Transit Fantasy Maps

[unimaginative2]

That's the key for any REX line: everything has to be done at once. We can't have these piecemeal, disconnected projects that might someday culminate in something vaguely resembling a regional rapid transit line. If you try to go half-assed and say "30 minute frequencies are reasonable," then you'll never get enough riders to "justify" reducing headways to something actually useful, since most people won't ever ride a line that's that infrequent. Same with connecting bus routes. If bus routes aren't completely redesigned from day one to connect with a rapid transit system, then it'll be a disaster. You have to treat it like building any other kind of rapid transit route, with a ribbon cutting and a redesigning of local feeder routes.

 

[gweed123]

That's the key for any REX line: everything has to be done at once. We can't have these piecemeal, disconnected projects that might someday culminate in something vaguely resembling a regional rapid transit line. If you try to go half-assed and say "30 minute frequencies are reasonable," then you'll never get enough riders to "justify" reducing headways to something actually useful, since most people won't ever ride a line that's that infrequent. Same with connecting bus routes. If bus routes aren't completely redesigned from day one to connect with a rapid transit system, then it'll be a disaster. You have to treat it like building any other kind of rapid transit route, with a ribbon cutting and a redesigning of local feeder routes.

This is why I agree with BurlOak's phasing suggestion. Do everything inside of the City of Toronto (the local routes on my REX map) in the 1st phase. It would be a large one-shot investment, but it would more than double the amount of grade separated rapid transit in the City of Toronto in 1 shot. The existing GO service would continue for the 905.

Once that 'local' phase is done, extensions into the 905 can be done one line at a time. With that, I'd rather see a whole line done, than gradual extensions everywhere. I'd like to see Lakeshore and Mount Pleasant (now the Kitchener line) done first. Then I'd like to see the Markham line, then Milton, the Richmond Hill, then East Gwillimbury, then the Midtown.

Of course some of these projects can be done at the same time, but I think that's the general pecking order.

The local service is going to be the most successful, and the most profitable. By doing that first, you also demonstrate to the entire region that the 'proof of concept' works. Once the 905 municipalities see that it works, they'll be clamouring to get their respective extension done. And people in those areas will be asking for it.

 

[BurlOak]

This is why I agree with BurlOak's phasing suggestion. Do everything inside of the City of Toronto (the local routes on my REX map) in the 1st phase. It would be a large one-shot investment, but it would more than double the amount of grade separated rapid transit in the City of Toronto in 1 shot. The existing GO service would continue for the 905.

Once that 'local' phase is done, extensions into the 905 can be done one line at a time. With that, I'd rather see a whole line done, than gradual extensions everywhere. I'd like to see Lakeshore and Mount Pleasant (now the Kitchener line) done first. Then I'd like to see the Markham line, then Milton, the Richmond Hill, then East Gwillimbury, then the Midtown.

Of course some of these projects can be done at the same time, but I think that's the general pecking order.

The local service is going to be the most successful, and the most profitable. By doing that first, you also demonstrate to the entire region that the 'proof of concept' works. Once the 905 municipalities see that it works, they'll be clamouring to get their respective extension done. And people in those areas will be asking for it.

That was one of the good things about Transit City. It was a comprehensive plan that also showed reasonable phases of construction. The public could quite easily understand what the interim and final results of the Transit City plan were. The problem(s) with TC was that there was no mention of the DRL or of an integrated GO system. If this GO REX plan was rolled out at a similar time to the TC plan, riders could have easily seen themselves tranfering from SELRT to the REX line to go to Union Station - or a transfer to REX at Kennedy instead of a double transfer to B-D and then Yonge.

GO has talked about increased frequencies, but there has been no public information on how an integrated GO and TTC would look. This GO REX plan would be a great tool to advance transit in the GTA, since the public wants to see things on a map so they can picture how the network would look.

 

[gweed123]

That was one of the good things about Transit City. It was a comprehensive plan that also showed reasonable phases of construction. The public could quite easily understand what the interim and final results of the Transit City plan were. The problem(s) with TC was that there was no mention of the DRL or of an integrated GO system. If this GO REX plan was rolled out at a similar time to the TC plan, riders could have easily seen themselves tranfering from SELRT to the REX line to go to Union Station - or a transfer to REX at Kennedy instead of a double transfer to B-D and then Yonge.

GO has talked about increased frequencies, but there has been no public information on how an integrated GO and TTC would look. This GO REX plan would be a great tool to advance transit in the GTA, since the public wants to see things on a map so they can picture how the network would look.

This is exactly why I want to make a pamphlet type of thing showing what GO REX would look like, how it would work, and what its advantages would be. I think that if the public really understood this system and what it could do for them, it would have support from both the pro-LRT and pro-subway crowds.

The pro-subway crowds in reality (for the most part) want fast grade-separated rapid transit. They just see subways as the only form of that, because from most of their experiences that's all they've ever rode. If it can be shown that GO REX would be even faster than a subway and almost as frequent, with an order of magnitude less cost, I think their camp would firmly support it. Especially because it's using existing rail corridors, so it won't be perceived to be taking away any lanes from cars (not that TC was, but that's the perception).

The pro-LRT crowd should support it because when it comes to dollars spent per km per passenger, GO REX is cost-competitive with LRT, maybe even coming out on top. It's a very penny wise approach to transit expansion, which I think would appeal to them.

And most importantly, the plan can be clearly geared to suburbanites. The ones who want a quick way of getting downtown, and the ones who are a very large voting block in both municipal and provincial elections. If we can get these people on board, the plan is set.

A good selling campaign for a plan is just as important as the plan itself. Without public support, plans go nowhere. Get people talking about it, get people asking about it, and the plan will develop legs.

 

[leopetr]

And what's the rush to electrify anyway... I'm sure cars pump out so many more fumes that these trains would hardly make a difference.

Electrification allows for quicker acceleration and deceleration, which allows for more stops with minimal impact on travel times.

It would also potentially allow for lighter trains and rolling stock, which has many nice side effects.

 

[Hipster Duck]

The problem(s) with TC was that there was no mention of the DRL or of an integrated GO system. If this GO REX plan was rolled out at a similar time to the TC plan, riders could have easily seen themselves tranfering from SELRT to the REX line to go to Union Station - or a transfer to REX at Kennedy instead of a double transfer to B-D and then Yonge.

If Transit City would have included a skeleton GO-REX system plus a DRL it would have been the best transit expansion project in recent North American history.

 

[gweed123]

If Transit City would have included a skeleton GO-REX system plus a DRL it would have been the best transit expansion project in recent North American history.

Heck, even just a skeleton GO REX (I'm assuming by skeleton you mean the 'local' lines?), the DRL, and ECLRT would have the biggest leap forward in Toronto transit history.

 

[toto]

Above ground LRT on Hydro ROW?

There are hydro fields that cut through Scarborough and Etobicoke. They would make perfect right of ways for dedicated above ground Rapid or light rapid transit lines. Once the reach their end points, the light could go underground. See really crude maps.

Obviously there would have to be special considerations when cross major roads. Go under them??

Any reason this can't be done? Or is it just a really stupid idea?

 

[gweed123]

There are hydro fields that cut through Scarborough and Etobicoke. They would make perfect right of ways for dedicated above ground Rapid or light rapid transit lines. Once the reach their end points, the light could go underground. See really crude maps.

Obviously there would have to be special considerations when cross major roads. Go under them??

Any reason this can't be done? Or is it just a really stupid idea?

I've definitely been an advocate for this, particularly the Finch Hydro Corridor. The Scarborough one is good too, but I think the Etobicoke one is in a bit of an awkward place in terms of rapid transit, and the 427 is a more likely candidate for a BRT service (which is all that that area really needs, anything else is overkill).

I'll repost a couple maps that I posted earlier that show some options for using hydro corridors. The first is a Finch BRT option, with some routes using the hydro corridor for the central stretch. The 2nd is an alternative DRL vision that uses the Scarborough Hydro corridor.

 

[gweed123]

And back to REX for a minute, do you guys think there's some kind of a need for a 'ring' line? There's a main line that could run from Pickering up and to run just north of Steeles to Bramlea. From there there are two options: 1) Continue up to Georgetown, and then turn south to go through Milton, and then end at Aldershot. 2) Continue to Brampton, and then turn south and connect at Streetsville, running to say Cookville.

Personally, I'm more partial to the first option, but that would mean either extending electrified service to Georgetown, or running the line as DMUs or standard GO trains. I don't think there would be anybody who would ride it the whole way from Aldershot to Pickering, but I think there would be some demand connecting one branch to another. What do you guys think?

 

[BurlOak]

I've definitely been an advocate for this, particularly the Finch Hydro Corridor. The Scarborough one is good too, but I think the Etobicoke one is in a bit of an awkward place in terms of rapid transit, and the 427 is a more likely candidate for a BRT service (which is all that that area really needs, anything else is overkill).

I'll repost a couple maps that I posted earlier that show some options for using hydro corridors. The first is a Finch BRT option, with some routes using the hydro corridor for the central stretch. The 2nd is an alternative DRL vision that uses the Scarborough Hydro corridor.

View attachment 8838View attachment 8839

On your Finch map, I was currious about the BRT starting just East of highway 400. For the Sheppard East LRT, there was such concern about at an at grade crossing of highway 404 that several hundred million are being spent on tunnelling under this area - Even though a bridge widening is not that difficult.

At the Finch West LRT (and your BRT) and the Eglinton Crosstown, both go under the existing bridge and take away 2 through lanes. Are traffic volumes so light in these areas that we can afford it. For Finch, I would divert to the Hydro corridor West of highway 400 and pay for the bridge to cross highway 400 - the bridge length would be a touch shorter here since it is north of the on/off ramps.

 

[gweed123]

On your Finch map, I was currious about the BRT starting just East of highway 400. For the Sheppard East LRT, there was such concern about at an at grade crossing of highway 404 that several hundred million are being spent on tunnelling under this area - Even though a bridge widening is not that difficult.

At the Finch West LRT (and your BRT) and the Eglinton Crosstown, both go under the existing bridge and take away 2 through lanes. Are traffic volumes so light in these areas that we can afford it. For Finch, I would divert to the Hydro corridor West of highway 400 and pay for the bridge to cross highway 400 - the bridge length would be a touch shorter here since it is north of the on/off ramps.

I had considered that, but the advantage with BRT is that it doesn't need dedicated lanes the entire time. If you look at the way the interchange is built, the onramps for the westbound to southbound and eastbound to northbound have a separate lane underneath the 400 overpass. It's possible to have the BRT use those lanes, and have the onramp veer off, with a buses only lane continuing. Having less than 100m of overlap between BRT lanes and general traffic lanes isn't going to be a show-stopper. This of course is assuming curb side lanes.

Over time, the ridership may make it an issue, but in the short term, it shouldn't be a problem. Long term, I'd like to see a GO REX station built at Finch West and the rail line there (shown as "Emery" on my GO REX map). When that station is built, the bridge over the 400 can be built, and the FHCBRT can be extended another stop to terminate at Emery.

And as a side note, I think the reason why the SELRT 404 crossing is being tunnelled is because they wanted a simple transfer to the subway, and it wouldn't have been possible to have the LRT go from underground to street level in such a short space, considering where Don Mills station is located.

 

[reaperexpress]

Here's my fantasy track map for the Georgetown/Kitchener/London line:
West of Mount Pleasant, the configuration would simply be double tracks with whatever platform configuration Metrolinx/VIA chooses.

Click here for the image

The proposal is reasonably conservative as fantasy maps go, the main additions are:
- Extending the CN York subdivision west to Milton in order to free up space on the CN/GO Weston subdivision for passenger trains
- Building a double-tracked mainline tunnel to the airport
- Completely double-tracking and electrifying the corridor from London to Toronto so all trains can use the airport tunnel

Other than that, improvements are pretty much as planned in the Metrolinx Georgetown South Project.

Services: both would be run by GO, the Air-Rail Link would be canceled, and the Sarnia-Toronto VIA train would be rerouted to the Lakeshore corridor (which is faster anyway).
- Express: a regional rail line connecting the cities and major towns in the corridor (London, Stratford, Kitchener/Waterloo, Guelph, Brampton and Toronto)
- Local: a 15 minute all-day suburban service along the Weston corridor.

Sample schedule: westbound services at Pearson Airport (I'm a big fan of clock-face scheduling)

Peak Hours:
Time Destination/Service type
:00 London Express
:06 Mount Pleasant Local
:15 Kitchener Express
:21 Mount Pleasant Local
:30 London Express
:36 Mount Pleasant Local
:45 Kitchener Express
:51 Mount Pleasant Local

To sum up: 15 minute local service between Mount Pleasant and Toronto, 15 minute Express service between Kitchener and Toronto, and 30 minute express service between London and Kitchener.

The uneven spacing at Pearson is due to the fact that the Express and Local services share tracks between Brampton and Pearson even though they have different average speeds. The express trains need to have a longer gap in front of them so that they don't catch up to the local trains before they pull off at Mount Pleasant.

Off-peak, there would be 15 minute local service (at the same intervals as during peak) and one express train per hour.

Notes:
The services would use 160km/h bilevel EMUs in units of 3 to 5 cars. Off-peak, units would operate individually and at rush hour they would operate in sets of two or three.

I think this service configuration is all-around better than the planned Air-Rail Link / GO / VIA combination, because although the number of trains per hour is about the same,
- it connects southwestern Ontarian cities to the aiport (don't forget you can transfer to trains toward Sarnia, Windsor and Chatham at London Station)
- it allows for commutes not destined for downtown Toronto (for example, people who live in St. Mary's and work in London or K-W)
- it does a much better job serving the area along the Weston corridor, including the Mobility Hub at Brampton Station.
- it would encourage more development (including downtown revitalization in the cities/towns it serves) due to all-day, fare-integrated service

 

[dunkalunk]

I like this very much! The only addition I'd make would be to convert the ARL ROW to a local HRT line. As has been said before, with CTC and room for 6 tracks, there is no reason that the Weston corridor could not support everything from local to High-Speed rail service.

 

[reaperexpress]

I like this very much! The only addition I'd make would be to convert the ARL ROW to a local HRT line. As has been said before, with CTC and room for 6 tracks, there is no reason that the Weston corridor could not support everything from local to High-Speed rail service.

I think the 6 tracks are already spoken for: 4 for GO and 2 for CP. Keep in mind that platforms take up space as well. But if they can squeeze in a subway line, that would be nice too, though it would make my local service somewhat less useful.

It just occurred to me that adding more stops to the local service wouldn't lengthen trips for people commuting downtown from Mt. P or Bramalea, because the fastest way for those people would be to take the local service one stop and get on an express train, since the express trains pass local services on the quad-tracked section. So if you want more local service, you could simply add more local stops on the quad-tracked section. It's not as ideal as a unified HRT DRL, but it's also a lot cheaper and more space-efficient.