Jump to content

BCRY


Shaun

Recommended Posts

....Collingwood may want/need GO train service at some point in the future).

I hope you mean that in jest. I'm pretty optimistic about a lot of things, but there are no situations that I can envision or fathom that would result in train service to Collingwood.

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Blue mountain is a big tourist attraction, maybe running a tourist train might be something they would look at?

Sorta like Grand Ville Islands Trolley line?

A tourist train in the Collingwood area is one thing. And not exactly the worst of ideas, provided someone has the money and wherewithal to re-assemble the ROW north-west of Collingwood.

Running GO trains to and from Toronto is entirely another, however.

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Guelph, now Peterborough, then Collingwood, Owen Sound, Beeton, Fergus, Nephton...

For Nephton, all they have to do is couple a L5C + L5C, then split it at Peterborough!

Or, maybe, add a second bus. Whatever. I'm trolling now. Goodnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you mean that in jest. I'm pretty optimistic about a lot of things, but there are no situations that I can envision or fathom that would result in train service to Collingwood.

I was just thinking in terms of steady, long term population growth. I was never thinking about anything in the next 5-10 years; I was thinking in terms of 30+ years. And when you consider the amount of track work that is needed on the line to bring it up to handle GO train service, it doesn't matter if the current tracks are kept down or not so long as the right of way doesn't get sold off.

Owen Sound, Beeton, Fergus, Nephton...

Nah. Tim Hudak plans to extend the Toronto subway network to those places because people want subways instead of surface rail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just thinking in terms of steady, long term population growth. I was never thinking about anything in the next 5-10 years; I was thinking in terms of 30+ years. And when you consider the amount of track work that is needed on the line to bring it up to handle GO train service, it doesn't matter if the current tracks are kept down or not so long as the right of way doesn't get sold off.

So, you're anticipating Collingwood becoming a bedroom community of Toronto?

I can't see that happening in my children's lifetime, nevermind mine.

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you're anticipating Collingwood becoming a bedroom community of Toronto?

Actually, if anything, it would probably be the other way around at the rate things are going.

However, I more envisioned Collingwood as the ultimate terminus of the current Barrie line with commuters departing from there favouring the stops outside of the Toronto city limits rather than it being a major source of commuters heading for union station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, if anything, it would probably be the other way around at the rate things are going.

Ha. That's funny.

However, I more envisioned Collingwood as the ultimate terminus of the current Barrie line with commuters departing from there favouring the stops outside of the Toronto city limits rather than it being a major source of commuters heading for union station.

Except that the rail line from Collingwood will never be even remotely time-competitive with the car to Toronto. It's the same situation as the line to Orangeville - it is not direct enough to make it an economical choice, especially considering that there are straight roads leading to the Toronto area. Perhaps to Barrie yes, but is there going to be a need for commuter rail to Barrie anytime soon? It's unlikely.

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

especially considering that there are straight roads leading to the Toronto area.

As someone who has taken Airport road route many times, it's not that great an option due to the length of the trip.

But ultimately, I think we're talking past each other. All I was suggesting is that the property that the right of way occupies between Utopia and Collingwood should remain intact so the option for commuter rail remains in the future. With the amount of work needed to bring the current line up to handle GO trains, it doesn't matter if the tracks stay down until the time someone decides to start service to Collingwood. However, if any of the right of way gets sold off, the only land acquisition for a transportation corridor that will ever happen in the future in the region is for a 400 series highway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who has taken Airport road route many times, it's not that great an option due to the length of the trip.

And as someone else who has also taken that same route numerous times, I'm sure that I can get you to agree that sometimes it is the only reasonable option to get back to the GTA.

But ultimately, I think we're talking past each other. All I was suggesting is that the property that the right of way occupies between Utopia and Collingwood should remain intact so the option for commuter rail remains in the future. With the amount of work needed to bring the current line up to handle GO trains, it doesn't matter if the tracks stay down until the time someone decides to start service to Collingwood. However, if any of the right of way gets sold off, the only land acquisition for a transportation corridor that will ever happen in the future in the region is for a 400 series highway.

Ultimately, I don't disagree that the ROW should be saved/banked for some future need. But at the same time, to envision some sort frequent GO service to and from Collingwood I think is way too premature. Let's consider the need for some sort of transit service to Collingwood, and where it needs to go, before we start contemplating rail service.

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, if anything, it would probably be the other way around at the rate things are going.

However, I more envisioned Collingwood as the ultimate terminus of the current Barrie line with commuters departing from there favouring the stops outside of the Toronto city limits rather than it being a major source of commuters heading for union station.

If anything Collingwood would have a train-bus service to Barrie to meet up with the Barrie line trains, just as Orangeville has train-bus service to Brampton to meet with the train to Toronto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as someone else who has also taken that same route numerous times, I'm sure that I can get you to agree that sometimes it is the only reasonable option to get back to the GTA.

Indeed.

Ultimately, I don't disagree that the ROW should be saved/banked for some future need. But at the same time, to envision some sort frequent GO service to and from Collingwood I think is way too premature. Let's consider the need for some sort of transit service to Collingwood, and where it needs to go, before we start contemplating rail service.

I completely agree that it would be normally too early to be talking about rail service beyond a possible end goal with no current bus service between Barrie and Collingwood. However, the problem is that if you do not make it clear now that whatever is done with the right of way is only meant to be a placeholder before the resumption of rail service in the future, you'll have something similar to what happened through Collingwood with developers building over the right of way piece by piece. After all, if they only see a hiking trail, then that is something that can be easily rerouted. That's why the question of commuter rail needs to be taken a little more seriously than a pipe dream even though its implementation is at least a generation from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the problem is that if you do not make it clear now that whatever is done with the right of way is only meant to be a placeholder before the resumption of rail service in the future, you'll have something similar to what happened through Collingwood with developers building over the right of way piece by piece. After all, if they only see a hiking trail, then that is something that can be easily rerouted. That's why the question of commuter rail needs to be taken a little more seriously than a pipe dream even though its implementation is at least a generation from now.

I don't agree at all. Have someone purchase the whole of the corridor with the explicit intention of land-banking it for the future, and ensure that they are committed to keeping it that way. That is what the City of Toronto has done with the former CN Leaside Spur which has been turned into a multi-use trail (and is still and will continue to be zoned for transportation use). They have also done that with other rail lines in the City as well, such as the former CPR Pit Spur in Scarborough.

The whole thing hinges on making sure that the right organization takes possession of the corridor. A developer, even one with good intentions, is not likely to work out in the long run.

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree at all. Have someone purchase the whole of the corridor with the explicit intention of land-banking it for the future, and ensure that they are committed to keeping it that way. That is what the City of Toronto has done with the former CN Leaside Spur which has been turned into a multi-use trail (and is still and will continue to be zoned for transportation use). They have also done that with other rail lines in the City as well, such as the former CPR Pit Spur in Scarborough.

The whole thing hinges on making sure that the right organization takes possession of the corridor. A developer, even one with good intentions, is not likely to work out in the long run.

Dan

Do you think that they'll ever lay track back down the Leaside spur? It would be useful for transit flow through the city, but would take some serious balls - ones that politicians lack these days.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that they'll ever lay track back down the Leaside spur? It would be useful for transit flow through the city, but would take some serious balls - ones that politicians lack these days.

Adam

Oh, no doubt on all fronts Adam. Toronto Planning as long wished for GO service on that line however, as it would allow for the location of a very easy and convenient station serving both Leaside and Thorncliffe Park - and GO for a long time liked that idea and always had it identified as a potential long-term corridor realignment. I don't know whether they still do, but the City still does, and thus it's purchase and maintenance as a transportation corridor.

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have someone purchase the whole of the corridor with the explicit intention of land-banking it for the future, and ensure that they are committed to keeping it that way.

The problem is, that's still not good enough if you want to also head off the NIMBY factor when it comes to resuming rail service in the future. When you are rail banking for a long period of time, you need to constantly remind the public that you intend to resume rail service at some point and that includes a clear explanation as to why the quiet hiking trail along the back of the property they just bought has the word temporary/interim in its name.

Now, by clear explanation, I don't necessarily mean a detailed plan with a time line laid out and exact ridership numbers specified for when train service would start. However, it needs to be detailed enough so that property owners will have a rough idea when they may see a survey crew walking the trail. This is a fatal mistake they made with the Leaside trail because the temporary nature of the trail is so deeply buried in the plan that it's very easy for the public to assume the trail is permanent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, that's still not good enough if you want to also head off the NIMBY factor when it comes to resuming rail service in the future. When you are rail banking for a long period of time, you need to constantly remind the public that you intend to resume rail service at some point and that includes a clear explanation as to why the quiet hiking trail along the back of the property they just bought has the word temporary/interim in its name.

Now, by clear explanation, I don't necessarily mean a detailed plan with a time line laid out and exact ridership numbers specified for when train service would start. However, it needs to be detailed enough so that property owners will have a rough idea when they may see a survey crew walking the trail. This is a fatal mistake they made with the Leaside trail because the temporary nature of the trail is so deeply buried in the plan that it's very easy for the public to assume the trail is permanent.

I wish I could say "I think you over-estimate the power the people who live there", but unfortunately you are more than likely right.

How do you prevent that from happening though?

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...