Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

So, I guess, the "cost benefit" analysis that would need to be done is "which is most cost efficient and, relative to cost, provides benefit to the most......spending additional money revamping the ARL into a local service or spending additional money (that is planned to be spent by 2018 anyway) accelarting the installation of the 4th track so that the GO service can be upped to provide that hybrid local/regional service".

I am not smart enough to know the answer.

A fourth track, even if it were imminent, would not give us infill stations, smaller trains, 15-minute headways, connection to the airport, electrification, or fare integration, all of which are needed before this line could become an important part of the *Toronto* transportation system. All of that is a long way off any way. But the ARL will stand in the way for a much longer time. And anybody who thinks Metrolinx will be quick to convert an underperforming ARL into a true local service just doesn't really get how bureaucracy works.
 
So, I guess, the "cost benefit" analysis that would need to be done is "which is most cost efficient and, relative to cost, provides benefit to the most.

Ultimately, if ridership is there they will add additional service every year. If ridership doesn't show up, they will reduce service levels from whatever is promised today.
 
Last edited:
A fourth track, even if it were imminent, would not give us infill stations, smaller trains, 15-minute headways, connection to the airport, electrification, or fare integration, all of which are needed before this line could become an important part of the *Toronto* transportation system. All of that is a long way off any way. But the ARL will stand in the way for a much longer time. And anybody who thinks Metrolinx will be quick to convert an underperforming ARL into a true local service just doesn't really get how bureaucracy works.

You seem to be forgetting that this is a heavy rail corridor, not a rapid transit line. Its primary purpose has always been to provide a connection for people living outside the 416 area to the core. Don't be so selfish, all transit corridors running through the city need not be so Toronto-centric. Furthermore if you look at the Weston sub it largely cuts through an industrial swath of Toronto's West end, the only areas that have any significant density is Weston, Bloor and the area's further south. Hence it makes sense to have stops at Weston and Bloor and in the future an interconnection to the Eglinton rapid transit line. From Bloor going south the western leg of the DRL would make more sense then creating multiple new stops on the GO line. But otherwise there's nothing to indicate the entirety of the line up to the airport justifies a 15 minute level of service outside of rush hour.
 
It should be noted that, given its status as an active freight corridor, pushing too much transit up the Georgetown line (ARL, GO, VIA *and* TTC) could be putting a lot of eggs in one basket, for instance where a hazardous load derailed. I'd perhaps see a DRL swing further west if possible - perhaps tunnelling under High Park and up Jane - a street identified for LRT under TC but much too narrow for on-street LRT south of Eglinton.
 
It should be noted that, given its status as an active freight corridor, pushing too much transit up the Georgetown line (ARL, GO, VIA *and* TTC) could be putting a lot of eggs in one basket, for instance where a hazardous load derailed. I'd perhaps see a DRL swing further west if possible - perhaps tunnelling under High Park and up Jane - a street identified for LRT under TC but much too narrow for on-street LRT south of Eglinton.

Is the Weston sub used for hazardous traffic, though? It's not a through route, especially since it was sold to Metrolinx, and I can't think of any heavy industry of a kind that would produce or consume dangerous cargo. I understand what you mean about concentrating too much in one basket. TTC in that corridor is unnecessary anyway, since it should have regional rail and the TTC service would just duplicate that. Going by international best practices, a full four tracks would be most suitable in the corridor: two dedicated entirely to local regional rail, and two dedicated to express services like the ARL, express commuter trains, and VIA.
 
The weston sub shares the corridor space with the CP Mactier sub between the West Toronto Junction and north of Weston. Thats the mainline to western canada, so it presumably carries some hazardous freight. In any case, although it doesn't share any tracks with GO, a major derailment could block all tracks in the corridor. That being said, derailments are very infrequent.
 
You seem to be forgetting that this is a heavy rail corridor, not a rapid transit line. Its primary purpose has always been to provide a connection for people living outside the 416 area to the core. Don't be so selfish, all transit corridors running through the city need not be so Toronto-centric. Furthermore if you look at the Weston sub it largely cuts through an industrial swath of Toronto's West end, the only areas that have any significant density is Weston, Bloor and the area's further south. Hence it makes sense to have stops at Weston and Bloor and in the future an interconnection to the Eglinton rapid transit line. From Bloor going south the western leg of the DRL would make more sense then creating multiple new stops on the GO line. But otherwise there's nothing to indicate the entirety of the line up to the airport justifies a 15 minute level of service outside of rush hour.

If we had $10 billion kicking around then of course there are better alignments for a tunneled DRL. But given that we don't have that money, let's put our existing investments to good use. I agree completely that the demand is from Lawrence south, which is why it's pretty troubling that there are no stations south of Weston even in consideration (ok maybe Eglinton someday). While I have great respect for your opinions and value the insider's view, you are probably not the only one at GO/Metrolinx who thinks its "purpose has always been for people outside the 416" and so it should always stay that way. Organizational thinking is hard to change, but the time is right for Metrolinx to recognize its primary market could and should become Toronto itself, through S-Bahn service.
 
I support the idea for S-bahn style service as well on the Georgetown corridor, though a new tunnelled subway line will eventually be necessary for faster travel in the dense neighbourhoods south of St. Clair in the urban west end. Building the S-bahn style line will give us more freedom in terms of subway line alignment. We might not currently have the money for a new subway line with Transit City going forward, but it can be the next major priority.
 
Building the S-bahn style line will give us more freedom in terms of subway line alignment.

Good point.

Andy Byford in blogto (h/t wklis):

What is the once piece of transit infrastructure that Toronto most needs? Why?

There is a definite need to provide relief to the Yonge Line which is approaching capacity even with new Rocket trains and signalling. At some point, further capacity will also be required to service the east-west downtown corridors.

It's good to see a rail link to Pearson finally under construction.

Interesting he mentions those 2 quite different issues in the same answer. Sydney's RailCorp runs a high-frequency metro service I believe.
 
Interesting he mentions those 2 quite different issues in the same answer. Sydney's RailCorp runs a high-frequency metro service I believe.

A few Sydney CityRail (RailCorp is an operator much as GO uses Bombardier as an operator) lines run every 15 minutes off-peak with bilevel-EMU trains. Olympic line offers 10 minute frequencies on weekends (20 minutes during the week).

Interesting to note that they are changing from a time-table based schedule to one based strictly on service frequency instead. Rush-hour service though the central portion of the system is extremely frequent.


IIRC, tickets from downtown to the airport were $15AUD to $20AUD and the *$#@^&! don't take Canadian credit or debit cards (tried CIBC, TD, and Royal Bank). Cash machine around the corner has a $5 usage fee and an insane exchange rate.

Make sure you have cash to get out of the city.


Sydney's long-term plan has lots of interesting information, such as their private vehicle use is increasing at about 3 times the population growth rate.
 
Last edited:
A few Sydney CityRail (RailCorp is an operator much as GO uses Bombardier as an operator)
Nope. RailCorp is the government agency that's the parent of both CityRail (their GO-ish analogue) and CountryLink (their sort of ONR/Via analogue). Buses fall under a separate agency altogether. Everything is State (i.e. Provincial) run rather than local government run, right down to local city buses.
 
Here's an idea of the frequencies that are possible with modern signalling systems. This is from the ERTMS Fact Sheet. That's the system that is becoming the standard in Europe and many other parts of the world.

"A 2008 study by RWTH Aachen University (Institute of Transport
Science) for the International Union of Railways (UIC) provides
a first estimates of the line capacity when using different
ERTMS levels, concluding for instance that using ERTMS level
2 with optimised block sections allows to have a minimum
headway of only 2.51 minutes between two high speed trains
and 1.62 minutes between regular intercity trains
, depending
on the assumptions.

"In practice, real gains can however be calculated by taking
examples of ERTMS lines which are already in operation.
A typical example of a high-capacity ERTMS lines is given
in the Swiss case of the Mattstetten – Rothrist line, which
operates in level 2. An estimated 242 trains– both freight and
passengers run on the line everyday, at speeds of up to 200
km/h. The headway between trains has been reduced to less
than two minutes (110 seconds), allowing for a considerable
capacity increase!"
 
IMG3710-L.jpg
 

Back
Top