SmartTrack (Proposed)

[BurlOak]

Sounds good, or at least practical. The riders get some early benefits from the surface SmartTrack Phase 1, and then it should be a bit easier to collect funds for the expensive downtown tunnel.

I think there are 3 options:

a) Separate tunnels for SmartTrack and DRL; quite expensive.

b) A combined tunnel, but with separate pairs of tracks as you mentioned. This should result in substantial savings compared to (a), but require robust coordination between the two projects.

c) I would even consider the option of sharing the same pair of tracks between SmartTrack and DRL. Obviously, DRL will have to use mainline-compatible track width and rolling stock in that case. I imagine that such DRL will split off SmartTrack in the Pape & Queen area, continue north in a tunnel, and connect to Danforth subway at Pape or Donlands. It would continue north-east mostly tunneled, serving Thorncliffe, Flemmington, Eglinton & Don Mills. Further north, it could switch to surface Bala Sub (RH GO) corridor just north of Lawrence.

Option (c) should be the cheapest for downtown tunneling, but may incur higher costs further north as the mainline rail tunnel has to be wider than subway tunnel. I am not sure if it is cheaper or more expensive overall.

I am not sure about any savings from a combined tunnel. For subway, 2 - 6.8m diameter tunnels are needed. For subway and train, 2 - 9.5m diameter tunnels are required (assuming GO train same size as subway). This means that the track alone would take up 19m - or about 6 traffic lanes. However, the street is only 4 lanes wide, and you still need space for platforms. I do not think you could fit 4 tracks along Wellington, unless you stack 2 on top and 2 below - but I would not want to tunnel that deep because cost would go up significantly.

I would think that separate DRL on King (or north) and GO on Wellington would actually be the cheaper solution.

 

[ssiguy2]

If Toronto really wanted to get it's act together I don't think a DRL is even needed.

If ALL the current rail line go from just RER to a true suburban rail net work like Paris or Berlin then that would be more than enough capacity and frequency especially in the inner city where trains would arrive every 5 minutes even off-peak. It could easily be done but would require the system to be either COMPLETELY distance or zoned based and your choice of technology doesn't effect your fare.

 

[WislaHD]

If we embraced true suburban rail network, why not just have the 416 be one fare zone, the GTA/905 a second fare zone, and nearby cities like K-W and Hamilton a third fare zone?

Something like a fare-zone doesn't need to be overthought, it just needs to be done.

 

[ssiguy2]

This is what Vancouver is.

There are 3 zones but you only pay extra fare when going from one zone to the other. Technically the Surrey/WR/Langley/MapleRidge/Delta/Tri-City area is in the 3rd zone but you only pay the one zone fare as long as you travel strictly within those cities. You would go to a 2 zone fare when crossing into West/North Van/Richmond/Burn/NuWest, and 3 zones if going to the city of Vancouver.

It is an excellent system but would be hard for Toronto because there are so many different transit systems. York Region has the right idea by combining it's cities transit into one system. Greater Toronto should have just 4 systems to not only make the system easier but coordinate the systems better. There should be Toronto, Peel, York, and Halton systems and that's it.

Ideally GO in those areas should be locally based fares as well.............your standard transit ticket is good for any travel within your system including GO and you only pay extra when you leave your system and enter a new one.

 

[Palma]

If we embraced true suburban rail network, why not just have the 416 be one fare zone, the GTA/905 a second fare zone, and nearby cities like K-W and Hamilton a third fare zone?

Something like a fare-zone doesn't need to be overthought, it just needs to be done.

Nope. Thats not a good fare system to have the 416 as one zone, It needs to be divided up into 3 zones at least or simply fare by distance and no zones. Otherwise you would have what we have now - the 416 is one fare and 905 another

 

[BurlOak]

Nope. Thats not a good fare system to have the 416 as one zone, It needs to be divided up into 3 zones at least or simply fare by distance and no zones. Otherwise you would have what we have now - the 416 is one fare and 905 another

905 is one zone now. Does that mean that I can go from Hamilton to Oshawa on a single fare? The same as within Hamilton?

 

[TOareaFan]

it is interesting that when we talk about this sort of thing the focus (perhaps naturally) is always on how we make the GO fare work better within "the 416"/Toronto.

If we are gonna have a fare system that recognizes someone boarding and exiting GO within Toronto should just pay a TTC equivalent fare....should that not be system wide? If there was service every 15 minutes....then someone living in Mt. Pleasant area but working at Canadian Tire warehouse would find their fastest transit option would be a GO Train from Mt. Pleasant to Bramalea.....should they not just pay a BT fare....or is this a uniquely Toronto issue?

EDIT: likely examples like this in Mississauga, for example, just used on in my hometown that easily came to mind.

 

[WislaHD]

it is interesting that when we talk about this sort of thing the focus (perhaps naturally) is always on how we make the GO fare work better within "the 416"/Toronto.

If we are gonna have a fare system that recognizes someone boarding and exiting GO within Toronto should just pay a TTC equivalent fare....should that not be system wide? If there was service every 15 minutes....then someone living in Mt. Pleasant area but working at Canadian Tire warehouse would find their fastest transit option would be a GO Train from Mt. Pleasant to Bramalea.....should they not just pay a BT fare....or is this a uniquely Toronto issue?

EDIT: likely examples like this in Mississauga, for example, just used on in my hometown that easily came to mind.

Subsidy per trip is higher in the suburbs perhaps?

There is nothing wrong with having local trips within Peel/York be the same price as local trips within the 416, so long as Peel/York are willing to pay from their own pocket in order to keep fares for local travel low.

 

[WislaHD]

Nope. Thats not a good fare system to have the 416 as one zone, It needs to be divided up into 3 zones at least or simply fare by distance and no zones. Otherwise you would have what we have now - the 416 is one fare and 905 another

No, why would we want to discourage the outer 416 from using public transit? And why would we want to charge the most regular users of the TTC in the inner 416 smaller fares when the TTC depends on its fare revenue? A standard fare somewhere in the middle as it is at the moment is the best.

 

[TOareaFan]

Subsidy per trip is higher in the suburbs perhaps?

There is nothing wrong with having local trips within Peel/York be the same price as local trips within the 416, so long as Peel/York are willing to pay from their own pocket in order to keep fares for local travel low.

I was not aware that the suggestion was that TTC/Toronto would somehow subsidize GO to get their current minimum fare of +/- $5 down to $3.

Not clear to me why the subsidy level would be any different by location. Train is running....cost is fixed.....GO has determined optimal minimum fare is +/- $5.....municipality(ies) want local trips on this regional service to be same as fare on local transit......how would the subsidy from the $5 - $3 be any different by location?

 

[ssiguy2]

The idea of GO not being 100% deductible from any supplemental travel on the TTC or vice-versa is lunacy. The reality is that this shouldn't even be an issue.

SmartTracks is a fancy name for suburban rail which is used worldwide with NA very much being the exception. If Metrolinx/TTC/GO and all the boys just decided to let any TTC ticket holder use an GO train/bus within the 416 at any time then.......voila, SmartTracks. Stations, frequency, electrification, and even an eventual suburban rail tunnel a la Sydney/Melbourne could be added gradually as demand dictates and money is available. All of these things would render ST unneeded and the money saved could go towards a much bigger suburban service bringing true mass and rapid transit to all areas of the 416.

The people of the 905 would also love it as the GO system would be for the 905 and directly to Union {although subway interchanges could still be allowed} so no intermediate stops which currently serve relatively few. The suburban rail could go to the first station within the 905 for a TTC fare ie Malton and anyone coming from GO and no going directly to Union would transfer there to get on the suburban system.

 

[Palma]

905 is one zone now. Does that mean that I can go from Hamilton to Oshawa on a single fare? The same as within Hamilton?

Sorry. When i think of 905 i automatically thing of Vaughan (Woodbridge) and forget that it comprises a wider area.

 

[ehlow]

So on the campaign SmartTrack map, they have a stop at Gerrard & Carlaw, connecting with the streetcar there, and one at the existing GO station south of Main & Danforth.

Would you guys add another station between those two? Would you add one on the west between Liberty Village and Dundas West? If so, where? (and why)

 

[Tuscani01]

I am not sure about any savings from a combined tunnel. For subway, 2 - 6.8m diameter tunnels are needed. For subway and train, 2 - 9.5m diameter tunnels are required (assuming GO train same size as subway). This means that the track alone would take up 19m - or about 6 traffic lanes. However, the street is only 4 lanes wide, and you still need space for platforms. I do not think you could fit 4 tracks along Wellington, unless you stack 2 on top and 2 below - but I would not want to tunnel that deep because cost would go up significantly.

I would think that separate DRL on King (or north) and GO on Wellington would actually be the cheaper solution.

Im sure the 'significant increase' in cost would still be less than two separate tunnels for SmartTrack and the DRL, not to mention seperate stations, and station services. It also means less traffic disruptions since the station boxes could be built for both lines with a single dig. It would be similar to BART and Muni in San Francisco, which operate along Market Street with Muni on top and BART below.

 

[rbt]

I am not sure about any savings from a combined tunnel. For subway, 2 - 6.8m diameter tunnels are needed. For subway and train, 2 - 9.5m diameter tunnels are required (assuming GO train same size as subway). This means that the track alone would take up 19m - or about 6 traffic lanes. However, the street is only 4 lanes wide, and you still need space for platforms.

It's worse than that actually. From the single-tunnel Eglinton Crosstown study, Toronto soil in most places also requires a buffer roughly equal to the tunnel width on either side to reduce, but still not eliminate, risk of adjacent buildings being damaged from soil shifts.

So, a pair of side-by-side 9.5m tunnels roughly requires an underground corridor of 9.5m buffer, 9.5m tunnel, 9.5m buffer, 9.5m tunnel, 9.5m buffer; or 47.5m between pre-existing building foundations.

A deep bore below the foundations through bedrock has other unique to Toronto challenges which can increase engineering/materials costs significantly.

http://spacing.ca/toronto/2014/10/03/torontos-swelling-bedrock/