Updated June 21, 2015 at 12:45 am: SmartTrack alignment option 1C which was included in the presentation deck, but not in the individual illustrations on the project website, has been added to the consolidated set.
Updated June 12, 2015 at 6:30 am: Details of SmartTrack and Relief Line alignment options added.
The City of Toronto, Metrolinx and the TTC will conduct a series of eight meetings at locations around Toronto over coming weeks to present current information on studies now in progress regarding GO’s Regional Express Rail (RER) plan, SmartTrack, the Scarborough Subway Extension (SSE) and the Relief Line (aka “DRL”). Some of these meetings will focus on specific projects (noted below), while others are general overviews.
- Sat. June 13 9:30am: Burnhamthorpe Collegiate Institute, 500 The East Mall
- Mon. June 15 6:30 pm: Estonian House, 958 Broadview Avenue (Relief Line)
- Wed. June 17 6:30 pm: Spring Garden Church, 112 Spring Garden Avenue
- Thurs. June 18 6:30 pm: Archbishop Romero Catholic SS, 99 Humber Boulevard South (SmartTrack)
- Sat. June 20 9:30 am: Hyatt Regency Hotel, 370 King Street West
- Mon. June 22 6:30 pm: Winston Churchill Collegiate Institute, 2239 Lawrence Avenue East
- Wed. June 24 6:30 pm: Scarborough Civic Centre, 150 Borough Drive (SSE)
- Thurs. June 25 6:30pm: Riverdale Collegiate Institute, 1094 Gerrard Street East (Relief Line)
Consultation in Mississauga, Peel, Markham and York Region will occur in September according to the City’s press release.
Recommendations will be presented by TTC and City staff to the TTC Board and Council in Fall 2015 on SmartTrack, the SSE and the Relief Line.
Update June 12:
SmartTrack
The presentation boards and alignment options for the western leg of SmartTrack are now available online. For convenience, I have collected the illustrations in one file [PDF 2MB].
Broadly the study is considering three alignment groups for the link between Mount Dennis and the Mississauga Airport Corporate Centre:
- A direct connection via Eglinton from the Kitchener rail corridor
- A separate heavy rail corridor via Eglinton from Mount Dennis
- A direct connection south from the Kitchener rail corridor through the airport
The “base case” for the study is the already-approved second phase of the Crosstown LRT.
The options include:
- 1: Direct links with the SmartTrack alignment:
- 1A: Swinging east of the KW rail corridor south of Eglinton, and then turning west to make a direct connection with the Crosstown line.
- 1B: Turning west from the KW rail corridor south of Eglinton. This is the original SmartTrack proposal.
- 1C: Continuing north of Eglinton, and then veering back south through a vaguely defined area west of Weston Road [illustration added June 21]
- 3A: A separate line west from Mount Dennis.
- 2: Links north via the rail corridor and then south into the airport lands:
- 2A: To a point beyond the UPX airport spur, then south through the airport. The “Airport” station would be a connection to the UPX at Airport Road.
- 2B: The same alignment as 2A at the north end, but following Dixon Road and Carlingview south to 427/401.
- 2C: To a point east of the UPX spur with a station at the east side of the airport, then south via Carlingview as in 2B.
Some alignments require tight turns and tunneling will be needed for all of them contrary to the original claims that SmartTrack would be a “surface subway”. This will also force the issue of electrification without which a tunnel alignment is impossible, but Metrolinx plans now claim that the first electric operations will not begin until 2023.
The option 2 alignments will face technical challenges including curve radii depending on the exact details of the alignment and the equipment chosen for the route.
Headways for all option 1 and 2 alignments will be constrained by the need to share trackage with the UPX operation.
Relief Line
Four corridor options are under consideration. At its northern end, the corridor would start at either Broadview or Pape Station, and through the core area, the line would follow either Queen or King/Wellington. I have collected the four maps together in one file for convenience.
Detailed discussions of the pros and cons of these options are on the respective pages of the project site. The Pape alignment has clear advantages over Broadview, and a Wellington alignment through the core has advantages over King or Queen.
Steve Munro 
Why isn’t Metrolinx’s Relief Line study included in this?
Steve: It is. This is a joint study with the TTC and City.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is there any way that the UP Express could be retrofitted to run regular GO trains without totally rebuilding the elevated spur? Looking at a YouTube video showing a cab view of the UP Express running from Union to Pearson, it looks like the platform at Pearson is too short for a regular GO train, but my guess is that otherwise I’m guessing that it would be possible for a GO train to run on it, and the curve west of the 427 probably would have to be able to accommodate a GO train going very slowly or it wouldn’t meet railway safety standards. There also appears to be provision for electrification on the spur. This might require an inconveniently located GO train station at Viscount though since there isn’t enough room to fit it at Terminal 1. It seems like this is the only way to salvage the “SmartTrack” proposal.
Steve: The structure for the spur cannot handle regular GO trains. The curves are tight even for the equipment on UPX (you can feel shudder in the trucks as the train makes the curve), and GO locomotives need wider curves. The grades on the spur are too steep for GO locomotives. Finally, the airport station is far too small. Electrification and use of cars that can handle the constraints will get rid of some problems.
LikeLike
The document that I was sent lists 4 of the sessions as general and 4 as having specific projects as topics. The latter 4 are June 15 (DRL), June 18 (SmartTrack), June 24 (SSE), and June 25 (DRL).
Steve: Thanks for flagging this. The breakdown is in a subsidiary page to the general announcement. I will update the article. That said, the description says “The following four sessions will focus on specific projects as noted”. This does not imply that they are single topic sessions. I will follow up on this to verify what’s intended.
LikeLike
Well so really there is only one, that is realistically heavy rail, unless we are going to do something silly, like build a subway where none is required – of course that would be the first time. The need to link the Mississauga Airport Corporate Centre is interesting, and while important regionally, is this something that could and should be a priority for the TTC?
Is this an opportunity to kill off Smart Track as proposed, and get back to RER in the rail corridors? Oddly, I like the idea of adding some stops, and integrating something in this corridor with the major bus routes, and the Crosstown, but it needs to be very frequent and still have remaining capacity on the inner portion to be useful there, and to link to and beyond the Airport Corporate Centre, to be of best effect regionally.
LikeLike
The same information will be available, and the public will have the opportunity to provide feedback on all projects at all eight meetings. June 15, 18, 24 and 25 will focus on the project that is of most local significance.
Steve: Thanks for the clarification without my having to email you! Too busy following Gardiner vote fallout.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is unfortunate that Council chose to keep the Gardiner East but it has been chosen and so I hope that Steve (and his followers) would stop crying about it the way he and his followers continue to cry about the repeatedly approved (by all levels of government) Scarborough subway. I agree with the decision to build Scarborough subway. I don’t agree with the decision to not bury the Scarborough portions of the Eglinton LRT and I don’t agree with the decision to keep the Gardiner East but you will find me crying about neither as I respect democracy and so NOT everything has to be my way and I hope that Steve would accept the same and move on and fight for the issues that have yet to be decided and not try to reverse already made decisions just because he (Steve) does not like those decisions.
Steve: Your ability in creative writing is admirable, if somewhat repetitive. There are still many questions to be asked including design alternatives that Council wants studied, the legal implications of the chosen route, and the cost that whatever we wind up with will remain palatable to Council. A similar situation exists in Scarborough where the subway option may prove too rich a choice once the alignment and stations are decided upon.
We saw at today’s Council meeting that the ideas of new taxes and/or tolls to pay for infrastructure is suddenly not as unpalatable as it was a year ago when Council rejected these and other revenue options out of hand. I look forward to that debate when we see just who is going to shell out for these “approved” facilities.
LikeLike
Joe M:
Just my guess…
SmartTrack West will go ahead and share UPX corridor & SmartTrack East will be cancelled as it heavily conflicts is both subway projects
Planning on DRL, SSE, Sheppard LRT (in some form), GO RER to move forward and the drama cools a bit until next election.
If this plan is funded to move forward, there won’t be much to argue about from either side other than cost of stops and length.
LikeLike
@”Joe M ”
About four years ago I posted a comment here and stated most of the Transit City LRT lines would be delayed substantially (or never built).
You are probably correct with your prediction.
Too much politics and subjective comments.
LikeLike
Nothing about extending Eglinton … is this willfully ignoring the obvious? It totally defeats the purpose if you aren’t going to do any analysis of the obvious choice.
Steve: The display boards for the SmartTrack study have gone up since I wrote the article, and they include the Eglinton LRT as a “base case”.
LikeLike
Why should the Wellington alignments cross the Don at the Queen/King bridge (where there have already been substantial issues)? And where they identify potential problems with finding enough space for tunnels/stations under Queen? Why would they not route it Eastern-Front-Wellington? The walk from Queen to Eastern and King to Front is typically comparable to the length of a subway station platform (150m).
Steve: If there is to be a stop at the First Gulf site, it will have to go further south than Queen. Getting across the river is tricky wherever the crossing happens, and thanks to the fact that the TTC downplayed the DRL’s importance for years, no provision was made in plans for the Canary district for a future subway along Eastern/Front.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t this pose a serious safety issue if a switch is set incorrectly and a GO train, VIA train or freight train accidentally goes on the UP Express spur? I was told by someone taking a VIA train from Toronto to Kingston that a while ago it accidentally took the GO sub at Pickering instead of the CN main line, and then the train stopped, reversed and went back where it was supposed to. Is there some sort of safety system to prevent the switch from being set in the direction of the UP Express spur for a train that is not a UP Express train? I had thought that the original design for the UP Express spur included overly sharp curves and overly steep gradients but this was later modified.
Steve: If we started to list all the places that an unsafe switch setting could cause problems, we would be into major, major re-engineering of railways. Until there is a signal system that can interact directly with trains rather than depending on the engineer to catch something wrong (such as the Oakville crash where a train was switched onto the wrong track), this argument is a straw man.
In any case option 2A or 2B for “SmartTrack” looks like a pretty sensible option and is more or less what I had in mind. It looks like this in reality would replace the UP Express (it looks like the station is close to Terminal 3) which means that $456 million will have been wasted. It would have the added benefit of potentially providing a choice between Eglinton LRT and SmartTrack as a way of getting to Pearson Airport/Airport Corporate Centre and greatly reducing the risk of overcrowding on the Eglinton LRT. With the large number of buses planned to serve Airport Corporate Centre (the Mississauga Transitway and numerous other bus routes), I suspect that the Eglinton LRT by itself would be overcrowded because I think that the Mississauga Transitway plus other bus routes could easily carry the 10000/hour maximum capacity of LRT; the LRT only has enough capacity to carry a small percentage of trips to the airport employment areas. With two lines serving that area this is far less likely to be a problem.
Steve: I would be astounded to see 10K/hour arriving via the Transitway, especially as transfer traffic to the Eglinton line. Trips to the airport employment areas will originate from many points on the compass, only some of which are served by the Crosstown or the Finch LRT.
LikeLike
The real question in my mind, would be why do we need/want to use the spur at all. The airport internal service should be extended just beyond the airport grounds – i.e. to the Malton GO (to where the Finch West LRT should be brought) and past the International Centre. That would make for a better connection for convention use, permit access to the airport from beyond ie Brampton and the balance of the Kitchener line, which would also mean connecting eventually with the Hurontario-Maine LRT. The airport service should also be extended in the other direction to meet the Renforth Gateway, to meet the extended Crosstown, and the Mississauga Transitway.
That would make for a potential real hub for Brampton ZUM to meet GO, TTC and the Airport service, as well as local Corporate area services around the airport to the North East of the airport, and wide access to the same to the south east of the airport for Mississauga and much of Toronto.
Steve: The airport’s internal service itself has limitations, and if any change/expansion were planned, it should be on the basis of a new, higher-capacity circulator.
LikeLike
I think any of the Queen corridor alignments that were recently posted to the relifeline.ca site should be quickly eliminated.
There’s not much of anything around Queen of note other than city hall, a couple of office buildings around Yonge and University and the hospital. The majority of the street is low-rise 2-3 storey retail and the stretch between University and Bathurst will not be changing.
A southern alignment around King/Wellington brings it much closer to more numerous existing high density employment and residential areas that exist now and will in the future.
LikeLike
Perhaps capacity could be expanded enough to permit it to be a linking service between the hubs as well, extending it to an airport area circulator – and real transit.
Steve: That’s precisely what I meant. YYZ went cheap with their little train, and they got what they paid for.
LikeLike
Scarborough agrees 🙂
Steve: This must be a very blue moon indeed!
As an historical note, the SRT cost over twice what the LRT line originally proposed would have set us back. In that case, we paid more and didn’t get our money’s worth.
LikeLike
Does this mean a western extension for the Crosstown is off the table? I see that they mentioned it as a base case, but why is not being considered?
Steve: I don’t think it is being considered at this time, but is there as a starting/reference point. I know that some of the Metrolinx folks still look favourably on it, but politically it is on the back burner at least until other schemes prove unworkable, too expensive, etc.
LikeLike
Building any sort of heavy rail along Eglinton West is just plain STUPID. Even light rail (LRT as per Eglinton Crosstown line u/c) is questionable.
There was for many years a dedicated strip of land along the north side of Eg. West for the Richview Expressway. Recently, the BDM’s (Brain Dead Morons) at Silly Hall sold it off and now greedy developers are building along this strip where heavy motor vehicle traffic will pollute the air and assault the ears of residents who move into these boxes.
LikeLike
In the Oakville crash the train was NOT switched onto the wrong track. The normal switch was being worked on and the dispatcher used the yard switch before it. If the crew had read the signal correctly they would have taken it at 15 mph instead of 54 mph. There are only two 15 mph switches on the CN main freight line and this was one of them. The other is at Silver Junction where the line to Kitchener splits off a Georgetown and I will bet that it gets upgraded to a 45 mph one as Metrolinx rebuilds that line.
Steve: Thanks for the clarification.
LikeLike
Yes, that option should be on the table.
I am thinking of the following configuration (and vaguely remember that something similar had been proposed a few years ago):
– SmartTrack goes to Brampton, rather than the Airport or the Corporate Centre. Those traveling across the Toronto border are expected to pay a modest surcharge over the TTC fare.
– Eglinton LRT is extended to the Corporate Centre. It can have > 1 stops there, in order to better serve that large employment area.
– People Mover is upgraded to higher capacity, and is extended both ways, to meet Eglinton LRT in the south and SmartTrack / GO RER / VIA in the north.
In that case, there is no need to even rebuild the UPX tracks or stations. UPX can continue to function as an express, premium-fare, direct service to the airport; while budget travelers will be able to use SmartTrack + People Mover, or Eglinton LRT + People Mover.
UPX may have been a bad idea from the onset; but since it is already built, it would be hard to start rebuilding the brand-new infrastructure now.
LikeLike
There is some merit in this suggestion, but I think it would be preferable for the ELRT to extend to the terminal.
There is a plan to extend the Finch LRT to the airport, which should also be completed. Not only will this give those further north a connection to the airport (and Corporate Centre), but it will connect the ELRT and Finch LRT. This would be helpful for operational purposes as cars can be shifted from one line to the other easily and major repairs could be consolidated in one place and cars needing work could be easily moved there. If they are not connected, then either the facilities will need to be duplicated or a way must be found to truck the LRVs to the facility.
This applies to the SSE as well. Even if the ELRT did not operate as a one-seat ride to Scarborough Center, there would have been a connecting track so that LRVs could move from one line to the other.
I don’t know what the extra costs will be, but I expect they may be quite high. Imagine if there were no connections between the Hillcrest, Russell and Roncesvalles yards.
LikeLike
Yeeeaaaargh. Maybe Metrolinx could focus on electrifying what they’ve got? ASAP?
LikeLike
I would make strong argument that they should electrify only where it will make substantial difference. They should focus on the projects that will make the largest difference, for the smallest investment first. That would mean spending on the projects that offer the most service. I am convinced that electrification makes sense on say Richmond Hill-yet. We are still not even at 15 minutes service let alone 8 runs per hour – even at peak.
There are other places that this money could go that would have a larger impact on the viability of transit for the region. Sheppard LRT, being complete for instance and integrated with Stouffville GO that was double tracked and had 6 trains per hour would be a huge improvement for northeast of Toronto, and Markham. This would not perforce require the electrification of the Stouffville service. Lakeshore as a very high priority for additional track is. Additional trains on Lakeshore, will require electrification
I think that all projects need be broken down to what they offer the network, and riders to improve services. RER is part of an overall solution, but roll it out where it will really help first. Roll out the pieces required to make the rest of it work, while you are rolling it out. Look at which projects offer the biggest bang, and in what order they are required to achieve it. If we are smart a couple of billion of year can go a long ways, if we play politics and sound bites, well we will get nowhere. The VIVA BRT projects along with substantially improved GO – even diesel, can make a huge difference, as would the integration with a Sheppard LRT.
LikeLike
Steve, you got free media tour for the UPX at the taxpayers’ expense yet you wrote nothing about the experience. Please pay the fare 2 X $27.50 = $55.00 you lazy ASSed fellow as you did not publish anything about the experience. The free tour was for people wanting to report about the UPX experience and you did NOTHING of that sort but just defrauded free trips from the taxpayers but isn’t that what LIEberals have always done? You are just another LIEberal which is why you quickly delete anything pertaining to LIEberal corruption. If you are a true man, then let’s publish this comment.
Steve: Listen you asshole, I will publish this only for the purpose of showing the kind of bilge that comes out masquerading as a spokesperson for/from Scarborough, and who makes everyone east of Victoria Park look like complete imbeciles. I know better, but you and your ilk certainly don’t help.
First off, the trains I rode were running anyhow as test trips on UPX before it opened. I could not actually go anywhere at the airport as the access was closed off, and so could not make physical use of the service. Meanwhile, Bloor and Weston stations were nowhere near complete.
If I had been a paying customer, I would have used a meet-and-greet fare which is about half of the standard fare. However, thanks to the shortcomings of the fare collection system, it was impossible to actually buy such a ticket at Union because it was not included in the offerings on the fare machines. I could have used my Presto card, but it would have charged me a senior’s fare each way which costs more.
I have already mentioned in comments that the curves and grades on the airport spur seem to be at the limits of what the trains can handle. This is important to any future equipment selection for new vehicles that might share the infrastructure. The trains themself are unremarkable — nice, but nothing to write home about, and the service certainly appeared to be overstaffed, something that defenders of the public purse and the considerable subsidy it will take to operate UPX should be screaming about, a variation on “marbled fat” to use a John Tory phrase.
The whole thing struck me as oversold for what it is. There is a market for the service, but riders are not paying their way as was originally hoped for in the business plan. The elapsed time to break even is three to five years, about twice what had been talked of in the past.
The walk at the Union end from the subway is long. I didn’t get to check out the airport because that link was not open on the tour.
Lots of people are getting free rides, by the way, and I hope you will be out there with your portable farebox demanding that they pay up, freeloaders that they are.
We did get free coffee and an “UP cake” from Balzac’s.
Oh yes, the LIEberals. I almost forgot. Yes that wonderful bunch who have screwed Toronto over by changing funding and implementation plans to suit their political environment including that little subway in Scarborough. When you are riding on that particular piece of electoral pork built at huge expense to taxpayers, remember to be sure to pay the new fare-by-distance that will inevitably face people coming in from the wilds of Toronto to downtown. I look forward to my short trip discount.
Now piss off. Your comments and any from similar writers will be immediately and gleefully deleted.
LikeLike
Steve, looking at the maps you posted and the stops for the Crosstown LRT to the Airport, I’m having a hard time seeing exactly where the station at the airport will be. The map doesn’t make it clear. I think it would be wise that both the Crosstown and Finch LRT if it gets extended to the airport meet at the same station at the airport. Do you also know if the station depicted would be on the surface, elevated, or underground?
Thanks
Steve: I have no idea about the exact locations of stations, and that’s one of my questions when I attend the meeting on June 15. The whole business of circulation within the airport, not to mention the confusion if there are multiple “airport” stations, really needs to be sorted out.
LikeLike
That would sound like a great idea, however would that not mean an awkward route for Finch, assuming that you did not move the Crosstown, or tunnel? If we are saying we are going to have Finch come through say Malton GO in a tunnel, and become an in airport service as well, that sounds great. It would then provide linkage from the airport to Malton GO station, Spadina subway, the Crosstown and Mississauga Transitway {makes one want to suggest having it continue on and run something the originally proposed from the Kipling subway}. You would want to include both Mississauga and Brampton transit at these stations. That would be real service to/from the airport, especially when combined with a frequent GO service from Malton. The linking at a single station or linked stations would also mean that you would have the ability to get to a huge chunk of the city – easily from the airport, at a regular TTC, Miway or Brampton Transit fare. Would also make a great point to bring in local transit for the corporate centre.
LikeLike
Steve has done enough for Toronto that as far as I am concerned he should be given a lifetime free pass to all transit operating within 100km of Toronto City Hall. If more people had listened to him and others like him, enough money would have been saved to pay for free transit for a lot of other people besides.
Also, Rob Ford might never have been elected. I don’t think there is a reward large enough.
LikeLike
Thanks Steve, for (1) generally sharing your decades of experience and deeply informed opinions; (2) generally providing a fora for other interested people to ask questions and voice their own opinions; (3) specifically for providing https://swanboatsteve.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/smarttrack_web.pdf I was one of the 1500 regular citizens who got a free ride to and from Pearson on opening day. I took 1700 photos, some of which I think could add to this discussion, and I will link to some of them here.
I was puzzled by the two different curves at Mount Dennis of SmartTrack alignments “1a” and “1b”. On April 9th, 2013, I paid a visit to Mount Dennis, on a photo excursion. Having visited the area myself I can’t escape the concern that these alignments were designed by someone who had never visited Mount Dennis themselves.
As you pointed out elsewhere, SmartTrack can’t diverge and start to tunnel at Black Creek Drive because the existing tracks are one top of a high railway embankment as the tracks cross the Black Creek Ravine. As you already pointed out a tunnel would have to start hundreds of metres farther south. Here are four images I took during my UPX trip back from Pearson that show how high that embankment is:
Rail embankment as it crosses Black Creek Drive a
Rail embankment as it crosses Black Creek Drive b
Rail embankment as it crosses Black Creek Drive c
Rail embankment as it crosses Black Creek Drive d.
Here are some panoramas of the intersection of Weston and Eglinton from April 2013:
Viewing Weston and Eglinton from the NE corner, 2013 04 09
Viewing Weston and Eglinton from the SE corner, 2013 04 09
Viewing Weston and Eglinton from the SW corner, 2013 04 09
Viewing Weston and Eglinton from the NE corner, 2013 04 09
LikeLike
First off – it is moderately amusing that he should choose such a handle {in that it infers at least a socialist – if not communist bent}- and then complain about government hand-outs. The other is that of course, unless there is a form a contract, the free trip becomes a form of lobbying by the government of journalists. A good journalist, will not be swayed entirely by this, or may bide his/her time, to allow the overall impression to settle, or chose to conclude that the entire thing revealed nothing new. Lobbying is not a contract, but an attempt at altering opinion – that Steve was not swayed – means little, his failure to report in fact may perhaps even mean, he was, and as a consequence chose not to trash the service.
It is interesting Steve (for me as a Red Tory) that you in response choose to bring up another way of looking both at equity, and cost orientation. The part of equity people seem so willing to ignore in the transit debate – are those of cost of provision, yards and parking. Those who have chosen to live downtown to get their transit – have chosen a combination higher taxes (through property prices), smaller yards (or none) and much harder to come by parking. I find it disturbing that people want to come back to the common wheel to have the other choice corrected from the common coffer, through taxes, especially when they point to those who have given up what they sought in the outer 416 in order to pay for the other half of the bargain. This has always struck me as seeking to both have and eat ones cake. I want low taxes, a big yard, lots of roads, and parking, and yes I demand a subway too. Transit for the sake of good planning yes, but when equity is used, then all aspects of it need be considered. If it is someone who simply cannot afford to live downtown or drive, that is another matter, but those who have chosen a spacious backyard, and then demand subway, well that is a little harder to take.
Steve: BTW, this particular troll posts under a variety of pseudonyms of which this is only the most recent. He is easy to identify by common themes, not to mention occasional strings of posts using different names but the same IP address.
LikeLike
1) In the slide showing the LRT/base case route, Pearson station seems to be quite some distance from Terminals 1 and 3. Is this meant to be an appropriate location or is/was the plan to build the station that far from the airport?
Steve: Yes, the station location for LRT (which is also used for one of the SmartTrack alignments) does not seem particularly convenient. There is also the problem that huge parts of the airport precinct are not served by any individual alignment (e.g. Dixon Road hotel strip).
2) The TTC CEO said that he would be a forceful advocate for transit. Is there a reason why we haven’t heard him state his preference of route and/or technology to be used to connect Mount Dennis to either Pearson or the Airport Corporate Centre?
Steve: That’s easy: they are not TTC projects. He has enough on his plate.
3) Is LRT so unpalatable in Toronto that SmartTrack along Eglinton West is seen as easier to support politically or is the switch from LRT to Heavy Rail in that corridor more a function of politicians needing to create new plans as opposed to any inherent problem with supporting LRT?
Steve: That was the calculus of Tory’s campaign team, although they were counting on a surface alignment during the election thanks to their ill-informed consultant. And by calling it a “surface subway” they managed to stick-handle around the LRT problem in Ford territory. It’s ironic that, but for the use of a mainline rail corridor, SmartTrack is almost an LRT line, especially if it runs with shorter trains like UPX.
LikeLike
I agree with what you are saying. There should be one hub for all transit at the airport. I think the UPX is lost because of where they put the station. Funny the GTAA people are considering such a hub at the airport.
I know Metrolinx is also working on an Airport transportation study. Hopefully they work together.
LikeLike
Will be looking forward to any info if you are able to get any. Thanks.
LikeLike
Remarkably little response so far in the comments to you about the Relief Line corridors instead of SmartTrack. I’m going to presume that means most of your readers agree with your brief suggestion favouring Corridor D; I agree with it, and presented a very similar routing as the preference for my table at last week’s Stakeholders Advisory Group meeting. Pape to Corridor D (King/Wellington), with two stops between the Don River and the Yonge connection (Cherry & Sherbourne… but with Sherbourne’s box shifted towards George Street to be a better feed to the Market itself and that tourist zone). Another table had a very similar corridor rationale, with a third close as well… so in effect 3 of the 6 tables at the meeting opted for Corridor D with two of the tables clearly noting Wellington as the easiest/more effective alignment.
As a Corktown resident, both are fine so I’m agnostic on the Cherry station being either at Front or Eastern (or King, less so, or Queen, much less so…), and reminded the engineer at my table of the fairly direct route for crossing under the river and the flood protection landform’s lower elevations if they route under from Eastern Ave/FirstGulf towards Lauren Harris Square and under Old Eastern (soon to be renamed “South Park Street”, btw — no kidding, it’s because there originally was the King’s Park on the north side of it, so at one time long ago that had apparently been South Park. There’s so much to be learned at West Don Lands meetings. 😉 . Follow Eastern/Front to Wellington, and then I suggested that the connector station could be a single mega-hub under Bay-Wellington, with the east of the box near Yonge and the station itself being at the crux of PATH connections to Union and all other directions. My table nixed that in favour of two stops (mid-point box at Yonge-Wellington and another with the east of the box at University-Wellington), but at least the other table with the Wellington alignment presented a single clear Bay-Wellington mega-hub stop instead. So a good evening all around. 😉
However, I do hope to hear your opinion on track radii for the line. The engineer at my table was being a stickler about the 300m radius circles they provided for the map, to the point that our route was casually wiping out dozens of homes in Riverdale/Leslieville to transition from Pape to the railway line to Carlaw, etc. Other than the 90-degree change to go from north-south to east-west, it seemed to me that insisting on that sweeping-large radius for curves on our non-professional alignment that drew a mild “S” (like Eastern becoming Front) or altered the direction maybe 20-30 degrees were being to me a bit too obstinate by insisting on that minimum radius, especially near stations where speed could be reduced if required. Should I presume going forward that those broad curves are an absolute minimum despite being much MUCH broader than the existing curves in and out of Union? Or do we just presume that there will be a need to acquire properties above/along curves under any scenario to avoid wear-and-tear on the trucks & tracks and keep speeds higher? Dunno, myself — that tech-talk engineer side always made my eyes roll with the way it gets presented EVERY TIME as paramount over what could be thought of as better options for planning/urban form. That level of alignment detail is not as critical as simply getting that line under construction period, of course, but am wondering what your take is on it.
Steve: The curves at Union really are quite tight, but not unheard of on subway systems that are constrained to follow streets with minimal effect on buildings above. However, this can also relate to vehicle size and the era of construction. Another issue would be whether a curve can be tunnelled or has to be build as a cut-and-cover structure. Aside from whatever the minimum curve radius might be for a TBM, a curving tunnel has to be wider for clearances and this can have an effect on the diameter of the TBM and the cost of the entire tunnel it will build. However, a mix of cut-and-cover and deep bore leads to large, expensive excavations as we know for stations on the TYSSE and Crosstown lines. This is one of those “it depends” situations. Having said all of that, I wouldn’t push for Union Station radius curves without some overwhelming reason to justify the alignment.
LikeLike
Hi Steve
To “Scarborough Workers’ Party” “If you are a true man, then let’s publish this comment.”
How ironic. If you were a true man you would make a posting under your real name, not some dumbass nom-de-plume. You would also use facts to back up your argument, just like Steve always does. You have set back public transit by years and I, who really want to fix the mess left by people like Ford, are sick and tired of what you have done. You want to waste billions on useless pipe dreams. Post some reports that support your claim that Scarborough needs a subway. Now!
Steve: I should warn you that the bilge we are likely to see probably will exceed my cutoff for “reasonable debate”.
LikeLike
I certainly hope that they will as well, and would in a perfect world like to see a single hub, however, I think that we also want to be careful in not cutting off future options for transit expansion through the area. I cannot see moving the Malton GO onto airport grounds, and admit I am uncomfortable with bringing the Crosstown across the 401. It may make more sense to link two local hubs with a high frequency, higher capacity airport circulator. An airport local circulator would then ideally include the convention facilities (International Centre is very close to Malton GO anyway) and other high traffic local destinations as well, thus providing both airport and better transit access. This may be less convenient for actual airport access, but might be better in terms of supporting access to the surrounding area. It may also be important that we keep options open to permit an eventual extension of the Crosstown LRT (in case the BRT becomes overloaded, or in terms of integration) and/or the Finch West LRT west of the airport where there is also a large number of employers.
If the airport area circulator had broad enough coverage, and at the least included both hubs, both terminals, and the convention centre, with really good signage and support it would be possible to permit all the transit and ground transportation options to be linked to these hubs. YYZ could then even look at placing its rental car terminus, and the hotel bus link point in one or other of these hubs.
The linkages and thus hubs, need to consider through ridership, airport destined ridership, and corporate centre potential ridership. It is not clear to me, that perforce means bringing it all to a single point, although that would be nice, in terms of access to the airport itself. It will be very interesting to see the conclusions of the studies, however, I hope they keep a very wary eye to the longer term future, and keeping cost effective options open to support it, and future rapid transit expansion for the region.
LikeLike
I agree with it, and have a rather hard time seeing how others would really work nearly as well. I hope that they somehow maintain a linkage with the streetcars, as well as the major new developments. However, like Steve, I believe that there is a high priority on extending this line through to Don Mills and Eglinton, and to support a future Western rail station, and to add to this, an extension far enough west to provide a realistic connection point for future LRT along the Western Waterfront, which no longer appears a practical option to come to Union – with any sort of frequency and capacity.
I think such a DRL can be used to support broader rapid transit, and assist the Streetcar network in the development of the downtown, as it transforms with high density spreading North to Queen and beyond in the west, and hoping the Don in the East. The Streetcar network will need to be the primary support for this, but a well considered subway could be helpful to the streetcars, by providing for longer distance linkages.
LikeLike
Steve,
Why, wouldn’t they just extend the Eglinton LRT?
Who would want a BIG GO LIKE TRAIN DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET, for just a few riders. I predict, Smart Track will become the Eglinton LRT extended. What are your thoughts?
Steve: I know Metrolinx would like to extend the LRT, but politically we have to reach a point where the SmartTrack options for the airport are just not tenable. Very frustrating.
LikeLike
I did not read anything about a storage yard. It seems to me that easiest location would be near the North Toronto Waste Water Treatment plant next to the Millwood bridge. Instead of a complex interchange station with B-D, this line could have its own yard. If really needed, perhaps a single track could be sent from Pape to the Greenwood yard just ot have some sort of connection.
“OC in Corktown” was asking a lot about curve radius. If SkyTrain vechiles were used, then the minimum radius would be about 100m. It would also be a smaller diameter tunnel. both these facts would really help in building rapid transit through a very built up area. This yard could have been shared with the Eglinton line – if they had opted for this technology on Eglinton-Scarborough.
I am also surprised that they seem to be using the word “subway” all the time, even though all experts said that you have to pick a route, then estimate the demand, and then find the transit vehicle to suit the need. Here we seem to think that is must be the most expensive mode and nothing else.
Steve: The projected demand on the DRL is right at the high end of LRT capability with no headroom for growth. Also, the route would have to be entirely grade separated because of the demand level and the lack of a convenient right-of-way. These considerations, plus the possibility of a spur as you describe over to Greenwood Shops rather than a full wye at Pape/Danforth, lead to subway as a reasonable choice. I once saw this as a potential LRT route myself, but the high demand level convinced me otherwise.
LikeLike
@Ian
Don’t get me wrong the guy is a Major Moron & likely made a wrong click of his mouse on his way to the Toronto Sun comments section.
But to respond as if he’s the voice for subway or anti-Transit City is insanity. These Nuts are on both the left & right. Go read the Star comment section: it’s the same just opposite party. Instead of LIEberals it’s CONS.
No reason to debate him as he embarrasses himself & Scarborough enough with his comment alone.
LikeLike
Amen Joe. However, the debate also needs to evolve around best service, and how to solve real transit problems. This means the best way of resolving all the transit issues in an area. Unfortunately in our polling intensive age, where agendas are set based on a poor perception of what poorly informed people think they want, having a proper debate is exceedingly hard. Polls are in effect a form of ambush politics, where you need to chose A or B where there are a dozen other alternatives that could be had for the same cost, and where the actual alternative being put forth by the planners, is either not explained or not even what of the alternatives presented in the ambush. We have a system where we elect people to lead, and that means at the very least getting a hold of the agenda, presenting real alternatives. This is clearly not what has been happening (at the the city, provincial or federal level).
The bottom line is that the real alternatives, ie based on what the planners believe is the truly best plan does not appear to be part of the debate. Instead we are debating a subway for 3.8 billions vs LRT for 1.4 billion. Well – it seems clear the subway is going to be more than 3.8, and what is the alternative broad plan for Scarborough? – if we are going to spend the high end money what else could be had? How does a voter make a reasoned choice? Would Scarborough prefer 3.8 billion of LRT/BRT ? If so what makes the most sense? Would Toronto prefer 8.1 billion worth of other projects over ST? Would it make more sense to just try to integrate fares and current GO stations with higher service levels?
I think that all Scarborough originated rides – including core bound and in Scarborough, could be much better served than a subway will for the 3.8 billion, and certainly for the 4.2-5 the subway will likely really cost. I think a real plan could also have a substantial impact on congestion and development in Scarborough, whereas a subway extension, will likely have only a very moderate impact. Steve once upon a time presented a Grand Plan for Toronto, and that is the type of thinking that is required when looking at the Scarborough transit issue. The biggest possible impact for the dollars reasonably available – let city planning do the work. How about the same for Rexdale, and the balance of the city? The vision as put forth by Tory is for 12 billion in transit spending in addition to the Finch West LRT- what should it be ? (he supports both ST (2.7×3) and SSE (3.8+)
LikeLike
Steve, can I ask you to return to a really simple question? This may have been addressed before, but before I started reading your site. The first couple of kilometers of any journey on a GO train leaving Union Station, or the last couple of kilometers arriving at Union Station, trains travel at a glacial pace, faster than walking, but slower than a bicycle.
Is that solely due to the number of switches trains have to go through, as a few lines become over a dozen? Are there ways to speed up those first few (or last) kilometers? Is the reason they aren’t used because of the added expense? Do they require tunnels or bridges. Or can some measure of speed up be provided just by replacing older track with newer track laid to higher tolerances?
I was too busy taking photos on the 6th to really notice whether the UPX was noticeably faster over those first kilometers than a Kitchener GO train. Is it faster now?
Steve: There have been slow orders all around Union during all of the track repairs/upgrades/installations and trains have travelled even more glacially than they might normally. One of the issues of improving throughput at Union is to dedicate platforms to specific services and minimize the amount of to-and-fro traffic that must traverse the slip switches. With the completion of work on the train shed and all of the platforms back in use, it will be a lot easier to standardize track and platform usage.
All that said, I think that the UPX trains do dawdle at Union and I am not sure whether this is a leftover from construction work still in progress with its associated slow orders.
LikeLike