News   May 30, 2024
 420     0 
News   May 30, 2024
 1K     2 
News   May 30, 2024
 550     0 

407 Transitway

I think if Light Metro is used for 407 Transitway, it could be built to REM specs, something inbetween a subway and regional train, and be part of GO's branding if they wanted. With fare integration coming, I don't think it matters so much from a user standpoint. You could have both GO and local transit buses stopping at stations and have people transfer to the Light Metro.
I think you have hit the vision on the nose. Only a proper heavy rail service of some form would be able to not just match the efficacy of buses, but exceed it. LRT would never have been able to do either. Not to mention, ridership is trending towards the exact trips this is being planned for; GO buses cannot do it alone forever. The REM is also an apt comparison because we are theoretically integrating two schemes (DRL/407 Busway -> OL+407 'IRT'), which when unified becomes more realistic in scope.

This is a shot in the dark, but does anyone have an idea of how much it would cost to build segments of the Transitway? And perhaps how long it would take? Either the bus or rail option would be fine, but the latter likely has no substance to investigate. I'm wondering if this is more bang for our buck than some projects that are currently planned/shelved for the 2031-2041 period. I think I would take the core (rail) Transitway from MCC to Markham at the expense of the Milton Line upgrades, for instance (especially seeing as both bring rail service to MCC in some capacity).
 
I think you have hit the vision on the nose. Only a proper heavy rail service of some form would be able to not just match the efficacy of buses, but exceed it. LRT would never have been able to do either. Not to mention, ridership is trending towards the exact trips this is being planned for; GO buses cannot do it alone forever. The REM is also an apt comparison because we are theoretically integrating two schemes (DRL/407 Busway -> OL+407 'IRT'), which when unified becomes more realistic in scope.

This is a shot in the dark, but does anyone have an idea of how much it would cost to build segments of the Transitway? And perhaps how long it would take? Either the bus or rail option would be fine, but the latter likely has no substance to investigate. I'm wondering if this is more bang for our buck than some projects that are currently planned/shelved for the 2031-2041 period. I think I would take the core (rail) Transitway from MCC to Markham at the expense of the Milton Line upgrades, for instance (especially seeing as both bring rail service to MCC in some capacity).

The REM is going to be 67km long and cost $6.9 billion. That is just over $100 million per km. My thinking is that could be a good rough estimate for the cost.
 

The REM is going to be 67km long and cost $6.9 billion. That is just over $100 million per km. My thinking is that could be a good rough estimate for the cost.
I was thinking it would have to be less here to justify this, seeing as the whole “Interregional LRT” is in excess of 100km. The 407 ROW is a lot easier to build from what I can tell given it’s at grade, and the REM has elevated and tunneled sections, plus elevated stations. The 407 would certainly have none or very little of those.
 
I was thinking it would have to be less here to justify this, seeing as the whole “Interregional LRT” is in excess of 100km. The 407 ROW is a lot easier to build from what I can tell given it’s at grade, and the REM has elevated and tunneled sections, plus elevated stations. The 407 would certainly have none or very little of those.
While that may be true, costs are not going down. So, if you plan on a line to be about $100 million per km, then you would be in the ballpark. I wouldn't be surprised if that is about right for all existing mass transit rail projects under construction right now. So, if the line is 100km, then it likely will be $10 billion.
 

The REM is going to be 67km long and cost $6.9 billion. That is just over $100 million per km. My thinking is that could be a good rough estimate for the cost.
Would the 407 be cheaper since there are no/little underground/elevated portions? I realize they got to use the existing tunnel, but there is tunnel to the airport, and the deep deep stations and connections to the old stations that needed to be built.

I assume this could be done for less per km if you take that out of the equation.
 
I was thinking it would have to be less here to justify this, seeing as the whole “Interregional LRT” is in excess of 100km. The 407 ROW is a lot easier to build from what I can tell given it’s at grade, and the REM has elevated and tunneled sections, plus elevated stations. The 407 would certainly have none or very little of those.
Just saw this comment whoops, my points exactly.
 
While that may be true, costs are not going down. So, if you plan on a line to be about $100 million per km, then you would be in the ballpark. I wouldn't be surprised if that is about right for all existing mass transit rail projects under construction right now. So, if the line is 100km, then it likely will be $10 billion.
10 billion for 100km of light metro sounds like a steal to be honest.
 
1687375410803.png


I feel like the Metro could be done in sections like this map is outlining too. The red section first.
 
While that may be true, costs are not going down. So, if you plan on a line to be about $100 million per km, then you would be in the ballpark. I wouldn't be surprised if that is about right for all existing mass transit rail projects under construction right now. So, if the line is 100km, then it likely will be $10 billion.
That is a good point. If it is less than $100M today, it likely won’t be in 2041 or whenever we get going on this.

The major determinant of cost is the stations, and exactly how many we keep from the BRT design; if we only have stations at UGCs and major transfer nodes, then we can trim costs there. Infill would be quite easy on a surface alignment, so the costs can be spread out over a very long time.

View attachment 486942

I feel like the Metro could be done in sections like this map is outlining too. The red section first.
The central section is the most obvious for sure. With the metro version, do note that this is not the actual alignment though. Everything west of MCC and east of Markham Centre is hugely long-term, unless the municipalities pitch in. I would be ok with only prioritizing the central section within 20 years, and pushed off the rest for a bit. Keeping it as a single-phased project is asking for problems.

I do wish we could somehow tap into the MTO’s highway-building contractors to build this in conjunction with what is already planned rather than after, but I’m not remotely familiar enough to say if that’s possible.
 
As far as prioritization goes, I'm thinking in terms of a "stage 0" replacing the Eglinton extension to Pearson, such that we would be looking at :

Stage 0: Renforth- Pearson - Woodbine

Stage 1: Woodbine - 407 Terminal

Stage 2: 407 - Terminal - Yonge

Stage 3: Yonge - Unionville

Stage 4: Renforth - MCC

with a Renforth - Kipling via 427 line more closely tied to the OL and if actually part of the 407 line operationally still primarily a Toronto driven project.
 
As far as prioritization goes, I'm thinking in terms of a "stage 0" replacing the Eglinton extension to Pearson, such that we would be looking at :

Stage 0: Renforth- Pearson - Woodbine

Stage 1: Woodbine - 407 Terminal

Stage 2: 407 - Terminal - Yonge

Stage 3: Yonge - Unionville

Stage 4: Renforth - MCC

with a Renforth - Kipling via 427 line more closely tied to the OL and if actually part of the 407 line operationally still primarily a Toronto driven project.
Why not have both going to Pearson? They serve different clients and different areas of the city.
 
Why not have both going to Pearson? They serve different clients and different areas of the city.
In short? The same reason I stick the MCC portion at the bottom of my own priority list; however desirable a bit of duplicate service might be I'd rather avoid it while we've got a list of needed transit projects as long as it is.
 
In short? The same reason I stick the MCC portion at the bottom of my own priority list; however desirable a bit of duplicate service might be I'd rather avoid it while we've got a list of needed transit projects as long as it is.
If that is the case, then build the Pearson Union station and have both go there.
 
In short? The same reason I stick the MCC portion at the bottom of my own priority list; however desirable a bit of duplicate service might be I'd rather avoid it while we've got a list of needed transit projects as long as it is.
Why not have both going to Pearson? They serve different clients and different areas of the city.
Really, we are talking about the difference between High/Low platforms right now. The 427 part of the OL will reach Pearson from the south, so effectively paralleling the EW Pearson extension. Its not just the MCC section that will go south. Given that extension isn't under construction right now, I imagine they are working out how to future-proof it to serve as many kinds of trains as needed. Determining what this section will look like is a very small piece of the pie with a few options, anyway...
 

Back
Top