open land, but now it’s occupied by condos and office towers. Also, it’s very important not to get hung up on both a DRL “west” and “east” because it may not be practical or necessary to build both halves. Some of the functionality, especially to the west, should be provided by GO considering the amount of track they built in the Weston rail corridor.
LikeLike
We will find out today at 10am what GO Transit will look like in Guelph/Kitchener .
Steve: I have asked GO when there will be a press release about this. Nothing yet on the Metrolinx or GO websites.
LikeLike
Woodbine would be an odd choice all right – having to deal with traversing the Coxwell sewer main below grade and any extension north of Woodbine would have to deal with the (very busy) Woodbine/O’Connor intersection and bridge. It would also have to cut back west to get a decent amount of the Flemingdon Park catchment which would be substantial.
King Street DRL – would be great for my commute but my concern there is that it’s not far enough away from Union to help with pedestrian flow. If a DRL isn’t significantly pulling Dundas-King workers off the Yonge Line, it isn’t relieving – putting the DRL at King puts it too far to one side of that catchment.
Markham: maybe an upgrade to the Stouffville and Richmond Hill lines could be made a condition of this NHL-sized area getting planning 🙂
LikeLike
At the risk of beating this issue to death, I agree with Steve about the DRL split – many cities around the world use a mixture of suburban railways and other modes (subway/LRT) to meet different needs depending on what works in their given environment. Take a look at London – south of the Thames the tube network is not very substantial and most people rely on conventional railways instead of subways.
I personally like the GO tunnel option – there are a number of European cities with quite substantial underground suburban railway tunnels in their core (i.e. Frankfurt am Main, Munich) and if GO is to evolve beyond a commuter service, I would prefer things to go this route. Electrification is an issue that continues to be avoided but I hope these reports might be a sign things are coming to a head.
LikeLike
Well, bear in mind that Bathurst North Yard is already significantly below street level and when you factor in the depth needed to pass under the rail corridor to Exhibition, there is a good chance that it may be deep enough anyways to clear many building foundations; especially if the transition to King or Queen is done west of Spadina. The better question is whether the expected station at Spadina (either at Queen or King) will be too deep for a reasonable transfer.
LikeLike
Does the full report actually show the line going to Woodbine station? This just looked like sloppy work from the Star’s graphics department to me. The Metrolinx presentation looked more like it was aimed at Pape/Donlands to me.
Steve: Yes, it is just sloppy work by the Star, although the Metrolinx Map does not name the connection point on the Danforth subway. The text of the full report does specify Pape station.
LikeLike
Brent says:
I shamelessly listened in to Webster’s conversation with Kalinowski [of the Star] and he stated, if I heard correctly, that the benefit from an extra platform at Yonge-Bloor is not worth the cost involved. He said that the TTC should get as much capacity improvement on Yonge Street as possible before major capital expenditures were made on a DRL. He also said that GO had to improve its capacity within the 416 and the problem should be treated as a whole, not as two parts.
He is not against a DRL but does not believe that it is necessary YET. He realizes that there is a finite amount of money and it has to be spent to get the best results. The new equipment, Toronto Rockets, and ATO were both necessary as rolling stock needs to be replaced and the signal system on Yonge is almost 60 years old. The south platform at Union is necessary from a capacity and safety point of view. He seemed to indicate that the improvements in capacity from new platforms at Bloor-Yonge were not worth the cost involved.
Steve: This is a refreshing change, but then begs the question of the target minimum headway the TTC is now aiming at. The figures in the Union Station study presume a considerably lower maximum subway capacity than the TTC has thrown around fairly recently.
It’s good to see the network being discussed as one entity rather than two, but this problem has beset both Metrolinx and the TTC for years, and we have lost much time while competing views existed more to promote pet projects and careers than to give Toronto the modern, unified network it needs.
LikeLike
Has Metrolinx commissioned studies to determine how far people are willing to walk using the sidewalks & PATH system?
With the current separate fare structures for GO & TTC, I would say that a large number of those who enter Toronto via GO and are bound for, say, King St. (or even Queen) would prefer to walk rather than add a TTC fare to their trip.
Assuming no changes to fare structure, then most of these Georgetown & Barrie GO passengers who are let off at Bathurst Yard are going to prefer walking (on the sidewalks or using PATH) rather than taking the DRL “subway” or streetcar (Spadina north & south, and possibly a future Bremner streetcar east to Union) to their final destination.
Walking up to King St or Queen is certainly possible from Union Station, but how easy & convenient would it be to walk from Bathurst and Front? Or Spadina & Front? And in any case, where would the “Bathurst Yard” DRL & GO stations best be located? Closer to Spadina or Bathurst?
Also, I wonder what Metrolinx has planned for getting people up to PATH level and/or street level. Are they going to have large, fast elevators like they have in the London Underground? Lots of stairs? Ramps?
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: Metrolinx has not considered the walk/ride balance from a new “Bathurst” station via the DRL, although they do mention elsewhere in their presentation that fare integration is essential to merging the capacities of the TTC and GO networks. I agree that some of the existing walking would vanish if people could transfer to the subway at little or no cost much as they get to ride on 905 bus routes to and from GO stations.
LikeLike
Does it bother anyone what would happen to the Queen streetcar service if the DRL were to be run along Queen Street (even to Pape instead of Woodbine – which I really hope is not the case as it would completely destroy the urban design going on in the beaches right now)?
Steve: The detailed report clearly says “Pape”, not “Woodbine”. The Star got it wrong.
Despite the fact that we need to divert congestion away from Union station, I still believe that a subway line along King street would be far more beneficial than one along Queen. King street only starts around Broadview, which would be far more ideal for a subway line than Queen, as the subway can run the entire (or at least the starting length) of the street.
Furthermore (this is the important part), running a subway along Queen could have horrendous effects on transit in the beaches. Look at the proposed Sheppard pipe dream for example – if completed to STC, it would cut off service to the eastern portion of Sheppard to Morningside, and the people living there could be stuck with bus service forever. A similar situation already exists with the Cliffside area in the Scarborough Bluffs – as Kennedy Station is at Eglinton, those living at Kennedy and Danforth (or rather where Kingston Rd. intersects Danforth) are pretty much stuck with bus service forever (unless some sort of LRT is built along Kingston past Victoria Park).
Steve: There is a proposal for a BRT service east from Main or Victoria Park station, but I doubt we will ever see it built.
What I suppose I’m trying to say is that if we put a subway along only part of Queen Street, those living at the end of it (in the beeches) would probably see the deterioration of one continuous journey downtown.
Steve: What’s more, there’s the issue of local service and stop spacing. Reading between the lines, it is clear that any new route would be an express service stopping infrequently on its trip to downtown. That would relegate everyone at existing surface stops in between to longer walks or to an infrequent surface bus, if the TTC even ran one.
I hope this was understandable.
LikeLike
Having gone through the detailed studies, I found no rationale provided for proposing the new underground Union platforms between Bay and Yonge. Issues I see with this:
1. The Union subway station is west of Bay St, not east. An underground GO station east of Bay St would have a poorer connection to the subway than a station on the west side (notwithstanding the large number of GO passengers that walk to their final destination, it’s still supposed to be an integrated transportation system and anchor hub).
2. The west-end new PATH connection to the Union Station complex is to be at York St; there is no PATH connection at Yonge St by the GO Bus Terminal. This could be quite a problem for pedestrian distribution that the new York St PATH was designed to help alleviate.
3. Downtown has over time been creeping west of Yonge, not east. In the immediate Union Station vicinity, there are more destinations/attractions west of the existing station than east.
4. It shouldn’t really avoid any headaches to build the new station east of Bay than west of Bay; they still have to deal with the issues of threading the new tracks between the extended structural supports of the existing track level regardless of where they place platforms. Given the poorer integration with the existing facilities that a new facility east of Bay would create, there doesn’t appear to be a benefit to this approach. Integrating into the existing Teamways on Bay and York Sts should be easier than trying to build entirely new station entrances into the Yonge St underpass.
5. It is in the interests of track geometry (which may have beneficial impacts on tunnel length) to have the underground station west of Bay St so that the incline back to the surface can begin sooner (the east end of the rail corridor has a higher elevation above sea level than the west end of the rail corridor).
Steve: The most telling statement in the presentation to the Board is that none of the schemes has been subject to detailed design and feasibility review. Metrolinx is good at drawing lines on maps without considering the issues, and they create expectations that cannot be fulfilled, or at least at reasonable cost and in reasonable time. I will be writing up the detailed reports over the next week or so, but am concentrating right now on TTC budget issues.
LikeLike
Nikolas Koschany said:
Sheppard subway would make the service to the eastern portion of Sheppard better, not worse. That section has a bus now and it will still have a bus, but the ride on that bus will get shorter for the majority of riders. I am not trying to reopen the whole Sheppard subway debate here, just saying that even if Sheppard subway is a wrong priority, it is wrong for different reasons.
If the residents of the Cliffside area are “stuck with bus service”, they are in exactly same situation as the majority of riders in Toronto. It is impossible to serve every major intersection with higher-order transit, and no matter how you select a subway route, there will be a large number of riders who have to take a feeder route to reach it.
Speaking of DRL, Wellington would be best alignment if technically possible. But if the subway runs under Queen, it does not have to make the Beaches local service worse. In fact, it could make that service more reliable. I would rearrange the streetcar service, and replace 501 / 502 / 503 with two new feeder routes: Neville loop to the subway, and Kingston Rd. to the subway. Those new routes would be largely isolated from the congestion that occurs in downtown and further west.
LikeLike
I am surprised a option between 5 and 6a was not considered – the Georgetown line going up to Wellington at Spadina and back down again near Cherry St. to continue on to the East. This would have much less tunneling than either of the other two options.
I wonder if Metrolinx is set on a Queen alignment or are they just trying to reinforce the idea that it is not the 1980’s alignment along the rail corridor. Especially if they want to bring the line down to Front/Spadina, it would be awfully hard to go as far North as Queen.
Steve: The big problem for either alignment (although worse for Queen than King) is getting through all of the existing development to and from the rail corridor. It’s not all empty space any more. Also, they will need room for a ramp down into the “GO subway” from the rail corridor at each end, and this will take extra space. Minimum curve radii for GO trains are a lot wider than for streetcars, and they can’t just make 90 degree turns at intersections.
LikeLike
I think armchair transit planners like the Queen alignment because of the perceptions that there is a “subway station” already built at Yonge and one roughed in at University – thus hundreds of millions could be saved using this route and construction disruption would be a lot less.
Are there any savings to be had using these existing facilities or are they inappropriate for subway and should this have no influence on the choice of route?
Steve: There would be big problems making the transition from the rail corridor to Queen Street at Gladstone/Dufferin because of brand new condos that have been built just where the new tunnel and portal would need to be. At both ends, the curve from the rail corridor under Queen would be much tighter than existing buildings allow.
As for Queen Station, the pre-built part is barely 300 feet long, and it is sized for streetcars, not GO trains. At University, there is no “pre-built” station.
There are too many planners and politicians playing connect the dots on maps of downtown without a clear understanding of the constraints the engineers face on actually building any of their proposals.
LikeLike