GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[ShonTron]

Yes and no - there should be more legal access across corridors - but their absence should not be construed as a legitimate rationale for intrusion into the corridor.

AoD

I don't quite agree. A rational person would surely be seeking an alternative to this path, for example:

https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/43.7...354,-79.4825654,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!4m1!3e2

The railways are too quick to throw up fences, sic the GO-PO, but there needs to be a carrot as well. Otherwise the fences will continue to be cut.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't quite agree. A rational person would surely be seeking an alternative to this path, for example:

The railways are too quick to throw up fences, sic the GO-PO, but there needs to be a carrot as well. Otherwise the fences will continue to be cut.

A rational, law-abiding person would surely not take matters into their own hands, chose to cut fences and go where they don't belong. Some things are inviolable - and I consider high traffic railway corridors, especially in urban areas to be one of them. Putting aside the high probability of certain death, we don't allow individuals to cross 400 series highways on a whim regardless of whether pedestrianized crossings are available.

AoD

 

[ShonTron]

Normally law abiding people might not be the one cutting the fences, but they might go through cut fences. If you had to go 30 minutes out of your way because GO refuses to provide a safe shortcut, you'd be tempted.

There are lots of minor offenses "law-abiding" people make. Speeding, rolling through stop signs, cutting across private property, etc.

We discourage littering though (rarely enforced) bylaws and providing waste bins.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Normally law abiding people might not be the one cutting the fences, but they might go through cut fences.

They may very well do so (which of course points to the weakness in the maintenance of line integrity) - and if the risk of death is worth it, well, that's a bargain they will have to live by. Clearly we are far, far too lenient on intrusions.

AoD

 

[ShonTron]

Why do you disagree with me when I say that GO should be building more safe crossings of its railways, Alvin?

I'm not condoning such behaviour, I'm just explaining some of it. If you want to prevent people from crossing railways, you should also make it as easy as possible to do it safely.

 

[Northern Light]

They may very well do so (which of course points to the weakness in the maintenance of line integrity) - and if the risk of death is worth it, well, that's a bargain they will have to live by. Clearly we are far, far too lenient on intrusions.

AoD

I think it needs to be pointed out that outside urban areas people frequently cross railway tracks or even walk along side them, and do so legally.

Several of the province's best known hiking trails are marked as crossing and/or following for a time, a railway corridor. This is essential in low-traffic areas w/foot paths or rural roads w/no sidewalks or signaled crossings.

It would make no sense for a farmer to have to drive off his/her land to get to another owned field on the other side of the track, nor for a hiker to have to diver 2 miles or more to the nearest road crossing.

Safety rules are clearly understood in most rural areas (not to say they are always followed).

In urban areas w/multiple tracks and high volumes of higher speed rail traffic, it simply doesn't work to allow informal use of the corridor by pedestrians, the risks are too high.

But in depriving people of the 'convenience' of a quick dash across the tracks, it is incumbent on the railway and/or municipality to provide a reasonable alternative, all the while making it difficult
to make the poor and illegal choice.

I wouldn't suggest there need to be crossings for pedestrians (or vehicles) ever 'x' meters. As obviously the demand for that and utility of that will vary by place.

Still, I think a good rule of thumb is that you shouldn't expect people to walk more than 500M out of their way to get to destination, and less is preferred.

So where there are clearly high demands for crossings that should be looked at proactively and funding made available where practical.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Why do you disagree with me when I say that GO should be building more safe crossings of its railways, Alvin?

I'm not condoning such behaviour, I'm just explaining some of it. If you want to prevent people from crossing railways, you should also make it as easy as possible to do it safely.

I agree with your statement that there should be more crossings - the rationale for intrusion, however valid from an individuals' perspective is still unacceptable. Inconvenience might explain the act, but it doesn't validate the act, or should prevent policies from penalizing such activities.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

A rational, law-abiding person would surely not take matters into their own hands, chose to cut fences and go where they don't belong. Some things are inviolable - and I consider high traffic railway corridors, especially in urban areas to be one of them. Putting aside the high probability of certain death, we don't allow individuals to cross 400 series highways on a whim regardless of whether pedestrianized crossings are available.

AoD

While of course, its sensible to prohibit such crossings (railway or 400-series highway) the comparison doesn't really work from the perspective of the individual.

Which is to say, when you think of the 401 in particular you think of 12-16 lanes of traffic, nowhere safe to stand at roadside (often), and high noise barriers blocking off most or all the route.

Were the railway (visibly) as busy as the 401, and 16 tracks wide, I'd think intrusion for non-suicide purposes would be all but non-existent.

By contrast, even on Lakeshore, it is possible to walk up to the tracks in several places, to see 3, or even as few as 2 tracks in places, to see what appears to be a safe place to stand on both sides, and to see no visible train traffic. Moreover you could, if you hit the right time of day, wait, and not see a train pass for more than 20 minutes.

The same can not be said of the 401.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that crossing the corridor at non-sanctioned points, in urban areas is OK. But I do understand why some people get the wrong idea in their heads; and why if you want to cut people off from walking down the corridor, it needs to be at least as protected from intrusion as the 401.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think it needs to be pointed out that outside urban areas people frequently cross railway tracks or even walk along side them, and do so legally.

Several of the province's best known hiking trails are marked as crossing and/or following for a time, a railway corridor. This is essential in low-traffic areas w/foot paths or rural roads w/no sidewalks or signaled crossings.

It would make no sense for a farmer to have to drive off his/her land to get to another owned field on the other side of the track, nor for a hiker to have to diver 2 miles or more to the nearest road crossing.

Safety rules are clearly understood in most rural areas (not to say they are always followed).

In urban areas w/multiple tracks and high volumes of higher speed rail traffic, it simply doesn't work to allow informal use of the corridor by pedestrians, the risks are too high.

But in depriving people of the 'convenience' of a quick dash across the tracks, it is incumbent on the railway and/or municipality to provide a reasonable alternative, all the while making it difficultto make the poor and illegal choice.

I wouldn't suggest there need to be crossings for pedestrians (or vehicles) ever 'x' meters. As obviously the demand for that and utility of that will vary by place.

Still, I think a good rule of thumb is that you shouldn't expect people to walk more than 500M out of their way to get to destination, and less is preferred.

So where there are clearly high demands for crossings that should be looked at proactively and funding made available where practical.

I've already pointed out it isn't an issue in rural areas in a previous post:

A rational, law-abiding person would surely not take matters into their own hands, chose to cut fences and go where they don't belong. Some things are inviolable - and I consider high traffic railway corridors, especially in urban areas to be one of them.

As to formalizing the crossing policy by distance, I think it is a good one and should be a matter of course for new developments, but these only go so far - it has to be coupled with an individual's healthy sense of what's proper behaviour in relation to corridors, and there is always a preventative/enforcement aspect as well. We don't use the argument that because there isn't a crossing in 500m it makes it justifiable to cross the 401 (putting aside the fact that one is likely to get killed) - it is the same with railways.

AoD

 

[ShonTron]

I'm not suggesting for one moment that crossing the corridor at non-sanctioned points, in urban areas is OK. But I do understand why some people get the wrong idea in their heads; and why if you want to cut people off from walking down the corridor, it needs to be at least as protected from intrusion as the 401.

Which is pretty much what happened to the GO Weston Sub, with 150-190 trains a day. There are still a few places that you might be able to get onto the tracks after hopping a fence or at a station, but you're not going to be able to get across, just like the 401 within Toronto. As the sound barriers continue to go up, it's very hard to access it by foot. The legal crossings are not terribly far apart in most places, especially where the corridor passes through residential areas (Parkdale, Junction, Weston). A new pedestrian crossing is coming, by the way, near Fort York.

 

[nfitz]

They may very well do so (which of course points to the weakness in the maintenance of line integrity) - and if the risk of death is worth it, well, that's a bargain they will have to live by. Clearly we are far, far too lenient on intrusions

I don't think there is much evidence that people crossing the tracks illegally are the issue. One tends to do so with one's eyes open, looking both ways.

There's been virtually no coverage of the last two Lakeshore closures in the media. This means they were suicides. When it's an accident, there is plenty of coverage.

And when it's an accident, you hear stuff about people wearing earphones, unaware the train was approaching.

We could spend a fortune on new tunnels, crossings, and fences, and have very little, if any, impact on the problem - although I'd certainly appreciate some more legal crossings in my neighbourhood. It would be nice to see a crossing between Main and Woodbine, and another between Woodbine and Coxwell. And perhaps a third somewhere near Lutrell. Even where that suicide happened between Victoria Park and Warden is a 1.2 km between crossings - in the west end, they are adding numerous crossings for far shorter gaps.

 

[crs1026]

I
We could spend a fortune on new tunnels, crossings, and fences, and have very little, if any, impact on the problem - although I'd certainly appreciate some more legal crossings in my neighbourhood.

If you look at how quickly we analyse specific road locations after a fatality - it doesn't take many pedestrian or vehicular incidents to get the roads department doing stuff. We already spend a fortune on these changes on the road, we can add a few rail fixes without breaking the bank.

If there is a location where "human nature" is creating a frequent pattern of intrusion onto a rail line - as noted, the Port Credit area is one, there are others where fences get unmended as quickly as they are mended - then we ought to be finding a solution. People do need to get from Point A to Point B sometimes. I have witnessed some incredibly stupid trespass acts, but I would dwell on these more as tragic than annoyance-provoking. Sometimes you need clever solutions to outsmart people who just aren't thinking.

- Paul

 

[Civdis]

No. Some will but grade separating every level crossing will be astronomically expensive.

That's too bad. I know most of lakeshore west is grade separated except some parts of Oakville and Mississauga. I believe all of the Georgetown line out to Pearson is now as well. I just assumed grade separations were part of the plan.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Lakeshore west is scattered with at grade crossings.

Lakeshore East is much closer to being entirely grade seperated, only a few at grade crossings in Scarborough (I think 6), and 3 of them are in the process of being separated right now.

Grade separations are part of the plan for GO RER, but not 100% separation. separations cost $10-$15 million a piece usually, and GO has literally hundreds of crossings on its network, including some extremely complicated bits like Downtown Brampton and Guelph. 100% separation won't work, but I do expect to see a lot of separations constructed over the next 10 years. Stouffville and Barrie especially have very poor separation for most of their respective lines.

 

[ShonTron]

Lakeshore East only has six, all in east Scarborough: Scarborough Golf Club Road, Galloway Drive, Poplar Road, Morningside Avenue, Manse Road, Beechgrove Drive. And yes, several are planned for grade separations. Morningside is the busiest and the only one where the TTC crosses the Lakeshore Line at grade.

Lakeshore West has a number of crossings in Mississauga: Haig Avenue, Ogden Boulevard (which has a major Miway bus route), Alexandra Avenue, Revus Avenue, Stavebank Road, Lorne Park Road, Clarkson Road, then Chartwell Road in Oakville, Kerr Street (planned for separation), Fourth Line, Burloak Drive (planned along with the Scarborough crossings).

Only 17 crossings from Hamilton to Oshawa, four of which are going to be grade separated.

Between Mount Pleasant and Union (the practical extent of any frequent GO RER rail service on the Kitchener Line), there are four crossings left: Scarboro Road in Malton, Torbram Road (currently being separated), and John Street and Mill Street in Downtown Brampton. Barrie, Milton and Stouffville have numerous crossings that have yet to be addressed. Barrie has four crossings within the City of Toronto (including the Transitway), Stouffville has nine (including two pedestrian grade crossings). There are many crossings on the Milton Line in Mississauga, like Erindale Station Road and Mississauga Road/Queen Street, that will be problematic.