News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 826     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 747     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 316     0 

GO Rail Fantasy Maps

I think that scribd image illegible, and I certainly am not going to register with them to download the file. Is there a legible version?
 
rbt said:
Union Station is the primary constraint for GO capacity expansion and it is being actively worked on. Of course, the $750M plan currently in progress only gives us capacity until 2031 with modest expansion.

If the DRL doesn't run under Wellington, I would place bets that the LakeShore Line will within 30 years.
Click to expand...

That would be impressive if a segment of the Lakeshore GO line can be shoe horned under ground. Otherwise, there's more of a necessity of expanding track space outward above ground, and I have no idea which scenario would be more problematic, considering we're talking about the downtown core.
 
Twisted Son of Gumby said:
That would be impressive if a segment of the Lakeshore GO line can be shoe horned under ground. Otherwise, there's more of a necessity of expanding track space outward above ground, and I have no idea which scenario would be more problematic, considering we're talking about the downtown core.
Click to expand...
The rail corridor desperately needs to be buried anyways. It'd be a good idea for that to get started ASAP. While you're building higher capacity tracks, you could also add in HSR-level tracks, or integrate it with the DRL. Unfortunately, that would cost money, a notion that most people would probably consider bad and the entire project therefore undoable.
 
My GO Transit fantasy map definitely would make the connection to the airport a through route rather than a spur. I would also extend the line from Hamilton's CP station up the old rail corridor to the top of the escarpment and cut across to Hamilton Airport for the line terminus which would require some adjustment of the Dartnall Rd interchange eastbound off ramp and a rail bridge over the Linc. I would also put a line to Peterborough in running only once each way per day but using the Stouffville line to a point just north of Major Mackenzie and then cutting directly east to meet up with the CP line just south of Concession Rd 7.
 
Having spent a lot of time in European train stations I find it hard to believe that Union would reach capacity in 20 years time. Maybe with existing rolling stock and signal systems. But EMU's (and electric locomotives in general) as well as more advanced signal systems should easily allow Union to handle radical increases in traffic.

I still cant say I think burying the rail line would be money well spent. It might be nice, but if I think of all the other projects that could be done on rail infrastructure it ranks fairly low.

The first place I would start in terms of the GO network is making sure existing lines are all double tracked (or have two dedicated tracks for passenger rail service larger corridors), continuing grade separation along all routes, and electrification. I think there should be service to Peterborough (I won't start debating routes though). Beyond that there is a list of possible projects that I think should be evaluated once the existing network has been overhauled (or upgrading is well underway), and once there is a better understanding of what travel patterns and usage looks like under a proper regional rail model.
 
AnarchoSocialist said:
Having spent a lot of time in European train stations I find it hard to believe that Union would reach capacity in 20 years time. Maybe with existing rolling stock and signal systems. But EMU's (and electric locomotives in general) as well as more advanced signal systems should easily allow Union to handle radical increases in traffic.
Click to expand...

I believe the 2030 capacity limits in this case have a lot to do with Ontario fire code and choke points for pedestrians entering and exiting Union station than the trains schedules themselves.

If you believe GO can double rush-service with signalling/track improvements, that the LRTs will be successful running full loads (509, 510, East Bayfront, etc.), that modest subway growth will continue at Union, Blue22 will carry something, and Via Rail will continue modest ridership growth in Toronto; you are well past half a million passengers going through Union station in a day; likely over 100,000 in the peak hour.
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
I believe the 2030 capacity limits in this case have a lot to do with Ontario fire code and choke points for pedestrians entering and exiting Union station than the trains schedules themselves.
Click to expand...

I forgot about that aspect of it. I could see that being an issue. I would think there would be ways of dealing with that and add more capacity within the existing layout, but maybe I am wrong (I really don't know enough about the details of Union to get any sense of what could be done and where).
 
AnarchoSocialist said:
I forgot about that aspect of it. I could see that being an issue. I would think there would be ways of dealing with that and add more capacity within the existing layout, but maybe I am wrong (I really don't know enough about the details of Union to get any sense of what could be done and where).
Click to expand...

Sure. Union can have capacity added. Lengthen platforms east and west (24 cars longs; load/unload two trains simultaneously), make Front/Yonge into a scramble, add exits onto a Simcoe teamway, stairs up to the Skywalk above, exits out to a Yonge teamway, more exits to the south (16 York), add a north-east PATH link directly from union to the PATH below the Hockey Hall of Fame, link 151 Front and Skywalk to Simcoe Place across the street, etc.

Point being, these are all going to be in addition to the currently funded improvements and collectively it will not be a trivial funding decision, though it can be done in piecemeal.
 
Some of you may recall that I came up with a comprehensive, Province-wide, "never going to happen unless we hit peak oil, then we won't be able to build it fast enough" vision for rail in the Quebec City - Windsor Corridor. I figured that I would contribute that vision to this discussion:

As the price of gasoline climbs ever higher, the citizens of every community in Ontario will be affected. Businesses will begin to relocate closer to their markets to reduce shipping costs, which means that many one-industry town in the province may lose their only employer. As the businesses move, employees will follow. Since they will be unable to afford the commute, employees will likely move with the companies and settle in the cities where sustainable transit is available. While intensification is a good thing, cities like Windsor, Kitchener, Kingston, Ottawa or even Toronto could not possibly accommodate every single citizen from the hinterland. Something will have to be done to prevent the wholesale dismantling of rural Ontario.

Once upon a time, railways crisscrossed Ontario and moved freight and passengers between almost every city, village and town. But, as roads were improved and automobiles and trucks became more popular, passengers and shippers migrated to other means of travel. Railways were gradually abandoned and quickly torn up. Today, passenger rail service in Ontario is limited to the GO Transit regional services in the Toronto area, Ontario Northland's services in the far north, and VIA Rail Canada inter-city service, rural and transcontinental service.. The freight railway network isn't much bigger, limiting the potential to construct new railway routes. But, what if we hadn't abandoned those lines? What if we could undo the past?
Click to expand...

You can read the rest on my blog (since it's pretty long and there are pictures), but here is the map.
 
A significant capacity problem at Union is the narrow platforms. Nothing can be done about the layout without completely re-building the trainshed and everything beneath it. The platforms are so narrow that its not safe for people to wait on the platforms for an incoming train. That really drives up dwell times for trains which in turn limits the throughput of the station. Platform level barriers might help the situation, but could also be costly.
 
jwill said:
A significant capacity problem at Union is the narrow platforms. Nothing can be done about the layout without completely re-building the trainshed and everything beneath it. The platforms are so narrow that its not safe for people to wait on the platforms for an incoming train. That really drives up dwell times for trains which in turn limits the throughput of the station. Platform level barriers might help the situation, but could also be costly.
Click to expand...
I like sinking the corridor, because it'd be able to address all of these issues. At the very least, I'd say that if HSR is being built in the Quebec-Windsor corridor, it should involve putting the rail corridor underground through downtown. I wonder how much of the cost could be recouped by allowing for development on top of the corridor.

And RR, I still 100% support your vision. Service similar to it is already warranted across the Quebec-Windsor corridor, not even with a future of costly energy and the population of the corridor increasing, hopefully not being constrained to the big cities. There's just so much you could do with rail service all across the corridor, and it could act to make country living easier.
 
rbt said:
Point being, these are all going to be in addition to the currently funded improvements and collectively it will not be a trivial funding decision, though it can be done in piecemeal.
Click to expand...

Your right. And using the example of European train stations again, it is also clear that most of them have undergone a series of major and minor renovations and upgrades over the years to keep accommodating increased train and passenger traffic.

Jwill also reminded me just how narrow Unions platforms are. Its been a while since Ive used the station and I had forgotten about that.

And here is an interesting stat. In 1967 GO had 2.5 million passengers. In 2008 there were 48 million passengers. That means ridership has roughly doubled every ten years. If that trend continues that means there could be 150 - 200 million passengers on GO each years. Thats a pretty drastic increase to deal with.

All that to say maybe in 10 or 20 years time when they have to start planning for 2030 and beyond, putting the line underground might not be a bad idea as part of a larger project to increase capacity. Not that it is the only possibility, but the more you think about it, the less crazy it does sound (and the more useful the project is beyond just aesthetics of the surrounding area).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top