Platform 27
Active Member
I am reliably informed that this claim is emphatically wrong. The new stations analysis assumed electric RER equipment, not diesel bilevels.
|
|
|
SmartTrack (Proposed)
- Thread starter aquateam
- Start date
I am reliably informed that this claim is emphatically wrong. The new stations analysis assumed electric RER equipment, not diesel bilevels.
robmausser
Senior Member
Ok, but did the study look at the fact that there will be two levels of service, RER, and diesel service to the fringes of the network?
I found it disconcerting that the study claimed that Lawerence East and Kirby will add travel times to someone coming from Stouffville and Barrie, when their trains are supposed to run express and bypass all these stations?
That makes no sense. The studies are flawed if they still looked at using RER for the whole length of a single line, which is NOT the plan.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Are you sure you don't have that backwards? As presented, it doesn't makes sense. RER will display (typical modern EMU v Diesel Loco hauled carriage) twice the rate of acceleration and braking, and subsequently a geometric advantage in terms of performance for stop/go over loco hauled.
I'd say Lawrence and additional stops are far more readily absorbed in timetables when run EMU.
robmausser
Senior Member
Not only that, but when you run an RER type service you then bypass all trains from the outer network through these areas.
The platforms for the new stations like Lawrence East station won't even fit a regular GO train! They couldn't stop there if they wanted.
So the report saying that these stations would negatively affect the timetables of trains coming from the outer network is absurd.
If anything, it will allow the trains to bypass all downtown stations serviced by RER and INCREASE their speed and time it takes to get downtown.
However stations exist within the RER system will have no affect on these trains.
They will have an affect on the RER system, but the RER system is intended to be a "subway-like' regional rail system, not a commuter train.
Its intention is to make many stops. The furthest it will come from (Unionville in the case of the Stouffville line, and Aurora in the case of the Barrie Line) will be a short hop, and will be increased in speed from current travel times, like you said Steve, by the EMU equipment.
Something is fishy.
steveintoronto
Superstar
(This was from an earlier iteration of Rob's post)
Indeed, the term "metro" is being used, albeit the definition for "metro" is nebulous. London UK calls theirs "The Overground", as even though segments are run underground, they're full gauge mainline trains. The first section of Crossrail (out of Liverpool Station) is being run as a part of the Overground until the main section is opened next year.
Agreed, albeit how this is played politically is important. No matter how it's spun, Tory's case is flawed. *Apparently*! ML needs the SRT station space to stage building the RER station. Tory can't have it all ways, let alone even one. First off, he hasn't paid his fare. The City does not have money budgeted to build SmartTrack.
Amare
Senior Member
Rainforest
Senior Member
? Scarborough looks about just as bad as the rest of the city.
jcam
Active Member
crs1026
Superstar
Is that map a point in time, versus a time-based or averaged count?
- Paul
- Paul
BMO
Senior Member
Google-maps uses an underlying average with real-time data to approximate conditions being over or under the average in terms of travel time.
Amare
Senior Member
Minus Eglinton (due to the Crosstown construction), Sheppard, and Lawrence it doesnt look half bad to me.
You would be surprised at just how bad traffic has worsened in Etobicoke. Part of it is due the Six Points reconstruction and Eglinton West resurfacing project, but make no mistake things arent getting better over there.
It's based in a point in time with real-time data and it compares it to average conditions, but this is essentially what Toronto looks like in the PM rush hour without any major accidents.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
They can pick Ellesmere instead, and cancel the SSE and retain the stretch of the RT from Ellesmere to STC.
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
You’re proposing for 2 transfers? What a monster! But honestly, that will not work if removing the transfer was the main motive, but adding one? That’s on a whole another level.
robmausser
Senior Member
In a situation where the RT is refurbished or replaced with an LRT (instead of the Stubway) the smartest option is always to cancel both Lawerence and Ellesmere GO stops and have the stops on the L/RT line instead.
I am all for surface rail and GO RER and more stations on an electrified GO network, but in the case where an existing transit technology already exists in that corridor it makes no sense to add stops on a heavy rail system like GO and abolish the L/RT line that was already there and offered better local service in the first place.
In the less than
OneCity
Senior Member
Only flies on the Del Ducas wall know the full answer to this.
But it does make sense for Lawrence as 8000 daily ridership at Lawrence currently on RT compared to around 1500 at Ellesmere. And many Lawrence commuters bypass the RT and go straight to Kennedy Station for westbound trips. Given the "critics" are challenging Lawrence, id say Ellesmere didn't stand a chance. The area around Lawrence in Midland is slated for dense development so keeping a stop in this location made sense. Still would be beneficial to have a hospital subway stop if they are digging 6km of tunnel with the subway