Urban Toronto - Powered by vBulletin
Project Essentials / dataBase detailed project information, floor plans, renderings
Projects & Construction Thread
Union Pearson Express
,
Developer: Metrolinx
Page 132 of 249 FirstFirst ... 3282122130131132133134142182232 ... LastLast
Results 1,966 to 1,980 of 3724

Thread: GO Georgetown South Corridor/ Union Pearson Express (Metrolinx, U/C)

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by car4041 View Post
    Like andrewpmk said, I think it would dramatically increase its use, not limit it. And there are aspects of the ARL that make it more suited to a high-frequency metro service than the other GO lines (in their current state): it won't run with monster 10-car double-deck trains, it's a shorter route than the long-haul trains to Georgetown and Kitchener, and there's space in the corridor for it to have dedicated tracks separate from the longer-distance express services.
    But those shorter cars are not configured (inside) for mass transit......the highest passenger volume stations on the line are all west of the airport and, if the regular Go is not expanded, a great deal of the line/infrastructure will not be used for large parts of the day so there is very little value in being separated!


  2. #1967
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Exiled to Portage & Main (formerly Harbord St.)
    Posts
    298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TOareaFan View Post
    But those shorter cars are not configured (inside) for mass transit......
    Agreed; that would have to change if the ARL were to become a metro service.

    Quote Originally Posted by TOareaFan View Post
    the highest passenger volume stations on the line are all west of the airport and, if the regular Go is not expanded, a great deal of the line/infrastructure will not be used for large parts of the day so there is very little value in being separated!
    I don't quite understand what you're saying -- the regular GO and the ARL are two distinct services, and adding more stops to the ARL doesn't preclude expanding the regular GO service as planned. The ARL-as-metro would function as an inner-suburban line serving the 416 and the regular Georgetown/Kitchener line would function as an outer-suburban line serving the 905 with limited stops within the 416.

    The highest passenger volume stations on the line are west of the airport because the current GO service is almost useless for travel within the 416. That would certainly change if the 8 proposed stops were added and provided with a high service frequency and reasonable fares integrated with the TTC.

    On the flip side, adding those 8 stops to a Kitchener service would make it an awfully slow commuter line -- hence why it makes more sense to add the most extra stops to the shortest-distance service in the corridor, the ARL.
    Last edited by car4041; 2012-Apr-13 at 00:35.

  3. #1968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rbt View Post
    It's standard policy amongst many large telecom companies and I assume large companies of any type that employees should take the express rail service when available.

    The main reason isn't cost, but related to more predictable service.

    I doubt it will carry more than 500 people per day but $4Million in revenue per year should be enough to keep it running.

    Next up, how to get GO REX service on the Georgetown line in addition to this. This, ultimately, is why the corridor is under construction.
    500 a day! That's about one tenth the forecast, and the forecast ridership already made it touch and go to break even. If it turns out even remotely that bad I think the government will be forced to admit the ARL is a waste of space.

  4. #1969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RedRocket191 View Post
    I don't think they'll go quietly. I think their ability to drop you off at your hotel gives them a competitive advantage that they will promote heavily.
    The problem is that the bus circles around downtown before it gets to your hotel. I tried to ride it out from a hotel near my apartment but the travel time was an hour.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Admiral Beez View Post
    I have to say IMO adding eight stops to the airport express rail link was a silly idea. The Airport Link is supposed to be like London's Paddington to Heathrow non-stop rail service.

    If you want a half dozen or more stops, then you might as well extend the subway 10 kms from Kipling to the airport.
    It is a stupid idea, and suggesting it makes me want to tear my hair out. The advocates of more stops should be proposing adding more stops to *the corridor*, not to the *ARL service*. Toronto appears to be the only jurisdiction in the developed world where it's considered impossible to run more than one type of service to a rail corridor with more than two tracks. An express ARL stopping only at Bloor and Weston--or not even in those places--shouldn't preclude putting in place a local, stopping service that could function as a DRL substitute. The fact that we have a gigantic rail corridor running though neighbourhoods that are desperate for additional rapid transit capacity, and it doesn't even have stops in those neighbourhoods, would rightly shock the administrators at, say, Deutsche Bahn or JR.

  6. #1971

    Default

    Well, that's our point, right? GO apparently only has the money and/or the operational ability to run a single kind of service on these two very valuable tracks. And they've chosen the wrong one.

    The stops should be added, local service should be offered, and it should be priced in a way that this investment is actually useful to Toronto.

  7. #1972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k10ery View Post
    Well, that's our point, right? GO apparently only has the money and/or the operational ability to run a single kind of service on these two very valuable tracks. And they've chosen the wrong one.

    The stops should be added, local service should be offered, and it should be priced in a way that this investment is actually useful to Toronto.
    Bingo. There wouldn't be a controversy if the launch of the Airport Rail Link coincided with the launch of a frequent local service.

  8. #1973
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Exiled to Portage & Main (formerly Harbord St.)
    Posts
    298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allabootmatt View Post
    It is a stupid idea, and suggesting it makes me want to tear my hair out. The advocates of more stops should be proposing adding more stops to *the corridor*, not to the *ARL service*. Toronto appears to be the only jurisdiction in the developed world where it's considered impossible to run more than one type of service to a rail corridor with more than two tracks. An express ARL stopping only at Bloor and Weston--or not even in those places--shouldn't preclude putting in place a local, stopping service that could function as a DRL substitute.
    How do you envision the track utilization working? The corridor will (eventually) have four tracks, and we're talking about three different services:
    - local stopping service functioning as a DRL substitute
    - express ARL
    - regular GO and VIA services (express or semi-express within the 416)

    If the DRL service is going to have a decent frequency, it will need its own two tracks (and it'll be too slow to share with the express lines anyway). That leaves two tracks for the express ARL and all the GO/VIA services. Can a 15-minute express ARL plus eventual 15-minute GO service and the occasional VIA train all fit on just two tracks? I assume not, hence the suggestion to use two local tracks for airport services (acting as a DRL) and two express tracks for longer-distance services.

    I am prepared to stand corrected if it really is possible to run all three services at high frequencies on four tracks. But it seems like we'd need at least five (the three that are currently planned for the express ARL and GO/VIA plus two more for the local DRL service with a bunch of extra stops added).

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by car4041 View Post
    Agreed; that would have to change if the ARL were to become a metro service.



    I don't quite understand what you're saying -- the regular GO and the ARL are two distinct services, and adding more stops to the ARL doesn't preclude expanding the regular GO service as planned.
    But it is not "planned" it is hinted at. There is no "plan" that once the line/corridor work is complete there will be any more service on the GO corridor. There are hints like "we will have the ability to increase service" but no plans/announcements like "All day GO coming to KW line in 2015".

    I am one of the people supporting the ARL and promoting that the local service desired can be provided by increased with far more frequent service and a few more stops (8 in my opinion is overkill). I have long (about 15 - 20 years) advocated more stops on this line....2 in particular are one at Eglinton and one in Liberty Village.

    With Presto technology it would be easy to charge TTC type fares on intra-Toronto travel and you would now have a frequent service that had Toronto Stops at Union (connecting to YUS)...Liberty (connecting to the EX, King/Queen streetcars)....Bloor (BD Subway and multiple streetcar routes).....Eglinton (connecting to the new LRT)....Weston and Etobicoke North.....all of those within the "416"/Toronto.

    Add in that dreamed of (by me) Airport People Mover improvement at Malton and now you have affordable, frequent service on a diagonal route NW that has 6 stops in Toronto, connecting to all the major east west transit infrastructure....providing service to the airport.....and all it cost was the building of 2 additional GO train stations (which hardly need to be fancy) and an extension/improvement to the people mover.

    How do you sell that slightly (two additonal stops!) slower service to the longer commuters from KW-Guelph-Georgetown-Brampton? You don't, the improvements in the line are going to increase the average speed on the line anyway so they won't even notice any lenghtening of their commute......all they will notice is far more frequent service which is, in part, facilitated by the increased ridership on the line created by the two stops and the airport link!

  10. #1975
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Exiled to Portage & Main (formerly Harbord St.)
    Posts
    298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TOareaFan View Post
    But it is not "planned" it is hinted at. There is no "plan" that once the line/corridor work is complete there will be any more service on the GO corridor. There are hints like "we will have the ability to increase service" but no plans/announcements like "All day GO coming to KW line in 2015".
    It's in the 15-year portion of The Big Move, which calls itself a plan. I guess it's really more of a vision, but still, it's part of the justification for upgrading the corridor.

    Quote Originally Posted by TOareaFan View Post
    I am one of the people supporting the ARL and promoting that the local service desired can be provided by increased with far more frequent service and a few more stops (8 in my opinion is overkill). I have long (about 15 - 20 years) advocated more stops on this line....2 in particular are one at Eglinton and one in Liberty Village.
    Sure, if it's only 2 extra stops, then they could just be added to the regular GO services, which hopefully would eventually reach a high enough frequency to make them useful for travel within Toronto. But this is different from the very local service proposed by Nunziata and Layton, which would have a 15-minute frequency from day 1, using what's planned for the ARL (and would pretty much require dedicated tracks).

    Quote Originally Posted by TOareaFan View Post
    Add in that dreamed of (by me) Airport People Mover improvement at Malton and now you have affordable, frequent service on a diagonal route NW that has 6 stops in Toronto, connecting to all the major east west transit infrastructure....providing service to the airport.....and all it cost was the building of 2 additional GO train stations (which hardly need to be fancy) and an extension/improvement to the people mover.
    I think the LINK people mover would have to be completely replaced rather than extended -- as I understand, it can't really be extended (and it provides a horrible bumpy ride in any case). But the reality is that they're building a spur into the airport, so we're going to have to deal with a branching service pattern in the rail corridor. The question is just which services get the extra stops, and the answer depends on how many extra stops we want to add. If we really want to add 8 extra stops (and maybe we don't), they can't be added to the longer-distance services.

  11. #1976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TOareaFan View Post
    But it is not "planned" it is hinted at. There is no "plan" that once the line/corridor work is complete there will be any more service on the GO corridor. There are hints like "we will have the ability to increase service" but no plans/announcements like "All day GO coming to KW line in 2015".

    I am one of the people supporting the ARL and promoting that the local service desired can be provided by increased with far more frequent service and a few more stops (8 in my opinion is overkill). I have long (about 15 - 20 years) advocated more stops on this line....2 in particular are one at Eglinton and one in Liberty Village.
    Enhanced service to KW is not a substitute for DRL-Lite on this line, in part because 12-car trains are not the way to go. It would make the new stops more expensive, and it would preclude one at King/Queen which seems like a no brainer.

    Btw, I wouldn't worry about the 8 stops in the Layton-Nunziata proposal. 7 of them are presumably to get Nunziata to sign on, and I don't think she's particularly reasonable or particularly important in the long run.

  12. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by car4041 View Post
    It's in the 15-year portion of The Big Move, which calls itself a plan. I guess it's really more of a vision, but still, it's part of the justification for upgrading the corridor.



    Sure, if it's only 2 extra stops, then they could just be added to the regular GO services, which hopefully would eventually reach a high enough frequency to make them useful for travel within Toronto. But this is different from the very local service proposed by Nunziata and Layton, which would have a 15-minute frequency from day 1, using what's planned for the ARL (and would pretty much require dedicated tracks).



    I think the LINK people mover would have to be completely replaced rather than extended -- as I understand, it can't really be extended (and it provides a horrible bumpy ride in any case). But the reality is that they're building a spur into the airport, so we're going to have to deal with a branching service pattern in the rail corridor. The question is just which services get the extra stops, and the answer depends on how many extra stops we want to add. If we really want to add 8 extra stops (and maybe we don't), they can't be added to the longer-distance services.
    I think the call for 8 stops, in part, just shows how little the people making the call know about the transit options out there. I bet they don't know/realize that there is already a transit line that makes 4 "toronto" stops already and by adding 2 more you can connect tol all of the major E-W transit links and, with increased frequency, you could do a lot to alleviate some of the crowding on the YUS-BD. That would b 6 stops.

    As for the 12 - Car issue. Firstly, there has never been a 12-Car GO train on that line. They currently run 10 Car trains and who is to say that they need to do that? If there were frequencies of 15 minutes like people seem to be talking about they could shrink those to 8 car trains....or have some run as 10 Car (perhaps those ones "skip" the few (1?) station that could not handle them.

    I understand that there is some doubt about extending the people mover as opposed to replacing it....but, even replacing it would not be that expensive...would it? And if it were replaced with something that connected to GO (@ Malton) and TTC/MiWay (at Eglinton/Renforth) you get a pretty big bang for your buck with people from many more communities now able to take transit to the airport.

    I just believe that a fairly inexpensive solution that provides greater public transit access to the airport, improved commuter transit in a fairly high population centre and provides some relief to to the TTC in the West/NW is available to us and it allows us to keep the buisness/tourist level service offered by the ARL.

  13. Default

    I don't understand why four tracks aren't going in from the start for the entire line. Could someone provide insight? Does this mean that they will get the ARL up and running and then build the 4th track to expand service on the Kitchener Line?

  14. #1979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by car4041 View Post
    If the DRL service is going to have a decent frequency, it will need its own two tracks (and it'll be too slow to share with the express lines anyway). That leaves two tracks for the express ARL and all the GO/VIA services. Can a 15-minute express ARL plus eventual 15-minute GO service and the occasional VIA train all fit on just two tracks?
    Sure, why not? If all of the trains are traveling at the same speed without making stops, there's absolutely no reason why they can't have headways well below five minutes. Most high-capacity corridors around the world are four tracks: two for local service and two for express. The ARL is completely compatible with express rail. A local regional rail service would require its own pair of tracks.

  15. #1980
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Exiled to Portage & Main (formerly Harbord St.)
    Posts
    298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unimaginative2 View Post
    Sure, why not? If all of the trains are traveling at the same speed without making stops, there's absolutely no reason why they can't have headways well below five minutes. Most high-capacity corridors around the world are four tracks: two for local service and two for express.
    I'm not sure about "well below", but you're right that a 5-minute headway (12tph) does seem to be attainable; that's what GO seems to expect on the Lakeshore lines with a new signal system and cab signalling. So I stand corrected...there is room for the ARL on the express tracks.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •