[rbt]

What did you find better about GO Lakeshore vs BART?

GO has good peak frequencies from major stations like Oakville and Pickering; 12 and 11 trains respectively from 6:30am to 8:30am, platform shelters (GO's enclosed areas are far more effective against wind/rain; there's no winter quite like summer in San Francisco), and little things like the seats (not a fan of shared benches).

Minor complaints include varying length trains since 6-car trains still show up at peak periods when 9-car trains should be used resulting in ridiculous crowding on the end car. The announcement system is hilariously ancient for a high-tech city; yes, it does announce train length but many passengers still get caught offguard. Despite being the main route to the airport aisle space is sorely lacking for the numerous suitcases.

The ticket system will let you enter without enough money on the card to cover the trip. The top-up machines at the exit only take small change (no credit/debit or even bills) but some of the trips cost $10+. Do you regularly carry around $10 in quarters? I don't.

Also, there is a real problem with homeless camping out on BART when it rains. That in itself isn't an issue but many are drunk and some become violent resulting in stopped trains waiting for officers to remove them (happened twice in a week).


GO Lakeshore is far from perfect (RER and Overground are closer) but there are many things GO does well for North America.

Actually, the tiny (right sized?) commuter system between Salt Lake and Provo Utah is one of the better ones in the US that I've been on. Low fares, frequent service, solid announcements, great views, fare integration with local service (LRT to downtown/airport), great views from the platforms, reasonably fast, and reliable. Being a linear valley helps make rail useful for such a low population.

 

[ehlow]

Northbound Allen Expressway could close for nearly two years

From The Star, at this link:

This doesn't seem like a big deal to me, and I drive on Allen Rd all the time. People can just drive on Bathurst or Dufferin or Marlee up to Lawrence.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The Allen in general is very low traffic anyway due to the lack of feeder roads.

 

[MrsNesbitt]

Perhaps a two-year closure of northbound Allen Expy will serve as a case study to how it's really no great boon to traffic in Toronto and should be filled in anyways.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I wish we could do the same to the Gardiner.

 

[DarkSideDenizen]

Removing the Gardiner would do irreparable damage to the city's economy and vibrancy. Anyway, the Gardiner isn't going anywhere and will remain a key link to the core for many decades to come.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Is that sarcasm?

 

[MrsNesbitt]

Removing the Gardiner would do irreparable damage to the city's economy and vibrancy. Anyway, the Gardiner isn't going anywhere and will remain a key link to the core for many decades to come.

I'm sure that if the small percentage of commuters/travellers/etc. who enter the downtown core by automobile had to use Lake Shore Blvd instead of the Gardiner the economy and vibrancy of Toronto wouldn't suddenly collapse on themselves.

Just like the loss of the Allen Expy northbound for two years won't do irreparable damage to Eglinton during Crosstown construction. In the end, the area will get an LRT out of it, and that'll do great things for the vibrancy of that area.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I am all for filling the Allen Road.

Unfortunately, I think the city has more pressing concerns for the time being with the Gardiner and the DRL.

 

[ehlow]

I am all for filling the Allen Road.

Unfortunately, I think the city has more pressing concerns for the time being with the Gardiner and the DRL.

I'm personally skeptical about closing Allen Rd. To me there is a much stronger case for closing the Gardiner, consider it's downtown and most people take transit to go downtown.

But completely regardless of whether it is or isn't a good idea, as you mentioned, there's absolutely no priority in spending money to do so at this time given the huge costs we'll have to spend to either maintain or remove the Gardiner, the DRL, and rest of the huge list of infrastructure we need to build.

All I was saying earlier was that a temporary & partial closure to make the LRT construction easier is fine, it had nothing to do with spending a huge amount of money removing a highway

 

[MrsNesbitt]

I'm personally skeptical about closing Allen Rd. To me there is a much stronger case for closing the Gardiner, consider it's downtown and most people take transit to go downtown.

But completely regardless of whether it is or isn't a good idea, as you mentioned, there's absolutely no priority in spending money to do so at this time given the huge costs we'll have to spend to either maintain or remove the Gardiner, the DRL, and rest of the huge list of infrastructure we need to build.

All I was saying earlier was that a temporary & partial closure to make the LRT construction easier is fine, it had nothing to do with spending a huge amount of money removing a highway

To be fair I completely agree with you as well, in terms of priorities of infrastructure filling in the Allen is way down there.

What I do think though is this temporary closure thereof will provide some good data on what traffic may be like if the Allen was eventually closed, so that that data could be used in discussions on the issue if/when it ever arises.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Yah I am thinking the same. I am hoping that city planners will take this opportunity to see.

Though it wouldn't be exactly the same as I believe filling in the Allen implies maintaining a boulevard road along its route from Eglinton to the 401.

 

[BurlOak]

Northbound Allen Expressway could close for nearly two years

The thing I do not understand is this:

• The tunneling is already underway so the Contract has been prepared and the Contractor is on board.
• Presumably, the contract for this includes extraction and relaunch at Eglinton West - otherwise the separate contractor is needed to do the extraction and re-launch and the complications to co-ordinate the two contracts has the potential for major problems.
• Thus, how could the Contractor actually bid on the tunneling if the traffic impacts, his staging areas, etc. were not finalized.
• Is this an attempt to alter the original contract and hope the Contractor gives back some money if we simplify his operations - although when done after the signing, we would be lucky to get back 25% of the actual savings.

Is this closure of Allen to help with the station construction, but would not be used for TBM extraction and re-launch? This seems like a dumb idea because the extraction/launch sites are at the same location as the station construction.

Somehow it seems that the decision to close the Allen should have already been made.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The extraction locations are not in the same location as the station. they are off to the side of the street, while the station is in the middle of the street and will be dug out under the existing subway tunnel. The TBMs will be moved over slightly before extraction.

It has been stated that while it is possible to do the job without closing the Allen, however closing it would save significant money and time, and thus is being looked at. I presume if the choice is taken the contract will be modified with a lower overall price as there would be less work provided.

 

[BurlOak]

The extraction locations are not in the same location as the station. they are off to the side of the street, while the station is in the middle of the street and will be dug out under the existing subway tunnel. The TBMs will be moved over slightly before extraction.

It has been stated that while it is possible to do the job without closing the Allen, however closing it would save significant money and time, and thus is being looked at. I presume if the choice is taken the contract will be modified with a lower overall price as there would be less work provided.

As I said above, if Metrolinx thinks that there is money to be saved by closing the Allen, then it should have been explored before the Contracts were signed. If done before, the City (actually Metrolinx) would receive the full financial benefit for the traffic inconvenience. If the Contract is altered after signing, the Contractor will heavily skew the numbers to downplay the savings and Metrolinx will only receive back a small portion of the actual savings.