nfitz
Superstar
But we don't (or seldom) put stops that close together on subway lines in the suburbs!As long as their is two tiers of service like this, its totally feasible to have subway stop spacings on an EMU regional line.
But we don't (or seldom) put stops that close together on subway lines in the suburbs!As long as their is two tiers of service like this, its totally feasible to have subway stop spacings on an EMU regional line.
Vehemently disagree.As long as their is two tiers of service like this, its totally feasible to have subway stop spacings on an EMU regional line.
Metrolinx responsibility is the Golden Horse Shoe and it includes all existing transit system per say. ML goal from day one is to merger all existing systems into one and farm out routes to various companies like London UK. All vehicles, uniforms would be own by ML to have one look across the system and follow their standards. York Region is this way now.Isn't it Metrolinx's job to coordinate what should serve regional trips versus local trips? If Lakeview is too close to Long Branch, so be it. I like the idea of extending the streetcar service further west.
Literally no one on this forum has ever argued anywhere remotely this position, and hardly what even @crs1026 is claiming. Even in the most generous infill proposals, station spacing is usually limited to being ~2km apart, and even then most local services on lines like Kitchener are limited to a station every 3km or so. The closest 2 stations ever appear are Park Lawn and Mimico, but even then that's a 1 off thing where the stations are 1.3km apart. By contrast, the subway usually has stations every km on average if not less, never mind the "streetcar" where stops are usually closer together than the length of a single GO platform. Making extreme caricatures of what people you disagree with propose on here won't win you points with anyone.Exactly what I've been arguing for years on this forum. There are people on this forum that would be content to see stop spacing for the GO trains equivalent to a downtown streetcar because they can't say "No" to any station proposal. In their minds every proposed station is justified and warrants being built.
I'm against the Park Lawn proposal as well because of it's close proximity to Mimico. Would rather see the Ontario Line extended from Exhibition to Mimico with a stop at Park Lawn.
Most stations people propose/are being planned are stations located on highly trafficked streets that have extremely busy busses, or have BRT/LRT, or are a potential corridor for BRT/LRT. The only exception to this I can think of is maybe Park Lawn, but that's being planned to an existing and rapidly growing high density development that will see a lot of walk in traffic. Not exactly "someone's backyard as you put it".I don't understand the logic of claiming we can add more stops due to electrification. Why not get all the benefits of electrification and NOT add more stops? That would certainly make the GO train more competitive with highway driving. Build more subways and BRTs connecting to existing GO station instead of constructing infill GO stations.
That would actually be cool if the GO stations were as close together as streetcar stops. Then you could install moving sidewalks on the platforms, and just stand on the platform until you get to the destination.Literally no one on this forum has ever argued anywhere remotely this position, and hardly what even @crs1026 is claiming. Even in the most generous infill proposals, station spacing is usually limited to being ~2km apart, and even then most local services on lines like Kitchener are limited to a station every 3km or so. The closest 2 stations ever appear are Park Lawn and Mimico, but even then that's a 1 off thing where the stations are 1.3km apart. By contrast, the subway usually has stations every km on average if not less, never mind the "streetcar" where stops are usually closer together than the length of a single GO platform. Making extreme caricatures of what people you disagree with propose on here won't win you points with anyone.
Most stations people propose/are being planned are stations located on highly trafficked streets that have extremely busy busses, or have BRT/LRT, or are a potential corridor for BRT/LRT. The only exception to this I can think of is maybe Park Lawn, but that's being planned to an existing and rapidly growing high density development that will see a lot of walk in traffic. Not exactly "someone's backyard as you put it".
Every other station that's being planned, whether its Concord GO (Viva Orange and Highway 407 busses), St. Clair - Old Weston (St Clair LRT/Streetcar), Spadina (Spadina LRT/Streetcar), or even East Harbour (Ontario Line, Future Broadview Ave Streetcar, and eventually maybe finally Waterfront East LRT) are all planned and built around Rapid Transit/local transit connections, exactly what you're asking for.
Literally no one on this forum has ever argued anywhere remotely this position, and hardly what even @crs1026 is claiming. Even in the most generous infill proposals, station spacing is usually limited to being ~2km apart, and even then most local services on lines like Kitchener are limited to a station every 3km or so. The closest 2 stations ever appear are Park Lawn and Mimico, but even then that's a 1 off thing where the stations are 1.3km apart. By contrast, the subway usually has stations every km on average if not less, never mind the "streetcar" where stops are usually closer together than the length of a single GO platform. Making extreme caricatures of what people you disagree with propose on here won't win you points with anyone.
Most stations people propose/are being planned are stations located on highly trafficked streets that have extremely busy busses, or have BRT/LRT, or are a potential corridor for BRT/LRT. The only exception to this I can think of is maybe Park Lawn, but that's being planned to an existing and rapidly growing high density development that will see a lot of walk in traffic. Not exactly "someone's backyard as you put it".
Every other station that's being planned, whether its Concord GO (Viva Orange and Highway 407 busses), St. Clair - Old Weston (St Clair LRT/Streetcar), Spadina (Spadina LRT/Streetcar), or even East Harbour (Ontario Line, Future Broadview Ave Streetcar, and eventually maybe finally Waterfront East LRT) are all planned and built around Rapid Transit/local transit connections, exactly what you're asking for.
Let’s not forget Park Lawn GO and the Humber Bay area are extremely similar to the Lakeview development and its proposed accompanying station. The population of the entire Humber Bay Shores neighbourhood is 39,186, and the population of just the Lakeview development on its own, not including the existing neighbourhoods nearby, will be 40,000.The only exception to this I can think of is maybe Park Lawn
While I would need to do some mapping and thinking to take a firm position, I'll insert some (what I think is) relevant content from the original Big Move (2008 Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan):The average GO station stop spacing shouldn’t be under 2 kilometres outside of downtown Toronto unless the line has been upgraded beyond the scope of GO Expansion, however that doesn’t mean there can’t be exceptions for major residential areas.
Exactly what I've been arguing for years on this forum. There are people on this forum that would be content to see stop spacing for the GO trains equivalent to a downtown streetcar because they can't say "No" to any station proposal. In their minds every proposed station is justified and warrants being built.
I'm against the Park Lawn proposal as well because of it's close proximity to Mimico. Would rather see the Ontario Line extended from Exhibition to Mimico with a stop at Park Lawn.
I don't understand the logic of claiming we can add more stops due to electrification. Why not get all the benefits of electrification and NOT add more stops? That would certainly make the GO train more competitive with highway driving. Build more subways and BRTs connecting to existing GO station instead of constructing infill GO stations.
I think that, as long as people insist on turning the subway into a quasi-GO train, it's only reasonable to expect the reverse to be done as well.
Personally, I have no idea why local transit can't serve a local function and regional transit a regional function, but at this point the lines are so blurred I have no idea what the point of any transit system is supposed to be anymore. Does the Yonge line exist to provide local transit in Toronto, or to replace the GO train as a commuter service from Richmond Hill? Who knows? When you have opponents of the Crosstown station spacing saying the stations should be further apart so the line can serve a cross regional purpose akin to a GO train, all logic has gone out the window.
In this case, there was a Lakeshore transportation study that considered extending some form of LRT west from Long Branch to Port Credit. That extension would serve the area and the proposed development much better than re-spacing GO stops, creating local connectivity as well as Regional connectivity - and likely in a similar range of cost.
I support electrification and a more frequent go service, but we really need to not fall into the fantasy that electrification and signalling is a magic bullet that can transform LSE/LSW into everybody's favourite subway system with stops spaced like the Yonge subway.. . GO should be left as a regional system with measured station spacing capable of competing with longer distance highway travel, and we need to build higher order transit for those first/last mile legs and to meet local needs.
- Paul
Doing a bit of spot-checking. The average station distance for REM is 4.2 km, not (about) 2.6 km. That does put that graph into question. (though I suspect that the general trends are correct).View attachment 612442
GO is slooooow, with terrible performance of huge, underpowered trains the culprit. Modern electrification, trains, and signalling as on the Munich S-Bahn delivers higher speeds than GO with triple the stations. Not quite a magic bullet, but certainly reason to jettison reflexive opposition to infill stations.
Where the land use demands it, we do; hence North York Centre.But we don't (or seldom) put stops that close together on subway lines in the suburbs!
Until that day that urban NIMBY is vanquished, substantial housing production in Toronto will depend heavily on TOD sites like these. Would you rather this site not have good access to rapid transit, and instead contribute however thousand more autos a day onto the roads? It reminds me of the arguments about the routing of the YNSE.I support adding stations where it makes sense. East Harbour, Concord, Confederation, Stock Yards station for the Milton line (which IMO would better serve the St. Clair street car), etc. As long as there's a decent amount of space between the stations, then I'm all for it.
But you guys understand what's going on here with this Lakeview station? Doug didn't agree to build this station because he cared about offering transit to the people in this neighbourhood. His developer buddies want to use the tax payers to fund a GO station to be constructed in this area so they can mark up the homes in this new master planned community on Lakeshore.