Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

[Nobina]

I couldn't agree more with you Jaye101!!!

Reducing pollution, noise levels, and vibrations isn't the main benefit of electrification, they're just added bonuses. The main benefit of electrification is having stock (i.e. EMUs) that can accelerate/decelerate quickly, and can accomplish high speeds on short stretches between stations. This enables stations to be constructed much closer together (and allows for much smaller headways), making it a much more local service, and useful to people living in the communities surrounding the rail corridors. This eliminates the need for long commutes to train stations just to use the service, and reduces the need to provide parking at these stations, all of which makes it a much more useful service, and more likely that people will use it. Changing the way we think about commuter rail, and how we use our rail corridors is key to making public transit competitive with the automobile. All of this can be accomplished at a fraction of the cost of expensive subway construction, and would provide much faster service than LRVs with their own ROWs ever could.

In Toronto and the GTA, we are blessed with these extensive rail corridors, some of them quite wide, and it makes me extremely sad that we don't use them (and have no plans to use them) to their full potential, while gridlock is severely impacting our economy, and degrading our quality of life. True commuter rail can never be realized with solely diesel stock. Express services could continue to operate with diesel trains, since they serve fewer stops that are usually spaced farther apart. But in order to provide true local rail service, electrification is a prerequisite, as well as fare integration with local services (i.e. TTC fare for a GO Transit trip inside Toronto) and bus connectivity.

Local stops should be placed at major arterial roads and at other important locations (e.g. on the Georgetown corridor in Toronto, there could be stops at Lawrence (existing Weston GO), Eglinton, St. Clair, Bloor (existing Bloor GO), Queen, and Bathurst. Think about how much more of a local service this line could be with just the stations I suggested. Express services bypassing most or all of these stations can still continue to operate. But until attitudes start changing at Metrolinx, all of this is a pipe dream. The CityRail proposal is the closest idea we've had for providing true commuter rail in the GTA.

We should be building it right the first time, instead of doing it later, if ever... It's not like we have to look far for examples of excellent commuter rail services - there are good examples all around the world (mainly Europe and Asia). I don't get why we have to "re-invent the wheel" in Toronto, when it comes to providing quality public transit.

(Example, Sm4-class EMUs in Helsinki, Finland regularly accomplish speeds of 100km/h in "all stops" local service with very short distances between stations, while the same trains regularly accomplish speeds of 160-170km/h in "limited stops" express or regional services with stations spaced farther apart.)

 

[nfitz]

What exactly have I said that was far out?

You commented that "The smell really moves through" Carleton Village. As I live just as close (if not closer) and downwind of a corridor busier than Kitchener and Barrie combined, then it's quite clearly that this is "far out" and a significant exaggeration, if not complete fiction.

Yes, electrification would be nice, and is inevitable. But launching a lawsuit that if successful would only serve to delay the implementation of transit is clearly not the answer - and also unlikely to succeed, and will only cost me (the taxpayer) real $.

 

[Jaye101]

You commented that "The smell really moves through" Carleton Village. As I live just as close (if not closer) and downwind of a corridor busier than Kitchener and Barrie combined, then it's quite clearly that this is "far out" and a significant exaggeration, if not complete fiction.

Yes, electrification would be nice, and is inevitable. But launching a lawsuit that if successful would only serve to delay the implementation of transit is clearly not the answer - and also unlikely to succeed, and will only cost me (the taxpayer) real $.

You're still on the smell?

I live 20 meters from a GO train line, albeit not a busy one. But when it's downwind I can smell it. That's just my own experience. I'm not calling you a liar. I am not implying that this smell is the most dreadful thing in the world, either. Nevertheless, whether you smell it or not, it will effect local air quality to run "400 diesel trains" through a densely packed corridor is irresponsible, though that number in itself is arguable. But think about it, why even plan expansion if you're not going to do it properly? It's a known fact that cancer rates are higher near highways, it would not be far out to also assume the same about train corridors. Because in reality we are ignorant to the long term risks.

We should not become victims of our own ignorance.

Tell me this, what's going to cost the tax payers more money? Waiting for the cost of electrifying GO train lines to increase exponentially or a lawsuit by a group of citizens. Think about it. Crunch your figures and get back to me on them. It would be easy to assume that the former will result in hundreds of millions, if not billions more after a decade delay as every subsequent line will also have been delayed. And this is what you call responsible government. Costing the taxpayers more in the long run, investing in polluting technology that has just been identified by WHO as on the same level as mustard gas, and providing inefficient and unattractive service that does not reflect a diverse array of travel patterns and therefor won't attract significant ridership growth when comparable to the potential of a modernized system.

I do have a question. It's common knowledge that Union station will be at capacity in 2030. Now, would electrifying the GO train system increase the capacity of Union Station by spreading out passenger loads and adding more stations on both sides of the core? Seems like a much more practical approach that the idea of terminating the Georgetown line at Bathurst and forcing commuters to transfer onto local transit. What a regressive proposal.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I do have a question. It's common knowledge that Union station will be at capacity in 2030. Now, would electrifying the GO train system increase the capacity of Union Station by spreading out passenger loads and adding more stations on both sides of the core?

No, electrification does not increase the capacity of railway stations. If you wanted to increase the capacity of Union station, you would have to modify Union station, not the power by which trains pull into it.

 

[doady]

The main benefit of electrification is having stock (i.e. EMUs) that can accelerate/decelerate quickly, and can accomplish high speeds on short stretches between stations. This enables stations to be constructed much closer together (and allows for much smaller headways), making it a much more local service, and useful to people living in the communities surrounding the rail corridors.

Are you suggesting that DMUs of the Airport Rail Link will have poor acceleration? That contradicts what I've read about DMUs.

Local stops should be placed at major arterial roads and at other important locations (e.g. on the Georgetown corridor in Toronto, there could be stops at Lawrence (existing Weston GO), Eglinton, St. Clair, Bloor (existing Bloor GO), Queen, and Bathurst. Think about how much more of a local service this line could be with just the stations I suggested. Express services bypassing most or all of these stations can still continue to operate. But until attitudes start changing at Metrolinx, all of this is a pipe dream. The CityRail proposal is the closest idea we've had for providing true commuter rail in the GTA.

True commuter rail is not a local service. Besides, the objective of GO/Metrolinx is to provide regional service, not local service. It's a regional agency. Providing local service in the City of Toronto is a job of the TTC.

There are major problems with the Airport Rail Link, but they don't include poor acceleration and a lack of local service.

 

[Jaye101]

No, electrification does not increase the capacity of railway stations. If you wanted to increase the capacity of Union station, you would have to modify Union station, not the power by which trains pull into it.

So spreading out passenger loads through higher frequencies, and adding stations at both sides of the core would not increase Union station's capacity at all? Interesting.

Personally, I prefer the option of directing Georgetown underneath Queen to create a second Central station in the vicinity of Toronto City Hall. But I suppose that's a whole other topic.

 

[Nobina]

True commuter rail is not a local service. Besides, the objective of GO/Metrolinx is to provide regional service, not local service. It's a regional agency. Providing local service in the City of Toronto is a job of the TTC.

There are major problems with the Airport Rail Link, but they don't include poor acceleration and a lack of local service.

It's reasoning like this, why our transit systems are so flawed, and our rail corridors are so underused. Instead of having a single vision for the region, each municipality has their own vision for what transit should be. If Metrolinx is to provide regional service, not local service, why did they assume control of the Eglinton Crosstown line??

Besides, in most major cities around the world, one agency is responsible for overseeing public transit in the whole region. Take SEPTA (Philadelphia) or the MTA (NYC) for example.

True commuter rail is comprised of both express and local services.

 

[nfitz]

Besides, in most major cities around the world, one agency is responsible for overseeing public transit in the whole region. Take SEPTA (Philadelphia) or the MTA (NYC) for example.

MTA doesn't deal with all the public transit in NYC. Nor does SEPTA entirey resonsible in Philadelphia (don't forget PATCO). Other cities have split responsibility too. London, Paris. Look at Seoul and Tokyo - they have different companies running different subway lines. Look at Bangkok.

I think you are mistaken here.

 

[nfitz]

Seems like a much more practical approach that the idea of terminating the Georgetown line at Bathurst and forcing commuters to transfer onto local transit. What a regressive proposal.[/B]

The only time GO raised that idea, was in the report that also rejected it. Why are you criticizing GO for a plan that even they dismissed? If your going to look at alternatives, obviously some will not be good enough.

And as to living 20 metres away from a GO line. If you are so sensitive to the odour, why would you choose to live right next to the widest urban rail corridor in Canada? A corridor that there has been serious discussion of significant service increases for decades? Isn't it kind of like those NIMBYs who move next to the airport, and complaining that they plan to increase flights? I still don't understand how you can smell too corridors simultaneously .... unless you are living in a shack near the points.

 

[drum118]

Here is a walk through the Express train in Stockholm. It seat 216 with provision for 2 scooters/strollers/luggage on top of that number. It also has a washroom.

As for the number of trains using Union come 2030, someone in charge needs to visit Europe and see the number of trains that go out of stub end terminals that exceed those numbers now.

As for Regional and local transit, we are behind Europe on that level big time.

Having local and express service for commuter rail service is years over due and that is caused by the blinders that GO has had on for too long. This also includes TTC not working with GO.
[video=youtube;BNgRXYxFOR4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNgRXYxFOR4[/video]

 

[Hipster Duck]

So spreading out passenger loads through higher frequencies, and adding stations at both sides of the core would not increase Union station's capacity at all? Interesting.

Personally, I prefer the option of directing Georgetown underneath Queen to create a second Central station in the vicinity of Toronto City Hall. But I suppose that's a whole other topic.

As far as I can tell, Clean Train Coalition doesn't seem to be concerned about increasing capacity, whether that's through building additional stations, modifying the existing Union station or managing the operation of the line differently. Their only cause has been to electrify the Georgetown corridor because of public health concerns in their neighbourhood only. So, yes, that is a whole different topic.

Adding stations outside of Union to increase capacity and running trains at higher frequencies could be achieved with diesel-powered trains as well. A DMU set with most of the axles being driven is probably just as quick at accelerating as an electric locomotive hauling twelve cars. But, of course, CTC failed to consider this.

And, finally, why would we want to do this? Everywhere else in the world, cities are moving toward centralizing train operations in a larger central station (where connections can be made and where the employment is located), rather than spreading loads out over multiple, smaller stations. Cities like Vienna, Berlin and London (King's Cross-St. Pancras) are doing this to varying degrees.

 

[k10ery]

There are major problems with the Airport Rail Link, but they don't include poor acceleration and a lack of local service.

The main problem with ARL is lack of local service. With the addition of a few basic stations, the corridor could be providing Toronto with a DRL West within a few years. Instead, those tracks, stations, and USRC capacity will be tied up in a "premium" service for out-of-towners that is almost sure to be a complete white elephant. In that respect, the current plan is so dumb, it's almost worth taking Metrolinx to court over it!

 

[k10ery]

The only time GO raised that idea, was in the report that also rejected it. Why are you criticizing GO for a plan that even they dismissed? If your going to look at alternatives, obviously some will not be good enough.

Not so. The DRL to Bathurst North was one of two options "carried forward for further study". Of the two options, it is the one that does more for Toronto transit.

 

[nfitz]

Not so. The DRL to Bathurst North was one of two options "carried forward for further study". Of the two options, it is the one that does more for Toronto transit.

Ah, you are correct. Can't see it ever happening though. Thought I remembered some negative comments about it from Metrolinx later on ... but I can't see it now.

That aside ... I'm still surprised there are individuals out there who would risk all their money on a lawsuit like this. They could personally be out $thousands if the lose their case and the court orders costs to Metrolinx.

 

[BurlOak]

Ah, you are correct. Can't see it ever happening though. Thought I remembered some negative comments about it from Metrolinx later on ... but I can't see it now.

That aside ... I'm still surprised there are individuals out there who would risk all their money on a lawsuit like this. They could personally be out $thousands if the lose their case and the court orders costs to Metrolinx.

Well, they have the right to stall this in the courts for as long as it takes. Perhaps we should even give them legal aid to ensure they get all their concerns heard. It would not be fair that due to lack of money they are not able to fully excercise their rights and have all their concerns properly heard.