Jump to content

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, MiWay0310 said:

No I specifically remember the bus being out of service.

Any possibility they could have just changed the sign to out of service?? Lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metrolinx gets religion.

Quote

But to be successful, Metrolinx will need municipalities to reconfigure the spaces around local stations.

....

For example, future transit stations will feature easy pedestrian and cycling access and ideally be located near developed areas where people work. Woo says it will be "critical" for municipalities to work with Metrolinx to ensure that can happen, and improve the so-called "first and last mile" of commuters' journeys.

This from the agency that drops stations into farmland and further suburbs and builds massive parking palaces around them? :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ed T. said:

Metrolinx gets religion.

This from the agency that drops stations into farmland and further suburbs and builds massive parking palaces around them? :rolleyes:

Especially when it sounds like they have a blank cheque to do the work wherever it is needed or not.

Only one taxpayer, a lot of investment and operating costs attached too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's good that they are finding ways of connecting existing transit. 

 

I always think that Don Mills would be a good candidate since YRT and the TTC meet there. 

 

More of these connections will help commuters choose to leave their car at home. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shaun said:

I think it's good that they are finding ways of connecting existing transit. 

 

I always think that Don Mills would be a good candidate since YRT and the TTC meet there. 

 

More of these connections will help commuters choose to leave their car at home. 

Don Mills would be good GO bus connection for 404/ North services and 401/East services 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This past Wednesday at 1:35 I saw Super-Lo 8317 northbound on Thickson Rd turning onto Highway 401 eastbound. The bus was definitely coming from Oshawa bus garage, which would access the 401 at either Thickson or Stevenson, but since the Wiki does not have info about where specific buses are based, I cannot confirm if any Super-Los actually operate out of Oshawa. However, considering that I have seen and/or been on Super-Los operating on route 51, 52, 93, and 96 (all of which use Oshawa vehicles), I have reason to believe this has been the case and have updated the wiki page accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2017 at 9:22 PM, Transit geek said:

This past Wednesday at 1:35 I saw Super-Lo 8317 northbound on Thickson Rd turning onto Highway 401 eastbound. The bus was definitely coming from Oshawa bus garage, which would access the 401 at either Thickson or Stevenson, but since the Wiki does not have info about where specific buses are based, I cannot confirm if any Super-Los actually operate out of Oshawa. However, considering that I have seen and/or been on Super-Los operating on route 51, 52, 93, and 96 (all of which use Oshawa vehicles), I have reason to believe this has been the case and have updated the wiki page accordingly.

GO doesn't really have permanent allocations per se. While there are definitely Super-Los allocated to Oshawa on a day-to-day basis, you can't definitively say that a particular number will be permanently allocated there.

 

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, smallspy said:

GO doesn't really have permanent allocations per se. While there are definitely Super-Los allocated to Oshawa on a day-to-day basis, you can't definitively say that a particular number will be permanently allocated there.

 

Dan

Taken back in may but you can see a superlo in the back of boundary (oshawa) Division 

 

42B32EF6-FC59-485A-BE9E-76CD391DC3E3.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2017 at 8:48 AM, Ed T. said:

Metrolinx gets religion.

This from the agency that drops stations into farmland and further suburbs and builds massive parking palaces around them? :rolleyes:

Although to most people this approach seems ridiculous, ponder this. Would it not be better to build more before surrounding development prevents it? It is much harder to implement more parking for passengers when other development has built up. Gormley for instance is a future development area, yet they built a large amount of parking there that currently sits unused... why do you think they did that? Just to bend the taxpayer over and screw them out of more money? No. I think it's easy to be so critical of a corporation that has had it's fair share of issues, but not every idea that is tabled is bogus.

 

On 9/16/2017 at 10:35 PM, smallspy said:

GO doesn't really have permanent allocations per se. While there are definitely Super-Los allocated to Oshawa on a day-to-day basis, you can't definitively say that a particular number will be permanently allocated there.

 

Dan

 

The only buses in the GO network that are permanently allocated to a division are the original DD's (80xx's) ... they're restricted out of Streetsville.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, J. Bullock said:

Although to most people this approach seems ridiculous, ponder this. Would it not be better to build more before surrounding development prevents it? It is much harder to implement more parking for passengers when other development has built up. Gormley for instance is a future development area, yet they built a large amount of parking there that currently sits unused... why do you think they did that?

No, the point is that the parking is the problem. Read the article I linked, or the quote I provided. GO throws up parking palaces, and is now chiding municipalities to make sure that stations are pedestrian and bicycle friendly.

In my opinion, parking around GO stations should be done away with, especially the ones in the inner suburbs and city. It's clear that GO cannot possibly build enough parking to handle all their riders.

At the very least, charge for parking--or, equivalently, give a discount for people who arrive at the station on transit or by walking and don't require parking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Ed T. said:

No, the point is that the parking is the problem. Read the article I linked, or the quote I provided. GO throws up parking palaces, and is now chiding municipalities to make sure that stations are pedestrian and bicycle friendly.

In my opinion, parking around GO stations should be done away with, especially the ones in the inner suburbs and city. It's clear that GO cannot possibly build enough parking to handle all their riders.

At the very least, charge for parking--or, equivalently, give a discount for people who arrive at the station on transit or by walking and don't require parking.

What about free parking for those that carpool?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ed T. said:

No, the point is that the parking is the problem. Read the article I linked, or the quote I provided. GO throws up parking palaces, and is now chiding municipalities to make sure that stations are pedestrian and bicycle friendly.

In my opinion, parking around GO stations should be done away with, especially the ones in the inner suburbs and city. It's clear that GO cannot possibly build enough parking to handle all their riders.

At the very least, charge for parking--or, equivalently, give a discount for people who arrive at the station on transit or by walking and don't require parking.

They should start by designing the stations to bring them closer to the neighbourhoods they purport to serve. The impending moving of Danforth Station is a prime example of the opposite.

 

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are 12 coach trainsets the max GO has in mind? Will they ever think about expanding it to 13-14 coach trainsets?

Can the MP54ACs handle 13-14 coach trainsets?

Are these one of the largest commuter rail trainsets in the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, smallspy said:

They should start by designing the stations to bring them closer to the neighbourhoods they purport to serve. The impending moving of Danforth Station is a prime example of the opposite.

 

Dan

Where do they want to move Danforth to?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheAverageJoe said:

Where do they want to move Danforth to?

They're going to move it about 300 metres east, so that the primary access will be off of the bottom of Dawes, rather than from Main St.

 

The fact that the majority of people enter from Main St., or that there's nothing stopping them from creating an access at Dawes today doesn't seem to interest them.


Dan

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, smallspy said:

They should start by designing the stations to bring them closer to the neighbourhoods they purport to serve. The impending moving of Danforth Station is a prime example of the opposite.

 

Dan

This is exactly why Metrolinx is a backwards thinking transit planning agency, or whatever you want to call them at this point. They talk about "the last mile" problem (ie: getting riders to their final destination once they reach a station), meanwhile they're in the business of making that exact problem even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 12 is the design max for stations, trainsets, crews, and we still are a long way from getting to 12 on a number of lines.  I don't believe Kitchener Corridor is near getting to 12.  At some point you change the frequency not the length.  I believe that to be the RER direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, soo8513 said:

I think 12 is the design max for stations, trainsets, crews, and we still are a long way from getting to 12 on a number of lines.  I don't believe Kitchener Corridor is near getting to 12.  At some point you change the frequency not the length.  I believe that to be the RER direction.

I think Kitchener is actually really close to 12 car trains, but there is currently no need for them. I believe only Bramalea needs to be redone to accommodate them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, smallspy said:

They're going to move it about 300 metres east, so that the primary access will be off of the bottom of Dawes, rather than from Main St.

 

The fact that the majority of people enter from Main St., or that there's nothing stopping them from creating an access at Dawes today doesn't seem to interest them.


Dan

Most stupidest thing I heard of as most people either get dropped of on Main street or walk to Main subway that use the station 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2017 at 7:25 AM, Ed T. said:

No, the point is that the parking is the problem. Read the article I linked, or the quote I provided. GO throws up parking palaces, and is now chiding municipalities to make sure that stations are pedestrian and bicycle friendly.

So you're saying that it is Metrolinx's full responsibility to alter the municipalities pedestrian and bike systems too? Sure seems like a lot to ask for on top of managing intercity transit.

On 9/19/2017 at 7:25 AM, Ed T. said:

In my opinion, parking around GO stations should be done away with, especially the ones in the inner suburbs and city. It's clear that GO cannot possibly build enough parking to handle all their riders.

or, equivalently, give a discount for people who arrive at the station on transit or by walking and don't require parking.

 

1) Do away with parking? I'm sorry to be blunt, but that's one of the worst ideas i've ever heard. Let's say we do do away with parking at GO Stations... where will commuters who rely on parking infrastructure park? Ridership would plummet. You're right, some stations will grow out of their designated parking spaces, but driving to your local GO Station isn't the only way of commuting. GO builds these big structures in car-reliant areas. You don't see big structures going up at Exhibition or Oriole do you? Local transit doesn't have enough resources to shuttle every car commuter to the GO Station to make their train in the morning, why do you think most of them are driving in the first place?

2) How exactly are you going to enforce this policy? Seems like a lot of tape to be laid.

9 hours ago, TheAverageJoe said:

Most stupidest thing I heard of as most people either get dropped of on Main street or walk to Main subway that use the station 

I'd like to see the proposal for that, seems unrealistic.

On 9/19/2017 at 8:20 AM, Streety McCarface said:

What about free parking for those that carpool?

That already exists.

On 9/19/2017 at 10:48 AM, Cityflyer said:

Are 12 coach trainsets the max GO has in mind? Will they ever think about expanding it to 13-14 coach trainsets?

Can the MP54ACs handle 13-14 coach trainsets?

Are these one of the largest commuter rail trainsets in the world?

Why would they expand beyond twelve? Ridership most times doesn't even support ten cars. (See off peak Lakeshore)

Depends on what you classify "commuter rail". The UK has some pretty long trainsets running on Virgin and I think Greater Anglia? I think there was a 16 car set on my train to Manchester last December, but can't recall correctly. Germany's DB InterCityExpress trainsets are quite long as well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, J. Bullock said:

So you're saying that it is Metrolinx's full responsibility to alter the municipalities pedestrian and bike systems too? Sure seems like a lot to ask for on top of managing intercity transit.

1) Do away with parking? I'm sorry to be blunt, but that's one of the worst ideas i've ever heard. Let's say we do do away with parking at GO Stations... where will commuters who rely on parking infrastructure park? Ridership would plummet. You're right, some stations will grow out of their designated parking spaces, but driving to your local GO Station isn't the only way of commuting. GO builds these big structures in car-reliant areas. You don't see big structures going up at Exhibition or Oriole do you? Local transit doesn't have enough resources to shuttle every car commuter to the GO Station to make their train in the morning, why do you think most of them are driving in the first place?

The big car garages cut off pedestrian and bicycle access. Of course it is Metrolinx' full responsibility when they build these things, usually between the likeliest road access and the railway tracks. Where exactly will the municipalities be building the pedestrian and bike walkways when the stations are surrounded by feeder roads to thousand-car garages? Where is the local development going to go?

As for doing away with parking, I'm being deliberately provocative and serious. You can be blunt and call my idea stupid all you want to. I expect that to happen.

If we really want to change how people travel, the parking should go. The government would really like to cut down on dependence on the car.  So, can't get to the station without your precious car? Well, boo-hoo, better re-evaluate things. I would insert something here about the coming of self-driving car-pods that wouldn't require parking, except I am a skeptic on how soon that technology will actually be workable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, J. Bullock said:

The UK has some pretty long trainsets running on Virgin and I think Greater Anglia? I think there was a 16 car set on my train to Manchester last December, but can't recall correctly. Germany's DB InterCityExpress trainsets are quite long as well.

Also, the trains passing through the Channel Tunnel must be at least 375 meters long to comply with safety requirements. Eurostar e320 are 400 meters long, while the older e300s are shorter by only 12 meters. That's why ICE trains cannot use the tunnel - at least not until the regulations are relaxed to 200 m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Transit geek said:

Also, the trains passing through the Channel Tunnel must be at least 375 meters long to comply with safety requirements. Eurostar e320 are 400 meters long, while the older e300s are shorter by only 12 meters. That's why ICE trains cannot use the tunnel - at least not until the regulations are relaxed to 200 m.

But they're all single deck trains. Technically, 12 car GO trains carry far more people (5000 people crush load) than 16 car Shinkansen trains are 400 m long and can only legally carry 1300 passengers. 

I might add that locomotive efficiency decreases as train length increases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, J. Bullock said:

So you're saying that it is Metrolinx's full responsibility to alter the municipalities pedestrian and bike systems too? Sure seems like a lot to ask for on top of managing intercity transit.

No, what he is saying is that Metrolinx shouldn't be using a "one size fits all" policy when it comes to station design. What works at a place like Milton or Lincolnville is not the best idea for a station like Danforth. There is an entirely different sense of scale of the station within its neighbourhood - and yet Metrolinx either doesn't realize this or has chosen to ignore it. The premliminary station designs for the SmarTrack stations bear this out.

 

1 hour ago, Transit geek said:

Also, the trains passing through the Channel Tunnel must be at least 375 meters long to comply with safety requirements. Eurostar e320 are 400 meters long, while the older e300s are shorter by only 12 meters. That's why ICE trains cannot use the tunnel - at least not until the regulations are relaxed to 200 m.

The reason that the ICE trainsets don't use the tunnel have nothing whatsoever do to with the length of the trainset. The issue stems from the additional regulations that have been enacted with running trains through the Chunnel, primarily fire-worthiness and systems redundancy.

 

For the record, the most recent ICE 3 sets (class 407) meet all of those regulations and are capable of running through the Chunnel with passengers. That they haven't yet has more do to with the business case for it. The earlier sets - classes 403 and 406 - don't meet those regulations.

 

Dan

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, smallspy said:

No, what he is saying is that Metrolinx shouldn't be using a "one size fits all" policy when it comes to station design. What works at a place like Milton or Lincolnville is not the best idea for a station like Danforth. There is an entirely different sense of scale of the station within its neighbourhood - and yet Metrolinx either doesn't realize this or has chosen to ignore it. The premliminary station designs for the SmarTrack stations bear this out.

I wouldn't say Metrolinx is hitting everything with a "one size fits all" approach... more of a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" You're absolutely right, but I don't think that any proposal like that would make it past the further stages of planning. But hey, stranger things have happened.

 

On 9/21/2017 at 6:51 AM, Ed T. said:

The big car garages cut off pedestrian and bicycle access. Of course it is Metrolinx' full responsibility when they build these things, usually between the likeliest road access and the railway tracks. Where exactly will the municipalities be building the pedestrian and bike walkways when the stations are surrounded by feeder roads to thousand-car garages? Where is the local development going to go?

As for doing away with parking, I'm being deliberately provocative and serious. You can be blunt and call my idea stupid all you want to. I expect that to happen.

If we really want to change how people travel, the parking should go. The government would really like to cut down on dependence on the car.  So, can't get to the station without your precious car? Well, boo-hoo, better re-evaluate things. I would insert something here about the coming of self-driving car-pods that wouldn't require parking, except I am a skeptic on how soon that technology will actually be workable.

These "big car garages" you speak of cutting off pedestrian and bicycle access don't necessarily do that. You're expecting to have Metrolinx do everything at once, when they really don't have to. What's more important, car parking at Lincolnville, or pedestrian access? Exactly.

But let's put your "doing away with parking" thought to the test. So lets take Tommy Tinker here living out in the middle of Northumberland County, (lets use Little Britain as an example) and works at 30 King West in Toronto. What are his options? 

1) DRIVE in the opposite direction to a carpool lot along the 115 (which is an hour or so out of his way) to then catch an 88 bus to Oshawa GO,(almost another hour and a bit) where he would transfer to a corresponding GO train(on a good day, another hour). Tom needing to be at work for 9, has to leave his home at 5am in order to be there on time, what an inconvenience.

2)... wait, there is no option two in your scenario... Local transit is non existent in Northumberland County (like most rural areas in the GTHA). So there is no possible way he can get to either a GO bus stop or access a local bus to a GO stop.

So saying "boo-hoo" to Tommy who can't access GO services would be a big "f-you" to the face, especially for something he is paying taxes for.

Cars will be an integral part of North American society for a very very long time. "Getting rid of parking" might be the dumbest idea Metrolinx could formulate. I do however, see your point of charging for parking, it would generate revenue, but would lower approval ratings, but would you rather pay and have a spot, or have it be free and not be guaranteed? 

If you were to propose this idea forty years from now, when self driving cars, and better ways to facilitate car parking are created, then I wouldn't be so quick to break it down, but for the foreseeable future, I think this is a really really dumb idea.

 

I'm sorry to maliciously tear your idea to shreds, but I felt pretty compassionate about it, nothing against you, lol.

22 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

But they're all single deck trains. Technically, 12 car GO trains carry far more people (5000 people crush load) than 16 car Shinkansen trains are 400 m long and can only legally carry 1300 passengers. 

I might add that locomotive efficiency decreases as train length increases. 

Also true, as far as i'm aware, as commuter rail goes, GO would have the longest trainsets with Bilevels. Unless i'm missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×