SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
From a Tweet from MTO:Here you go:
Construction underway on Timmins Station:
Ontario Newsroom
news.ontario.ca
From the above:
View attachment 666026
View attachment 666027
|
|
|
- Thread starter CDL.TO
- Start date
ShonTron
Moderator
jje1000
Senior Member
I wonder if in the future the ROW to Schumacher can be reactivated? Right now the new station location is a good distance outside of Timmins:Here you go:
Construction underway on Timmins Station:
Ontario Newsroom
From the above:
View attachment 666026
View attachment 666027
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
lenaitch
Senior Member
I think the wildfire smoke must be getting to you.
BTW, GMC and Chevrolet (incl. the Corvette) are product lines of General Motors. One is not "under the umbrella" of the other.
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
That ship has sailed or, more correctly, never left port. The announced station is, in fact, in the City of Timmins; just not in the former, pre-amalgamation city. This station will provide Timmins with a passenger rail service that it hasn't had since 1990. Why the Business Case didn't propose it? Beats me. Perhaps the cost of rehabilitating the ROW, or potential conflicts with surface mining rights.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
The ROW between Porcupine and Schumacher seems intact based on the aerial imagery, but once they've gone through the expense of building a station in Porcupine I doubt they'd do that all over again in Schumacher. Even just the one station is a pretty dubious cost/benefit for just one train per day.
It is unfortunate they chose such a remote station location for Timmins. A Schumacher location would have at least brought the station within a comfortable cycling distance (3 km) of downtown, and made it more practical to run a variety of Timmins Transit special services connecting to the train (rather than transferring to an ONTC bus at Porcupine, then transfer again to a Timmins bus at the downtown terminal).
In fact the whole concept of the Porcupine station always seemed bizarre to me. If you're going to transfer passengers to a bus anyway, you might as well do that in Matheson so the train can continue up to Cochrane and provide a direct transfer to the Polar Bear Express. Given the horrible track speeds on the spur to Porcupine a bus would actually be faster.
Presumably the decision was purely political, I'm guessing they just wanted to say they brought the train "to Timmins", and Porcupine meets the bare minimum technical definition of that claim. The business case really downplays the fact that the "Timmins" option still doesn't bring the train within walking/cycling distance of the population of Timmins.
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
The reality is that the number of people living in Timmins without access to a private vehicle is likely... minimal. Visitors can use the bus service or a cab as the number of non-locals taking a train to Timmins is likely equally minimal.
As long as the station is within a few minutes of Timmins and has a parking lot, it works for the likely use patterns of it's passengers.
As long as the station is within a few minutes of Timmins and has a parking lot, it works for the likely use patterns of it's passengers.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Timmins Transit does run out there but, if they stick with schedule in the Business Case (0015 depart, 0510 arrive) the train will be well outside of their operating hours. Whether they choose to extend will be up to the city but I suspect it would be significant cost for a single trip. There might be a few folks willing to pedal it - perhaps less so in February - but, as mentioned, northern communities are pretty auto-centric. This isn't Toronto. There's always taxis.
I agree it was likely a political decision to extend train service to the largest municipality in the area. I suspect that the land where the new station is being built is already owned by the railway. We don't but extending to Schumacher might have entailed either buying or expropriating land. Certainly, it would have entailed rebuilding the line. The ROW may be intact but the infrastructure is not.
I agree it was likely a political decision to extend train service to the largest municipality in the area. I suspect that the land where the new station is being built is already owned by the railway. We don't but extending to Schumacher might have entailed either buying or expropriating land. Certainly, it would have entailed rebuilding the line. The ROW may be intact but the infrastructure is not.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Even in northern communities there are plenty of people without access to a vehicle (teenageers, elderly, low-income, disabilities, etc). Especially for intercity trips where leaving one's car at the station is not very desirable. At most stations or airports, long-term parking is not free, because there's limited space for parking lots. There is definitely limited space around Porcupine station and a giant parking lot would be a dubious investment anyway. Personally, I have a car but I've only once driven to the airport or the train station here in Ottawa. Every other time I've taken the bus or a taxi. One time I was dropped off but I've never been picked up. Twice I walked because the bus never showed up.
And if we're assuming that those people will need to take a taxi then surely we would rather have the station 3km from town rather than 14km - that makes quite a large difference in the price of the taxi ride. And like I mentioned, ideally people would have the option of taking the bus.
The fact that the arrivals and departures are outside of the normal span of service is not necessarily a problem since the routes serving the station would ideally be different than the normal routes anyway. The normal routes radiate from the downtown terminal but for the connecting buses we'd want one or two local routes radiating from the Porcupine station. It's a fairly large cost per bus trip but it's also worth noting that it's not just a train shuttle, it's also a crosstown trip that extends the operating hours of transit service in Timmins.
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
yes, but most will probably be dropped off. Some may live in a northern community without personally owning an automobile, but very few do it without having a family member, community service, etc. available to provide rides when needed. Cabs fill the small gap. Lifestyles and the way people live in these communities is just fundamentally different than in urban communities as the nature of their communities is simply wildly different.
The area around the future station will likely be plenty large enough for a gravel lot to handle the parking demand for the station. Remember that this is a highly subsidized, relatively slow service with only one daily departure. There aren't going to be massive parking demands even if 100% of customers drive. 20-40 parking spaces would probably be fine.
Sure, ideally service could run into town. But the province is restoring this service on a shoe-string budget and extending the track another 11km to get it closer to downtown would still put the station outside of the city, still requiring cabs or drop offs to access, all while introducing massive additional cost for a very marginal benefit. The province would be better off subsidizing every rider's cab fare than building the extension.
The area around the future station will likely be plenty large enough for a gravel lot to handle the parking demand for the station. Remember that this is a highly subsidized, relatively slow service with only one daily departure. There aren't going to be massive parking demands even if 100% of customers drive. 20-40 parking spaces would probably be fine.
Sure, ideally service could run into town. But the province is restoring this service on a shoe-string budget and extending the track another 11km to get it closer to downtown would still put the station outside of the city, still requiring cabs or drop offs to access, all while introducing massive additional cost for a very marginal benefit. The province would be better off subsidizing every rider's cab fare than building the extension.
Last edited:
dowlingm
Senior Member
The question is not whether many, or most, can access the service. It's whether the ability to access it is reasonable with respect to the AODA and other applicable legislation such as the Human Rights Code. This should be regarded as a new service and no grandfathering permitted. That said, I am not an expert in this so it may be that the law is written loosely enough that waiting 1hr+ at either end for a transit bus checks any needed boxes for a service branded as serving Timmins.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I mean I'm not sure that's the intent of that legislation. By that logic is the government required to provide transit services right to the door of every residential property in the province? Even the disabled have some level of personal responsibility to organize their lives and transportation. The bus service clearly allows accessibility from downtown TImmins, and an 11km extension to put the station still 3km outside of town to still require the bus connection is not going to change that. AODA would require that the station building be accessible and that accessible parking spaces be positioned in front, but doesn't go as far as to require the province to provide low cost transportation services to the disabled. they still have personal responsibility on that front - the legislation is intended to ensure they do not face undue barriers while trying to exercise that personal responsibility.
dowlingm
Senior Member
I would start by observing that assigning "personal responsibility" to persons with disabilities who for the most part are not the architects of their situation "does not scan well". Providing reasonable connectivity is not naming an obligation to "provide services to every door" either. That said, provincially operated services should meet the spirit of legislative intent. The rationale for this service is so people can access medical appointments more comfortably than an ONTC bus all the way to Toronto - throwing a few bucks to Timmins Transit to extend service hours on at least one route by one run seems the very least that can be done for "the largest urban centre in the area"
innsertnamehere
Superstar
sure thing. Accessibility is a challenging thing and morally you are absolutely correct that they are not architects of their own situation - thus the purpose of AODA and its intent to enable people with disabilities to live full lives.
My point more so was the rationale for not extending the train itself another 11km. Subsidizing a Timmins transit route is not as large of a deal, but even then, involves transit services outside of regular service hours given the timing of the train as others have mentioned..
The defined term for things like accessibility is "reasonable accommodation". The mud comes in the details of what is reasonable, but I don't think many would really say that spending probably a solid $10+ million to extend the train 11kms to shorten the cab or bus ride, not eliminate the cab or bus ride, does not fall in the order of reasonableness. Perhaps providing transitcab services (does Timmins even provide such a service today?) would be appropriate and reasonable. But Spending millions to extend the train to only marginally change the impact in accessibility is likely not. And regardless, the bus connection is already proposed.
We have to remember that communities like Timmins are already configured around large distances which require frequent, long trips for everyone that lives there. It's not unreasonable that connections to the train will also be a long trip. Anyone who lives in the community without a personal vehicle by necessity of the community will already be used to using some service or family member for transportation as you cannot practically live in a community like Timmins without one.
My point more so was the rationale for not extending the train itself another 11km. Subsidizing a Timmins transit route is not as large of a deal, but even then, involves transit services outside of regular service hours given the timing of the train as others have mentioned..
The defined term for things like accessibility is "reasonable accommodation". The mud comes in the details of what is reasonable, but I don't think many would really say that spending probably a solid $10+ million to extend the train 11kms to shorten the cab or bus ride, not eliminate the cab or bus ride, does not fall in the order of reasonableness. Perhaps providing transitcab services (does Timmins even provide such a service today?) would be appropriate and reasonable. But Spending millions to extend the train to only marginally change the impact in accessibility is likely not. And regardless, the bus connection is already proposed.
We have to remember that communities like Timmins are already configured around large distances which require frequent, long trips for everyone that lives there. It's not unreasonable that connections to the train will also be a long trip. Anyone who lives in the community without a personal vehicle by necessity of the community will already be used to using some service or family member for transportation as you cannot practically live in a community like Timmins without one.