News   Jul 26, 2024
 845     0 
News   Jul 26, 2024
 2.2K     2 
News   Jul 26, 2024
 1.9K     3 

The CityRail Concept: Real Regional Rail for the GTA

*Yawn*

I am so sick of all these endless alternative plans. OneCity, "Ford City", Transit City, CityRail, i-MetroE.

Just develop a financing structure and a 50 year integrated land-use and transportation plan for the entire region and stick to it. Modes, technologies and even route alignments can be done on a case-by-case basis as long as they fit the financing model (i.e. they can be paid for) and align with the goals of the land use and transport plan.
 
Haha, yeah we have had a few off-topic discussions, and I think the naming thing is a relatively minor detail. On the last page I posted my alternative to the CityRail concept, which includes a greater distinction of what type of rail service is actually included on each corridor (http://www2.andrew.thejohnsonclan.ca/GO_REX_v2.jpg for those who missed it).

Doing discussions about Regional Rail I think are a lot different than local transit, because RR is pretty much confined to where the rail corridors already are, so there aren't any discussions about alignment (like there are with the DRL). The discussions mainly centre around what type of service for what corridor, how far out should that type of service extend, etc.

Realistically speaking, the only corridors that are capable of hosting REX at this point are the Lakeshore and Georgetown corridors.

The Stouffville corridor can be upgraded to REX-capable, but that would require grade-separations and double tracking (not exactly cheap, but doable). Same goes with the Barrie corridor, but to be honest I can't really see the demand being there for a full REX service.

The Richmond Hill corridor would need some pretty significant upgrading and realignment in order to be REX-capable. That whole section through the Don Valley is neither accessible nor very direct, and the connection possibilities with existing and planned rapid transit lines suck. With the current alignment, you hit Sheppard and that's about it. My map reroutes the line around the west side of Don Mills, for a better connection at Eglinton.

The Milton corridor is the hardest one to pinpoint, because so much of the available service level depends on freight. Any significant increase in GO service on the Milton corridor needs to be accompanied by the construction of a freight bypass between Bramlea and Lisgar. Without that, there would need to be at least 2 more tracks added into an already crammed corridor, which would be enormously expensive. IMO, diverting freight traffic off that line, even if Metrolinx has to pay to build a new line on which GO trains will never run, is a worthwhile expense compared to the alternatives.

Same thing goes for the Midtown line, because the Midtown and Milton lines are the same CP mainline. Build the freight bypass and convince CN and CP to share the York Sub (even if it means Metrolinx paying to add an extra track to that line), and you get both the Milton and Midtown lines available for GO service.

If that's the case, both of those lines would be REX-worthy. But as it stands now (and that's why my map shows what it shows), 1hr or 30 min diesel service is about all that's possible right now.

GW and Everyone: Interesting plan for a Toronto Regional Rail system here being discussed...

I agree that to be viable there should be as much as possible separation between freight and passenger lines especially
if they are electrified and have frequent service...

With Greater Toronto's high percentage of transit use these lines look to be successful right from the start...

Will the Ontario and Canadian Federal Government commit funds to make this a reality as I feel it should be?

Noting the recent VIA Rail cuts it has to make me wonder...

LI MIKE
 
*Yawn*

I am so sick of all these endless alternative plans. OneCity, "Ford City", Transit City, CityRail, i-MetroE.

Just develop a financing structure and a 50 year integrated land-use and transportation plan for the entire region and stick to it. Modes, technologies and even route alignments can be done on a case-by-case basis as long as they fit the financing model (i.e. they can be paid for) and align with the goals of the land use and transport plan.

I agree with this and believe that it is part of the politicizing of transit in the region. For the last 40 yrs from Lastman to Miller to Ford to Stinz, and on and on. Politicians have been more than happy to pose for press conferences about 'their' transit plans, or start of construction, or opening of a new line that 'they' helped create. Instead let's just get some transit planners to review our current network and come up with a plan for the future, then implement that plan. Isn't that how 90% of the world builds transit???
 
*Yawn*

I am so sick of all these endless alternative plans. OneCity, "Ford City", Transit City, CityRail, i-MetroE.

Just develop a financing structure and a 50 year integrated land-use and transportation plan for the entire region and stick to it. Modes, technologies and even route alignments can be done on a case-by-case basis as long as they fit the financing model (i.e. they can be paid for) and align with the goals of the land use and transport plan.

That's obviously the goal, but I think it's valuable to push for new ideas to be included in that 50-year plan, otherwise it's just going to be the same old rehash of Transit City and miscellaneous 905 municipal plans. CityRail is about pushing a technology, S-Bahn/RER-style regional rail, that doesn't exist in Toronto. It's not about pushing for a specific plan. Many of the people who are planning transit right now don't even know that the idea of regional rail exists. As long as it's sold as an evolutionary upgrade of GO service, it's not going to have political cachet, it's not going to have integrated fares, and frankly it's not going to happen in any kind of satisfactory form. A group of ordinary people got together to introduce and promote the idea of the DRL, and that's a big part of why it's now on the agenda.

Not to mention the fact that we have a 50-year land use plan, Places to Grow, and provincial financing that was supposed to last for decades. The problem is that the transit in Places to Grow is either vague or based on old municipal plans. It doesn't differentiate between real (S-Bahn/RER-style) regional rail and GO service, and that distinction needs to be made clearer.

I agree with this and believe that it is part of the politicizing of transit in the region. For the last 40 yrs from Lastman to Miller to Ford to Stinz, and on and on. Politicians have been more than happy to pose for press conferences about 'their' transit plans, or start of construction, or opening of a new line that 'they' helped create. Instead let's just get some transit planners to review our current network and come up with a plan for the future, then implement that plan. Isn't that how 90% of the world builds transit???

I'm all for serious study and fact-based planning, but the idea that you can just bring in "experts" and have them design an ideal system is very simplistic. Cities used to hire Robert Moses to come in and do just that. Transit planners can be even more influenced by the latest fads than politicians. If you hire five different transit planners, you'd get five completely different plans. Experts are all well and good, but the greatest planning experts of the day designed projects like Regent Park and the Spadina Expressway.
 
Last edited:
The thing is that GO REX (or whatever you want to call it) is already underway at Metrolinx, but under the radar. Metrolinx has recommended that the Lakeshore and Georgetown lines be electrified first, which makes total sense. The only change that I would do to that would be to include the Stouffville line too, thereby forming a straight line and a U, covering most of the GTHA.

Unlike local transit plans where politicians seem to draw things up out of thin air, this is being done by transit planners, right now. It's being studied, and in some cases pre-electrification work (Junction grade separation for example) is being done. All this plan needs is a champion and a good marketing scheme, and of course funding.
 
I'm all for serious study and fact-based planning, but the idea that you can just bring in "experts" and have them design an ideal system is very simplistic. Cities used to hire Robert Moses to come in and do just that. Transit planners can be even more influenced by the latest fads than politicians. If you hire five different transit planners, you'd get five completely different plans. Experts are all well and good, but the greatest planning experts of the day designed projects like Regent Park and the Spadina Expressway.

Robert Moses really? Personally I'm really more comfortable with hiring a transit planner to analyze a system and propose a plan, rather than having this politician or that step up to a podium every 2-4 yrs and promote a bunch of lines drawn on a map only because they drew those lines on a map.

Just as the mayor, or council, does not physically design City Hall, they hire an architect and engineer to design it. You hire people who have specialized skills in order to do a specialized job. And that includes building a transit network.
 
*Yawn*

I am so sick of all these endless alternative plans. OneCity, "Ford City", Transit City, CityRail, i-MetroE.

Just develop a financing structure and a 50 year integrated land-use and transportation plan for the entire region and stick to it. Modes, technologies and even route alignments can be done on a case-by-case basis as long as they fit the financing model (i.e. they can be paid for) and align with the goals of the land use and transport plan.

that is sorta what I was saying here http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/18950-OneCity-Plan?p=649533#post649533 ....far less eloquently.

The biggest problem with all these "plans" is that while the pretend to solve the transit issues/problems....they end up just producing endless debates and counter-plans that delay and worsen the transit problems.
 
Yep. It was his major source of income. He routinely did $100,000 consulting gigs with every city you can imagine to design their transportation networks. What they really needed was for him to consult on how to actually get things built!

For all of his short-comings (and staunchly pro-car attitude, which he was far from the only person to believe in such at the time), he knew how to get stuff done.

I would be very happy if a pro-transit version of Robert Moses stepped up and got stuff done in the GTA. Yes, there may be a few toes stepped on, but I'd rather have that than endless bickering with nothing getting done.
 
For all of his short-comings (and staunchly pro-car attitude, which he was far from the only person to believe in such at the time), he knew how to get stuff done.

I would be very happy if a pro-transit version of Robert Moses stepped up and got stuff done in the GTA. Yes, there may be a few toes stepped on, but I'd rather have that than endless bickering with nothing getting done.

Thanks, that's what I meant. Sometimes it's best to hire an expert to do the work, even if the job is an utter failure!
 
Not to mention the fact that we have a 50-year land use plan, Places to Grow, and provincial financing that was supposed to last for decades. The problem is that the transit in Places to Grow is either vague or based on old municipal plans. It doesn't differentiate between real (S-Bahn/RER-style) regional rail and GO service, and that distinction needs to be made clearer.

Incorrect.

Places to Grow has very little to say about specific transit lines, precisely because it was written with the idea that Metrolinx (well, it wasn't called Metrolinx yet) would be coming along a few years after it with a plan that would speak to transit in more detail.

Metrolinx did come along with a plan a couple of years later, which did quite clearly spell out a plan to build "Express Rail" which was (a) classified as being distinct from full-day GO service (which, confusingly in the context of this thread, is referred to as "Regional Rail") and (b) explicitly describes it as resembling an S-Bahn or RER system.
 
Incorrect.

Places to Grow has very little to say about specific transit lines, precisely because it was written with the idea that Metrolinx (well, it wasn't called Metrolinx yet) would be coming along a few years after it with a plan that would speak to transit in more detail.

Metrolinx did come along with a plan a couple of years later, which did quite clearly spell out a plan to build "Express Rail" which was (a) classified as being distinct from full-day GO service (which, confusingly in the context of this thread, is referred to as "Regional Rail") and (b) explicitly describes it as resembling an S-Bahn or RER system.

Exactly, but the problem is that we're investing hundreds of millions in the GO corridors but we have absolutely no plan to bring about this express rail. None of these investments are being done with any kind of long-term goal of express rail in mind or even mentioned. That's why, despite millions being spent on rebuilding the Union Station Rail Corridor, not a single track was relocated to make it more suitable for regional/express rail. The Georgetown corridor improvement is also not being planned with regional rail in mind. None of the station upgrades are being built to accommodate future high platforms. There are no plans for the most essential aspect, full fare integration with local systems. Metrolinx talked about Express Rail in its plans, but all GO is talking about is 30 minute headways on the Lakeshore line at some point in the future, still requiring 10 minute dwells at Union. Another problem is that the Big Move talked about Express Rail only on the Georgetown and Richmond Hill corridors. The former makes a lot of sense, but the latter is probably the least useful regional rail corridor.
 
I remember early Metrolinx documents referring to it as GO "Regional Express", aka GO REX. That's where the REX thing comes from.
 

Back
Top