The CityRail Concept: Real Regional Rail for the GTA

[Hipster Duck]

That's obviously the goal, but I think it's valuable to push for new ideas to be included in that 50-year plan, otherwise it's just going to be the same old rehash of Transit City and miscellaneous 905 municipal plans. CityRail is about pushing a technology, S-Bahn/RER-style regional rail, that doesn't exist in Toronto. It's not about pushing for a specific plan. Many of the people who are planning transit right now don't even know that the idea of regional rail exists. As long as it's sold as an evolutionary upgrade of GO service, it's not going to have political cachet, it's not going to have integrated fares, and frankly it's not going to happen in any kind of satisfactory form. A group of ordinary people got together to introduce and promote the idea of the DRL, and that's a big part of why it's now on the agenda.

Sorry to bring up an old post, but I forgot to answer it a week ago.

While CityRail is not a "plan" per se, it still is pretty clear about where the lines will go and even suggests where the stations will go. None of this should be the goal of an initiative that is trying to push awareness of a certain technology. Like all the other recent "plans", CityRail makes the cardinal mistake of showing where the lines would go, rather than focusing on the benefits of the technology, figuring out how much it will cost, who will pay, who will operate, what the perceived benefits are of this technology over others, and how it fits into existing plans - both land use, or otherwise. I liken this strategy of presenting a plan as "all attack and no defense" - you step on the toes of competing plans based on where you are going to put it (for example, the Stouffville plan is very similar to the now defunct OneCity plan for regional rail or that i-MetroE plan floated by that Markham MP(P?)) which means that your competitors can marshall their resources to attack you, even if their outcome is similar, but you have no fundamentals (like cost estimates, or alignments with land use and official plans) to fall back and defend your own plan with. I think this is why so many Toronto transit "plans" go down in flames.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Maybe I missed a comment but could the Milton Line be combined with a potential Crosstown line serving through North Toronto Station? Or would that bring riders too far north and hamper demand due to distance from the core? Of course fare integration could soften that.

 

[unimaginative2]

Sorry to bring up an old post, but I forgot to answer it a week ago.

While CityRail is not a "plan" per se, it still is pretty clear about where the lines will go and even suggests where the stations will go. None of this should be the goal of an initiative that is trying to push awareness of a certain technology. Like all the other recent "plans", CityRail makes the cardinal mistake of showing where the lines would go, rather than focusing on the benefits of the technology, figuring out how much it will cost, who will pay, who will operate, what the perceived benefits are of this technology over others, and how it fits into existing plans - both land use, or otherwise. I liken this strategy of presenting a plan as "all attack and no defense" - you step on the toes of competing plans based on where you are going to put it (for example, the Stouffville plan is very similar to the now defunct OneCity plan for regional rail or that i-MetroE plan floated by that Markham MP(P?)) which means that your competitors can marshall their resources to attack you, even if their outcome is similar, but you have no fundamentals (like cost estimates, or alignments with land use and official plans) to fall back and defend your own plan with. I think this is why so many Toronto transit "plans" go down in flames.

The plan was intended to talk about the benefits of the technology. The map was to show its potential and how many different and new trips can be served with the application of full regional rail. It was pretty clearly stated in the article that the map was for illustrative purposes and wasn't intended to be anything about final alignments. Of course, many things would be built differently in reality: lines like the MacTier Sub, North Toronto Sub and Havelock Sub would almost certainly also have service. On the other hand, the Richmond Hill corridor wouldn't be ideal, at least without the Leaside connection. The plan is similar to i-MetroE only in the sense that it's regional rail, which makes it similar to other plans for regional rail. The problem with that plan was that it focused exclusively on that one corridor and not on the network, integrated with local transit, that needs to be built. As for cost estimates, I don't even put any faith in Metrolinx/TTC's cost estimates, which are really just shots in the dark given that no agency in North America has ever built real regional rail. It would be pretty difficult to calculate any kind of reasonable figure, even order of magnitude. Do you take European per kilometre costs? That's equally unreliable given the different states of the pre-existing infrastructure and the different experience in building such projects.

 

[gweed123]

Maybe I missed a comment but could the Milton Line be combined with a potential Crosstown line serving through North Toronto Station? Or would that bring riders too far north and hamper demand due to distance from the core? Of course fare integration could soften that.

I think the more likely scenario would be interlining with it. What I mean by this is that the Milton line would run from Milton to Union, while the Midtown would run from Cooksville to either Malvern or Seaton. This would mean that for some of it they would overlap.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Personally, I think this is the way transit planning should be done:

1. Come up with a binding, long-term regional land use and transportation plan that sets out corridors for intensification, but doesn't describe in any way, shape or form, what technology will be used, nor the exact alignment nor the stations. Determine, however, what level of service impacts will be if employment and residential densities are increased by X percent. Also run a sophisticated model of travel demand, trip assignment and route assignment across the region based on the increased employment and residential numbers

2. For each transportation corridor in the land use plan, determine the mode based on travel demand and trip characteristics (distance traveled, where to?). This is done on a case-by-case basis (so line by line) and is not meant to champion one mode over another. Get international engineering firms to bid on the design, build and operation of the line in a transparent process. If the best submission meets all the detailed demand and planning requirements but happens to be some unexpected mode, so be it.

3. Get public input in station area precinct design and how to best integrate the station with area surroundings and local travel modes.

Here is how you should not plan for transit:

1. Champion a mode and suggest where it will go without any analysis of whether it fits with existing travel characteristics, future travel characteristics based on long-range land use plans, not have an idea of how much it costs or how you will pay for it, and have no idea who will operate it and how they will operate and manage it.

 

[gweed123]

Personally, I think this is the way transit planning should be done:

1. Come up with a binding, long-term regional land use and transportation plan that sets out corridors for intensification, but doesn't describe in any way, shape or form, what technology will be used, nor the exact alignment nor the stations. Determine, however, what level of service impacts will be if employment and residential densities are increased by X percent. Also run a sophisticated model of travel demand, trip assignment and route assignment across the region based on the increased employment and residential numbers

2. For each transportation corridor in the land use plan, determine the mode based on travel demand and trip characteristics (distance traveled, where to?). This is done on a case-by-case basis (so line by line) and is not meant to champion one mode over another. Get international engineering firms to bid on the design, build and operation of the line in a transparent process. If the best submission meets all the detailed demand and planning requirements but happens to be some unexpected mode, so be it.

3. Get public input in station area precinct design and how to best integrate the station with area surroundings and local travel modes.

Here is how you should not plan for transit:

1. Champion a mode and suggest where it will go without any analysis of whether it fits with existing travel characteristics, future travel characteristics based on long-range land use plans, not have an idea of how much it costs or how you will pay for it, and have no idea who will operate it and how they will operate and manage it.

The Big Move already does this, although granted it is not as binding as some would like. It does specify which corridors are to receive subways, express rail, and local rail, but when it comes to LRT and BRT, it does not differentiate. And that's a good thing, because usually when it comes to upper modes of transit, the technology choice is pretty much set anyway, because it's dictated by ridership numbers. Most corridors that need subways would not work with LRT.

It's really only at the lower end of the ridership spectrum that it becomes really fuzzy about which to use. There is a significant overlap between the LRT ridership range and the BRT ridership range. By not specifying which should go where, it leaves the door open to determine that at a later time.

The Big Move also only shows vague conceptual alignments, more to show what line is linking to what major node.

 

[CDL.TO]

Some of you say a subway to Mississauga isn't needed because you could (conceivably) serve MCC with GO.

Then some of you say Regional rail will basically never happen on the Milton line due to the freight issues.

Can you show that it is the same people saying both these things? The forum doesn't speak with a single voice.

 

[gweed123]

Can you show that it is the same people saying both these things? The forum doesn't speak with a single voice.

To be fair, I have expressed in the past that a Bloor-Danforth extension to MCC isn't needed (because quite honestly I think it would be an absurdly long trip), and I have advocated for a GO REX diversion to MCC.

To clarify, here's what I want for Mississauga (in order)

1) Completion of the Mississauga Transitway.
2) Construction of a freight bypass from Bramlea to Lisgar.
3) GO REX along the Milton corridor.
4) Hurontario LRT.
5) GO REX spur to MCC.
6) Eglinton LRT extension to MCC.

 

[Dan416]

To be fair, I have expressed in the past that a Bloor-Danforth extension to MCC isn't needed (because quite honestly I think it would be an absurdly long trip), and I have advocated for a GO REX diversion to MCC.

To clarify, here's what I want for Mississauga (in order)

1) Completion of the Mississauga Transitway.
2) Construction of a freight bypass from Bramlea to Lisgar.
3) GO REX along the Milton corridor.
4) Hurontario LRT.
5) GO REX spur to MCC.
6) Eglinton LRT extension to MCC.

I think a freight bypass of the Milton is dreaming. No matter the cost, I highly doubt it'll happen. It's not on anyone's radar, and the benefits aren't obvious.

So as much as S-bahn along Milton would be lovely, I see zero chance of it happening.

So my list differs from you, since I think we should be realistic:

1. yeah sure finish the useless Mississauga BRT
2. Hurontario LRT
3. Bloor line extension to MCC
4. Eglinton LRT extension to Hurontario-Eglinton (people who really love slow transit can jump on the Hurontario LRT to get down to MCC)
5. WWLRT to Port Credit GO

 

[gweed123]

I think a freight bypass of the Milton is dreaming. No matter the cost, I highly doubt it'll happen. It's not on anyone's radar, and the benefits aren't obvious.

So as much as S-bahn along Milton would be lovely, I see zero chance of it happening.

So my list differs from you, since I think we should be realistic:

1. yeah sure finish the useless Mississauga BRT
2. Hurontario LRT
3. Bloor line extension to MCC
4. Eglinton LRT extension to Hurontario-Eglinton (people who really love slow transit can jump on the Hurontario LRT to get down to MCC)
5. WWLRT to Port Credit GO

Building a freight line through a vacant corridor is unrealistic but building a subway that will likely be in excess of $3B should be firmly on the radar?

The freight bypass is not on the radar because it's a means to an end, not a transit project in its own right. If it's explained as "this is how we get GO REX service on the Milton line for less money than widening the Milton corridor", I think it would get a lot of support.

And why finish the Eglinton LRT at Hurontario? Why not interline it and bring it into a major transit terminal? Doing that is just as bad as having the SELRT not hit STC.

WWLRT to Port Credit is a good one, I forgot about that.

 

[doady]

I think most of Milton has room for two extra tracks in places that are not already triple-tracked. Go to Google maps you can see some bridges have already been built to accomodate four tracks. The only reason for freight bypass is for diversion of service into the North Toronto corridor, but there no point in doing that anyways.

MCC will eventually have express buses along the Transitway to the subway and beyond, and Hurontario light rail connecting to an upgraded Milton and Lakeshore GO lines, Waterfront West light rail, and some sort of rail transit on Dundas East (at the minimum, they have to be considering light rail for Dundas East, right? they are crazy/stupid if they aren't). I think that's enough. If any tunneling is to be done under Hurontario, it will be for the eventual Hurontario Subway to replace the LRT, not an overlapping Bloor subway extension or a Milton GO diversion/branch to compromise the Hurontario corridor. The Hurontario corridor should always be the #1 priority for Mississauga transit.

 

[Rainforest]

Freight bypass is hardly realistic for a number of reasons, one of them is that it can't be built incrementally. It must be fully operational and connected to the CP mainline at both ends, before it can divert any freight traffic from the Milton or North Toronto subs.

Since we always have a backlog, projects that can be built incrementally will always get ahead of the said freight bypass in the funding queue.

 

[weekend_guy]

http://www.thestar.com/business/art...-close-etobicoke-terminal-eliminating-30-jobs

Eliminating the CP yard at Kipling on the Galt Subdivision is just the first of many moves we'll see Hunter Harrison make to make this railway more 'efficient'. Harrison is more interested in long-haul, large tonnage revenue trains instead of serving local industries, especially within the dwindling City of Toronto industrial customer market.

With Vaughan now the primary intermodal terminal, a lot of trains will already be diverted away from the west end of the City. Eastbound trains will travel down the MacTier and head east on the North Toronto sub at the WTD, and trains heading to Western Canada will continue north on the MacTier from Vaughan. I don't believe there is significant intermodal traffic heading west to the Detroit-Windsor crossing that would require use of the Galt sub.

A freight bypass is a long shot as several have already pointed out, but this is an interesting development with more to come.

 

[gweed123]

http://www.thestar.com/business/art...-close-etobicoke-terminal-eliminating-30-jobs

Eliminating the CP yard at Kipling on the Galt Subdivision is just the first of many moves we'll see Hunter Harrison make to make this railway more 'efficient'. Harrison is more interested in long-haul, large tonnage revenue trains instead of serving local industries, especially within the dwindling City of Toronto industrial customer market.

With Vaughan now the primary intermodal terminal, a lot of trains will already be diverted away from the west end of the City. Eastbound trains will travel down the MacTier and head east on the North Toronto sub at the WTD, and trains heading to Western Canada will continue north on the MacTier from Vaughan. I don't believe there is significant intermodal traffic heading west to the Detroit-Windsor crossing that would require use of the Galt sub.

A freight bypass is a long shot as several have already pointed out, but this is an interesting development with more to come.

Fewer freight trains on the Milton line = more GO trains on the Milton line. Sorry for those 30 jobs, but the prospective increase in the number of trains will help thousands get to theirs.

 

[Dan416]

With the elimination of Obico, how much freight will still use the Milton line? Anyone know? Either percentage-wise or generally...

I'm wondering if this will free up slots for more Milton service which is desperately needed and can reduce the number of buses needed on the line.