GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[khris]

If all of the above ideas for serving Pearson also included 'temporary', 'inadequate but necessary in the meantime', or another phrase like that I would not have a problem with these ideas. But there is only one way to properly serve Pearson and that is a proper station on site, integrated into the airport so that most people can simply walk to their pre-departure location and not have to take shuttles in every case. It is not cheap, and is a large project that will also require resolving issues with GO, VIA, and any privately owned Union-Pearson shuttle service that wants to operate. But this is what needs to be done in the not too distant future, and that it is not even being discussed is rather disheartening.

I am glad that Metrolinx has formed and it is nice to see progress on transit projects and attitudes towards investing in it. But Blue 22 and the whole debate around serving Pearson unfortunately illustrates just how far there still is to go.

Totally agree with you. As a traveller, you don't want to get on a shuttle to get on a train to take you downtown, only to probably then get on the subway to get to your final destination.
Train->Subway->Destination

 

[nfitz]

Six months of EA, plus 2-3 years of construction for the entire project from Milton to Union. Of course, its possible to extend all day service station-by-station as they complete the upgrades.

Two to 3 years? I'd be surprised. The construction alone of third track on Lakeshore East out to Eglinton started back in October 2005, and still hasn't been finished, and it's only about 5.5 km long. Who knows how long the process will take with design, etc.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

The current people mover can't be extended that far. There's the ability for a small extension, intended to be a second station further into Terminal 1, but that's it. You'd have to completely replace it, or put in a second system (though the existing Terminal 1 station is designed and constructed to have a second set of platforms - for the Airport train to downtown.

they should replace the people mover with something that can be expanded. that thing was a bad choice of technology IMO.

 

[urbanfan89]

^ The specifications indicate the system can be changed to something self-propelled. Ironically ICTS would be most suited for this purpose.

 

[nfitz]

they should replace the people mover with something that can be expanded. that thing was a bad choice of technology IMO.

It's an excellent choice of technology to do what it does. Move folks from Terminal 1 to Terminal 3, and the parking lot. They described what they were looking for as a horizontal elevator. Given the federal government had already committed 4 years ago to build a train into Terminal 1, before the peoplemover was constructed, GTAA shouldn't be responsible for having to scrap their technology, because the federal government, as usual, couldn't deliver.

The specifications indicate the system can be changed to something self-propelled. Ironically ICTS would be most suited for this purpose.

Perhaps - that's what they used to link to Kennedy Airport recently. All we have to do is extend the SRT - how about down Eglinton, much of it in a tunnel, up Renforth, and into the airport

 

[Kiwi]

QEW gateway development moves forward

By Kevin Werner

News
Jun 27, 2008

A proposed commercial and retail development at Fifty Road and the Queen Elizabeth Way received the green light this week from politicians.

Mady Development Corporation had proposed a commercial development that would include office space at the southwest quadrant of the QEW and Fifty Road in October 2005.

Harold Kersey, vice-president of planning and development for Mady Development Corporation, said the proposal is a form of mixed employment that will include boutique stores, restaurant, a community meeting square and inter-regional, multi-modal transportation system, that will include bus and rail service.

"We are committed to developing it," he said.

Jill Stephen, manager of strategic planning, said the development will be part of an "entry point" to the city's public transit system that could include bus and rail.

Ms. Stephen said the planning for the inter-modal transportation system is still in the preliminary stages.

................

He says the proposal could be ready for review by the fall.

 

[Panzerfaust]

Perhaps - that's what they used to link to Kennedy recently. All we have to do is extend the SRT - how about down Eglinton, much of it in a tunnel, up Renforth, and into the airport

Because you get the exact same costs as subway tunnel construction with a more expensive technology that can handle less riders?

 

[nfitz]

Because you get the exact same costs as subway tunnel construction with a more expensive technology that can handle less riders?

Well, we are OT ... but if one used an intermediate capacity system, one would select a narrower one that requires a single tunnel (like the London Underground or the Montreal Metro) than ones that require a double tunnel (like the Toronto subway); between that and the much smaller stations, there should be significant savings. Now I honestly don't know what the Skytrain technology requires for widths - perhaps it is too wide - but I would assume that new subway they are building in Vancouver is a single tunnel rather than a double tunnel (and perhaps that's why they didn't use the existing Skytrain technology). What's the Vancouver cost/km?

 

[RedRocket191]

The Canada Line in Vancouver does not use Bombardier ALRT technology. This was largely a result of the rules of the bidding which prevented Bombardier from including the bulk discounts on cars for other skytrain lines. As a result, they could not provide the lowest bid.

The Canada line cost $1.9 billion for 19 km, and includes all sorts of alignments (from Canadaline.ca):

• Underground tunnel, constructed using the cut-and-cover method, up Granville Street from Waterfront Station to Dunsmuir Street
• Twin-bored tunnel up Granville Street from Pender Street to Davie Street, and from Davie Street, under False Creek, to 2nd Avenue near Cambie
• Cut-and-cover tunnel under northbound traffic lanes of Cambie from 2nd Avenue to 64th Avenue
• Elevated guideway from 64th Avenue, over SW Marine Drive, then south along the west side of Cambie, over Kent Ave. to the North Arm of the Fraser River
• Elevated guideway from the North Arm of the Fraser River to Bridgeport Station in Richmond
• Elevated guideway south along the east side of No. 3 Road to the terminal at Richmond-Brighouse Station on No. 3 Road south of Saba Road
• Elevated guideway from Bridgeport Station west across Richmond industrial lands to the Middle Arm of the Fraser River
• Elevated guideway west across southern approach ramp of Arthur Laing Bridge, around north side of Sea Island Interchange, across Templeton Road, then west at grade, separated from traffic approximately 1.7 kilometres before finishing as an elevated guideway at YVR terminal
• The guideway will be single track rather than a double track for a 650 metre segment in the vicinity of the YVR terminal
• YVR 3 Station on Sea Island will be deferred to a future date

The cut & cover sections are stacked.

A few things to remember:

• Canada Line uses a design-build-operate PPP. Under Metrolinx approved criteria, the Eglinton-Crosstown doesn't qualify for that level of PPP.
• It includes a massive cable-stayed bridge that skews the cost of the project.

 

[nfitz]

Ah, so they can't get them in a single tunnel. Still ...

... The Canada line cost $1.9 billion for 19 km, and includes all sorts of alignments (from Canadaline.ca):

which is $100 million per kilometre. Compared to the current estimate of $302 million per kilometre for the Spadina subway extension.

A few things to remember:

• Canada Line uses a design-build-operate PPP. Under Metrolinx approved criteria, the Eglinton-Crosstown doesn't qualify for that level of PPP.

If we can save $200 million per kilometre by going to PPP, we should think again! Though I don't think this is where the saving is.

• It includes a massive cable-stayed bridge that skews the cost of the project.

Which makes the cost less than $100 million a kilometre. Sounds like the earlier comment by Panzerfaust that "you get the exact same costs as subway tunnel construction with a more expensive technology that can handle less riders?" should read "you get 1/3 the cost of subway tunnel construction with a cheaper technology that can run faster"

Can you imagine the saving if there was a single bored tunnel? I guess that's dependent on the geology though.

 

[urbanfan89]

The Canada Line may be cheaper to build, but the entire project involved cutting corners.

The platforms are 40 metres long and can only allow two car trains. A section in Richmond is single tracked, which would make a southward extension very expensive and disruptive. The undergrond stations in Vancouver only have a single entrance, which will cause overcrowding problems. There was no provision to allow a northward extension to North Van, since it would require deeper drilling. Finally once the Millenium Line is extended along Broadway the interchange with the Canada Line will be cumbersome.

Some posters from BC call the Canada Line a large people mover, and for good reason.

You get what you pay for.

 

[RedRocket191]

All of your points are valid, urbanfan, but I don't think anyone has every put forth a serious plan to tunnel under Burrard Inlet. If someone makes a business case to make it viable under the haphazard funding situation we have with the feds, they deserve a medal.

 

[nfitz]

I'm not sure why only one entrance for a 2-car platform will cause overcrowding problems. There are enough Toronto and Montreal full-sized platforms with only 1 entrance.

Though I do have to wonder about the logic of only 2-car platforms. I'd have thought demand would have quickly required more.

 

[RedRocket191]

I'm not sure why only one entrance for a 2-car platform will cause overcrowding problems. There are enough Toronto and Montreal full-sized platforms with only 1 entrance.

Though I do have to wonder about the logic of only 2-car platforms. I'd have thought demand would have quickly required more.

It was up to the bidders to decide on platform length - which is what he meant by cutting corners.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Ah, so they can't get them in a single tunnel. Still ... which is $100 million per kilometre. Compared to the current estimate of $302 million per kilometre for the Spadina subway extension.

We can't reasonably compare anything to the Spadina extension, which includes a ridiculous contingency component of $58 million per kilometre, not to mention yard upgrades, vehicles, overly elaborate stations, tunnelling under empty land, etc.