GO Transit: Union Station Shed Replacement & Track Upgrades (Zeidler)

[smallspy]

This is the type of study that should make people skeptical of our studies - this is nuts! - platforms maxxing out at 8 tph?!?!?!?! Assuming we rebuild the platforms to reasonable width you can easily do >10 tph per direction per track, get single level trains with more doors and you can go much higher, there is no good reason we can't get to 20 tph per track with changes to the platform design. There is not really a fundamental difference between what is possible from Subway to Regional rail with the right trains and signalling.

It's easy to throw out numbers when you seem to not realize what it actually entails.

Is 20 tph on any single track possible in Union Station as it sits now, and after all of the planned improvements? No and no. Not possible. Subway systems can do it because they use all of the same high performance rolling stock, and have engineered their fixed plant to work only with them. So long as GO trains have to mix with VIA and freights, that isn't possible.

Blow it all up and start again? Then it *might* be possible. But that's asking a lot of the fixed plant, to say nothing of the equipment.

But plans are already underway to widen them, theres no reason we can't get quite a bit faster than today, there are plenty of places they go fast in Europe with curvy platforms etc.

You realize that this isn't Europe, right? And you realize that "curvy" is an extremely relative thing.

Dan

 

[SkylineHorizon]

oh jeez the crawl through the platforms stays? everything i heard publicly is that its going to "allow" speeds up to 70kph
even here on infrastructure ontario https://www.infrastructureontario.ca/Union-Station-Enhancement-Project/

>Construction of two new tracks designed to allow for future passenger train speed up to 45mph, with associated signal works
is this just misleading then?

Not a lie that's for the approaches into Union if going straight, 25 if switching tracks currently it's only 15 regardless of going straight or not so this will be a huge improvement.

Still you'll never see more than 10, maybe 15 as it once was but I doubt it, tops inside Union. Nothing to do with the tracks it's a safety related thing. Don't forget we've already had a tragic fatality happen at Union Station a few years back.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/union-station-commuter-dragged-to-death-under-train-1.3053644

Yes we're going to get wider platforms and more frequent trains but that capacity/space will get eaten up by the huge growth the system will see. Union Station platforms will always be crowded especially during rush hour or after events, not to mention all the idiots who cross the tracks. Having trains rip through the Union at increased speeds is just asking for trouble.

 

[just east of the creek]

Not a lie that's for the approaches into Union if going straight, 25 if switching tracks currently it's only 15 regardless of going straight or not so this will be a huge improvement.

Still you'll never see more than 10, maybe 15 as it once was but I doubt it, tops inside Union. Nothing to do with the tracks it's a safety related thing. Don't forget we've already had a tragic fatality happen at Union Station a few years back.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/union-station-commuter-dragged-to-death-under-train-1.3053644

Yes we're going to get wider platforms and more frequent trains but that capacity/space will get eaten up by the huge growth the system will see. Union Station platforms will always be crowded especially during rush hour or after events, not to mention all the idiots who cross the tracks. Having trains rip through the Union at increased speeds is just asking for trouble.

I am not an expert in these discussions in any form, but the posts are very enlightening, My question would revolve around alternative central stations. Would the potential capacity issues at Union fuel further efforts to reestablish a further 'central' Toronto station i.e. the North Toronto Station, even given what would be a smaller site footprint? Or would alternative stations (Weston? Corktown? Riverdale?) be an answer to aiding in the reduction of congestion at Union and decentralizing for commuters, the need to be 'downtown' to catch trains for GTA destinations. I realize that on existing GO lines you can reach stations, such as Kennedy, that serve specific lines. I was thinking of potential stations that might serve more then one line.

 

[gweed123]

I am not an expert in these discussions in any form, but the posts are very enlightening, My question would revolve around alternative central stations. Would the potential capacity issues at Union fuel further efforts to reestablish a further 'central' Toronto station i.e. the North Toronto Station, even given what would be a smaller site footprint? Or would alternative stations (Weston? Corktown? Riverdale?) be an answer to aiding in the reduction of congestion at Union and decentralizing for commuters, the need to be 'downtown' to catch trains for GTA destinations. I realize that on existing GO lines you can reach stations, such as Kennedy, that serve specific lines. I was thinking of potential stations that might serve more then one line.

I believe that's what Exhibition, East Harbour, and to a lesser extent Front-Spadina are supposed to do. The former two will feature direct connections to the Ontario Line, which will help divert some of the ridership that currently heads into Union and either walks up to the CBD, or transfers to the Yonge or Spadina lines.

North Toronto is interesting in theory, but it would need to be a new service that runs through it, as I don't think diverting any existing service into it would be politically palatable. The problem with North Toronto is that it requires a transfer onto an already over-crowded Yonge line to get pretty much anywhere. And you also have the issue of it being on CP's mainline.

 

[nfitz]

The problem with North Toronto is that it requires a transfer onto an already over-crowded Yonge line to get pretty much anywhere.

I entirely agree - though one option would be not to have a station at Summerhill, but instead put one at Dupont.

(shame there wasn't a better connection to the Ontario Line at the old Leaside station near Millwood).

 

[Sunnyside]

I believe that's what Exhibition, East Harbour, and to a lesser extent Front-Spadina are supposed to do. The former two will feature direct connections to the Ontario Line, which will help divert some of the ridership that currently heads into Union and either walks up to the CBD, or transfers to the Yonge or Spadina lines.

North Toronto is interesting in theory, but it would need to be a new service that runs through it, as I don't think diverting any existing service into it would be politically palatable. The problem with North Toronto is that it requires a transfer onto an already over-crowded Yonge line to get pretty much anywhere. And you also have the issue of it being on CP's mainline.

Personally I don’t like that the OL will be operating as both the GO network relief and the subway network relief. That’s a lot to burden, especially on a light metro (it can realistically do only one of these functions well). It might be worth considering something else in addition once GO expansion is complete. North Toronto has its own benefits, but I don’t think it’s a Union reliever for reasons you mentioned. As far as using the rail corridor, Front-Spadina is our best bet, and a eastern station to mirror it (not east harbour, needs to be close/in the core rather than a satellite); perhaps around Sherbourne. Otherwise it might be worth dusting off tunneled diversions for GO downtown in a decades time.

 

[gweed123]

I entirely agree - though one option would be not to have a station at Summerhill, but instead put one at Dupont.

(shame there wasn't a better connection to the Ontario Line at the old Leaside station near Millwood).

Dupont may solve the 'subway crowding' issue, but it doesn't solve the 'need to transfer to get anywhere' issue. Definitely useful as an express crosstown route though.

For your 2nd point, it might be feasible to extend the OL at least one stop further north and put a station at Barber Greene, with its south end being an interchange with the Midtown line. Though ideally the OL would extend up to at least Lawrence.

Personally I don’t like that the OL will be operating as both the GO network relief and the subway network relief. That’s a lot to burden, especially on a light metro (it can realistically do only one of these functions well). It might be worth considering something else in addition once GO expansion is complete. North Toronto has its own benefits, but I don’t think it’s a Union reliever for reasons you mentioned. As far as using the rail corridor, Front-Spadina is our best bet, and a eastern station to mirror it (not east harbour, needs to be close/in the core rather than a satellite); perhaps around Sherbourne. Otherwise it might be worth dusting off tunneled diversions for GO downtown in a decades time.

I don't know if the GO network needs relief so much as it offers alternative routes that may require less back-tracking than going into Union and then back out. The density of the downtown core appears to be extending eastward and westward along the King St corridor, with a pretty healthy mix of residential and commercial uses.

If someone coming in along LSE wants to get to say the Distillery District or George Brown College today, it's quite a labourious trip to go into Union, walk or subway up to King, and then take the King streetcar eastward. With a LSE/STF and OL station at East Harbour, not only would no back-track be needed, but it would be a simple subway stop or two away.

 

[nfitz]

Personally I don’t like that the OL will be operating as both the GO network relief and the subway network relief. That’s a lot to burden, especially on a light metro (

It's not light metro though. With an ultimate capacity of 750 people, and 40 trains an hour, the hourly capacity, per direction, is 30,000. That's well into heavy rail territory.

For your 2nd point, it might be feasible to extend the OL at least one stop further north and put a station at Barber Greene, with its south end being an interchange with the Midtown line. Though ideally the OL would extend up to at least Lawrence.

Yes, that's a thought. It's about 250 metres though from Barber Greene - so not perfect. Meanwhile, the CP tracks are only about 350 metres north of the north end of the unfortunately-named "Science Centre" station. Will they place two stations so close together?

There's also opportunity for a station on the midtown line where it crosses McCowan, just north of the Line 2 Sheppard East station. But again, the tracks are about 300 metres north of the north-end of the Line 2 station. Perhaps even less distance to the new bus terminal.

Seems ironic that the station locations they chose last century at Summerhill and Dupont provide better connections than what's happening now with everything supposedly integrated - and we are going to end up with some Main/Danforth-like connections.

 

[mburrrrr]

They installed some new lights.

They almost completed the covering for trailer entrances.

Ready… Set… Go!

 

[SashaLemon]

It's not light rail though. With an ultimate capacity of 750 people, and 40 trains an hour, the hourly capacity, per direction, is 30,000. That's well into heavy rail territory.


Yes, that's a thought. It's about 250 metres though from Barber Greene - so not perfect. Meanwhile, the CP tracks are only about 350 metres north of the north end of the unfortunately-named "Science Centre" station. Will they place two stations so close together?

There's also opportunity for a station on the midtown line where it crosses McCowan, just north of the Line 2 Sheppard East station. But again, the tracks are about 300 metres north of the north-end of the Line 2 station. Perhaps even less distance to the new bus terminal.

Seems ironic that the station locations they chose last century at Summerhill and Dupont provide better connections than what's happening now with everything supposedly integrated - and we are going to end up with some Main/Danforth-like connections.

I like how you literally quoted someone saying, "light metro" and then responded with "It's not light rail".
Are we going to have to start calling light metro something else to stop people from just making this mistake every single day on UrbanToronto? LOL

 

[nfitz]

I like how you literally quoted someone saying, "light metro" and then responded with "It's not light rail".
Are we going to have to start calling light metro something else to stop people from just making this mistake every single day on UrbanToronto? LOL

Thanks for politely pointing out my typo - I'll fix it.

I don't see how though, this changes my point that this isn't light metro!

 

[SashaLemon]

Thanks for politely pointing out my typo - I'll fix it.

I don't see how though, this changes my point that this isn't light metro!

The Ontario Line, the REM, the DLR, Copenhagen Metro, Vancouver Skytrain. These are all light metros. LRT and Light Metro are two diffrent things.

We should probably just call "Light Metro" by its more technical name: "Medium-capacity" rail.

 

[nfitz]

The Ontario Line, the REM, the DLR, Copenhagen Metro, Vancouver Skytrain. These are all light metros. LRT and Light Metro are two diffrent things.

We should probably just call "Light Metro" by its more technical name: "Medium-capacity" rail.

30,000 people per hour per direction isn't medium-capacity. This is heavy rail.

Call it metro - sure. But call it light-metro? No.

I"m not talking about LRT.

 

[SashaLemon]

30,000 people per hour per direction isn't medium-capacity. This is heavy rail.

Call it metro - sure. But call it light-metro? No.

I"m not talking about LRT.

Why do I even bother.

Medium-capacity rail system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[cplchanb]

30,000 people per hour per direction isn't medium-capacity. This is heavy rail.

Call it metro - sure. But call it light-metro? No.

I"m not talking about LRT.

Medium-capacity rail system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

see the definition section... technically 30kph is still considered MCS....