ssiguy2
Senior Member
I think they should just use standard Metro cars just like the other subway lines except these will have catenary power supple. This is a subway line and should use subway cars.
|
|
|
SmartTrack (Proposed)
- Thread starter aquateam
- Start date
nfitz
Superstar
With a peak demand of 20,000 an hour, and only running every 5 minutes, that means, 1,667 people per train in 2031. This would require a 10-car train, or more frequent service (which presumably would also increase demand).
jcam
Active Member
You've got it.The tracks and trackbed sit on the tunnel liner, which is built in segments, and as best I can tell the TBM Tunnel liners get removed entirely where a station is built, so the tracks would have to come out with it.
Since the tunnel liners are several peices that are put together for each ring, I can't see it being possible to remove only part of it and leave in the bottom part, each whole piece would have to come out.
This picture should give an idea of the inside of such a tunnel.
They build 'headwalls' for the stations before the tunnel comes through...essentially the ends of the station boxes (this was all the work they were doing at station sites in the months before the TBMs crossed them). The TBMs actually bore through those walls, and seal the tunnel to them as they do. Doing so means that when they dig out the box, they're sealed at the ends and can safely break away the tunnel within the box.
So they could easily build the headwalls for later stations, but the fact remains that they'd likely need to repour new foundations when the station is built, thereby removing the tracks and utilities.
kEiThZ
Superstar
It's frustrating to not see more coordination between Metrolinx and the City on Smart Track. It would be nice to see something like 8-10 trains for Smart Track that are local and stop at every station. And 4 trains per hour that are express and stop every 2-4 stations. They could work out some sort of shared tracks and have passing tracks at stations where no RER service is planned. We need RER. But I don't want to see those rail corridors underserving the 416 itself either.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Hilarious to have the guy who backed Miller and Chow post an editorial in the Sun of all places....
jcam
Active Member
Attachments
vic
Senior Member
Adam Giambrone was a regular columnist in The Sun! So the precedent is there, for sure.....
Tuscani01
Senior Member
I actually like this idea, though you wouldn't need to do any tunneling. The new GO Bus terminal is being built on the parking lot just south of where you put the platforms. It will be connected to Union and Front Street via the park they are building over the tracks right on that location. I see no reason why this can't just piggy back on that infrastructure.
Hairball
Active Member
This is actually a great idea, I guess similar to how the UPX has a station on the west side of the main Union platforms, no reason you can't have another on the east side for SmartTrack. I had envisioned in my mind a tunneled section below the current tracks for SmartTrack, but this would be good too, maybe design it in a way that is more suitable for high capacity unlike the GO platforms.
sixrings
Senior Member
id rather a UPX type platform. This is at least twice the distance away from connecting subway routes.
ottbike
Active Member
There are already plans for two massive towers on each side of the rail corridor where you had proposed the bridge. Those proposals already include a "Greenway" park over the tracks. Given the various unknowns on final design, timelines, space required etc, a smarttrack platform here might not work. I think a better approach would be to have an underground station connecting close to the TTC, or at least using the existing platforms in the interm.
44 North
Senior Member
First of all I'm a huge supporter of GO improvements and electrified high-freq express rail. The takeaway from my point however is that Stouffville (and I guess by default the majority of ST) was rejected over several years as being worthy of RER and electrification - with reasons given by experts. These same experts then changed their tune, and we don't really know why since little tangible explanation was given. Your earlier point was that the Prov's plans for the Stouffville corridor was expert-driven, and that we should trust expert decisions over political ones. And I agree. But is this really non-political expert decision?
And I never said the concept of RER came from Wynne's "behind". However I did say that the promise for RER on a line like Stouffville came from a promise made two months before an election, it came from left field, and it also came after SSE was prioritized by both the City and Prov.
You're asking for the study pulling apart the current RER grand plan, but there's very little data on this plan to begin with. However I did tell you where to find earlier reports which preceded the 2014 RER promise (i.e 2010 GO benefits case and electrification study, and early Big Move docs). Some lines scored favourably for electrification and express rail, others did not. That's how AD2W using diesels was originally chosen as the best option for Stouffville to beyond 2031. Not to sound rude, but I don't want to read your opinion on why it was necessary to upgrade it. Or comparisons to Ford's remark about subways on Finch. I'd rather read a report with an expert's explanation (something that I believe is lacking from the region's transportation authority). Plans that cost more are almost always "better". But are they the right use of scarce funds or limited rail corridors?
Personally one major worry I have is that the RER grand plan will fizzle away leaving us with a fraction of what was promised... which is a reasonable prediction considering every other transportation grand plan over the decades had this happen. So if, say, a longstanding priority like electrified Lakeshore E+W express rail doesn't exist by 2031, but a newfound priority like RER on Stouffville or Barrie does - I'm going to accuse the Prov of putting politics ahead of expert planning.
jcam
Active Member
I'm not proposing a bridge. I'm saying excavate a new teamway under it all, so that you're funneling foot traffic north underground. You'd probably still have an access to that building, but the intention would be for the main flow to go under the whole development and up through the Dominion building to PATH and street level.
I'm worried about this too. The RER plan is the biggest gamechanger transit plan in decades (since the GO ALRT plan, in my opinion), and I'm worried that the next government (because right now re-election doesn't look too good) will cancel it. This is why I hope as many pieces get implemented by mid 2018 as possible, so it'll be tougher to scrap the entire thing. Right now the timelines look tight, but I think we'll get at the very least an electrified Lakeshore and Kitchener line (to Bramalea). Also, the infrastructure required to provide AD2W on most lines will be in place prior to 2018 as well, so even if electrification doesn't happen everywhere, there will still be massive service boosts.
So basically, it all comes down to a) how much can get done before mid 2018, and b) how RER-friendly the next government will be.
muller877
Senior Member
When you look at burying you have to consider the Queens Quay LRT and the subway. There is a paid fare area between the two...so you can't tunnel from east of Bay to Union station.
In fact, the first track (Track 3?) is almost at street level with Front St. So theoretically (and hopefully) by creating a hallway you can connect this with ease. Track 4 will have to either go up 1 floor and back down or vice versa. for the same Front St location.
Getting to the subway is a bit more difficult. It's a long way down under the LRT and I'm not sure the clearance above it (under the south sidewalk of Front St)