News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.2K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 371     0 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

ShonTron said:
That cheapness doesn't really bother me. You see the same in newer railway stations in the US and Europe. I'd rather see capital money spent on platform shelters, perhaps nicer-looking station buildings, rather than worrying about simple, functional platform tunnels that you're in for 30 seconds. Usually the tunnels are built under active tracks and are built by slipping concrete tunnel sections under those tracks. There's no easy way to make the tunnels look nicer, unless you tiled the walls and floor.

That said, an easy improvement could include painting the walls through community and school partnerships.
Click to expand...

There are many possible finishes. But it's true that these minor tunnels aren't very important when compared to subway stations that people spend more time in waiting for transit vehicles and passing through during their commutes. It isn't a big failure in the way a new subway or LRT line with generic stations would be.
 
vegeta_skyline said:
The problem with that is there is a huge grade change between the Belleville sub and the Bala sub below it at that location. A connection there would have to be built on a very long viaduct much like the UPE spur line being built at Person. So we're talking about 100 million dollars at a minimum here.
Click to expand...

Really, with transit planning in Toronto these days, what's $100 million?

The two lines are very close at Moccasin Trail park. Unfortunately, there is an ugly condo in the way.

IMG_1661.jpg


AECOM looked at this as part of the Don Valley Transportation Master Plan and proposed a route like this:

9287676706_f020c3b84f_b.jpg


Tough maybe, but if we did sensible integrated transit planning in Toronto (ok, we don't) then we would be looking seriously at this.
 
k10ery said:
Really, with transit planning in Toronto these days, what's $100.
Click to expand...

Problem is that's just one component of what will be required for this new allinment. That only solves the issues with the Leaside connection. It doesn't help with the fact that you'll have to operate on CP's mainline (for an even longer stretch now) and you still have to cross over all tracks. Im not saying it can't be done, I don't even think its thatbig of a constraint. But it doesn't matter what I or we think. I know how CP operates and so should every one on here after seeing how dificult they have made it to get any service improvements on the Milton line and this is an even busier stretch of track. I just don't see CP agreeing to it, especially not with Hunter Harrison at the helm. The only way this will happen is if GO spends the money to build additional tracks(if not a completely separate subdivision like the GO sub) next to CP's. Which would require significant expropriation and new/widened bridges over Don Mills, Eglinton and a very large one over the west branch of the Don river plus a fly over/under to get around CP's tracks. Now we're probably approaching a billion dollars and that doesn't even cover the repairs needed for the Don branch line with the derelict Governor's bridge. Plus it still doesn't solve the flooding issue around mile 2 of the Bala sub (Queen st vicinity).

All that just to aviod the flooding around mile 4 of the line. Though I suppose it would also shave off several minutes from the trip because it would be a more direct route will less curves. Though I wouldn't over estimate the time savings as the trains well be very much speed restricted operating over the sharply curved new connecting track and the steep grade of the Don branch. All in all, when you only have limited funds to begin with it should come down to how much of a benefit it is per dollar spent and I'm not sure this project would be anywhere near the top of the list. At least not until that train got flooded. My guess is that they'll continue to negotiate with CP(In vain) before decided to go with the quicker and cheaper solution to raise the tracks as a short term resolution.
 
Last edited:
royalrivers said:
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...t_Rail_Parking_and_Station_Access_Plan_EN.pdf

For Guelph and Kitchener do not expect anymore parking. Plans for Breslau Go Station seem to be where all the parking will be.
Click to expand...
On Kitchener GO, I'm not surprised. I'm not sure what the Region of Waterloo has planned for parking at the new transit hub that should be opened by 2017, but I don't remember from the concept plans seeing (much) parking.

Of course, they're basing future projections on the existing location of the station. You can tell that because the land value is low to medium, but the new proposed location is in a much more central location (with a high value real estate surrounding it). Also, there's parking at the Kitchener GO station, BUT it's provided by VIA at the station, and the Region provides one or two lots. GO doesn't own them.

Also in the GO suggestions for Brampton and Bramalea GO, that I found highly disconcerting and with a complete break with Brampton Transit's own long term plan, is the addition of community collector GO bus routes. BT shifted from a radial bus system focused on GO stations and transit hubs, to a more efficient grid-lined system (for the most part) in the mid 2000s. There are a few remaining, but most of them existing (13, 16, 92) are themselves more gridlined as opposed to straight up community collector. :/
 
vegeta_skyline said:
The only way this will happen is if GO spends the money to build additional tracks(if not a completely separate subdivision like the GO sub) next to CP's. Which would require significant expropriation and new/widened bridges over Don Mills, Eglinton and a very large one over the west branch of the Don river plus a fly over/under to get around CP's tracks. Now we're probably approaching a billion dollars and that doesn't even cover the repairs needed for the Don branch line with the derelict Governor's bridge. Plus it still doesn't solve the flooding issue around mile 2 of the Bala sub (Queen st vicinity).
Click to expand...

Sounds like it would make more sense to buy the North Toronto sub, for a billion or so.
 
DKsan said:
Also in the GO suggestions for Brampton and Bramalea GO, that I found highly disconcerting and with a complete break with Brampton Transit's own long term plan, is the addition of community collector GO bus routes. BT shifted from a radial bus system focused on GO stations and transit hubs, to a more efficient grid-lined system (for the most part) in the mid 2000s. There are a few remaining, but most of them existing (13, 16, 92) are themselves more gridlined as opposed to straight up community collector. :/
Click to expand...

They shifted from radial to grid, and now they will have both grid and radial, which is the way it should be. Grid is not inherently more efficient, it depends on the situation. GO is a pure radial system for example.

If a system has high enough ridership, and it can support both grid and radial networks overlapping, why not have both? 10 years ago, Brampton only needed to choose between one type or the other because the ridership is low. And the ridership is not as low anymore.

For Brampton Transit buses to ignore train stations to adhere to a grid 100% seems like a bad idea. Even the TTC doesn't go that far. Cities have both nodes and corridors, and so I think a fully developed transit system should have both a strong grid and a strong hub/spoke network.
 
doady said:
They shifted from radial to grid, and now they will have both grid and radial, which is the way it should be. Grid is not inherently more efficient, it depends on the situation. GO is a pure radial system for example.

If a system has high enough ridership, and it can support both grid and radial networks overlapping, why not have both? 10 years ago, Brampton only needed to choose between one type or the other because the ridership is low. And the ridership is not as low anymore.

For Brampton Transit buses to ignore train stations to adhere to a grid 100% seems like a bad idea. Even the TTC doesn't go that far. Cities have both nodes and corridors, and so I think a fully developed transit system should have both a strong grid and a strong hub/spoke network.
Click to expand...

Well, Brampton has by far the worst GO Train service per capita of any GTA municipality with a GO station, so why would BT run all their buses to GO Stations, like Oakville? But GO's suggesting Brampton Transit run a new route off route 3 or 4 in the Lockwood/Drinkwater/Torrance Woods area and bring back GO Route D (and up into Heart Lake). I'd love to see the Queen West bus go to the downtown Brampton terminal in fall 2013, but's about all I'd change in the immediate period.
 
ShonTron said:
Well, Brampton has by far the worst GO Train service per capita of any GTA municipality with a GO station, so why would BT run all their buses to GO Stations, like Oakville? But GO's suggesting Brampton Transit run a new route off route 3 or 4 in the Lockwood/Drinkwater/Torrance Woods area and bring back GO Route D (and up into Heart Lake). I'd love to see the Queen West bus go to the downtown Brampton terminal in fall 2013, but's about all I'd change in the immediate period.
Click to expand...

All BT buses to GO stations? I thought DKSan was just talking about to brand new BT routes to serve GO, not realigning all other routes. I think new routes would be okay.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top