News   May 30, 2024
 306     0 
News   May 30, 2024
 1K     1 
News   May 30, 2024
 544     0 

GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

So, obviously to run GO as rapid transit you'd need to add tracks in some locations, grade separate in some places where it hasn't currently.

Where would you guys add or move stations, if we are to make GO into a subway-like service?

Probably the most critical piece to make all of this work is the tunnel under the Union Station Rail Corridor to run RER service.

USRC-Track-Study_UndergroundOpt1.jpg


As for additional stop locations on an electrified RER/REX line, I've given it some thought.

Italics mean express GO trains stop there as well From west to east;

Lakeshore REX

Port Credit
Cawthra
Long Branch
Kipling
Mimico
Park Lawn
Sunnyside
Exhibition
Union
Distillery
Degrassi
Gerrard
Coxwell
Main St
Warden
Scarborough Junction
Eglinton
Guildwood
Morningside
Rouge Hill
Dunmoore
Pickering

Pearson-Scarborough REX
Terminal 1
Highway 27
Islington North
St Phillips
Weston
Jane
Mt Dennis
Rogers
St Clair
Dupont
Bloor
Sorauren
Shaw
Union
Distillery
Degrassi
Gerrard
Coxwell
Victoria Park
Warden
Kennedy
Lawrence
Ellesmere
Scarborough Centre

Brampton-Markham REX

Similar as above, you get the idea.
 

Attachments

  • USRC-Track-Study_UndergroundOpt1.jpg
    USRC-Track-Study_UndergroundOpt1.jpg
    92.2 KB · Views: 1,935
Last edited:
I like the idea of adding some more stations to electrified GO lines but I can't entirely agree with the number that you've put in there, dunkalunk. Electrification will vastly increase the speed of GO trips, which will attract a large number of riders who currently drive because it may be faster, but we can't allow that benefit to be counteracted by adding too many stops. It's a difficult balance to strike.

For Lakeshore, I like a Park Lawn station, a western downtown station, one in the distillery district, and potentially more in Mississauga, as well as extensions further into Hamilton and Oshawa/Bowmanville. I'm admittedly less well versed in other lines, though I know that there are opportunities for more stops (Oriole directly linking to Leslie subway comes to mind, as well as more stops in Scarborough on Stouffville, Etobicoke/Rexdale on Kitchener, and perhaps York/North York on Barrie).

However, I think that in a majority of circumstances, GO lines should remain in terms of stops further apart, to maintain a high-speed semi-express service. We can always add infill stations on existing subway lines (like a Birchmount stop on BD) and, more importantly, continue to build LRT to replace high-usage bus lines and feed more passengers faster into the core GO REX network.
 
re: dunkalunk & MrsNesbitt

I agree with MrsNesbitt that the nature of these GO corridors should be regional/express/long-distance with stops no closer than 2km (maybe with a few exceptions), with connections to local services.

Also the number of stops you've added and the idea of tunnelling downtown seems like it would significantly increase the cost & construction time. To me one of the big advantages of making GO into RER was the lack of tunnelling and relatively faster construction times (I'm hoping < 5 years per line?).

Say Bloor to Lawrence on the Weston corridor. You've got stops half way in between concession roads. Isn't stops along concession roads enough? (Bloor, St Clair, Eglinton, Lawrence) Those are where the major bus/LRT/streetcar/subway lines are anyways.

In Scarborough/Stouffville, I'd be tempted to go further north instead of going to STC like the SRT does, Sheppard, Finch, Steeles, Highway 7, and stops in Markham.
 
So, obviously to run GO as rapid transit you'd need to add tracks in some locations, grade separate in some places where it hasn't currently.

Where would you guys add or move stations, if we are to make GO into a subway-like service?

I created an interactive map of how such a service might look like. Green = existing corridor, Red = existing station, black = new corridor or new station

Link: https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zaK28KZzproA.kO19YMSpPS5I

Sample:
14345233940_3968757511_b.jpg




Let me know what you guys think.
 
Infrastructure that was built with too little capacity that is now over capacity is a constant problem. For example, the Canada Line, the DVP and Gardiner. Building Eglinton as light rail for political reasons when a subway that ends at Don Mills would provide much higher capacity for lower cost makes no sense. Obviously the 401 can't be made any wider, its traffic problems are largely caused by high 407 tolls.

We get it! You don't like LRT. Can you keep your irrational and misinformed hatred of LRT out of the GO thread?

I would love to see GO fares be close to the fares of the TTC in the 416 and then increase the further a rider travels in the 905. GO electrification is going to add lots of capacity and will provide a good alternative to the TTC.
 
re: dunkalunk & MrsNesbitt

I agree with MrsNesbitt that the nature of these GO corridors should be regional/express/long-distance with stops no closer than 2km (maybe with a few exceptions), with connections to local services.

Also the number of stops you've added and the idea of tunnelling downtown seems like it would significantly increase the cost & construction time. To me one of the big advantages of making GO into RER was the lack of tunnelling and relatively faster construction times (I'm hoping < 5 years per line?).

Say Bloor to Lawrence on the Weston corridor. You've got stops half way in between concession roads. Isn't stops along concession roads enough? (Bloor, St Clair, Eglinton, Lawrence) Those are where the major bus/LRT/streetcar/subway lines are anyways.

In Scarborough/Stouffville, I'd be tempted to go further north instead of going to STC like the SRT does, Sheppard, Finch, Steeles, Highway 7, and stops in Markham.

The hyper-local service would be only one layer of GO service. There would also be express service running on the same line with 15 minute frequency during peak in addition to the local running every 7.5 minutes. I'm treating RER mainly as a subway-type service with stops around every 1-2km and GO Express with stops closer to 4 km.

With those kinds of frequencies, tunnelling under Union is absolutely necessary. In fact, even without those kinds of frequencies, the GO tunnel was identified as one of the two solutions that was identified as necessary to improve capacity at Union by 2030.

Halving the number of stops so it's every 2km may be more relistic in the short-term however, because having more than one layer of frequent service under regional would quickly cause issues with track capacity unless a tunnel is built.
 
Last edited:
Infrastructure that was built with too little capacity that is now over capacity is a constant problem. For example, the Canada Line, the DVP and Gardiner. Building Eglinton as light rail for political reasons when a subway that ends at Don Mills would provide much higher capacity for lower cost makes no sense. Obviously the 401 can't be made any wider, its traffic problems are largely caused by high 407 tolls.

I can't speak to the Canada Line but when were the DVP and the Gardiner built? Where they considered under built at the time? It might just be that any piece of transit infrastructure can't be built in a city/region with high growth and be of infinite capacity.

Yes, remember the days before the 407 when the 401 had not capacity or traffic issues!
 
Infrastructure that was built with too little capacity that is now over capacity is a constant problem. For example, the Canada Line, the DVP and Gardiner. Building Eglinton as light rail for political reasons when a subway that ends at Don Mills would provide much higher capacity for lower cost makes no sense. Obviously the 401 can't be made any wider, its traffic problems are largely caused by high 407 tolls.
Given that the current Eglinton LRT already provides far more capacity to Don Mills Road than will be required decades from now, how could you possibly suggest that they look for solutions that provide even more capacity. It might cost marginally less, but would provide no quicker transit, and would ultimately create an permanent transfer (and slower journey time) to those that then change to LRT at Mount Dennis or Don Mills.

Eglinton is being designed with a capacity of 3-times the forecast 2031 demand.

401 traffic problems caused by high 407 tolls? That's beyond absurd. Besides, 407 itself is currently nearing capacity, with the final lane now being added. If you were to remove tolls on that, then both highways would be gridlocked.

And what has this to do with GO electrification?
 
The stop proposed don't have to be for REX, but a new type of service by GO.

The ones proposed for the West side are almost the same as mine, but need ones at Dixie, Lorne Park, around Kerr St, King Rd for Lakeshore W line

As for Pearson section, anything south of Queen is dead as there is no place to put in platforms. Jane is next to impossible to do. Queen St, Weston Rd and Islington should be added also. Very expensive to put in Rogers Rd because of elevation. Rest looks ok
 
Speaking of strawberry cheesecake, did you know that Eglinton is the most expensive LRT in the world? It's also the most expensive non-grade separated line in the world. Did you know it can be a subway for cheaper, fully grade separated at lower cost? We already regret building it, even though it's at least 6 years away from opening.

Hopefully the province is still trying to figure out how to grade separate the surface section at the lowest possible cost. At this price tag, it makes no sense that the line is not fully grade separated
 
The stop proposed don't have to be for REX, but a new type of service by GO.

The ones proposed for the West side are almost the same as mine, but need ones at Dixie, Lorne Park, around Kerr St, King Rd for Lakeshore W line

As for Pearson section, anything south of Queen is dead as there is no place to put in platforms. Jane is next to impossible to do. Queen St, Weston Rd and Islington should be added also. Very expensive to put in Rogers Rd because of elevation. Rest looks ok

How feasible are the Don Mills and Wynford stations on the Richmond Hill line?
 
Anyone who has read my posts in the past knows that I have always been an proponent/advocate of a GO station in Liberty Village.

I know that the more knowledgable folks around here have explained the technological difficulties in making a station fit/work there but if we are going to more frequent, but shorter, trains then I would put it into the "imperative" category.

One of the great successes of the AD2W service on the Lakeshore lines is how well received/used they are for event attendance. Events at Rogers Centre and BMO Field, the Ex and Molson Ampitheatre draw big crowds to the line(s). I know, at least in the west end, not all of those people are folks who live near the line...often people better served by Milton and Kitchener make the drive down to their nearest LSW station and take the train to avoid the traffic, parking, exiting hassles.

The nature of people though (particularly infrequent/occasional users) is that they will consult the schedule and take the last train in that gets them to their event on time and plan on being on the first train home after the event. I know, for example, the train that gets to BMO Field before kickoff is standing room only and the first train departing Exhibition stadium after the match is also standing room only. If those trains were not 12 car units but, now, 6 or 8 car units there would be people left on platforms (making them late for the match or aggravated on the way home) and that is with a 22k stadium....it will only get worse when that stadium is increased to 30k next year. Similar comment regarding shows at amphitheatre.

If we shorten trains, albeit with increased frequency, and the feeling people have is that you can't get on a train then they will revert to driving.

A station at LV (maybe called LV-Ex North) that draws away from the Lakeshore line the people who drive to LSW from other lines' catchment areas will alleviate this problem greatly......and, I think, has now become a crucial technological problem to solve.
 

Back
Top