[chrisw]

It's very reasonable to have enough demand to support a fixed route between the train station and Blue Mountain. Just because it's the last leg of the journey doesn't mean the last mile problem applies.

Generally the last mile problem is because you have too many dispersed locations with sparse demand.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The Liberal platform is disappointing in that it may be aspirational but gives no confidence that anyone has considered priorities, costs, or the necessary enabling work.
In the case of Stratford-London the key factors that have to be acknowledged are
A) the tracks are at life end and will have to be replaced in toto - even Dofo gave a price figure as a commitment, albeit reneged on - do the Liberals think it can be reinstituted for less?
B) While solvable, there is a question of how much GO, VIA etc can squeeze out of the line, even assuming the completion of upgrades to the Halton - which are committed but not necessarily funded unless a new government confirms.

- Paul

Agreed. Also, the return is small. London is a VIA route. Alto High-Speed Rail should go there for phase 2.

 

[crs1026]

Agreed. Also, the return is small. London is a VIA route. Alto High-Speed Rail should go there for phase 2.

I don't agree that we can wait that long. London - Kitchener - Toronto can justify close to hourly service today. Better conventional service today is prefereable to HSR some day. (maybe both are needed long term)

In a perfect world, VIA would operate the entire service - but given the insensitivity of every Ottawa party to southwestern ontario transportation congestion, i can overlook that if Queens Park is willing to step in. There ought to be a collaboration, and both need to support, but that seems to be beyond the levels of government to achieve.

- Paul

 

[ProjectEnd]

Once they electrify the line to Barrie they would pretty much have to continue it on the C'Wood unless some kind of dual-fuel power or a separate shuttle is envisioned.

Actually, I think a lot of the infrastructure is still intact - not of much use but still intact. A lot of the rail has only been lifted at some road crossings.

So...2060? Too early?

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

The issue that I see from these platforms and commentary is that the thinking is just about making London a far off extension of the Toronto-based GO network. This services the odd student at Western University, and weekend shopping/recreational trips, but sort of misses the point of a cost-effective commuter line.

The thinking should be transformed instead into "How do we make London (and to a lesser extension, Kitchener and Hamilton) into the hub of a regional GO network?".

The GO lines could be the same operational service as the ones that arrive at Union Station in Toronto, but thought should be made into how frequency, stop-spacing, and connectivity services a local network for local travel.

 

[Metroscapes]

The issue that I see from these platforms and commentary is that the thinking is just about making London a far off extension of the Toronto-based GO network. This services the odd student at Western University, and weekend shopping/recreational trips, but sort of misses the point of a cost-effective commuter line.

The thinking should be transformed instead into "How do we make London (and to a lesser extension, Kitchener and Hamilton) into the hub of a regional GO network?".

The GO lines could be the same operational service as the ones that arrive at Union Station in Toronto, but thought should be made into how frequency, stop-spacing, and connectivity services a local network for local travel.

You're still thinking too small. Maybe it's GO 3.0 but a provincial agency should be providing provincial service to more of the province IMO. Not trying to derail the thread here but just making that statement.

 

[crs1026]

You're still thinking too small. Maybe it's GO 3.0 but a provincial agency should be providing provincial service to more of the province IMO. Not trying to derail the thread here but just making that statement.

I think a lot of folks here naturally resonate towards a much more robust network of getting around that would have lots of hubs and far more local extensions. Seeing London as a hub as opposed to simply the end point of a single Toronto based line makes perfect sense, for instance.

Perhaps it's worthwhile for a thread of its own, as it's certainly beyond the specific GO 2.0 project scope.

- Paul

 

[kaptrice]

The issue that I see from these platforms and commentary is that the thinking is just about making London a far off extension of the Toronto-based GO network. This services the odd student at Western University, and weekend shopping/recreational trips, but sort of misses the point of a cost-effective commuter line.

The thinking should be transformed instead into "How do we make London (and to a lesser extension, Kitchener and Hamilton) into the hub of a regional GO network?".

The GO lines could be the same operational service as the ones that arrive at Union Station in Toronto, but thought should be made into how frequency, stop-spacing, and connectivity services a local network for local travel.

What really stands out in all this talk of long-range GO extensions is that it's really hunger for a provincially-run intra-provincial intercity rail network, under the guise of expansion of the current system. The promise isn't being understood to be peaky commuter-service like current Kitchener trains; people generally want all-day two-way service for these, don't they? Kitchener certainly has been shouting and yelling for it. Trains to London, Brantford, Niagara, Kitchener, Guelph and Hamilton really, aren't being envisioned as really commuter lines. And when their diesel-hauled services might look conspicuously different from tomorrow's electric suburban trains, and have really different stopping patterns to make it to Union in reasonable time, it might be worth asking - aren't these sort of two diffferent kinds of networks? like RB and S-train under the same banner.

It'd be another move towards provinces doing their own thing on intercity rail. Alberta is also looking into that.

 

[lenaitch]

You're still thinking too small. Maybe it's GO 3.0 but a provincial agency should be providing provincial service to more of the province IMO. Not trying to derail the thread here but just making that statement.

Perhaps. An agency that doesn't see Union Station as the centre of its service universe would require different legislation with a difference mandate and a lot more money. Multiple hubs require more storage and maintenance facilities and support staff. They would still be limited to existing ROWs and, in the early stages at least, remain tenants.

 

[crs1026]

Perhaps. An agency that doesn't see Union Station as the centre of its service universe would require different legislation with a difference mandate and a lot more money. Multiple hubs require more storage and maintenance facilities and support staff. They would still be limited to existing ROWs and, in the early stages at least, remain tenants.

This is likely the logjam. Ottawa is the one that holds the legal governance for railways, and needs to enable provincial or joint-province authorities with proper legal authority and level bargaining rights with the freight railroads. Until Ottawa has the courage to enact this, the whole thing is a non-starter unfortunately.

However.... in terms of capital investment, it makes sense to build the ridership on the "spoke" routes first and link them to the backbone as they grow. For this reason, I would see a bus network emerging long before anyone sinks money into feeder rail lines. So long as existing rail rights of way are conserved and not redeveloped, there is no rush. (Provincial authority over land use planning and zoning can be made use of here - there is a need for the Province to drive planning for regional and intercity rail infrastructure into municipal official plans) For now it's enough to get the backbone built - London-Toronto is that backbone, regardless if you see it as a spoke from Toronto or the gateway to a southern Ontario network.

Bus networks need not be province wide and can have multiple partners involving municipal transit and regional authorities. The old TTC-Gray Coach model is not a bad one, provided we start with integration in mind. I resist the idea of a single provincial authority, as that is too monolithic - and Metrolinx (the logical repository for planning and operation) is not a precedent or model we should double down on.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

I think a lot of folks here naturally resonate towards a much more robust network of getting around that would have lots of hubs and far more local extensions. Seeing London as a hub as opposed to simply the end point of a single Toronto based line makes perfect sense, for instance.

Perhaps it's worthwhile for a thread of its own, as it's certainly beyond the specific GO 2.0 project scope.

- Paul

I think you're on point insofar as London is beyond GO 2.0's scope, and just premature as a major hub, there's so much ground to cover before we get there.

That said, the existing scope, or something close to it, could reasonably include 'Hubs' along the existing network, possibly featuring secondary rail feeders, but first, simply being an intermodal point with regional/local buses, ideally VIA, and also being an end point for some rail service on existing corridors as same is improved.

ie. Hamilton and/or Aldershot serve as a hub for service to Niagara (no reduction in Toronto-Niagara trains or buses, but supplemental service that is Hamilton-Niagara only, along with buses to Brantford, a VIA connection and so on.

A lot of that is in place now, and we're really talking branding, but some of it is not because the existing service is perhaps under-built because its thought of as through-running to Toronto, where all of such need not do so.

****

Other logical hubs on the existing network would be K-W (connecting bus to Stratford), Allandale (connecting service to Ontario Northland, the Muskoka system, Orillia, and Linx) and Oshawa (connections to Ptbo and Coburg).

Roll one hub out per year for 4 years, then pause to iron out the proverbial wrinkles. Then we can come back to GO 3.0 with London, and more secondary rail services where the buses have been sufficiently successful.

 

[Sunnyside]

Not to derail the great conversations here, but before I contribute to that…

Why is anybody really taking the liberals plan at face value? I can’t believe it- half of this stuff is either already planned, highly impractical, or out of our control. Bolton & Midtown’s asterisks might finally go, only thanks to the PCs’ 1% of effort. Somehow, that opposition fantasy ship has finally sailed.

This isn’t to give GO 2.0 a pass, but there’s clearly something to it, whatever it is. You can’t tell from the amateur fantasy map, but count on Ford pushing public projects to cut a nice deal for his folks, if nothing else.

Anyway, where’s Metrolinx in all this? This is their forte; they’re supposed to be publishing an updated long term plan.

 

[ARG1]

Anyway, where’s Metrolinx in all this? This is their forte; they’re supposed to be publishing an updated long term plan.

I believe they're supposed to release an updated Regional Transportation Plan, either this year or next (I forget exactly when, but it should be soonish).

That being said you're on point regarding the realisticness of the Liberal's promises. During the McGuinty/Wynne era they were the masters of talking a lot, whilst accomplishing sweet nothing.

 

[Northern Light]

. During the McGuinty/Wynne era they were the masters of talking a lot, whilst accomplishing sweet nothing.

Don't get me wrong........I essentially agree with the above..........but would you tell me again about all the GO service improvements? (Service is currently below 2019 levels).

Don't get me wrong................but ....how's that's Bomanville extension coming? The Bolton one? Hourly service to K-W........uh huh.

7 years of Doug Ford has advanced things far less than many seem desirous of providing credit for............. Talk is not action. It wasn't under the Liberals either; and its still not.

 

[Sunnyside]

Don't get me wrong........I essentially agree with the above..........but would you tell me again about all the GO service improvements? (Service is currently below 2019 levels).

Don't get me wrong................but ....how's that's Bomanville extension coming? The Bolton one? Hourly service to K-W........uh huh.

7 years of Doug Ford has advanced things far less than many seem desirous of providing credit for............. Talk is not action. It wasn't under the Liberals either; and its still not.

Not much disagreement here. I still grant Ford some credit, but his file is not unequivocally better or greater than what was started under previous governments— though I see the case. I think a lot of that credit comes from him actually being supportive of transit at all, and the money does flow. An older conservatives’ ‘fiscally prudent’ pause on new projects would have made a lot of liberal plans irrelevant, which I think is the flip side to crediting how much they started today.

More importantly though, I think we need to wait till after the election to really understand what the state of things is, and what next steps are— with Ford out of campaign mode (or whoever wins tonight…). You want the bad stuff out of the way in the beginning of your term so everyone can forget…