The Future of subway and rapid transit in the GTA

[Bojaxs]

I'm not sure every line needs to head to Pearson. We are already talking about Line 3, Line 5, Line 6, and GO UP. If Sheppard was ever to get that far (and I doubt the demand is there, this century at least), it can intersect Line 6 somewhere on Highway 27. It's hard to see much where it can go after Sheppard West without some significant densification somewhere. Maybe Sheppard and Jane with a stop at Keele, to meet the theoretical Jane LRT.

If the GO Bolton line were ever to become a reality, it would be nice to have a connection with line 4. Probably somewhere in the area of Sheppard & Rivalda Rd. Just knock down that Tim's and commercial building.

Connection with Jane LRT? You mean the Jane subway?

 

[nfitz]

Connection with Jane LRT? You mean the Jane subway?

Whatever they brand it. The previous consultation was LRT technology compatible with most of the other Transit City lines, and I believe above ground north of Eglinton, with further consideration needed south of Eglinton - possibly in a subway.

A long way off for sure. Maybe Ontario Line technology makes more sense here now.

 

[Bojaxs]

Whatever they brand it. The previous consultation was LRT technology compatible with most of the other Transit City lines, and I believe above ground north of Eglinton, with further consideration needed south of Eglinton - possibly in a subway.

A long way off for sure. Maybe Ontario Line technology makes more sense here now.

I know I constantly advocate for subways over LRTs on this forum. I just want to be clear that just because I'm pro subway, doesn't mean I want the entire line underground. I'm not against elevating or even running tracks at grade where ever it makes sense to do so. So long as the line is entirely grade separated and proper metro/ subway rolling stock is used.

The Ontario line has a good mix of underground, elevated, and at grade tracks.

Some folks have suggested elevating the Scarborough/ Golden Mile stretch of line 5. I don't support this because you would have to begin the elevation east of the DVP and then go back underground at Kennedy. At which point you may as well just tunnel that entire stretch.

 

[goodcitywhenfinished]

I'm not sure every line needs to head to Pearson. We are already talking about Line 3, Line 5, Line 6, and GO UP. If Sheppard was ever to get that far (and I doubt the demand is there, this century at least), it can intersect Line 6 somewhere on Highway 27. It's hard to see much where it can go after Sheppard West without some significant densification somewhere. Maybe Sheppard and Jane with a stop at Keele, to meet the theoretical Jane LRT.

It should head west with a station at the Downsview hangar district at the bare minimum. I’m surprised Hines isn’t pushing this in talks with the city/province. Maybe they are.

 

[JasonParis]

I suspect they are.

 

[jcam]

I'm not sure every line needs to head to Pearson. We are already talking about Line 3, Line 5, Line 6, and GO UP. If Sheppard was ever to get that far (and I doubt the demand is there, this century at least), it can intersect Line 6 somewhere on Highway 27. It's hard to see much where it can go after Sheppard West without some significant densification somewhere. Maybe Sheppard and Jane with a stop at Keele, to meet the theoretical Jane LRT.

I think all the new info that came out with the Council motion to make Old Weston / St. Clair an UP station (suggestion that UP will expand to 5 cars, that headways could come under 10 minutes) points to UP becoming an in-between GO-subway frequency/capacity surface line to the airport, giving more reason to not needing to funnel Ontario Line West into there as well.

 

[ctf5650]

I know I constantly advocate for subways over LRTs on this forum. I just want to be clear that just because I'm pro subway, doesn't mean I want the entire line underground. I'm not against elevating or even running tracks at grade where ever it makes sense to do so. So long as the line is entirely grade separated and proper metro/ subway rolling stock is used.

The Ontario line has a good mix of underground, elevated, and at grade tracks.

Some folks have suggested elevating the Scarborough/ Golden Mile stretch of line 5. I don't support this because you would have to begin the elevation east of the DVP and then go back underground at Kennedy. At which point you may as well just tunnel that entire stretch.

I'm sure elevating the LRT between DVP and Ionview/Kennedy would be the cheapest path to full ROW separation, as you could simply remove left turns onto Leslie and dig a Finch/Hwy 27 style trench/open cut from Don Valley until east of the 404 (eliminating the redundant Aga Khan stop). From there, the line could rise from the trench to at-grade between the 404 ramp intersection and the existing Wynford station (a bit of a tight squeeze) and go elevated somewhere east of Wynford, before going under between Ionview and Kennedy (another doable tight squeeze similar in length to the Black Creek tunneled-elevated portion).

 

[duty free]

I know I constantly advocate for subways over LRTs on this forum. I just want to be clear that just because I'm pro subway, doesn't mean I want the entire line underground. I'm not against elevating or even running tracks at grade where ever it makes sense to do so. So long as the line is entirely grade separated and proper metro/ subway rolling stock is used.

The Ontario line has a good mix of underground, elevated, and at grade tracks.

Some folks have suggested elevating the Scarborough/ Golden Mile stretch of line 5. I don't support this because you would have to begin the elevation east of the DVP and then go back underground at Kennedy. At which point you may as well just tunnel that entire stretch.

I'm hoping the Ontario Line becomes the template moving forward.

If a hypothetical Jane Line was built similarly that would ideal. Tunnelled until St. Clair and then elevated heading North from there.
There's a lot push back for elevated rail in Toronto, but it's the only way to ever build an expansive system. Ideally the Ontario Line changes this perception.

LRT's are great too. I would also love to see the city turn at least some of the streetcar network into something like Finch West, starting with St. Clair, Spadina, Waterfront & King.

 

[McGillicuddy]

I think all the new info that came out with the Council motion to make Old Weston / St. Clair an UP station (suggestion that UP will expand to 5 cars, that headways could come under 10 minutes) points to UP becoming an in-between GO-subway frequency/capacity surface line to the airport, giving more reason to not needing to funnel Ontario Line West into there as well.

I wonder whether the GTAA is still keeping a candle in the window for their Pearson intermodal hub plan. Certainly I don't think that plan would fly if they could only offer 15-minute headways to Union.

The pandemic presumably killed the momentum behind it, and it gets harder to thread it into the network the more that other projects get going. (It's one thing to propose this novel hub when you've got three or four rail projects on the horizon which could conceivably plug into Pearson. It's another to propose it once two of those projects have shovels in the ground without firm plans to connect to Pearson at all.)

Then again, the collapse of the Pickering airport makes service to Pearson even more vital.

 

[Bojaxs]

I'm sure elevating the LRT between DVP and Ionview/Kennedy would be the cheapest path to full ROW separation, as you could simply remove left turns onto Leslie and dig a Finch/Hwy 27 style trench/open cut from Don Valley until east of the 404 (eliminating the redundant Aga Khan stop). From there, the line could rise from the trench to at-grade between the 404 ramp intersection and the existing Wynford station (a bit of a tight squeeze) and go elevated somewhere east of Wynford, before going under between Ionview and Kennedy (another doable tight squeeze similar in length to the Black Creek tunneled-elevated portion).

You're confusing me, what do you mean "from Don Valley until east of the 404"? Isn't the Don Valley and the 404 the same highway? Do you mean "from Don Mills until east of the 404"?

Something else to consider regarding elevating these tracks is that there is a hydro corridor going over Eglinton between Sloane Ave and Victoria Park Ave. Would that impact the ability to run elevated tracks there?

If we maintained the existing tunnel portal west of Kennedy, than elevating the tracks would mean scrapping the Ionview station (not opposed) as it would be located right where the grade steep would be.

 

[Bojaxs]

I'm hoping the Ontario Line becomes the template moving forward.

As do I. Just keep expanding it. Create an entire Ontario line network that covers most of Toronto. An Ontario line network that compliments lines 1, 2 & 4 perfectly. Similar to what's happen in Montreal with the REM opening, but they're also continuing to expand their Metro.

LRT's are great too. I would also love to see the city turn at least some of the streetcar network into something like Finch West, starting with St. Clair, Spadina, Waterfront & King.

Improve downtown streetcars so they operate more like LRT's.

This is pretty much my vision.

- Expand Ontario line
- Continue to extend and improve existing subways
- Improve downtown streetcars

 

[chrisw]

I wonder whether the GTAA is still keeping a candle in the window for their Pearson intermodal hub plan. Certainly I don't think that plan would fly if they could only offer 15-minute headways to Union.

They recently gave an update on Go Expansion. They plan to have the electrified UP Express run every 7.5 mins to Pearson.

 

[nfitz]

They plan to have the electrified UP Express run every 7.5 mins to Pearson.

I fixed that for you.

 

[jcam]

I wonder whether the GTAA is still keeping a candle in the window for their Pearson intermodal hub plan. Certainly I don't think that plan would fly if they could only offer 15-minute headways to Union.

The pandemic presumably killed the momentum behind it, and it gets harder to thread it into the network the more that other projects get going. (It's one thing to propose this novel hub when you've got three or four rail projects on the horizon which could conceivably plug into Pearson. It's another to propose it once two of those projects have shovels in the ground without firm plans to connect to Pearson at all.)

Then again, the collapse of the Pickering airport makes service to Pearson even more vital.

I think the progress of Alto raises this question too....with Air Canada a part of the consortium, the connection to Alto is almost assured, so it likely takes one of two forms:
1) Alto goes through Union to the airport - this brings up a whole bunch of corridor capacity questions (unless its tunneled under the Kitchener line) and likely requires a new station...which also would likely suggest an eastbound Kitchener stop.
2) Alto relies on funneling travelers onto a 7.5 min headway (as quoted from the MX Board materials), higher-capacity, electric UP service to the airport.

 

[McGillicuddy]

I think the progress of Alto raises this question too....with Air Canada a part of the consortium, the connection to Alto is almost assured, so it likely takes one of two forms:
1) Alto goes through Union to the airport - this brings up a whole bunch of corridor capacity questions (unless its tunneled under the Kitchener line) and likely requires a new station...which also would likely suggest an eastbound Kitchener stop.
2) Alto relies on funneling travelers onto a 7.5 min headway (as quoted from the MX Board materials), higher-capacity, electric UP service to the airport.

I would also question whether there's a value proposition in reaching the airport.

We should, of course, remember that we're not just talking about an airport: if this all gels, then Alto would be reaching a major intermodal hub with connections to multiple cities' transit networks, possibly dozens of individual services if we count all the bus connections. There are doubtless a lot of people who would find it convenient to catch national rail out of this version of Pearson.

And yet, it would be one thing to entertain this destination if it were already along the way. It's another to tack it on after serving Union Station. I think it's reasonable to anticipate that the vast majority of traffic on this express intercity service will be between major city centres, and that only a minority of passengers will want to originate or terminate at Pearson, and I have a hard time seeing a business case for building out all that additional infrastructure in order to run trains on to Pearson at 10% of their capacity, you know?