News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.6K     7 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 987     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.9K     0 

General railway discussions

Until the tracks to London are brought up to standard that will support 100mph trains, its a lost cause for not only the city, but the ones between them to be service by GO, let alone VIA.

Railways created new towns and cities as well help them to grows until the car came along.
It isn't just London, but they talk of going to Bolton, Cambridge and Bowmanville. I am not thinking of just the one location, but as they add to the existing network, my hope is that somehow, discussions happen at the local council level to ensure that the growth will be not just sprawl.
 
It isn't just London, but they talk of going to Bolton, Cambridge and Bowmanville. I am not thinking of just the one location, but as they add to the existing network, my hope is that somehow, discussions happen at the local council level to ensure that the growth will be not just sprawl.
All tracks from Windsor to Kingston, Buffalo to North Bay should be all 100 mph to 125 mph if we want people to use Transit/RER in place of the car.
 
All tracks from Windsor to Kingston, Buffalo to North Bay should be all 100 mph to 125 mph if we want people to use Transit/RER in place of the car.
As a blanket sentence, this is complete nonsense: even if we had Hyperloops travelling between all CMAs and CAs, there would still be people insisting on driving their own cars. Instead, we should look at the modal splits and market sizes for various O-Ds and then decide where there are opportunities for the rail market share to grow…
 
As a blanket sentence, this is complete nonsense: even if we had Hyperloops travelling between all CMAs and CAs, there would still be people insisting on driving their own cars. Instead, we should look at the modal splits and market sizes for various O-Ds and then decide where there are opportunities for the rail market share to grow…

While I agree, there is a middle ground here - it's fair to acknowledge that much of the secondary trackage used by VIA and GO is in need of improvement, and such improvement would build ridership and modal share.

Kitchener-London is a prime example, but Hamilton-Niagara Falls is also. Not only are the top speeds mediocre, the track is rough and the ride is not what it could be. I wouldn't push for 100 mph, but 80 mph with a removal of the 30 mph zones is reasonable - long overdue, in fact.

- Paul
 
As a blanket sentence, this is complete nonsense: even if we had Hyperloops travelling between all CMAs and CAs, there would still be people insisting on driving their own cars. Instead, we should look at the modal splits and market sizes for various O-Ds and then decide where there are opportunities for the rail market share to grow…

Agree with the above; but would add, in each O-D pairing you need to examine the market you're serving (ie. tourists, vs students vs work commuters); tolerances, expectations and price points vary among these and alter the best solution.

Also, while cutting travel speeds is very important and shouldn't be under-played, that improvement requires balance with frequency, and price, and the local/regional transit offer at the destination matters as well.

For K-W, for instance, you know your largest existing market is post-secondary students/faculty, so you're looking at their particular o/d (non-Kitchener) then you know they're going to use ION to reach their Unis at the K-W end, but you have to look at its capacity/frequency to make sure it can support your service level.

For Niagara, you know tourists are your largest market, and the connection from the existing station to Clifton Hill (tourist area at the Falls) is key, as is supporting transit to other key destinations.

I would imagine for the former example that price/frequency are more important to most students than speed, though I'm sure they'd like a faster trip too if they can have it all.

While for the tourist, particularly the day tripper in the latter example, trip time is a bit more important because of how much it eats out of a finite schedule.
 
Last edited:
In south-central Ontario, the 'Growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe' policy document includes the following specific guidance on the form urban expansion should take, which specifically encourages urban development where there are transit and transportation corridors. I'd interpret that as along either rail and road transport infrastructure.

"Upper- and single-tier municipalities will undertake integrated planning to manage forecasted growth to the horizon of this Plan, which will:
  1. ...
  2. ...
  3. provide direction for an urban form that will optimize infrastructure, particularly along transit and transportation corridors, to support the achievement of complete communities through a more compact built form;
  4. support the environmental and agricultural protection and conservation objectives of this Plan; and..."
https://www.ontario.ca/document/growth-plan-greater-golden-horseshoe/where-and-how-grow#section-1

I'm not aware of planning policy that applies to the rest of the province.

PS. Could we stop using Golden Horseshoe as a moniker for south-central Ontario? It sound so archaic.
 
PS. Could we stop using Golden Horseshoe as a moniker for south-central Ontario? It sound so archaic.

That would seem problematic.

Golden Horseshoe and Greater Golden Horseshoe are still the official terms used by Ministry of Finance and by Municipal Affairs and Housing, and population charts from those ministries use those terms.
 
Talking about London getting a population bump thanks for more GO transit service when the property market there is already at full stretch, and there is local resistance to supply growth, seems like a solution chasing the wrong problem
 
In south-central Ontario, the 'Growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe' policy document includes the following specific guidance on the form urban expansion should take, which specifically encourages urban development where there are transit and transportation corridors. I'd interpret that as along either rail and road transport infrastructure.

"Upper- and single-tier municipalities will undertake integrated planning to manage forecasted growth to the horizon of this Plan, which will:
  1. ...
  2. ...
  3. provide direction for an urban form that will optimize infrastructure, particularly along transit and transportation corridors, to support the achievement of complete communities through a more compact built form;
  4. support the environmental and agricultural protection and conservation objectives of this Plan; and..."
https://www.ontario.ca/document/growth-plan-greater-golden-horseshoe/where-and-how-grow#section-1

I'm not aware of planning policy that applies to the rest of the province.

Sounds like a simple - yes hey do - to my question. That is good to hear.

PS. Could we stop using Golden Horseshoe as a moniker for south-central Ontario? It sound so archaic.

The problem is, places like Collingwood or Peterborough or Port Hope are all not even part of the south central parts, so even then,it is not that simple. Each could have GO trains soon enough....

Talking about London getting a population bump thanks for more GO transit service when the property market there is already at full stretch, and there is local resistance to supply growth, seems like a solution chasing the wrong problem
Honestly,I feel GO has only answered that problem the wrong way from the start. The issue is that some people may see spending 8 hours on a train to get to/from work as n acceptable compromise when it comes to cost of housing. but this goes into the economics of housing and wages.
 
Yes, it's defined as quite a large area, with a potential 2051 population of ~14,900,000.
1722267469389.png

Although a small area in comparison to the extent of the Province:
1722267534368.png
 
The problem is, places like Collingwood or Peterborough or Port Hope are all not even part of the south central parts, so even then,it is not that simple. Each could have GO trains soon enough....
I think the other point of contention is that Peterborough, and Collingwood will never have GO trains. Neither will ever have the population to support even a single daily service and that's without factoring in the enormous capital costs of having to build or rebuild railway lines to those towns.
 

Back
Top