|
|
|
GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
drum118
Superstar
The big issue is the Welland Canal that can hamper the hourly service until an tunnel is built under it at big $$. Only need a few sidings for GO trains to past each other leaving one track for the few CN trains these days. Otherwise, 3 track is all you need for 30-60 minute service and keeping CN happy. It will only put a small dent in the QEW traffic.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Ain't nobody tunneling under the Welland for a few sightseer GO Trains and the single daily Maple Leaf...
crs1026
Superstar
Agreed - but if we can't create a competitive, modal share-stealing transit corrridor that runs parallel to and within sight of the QEW....there isn't much hope for public transit.
- Paul
Metroscapes
Active Member
Agreed. It has to be part of a broader improvement, whether that's improving rapid transit between the current station and the actual falls, or a bigger line realignment altogether.
Northern Light
Superstar
Provided that the underlying public transit network is in place, along with good 'last mile' and active transportation infrastructure, I have no difficulty envisioning demand that supports the full Toronto-Niagara route at least hourly, and perhaps twice that, with a 'local' running West Harbour to Niagara Falls only that doubles that frequency.
Some meaningful steps are underway, such as with the creation of Niagara Region Transit this year.
Providing they deliver the ideal version of their service improvement plans with full funding, that will go a long way to support more robust GO service.
If they also deliver a post-secondary campus, as hoped for, immediately next to the GO/VIA Station in Niagara that will go further still.
A modest assist may also come from Amtrak's plan to double the Maple Leaf service; though that's obviously a proverbial drop in the bucket.
Some meaningful steps are underway, such as with the creation of Niagara Region Transit this year.
Providing they deliver the ideal version of their service improvement plans with full funding, that will go a long way to support more robust GO service.
If they also deliver a post-secondary campus, as hoped for, immediately next to the GO/VIA Station in Niagara that will go further still.
A modest assist may also come from Amtrak's plan to double the Maple Leaf service; though that's obviously a proverbial drop in the bucket.
Last edited:
Sunnyside
Senior Member
Chicken and the egg… it’s not like we can run more trains and just aren’t. A tunnel would enable more service.
In an ideal world, we would run maximal, half-hourly frequency just short of the canal (as described by @Northern Light )and send the few trains we can past. Across the network we see service cutoffs right where barriers begin; no need to let the canal limit service before trains actually have to cross it. A quick glance at Google Maps tells me that you can run to St. Catherine’s station without having to cross the canal. There is perhaps even room for one more station around Glendale Ave.
Sure, you can’t run all the way to Niagara Falls, but it gives every city before the canal much better service, building ridership to justify the massive expense of eventually crossing it.
sixrings
Senior Member
Why would the via station be in the smaller city outside of Toronto. If a go station is going to be outside Toronto it should be in the bigger city not the smaller one.
drum118
Superstar
At this time, built a tunnel makes no sense cost wise, as it doesn't do much for the current service level. If and when service becomes 30-60 all day and 7 days a week to NF, that is when a business case will say it time to do it.
What you proposed defeat the idea of reducing traffic off the QEW as it missing the important city on the line and that is NF. NF will generate more traffic than St. Catharines and the stops between it and Hamilton. At the same time, all stations are not close to the downtown area. Local transit needs to be front and centre to help meet the needs of all day service hourly.
At the same time, the size of trains needs to be smaller and it goes back to 2006/7 where I was calling for shorter trains under the Big Move Plan. Basely you only need an 4 car DMU now and for the next 10 years or an 3 car BiLevel train before adding extra cars or reduce headway. Anything longer is a waste of resources. You can either run trains from Hamilton to St. Catharines/NF only or run local between those point and express to Union every few hours in the beginning to hourly as ridership increases for the need to do so.
Most systems in Europe offer various size and type of trains on hourly service to the point some S-Bahn lines run more than an hour to the nearest station to the main city for the line. You can have trains that split to smaller trains size at Y or Z like I have ridden in Europe.
What we need to do is step back 100 years and introduce the rail service back then to the point I would run service to the US by the way of NF, Buffalo and Depew current setup. If and when they rebuilt the Buffalo Old Station, end service there as it will make connections to Amtrak trains there. It also allow for day trips or 2 to NF and Buffalo as well to our NF area as well. Custom will be an issues one way or another, but offer a trip not having to drive to X.
Haven't driven past Hamilton since 2019 due to COVID and no idea what the QEW looks like going to the US by NF or Buffalo these days. Plan a trip to the area later this year.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
@drum118 sums it all up well, but I will add that beyond Aldershot you're into CN territory and are therefore at their mercy. Unless you're going to duplicate the corridor, a la Pickering to Oshawa, passenger efforts will always play second fiddle to their nonsense.
Sunnyside
Senior Member
Fully agree that only running to St. Catharines would offer far less bang for the buck than running all the way to NF. I suggest it as an interim solution to grow ridership where we can with minimal new infrastructure (re- duplication comments below) as opposed to the current status quo of minimal service.
Any endgame for Niagara should include Buffalo, too. Im sure we are headed in a direction where much of new rail service will mirror what existed once before. Buffalo would undoubtedly embrace train service into southern Ontario, too, at which point one could easily provide RER and intercity-style services.
Also- visited Buffalo last summer to actually enjoy the city instead of just visiting the outlets. Maybe it was the weather, but the lively parts of town were full of energy. The QEW is a problem any way you slice it; if it’s not as bad in Niagara, it is upstream in Oakville. There’s a reason the MTO studied the Mid-Peninsula…
This too would be part of my suggestion… adding passing tracks or an entire third track to the corridor would be a good medium-long term investment to guarantee service quality. We have already begun the process with West Harbour and Confederation of course, and Hamilton (as the jump-off point) is no stranger to being at the whim of CP/CN. I see track duplication as both cheaper than and a prerequisite for a Welland tunnel anyway.
Hopefully, the long term plan is to incrementally improve service eastward from Hamilton until a Welland tunnel is able to be funded. The Metrolinx RTP is fairly vague on this front; it would be nice to see this expedited with leftover diesels after electrification.
Sunnyside
Senior Member
I’m not as knowledgeable as some others here, but by providing an answer I might get one of those experts to bite.
I’m pretty sure this comes down to a legacy of intercity rail services primarily serving independent communities rather than suburbs, and not really re-assessing these unless to cut stations (hence, VIA Aldershot). Shocking as it may sound, Oakville was that kind of independent town for much of its history, being directly between the economic/metropolitan areas of Hamilton and Toronto. Mississauga (just Port Credit, then) was firmly within the sphere of Toronto, and Burlington firmly the sphere of Hamilton. Additionally, interurban lines from these cities terminated in Oakville.
Obviously, this dynamic has changed quite a bit in the last 100 years. Oakville may like to role play as a distinct town but we all know that isn’t true. Toronto’s sphere obviously extends much further into Burlington and beyond now.
In short, it’s likely a relic of an era when the urban geography was much different. Shifting to Port Credit would be a no-brainer, but for an agency without a brain…
crs1026
Superstar
You are correct . The station spacing dates from the era where Mississauga was farmland and the first population center of any significance west of central Toronto was Oakville.
What’s curious is how long the traditional steam-era waypoints have remained unchanged.
Once GO service began (in 1967) the travel patterns, and in some ways the track infrastructure, became fixed. The concept of transit linking to development was not in vogue….all GO planners had to decide was where to put the parking lots. Not a lot has changed since then, ie current stations have not become development centers.
Hamilton has always been a tougher nut to crack, because it lies off the main line to London. The traditional solutions (backup moves by intercity trains, bus transfer from Dundas or Burlington, and direct bus service to Toronto) never really fixed things and certainly aren’t perfect.
It’s entirely timely to reconsider where express and intercity trains should stop in the sprawling west GTA urban sprawl. Port Credit is a development hub and is about to become a transit hub, so stopping there makes far more sense than Oakville, Aldershot may continue to be useful as a transfer point to GO as service towards Hamilton and Niagara evolves.
One can’t simply wave a wand, however. There might need to be physical track changes to align operating practices with Port Credit platforms and amenities. It’s a project in itself.
- Paul
urbancog
Active Member
As N Light points out the municipal transit services have been amalgamated into Niagara Region Transit which could offer a hub-spoke bus service out of St. Catherines station serving:
- St. Catherines and Niagara-on-the-Lake
- Thorold and Niagara Falls
- Welland and Port Colbourne
crs1026
Superstar
^To my mind, a hub west of the Canal is the perfect interim solution. Partly to grow the business, and partly because it offers a great last-mile opportunuty given that there are several smaller but growing communities (and growing retirement communities) between Port Colborne, Fort Wrie, and Niagara on the Lake. The value of central Niagara Falls as the notional terminal point for a GO rail line may be overrated, IMHO (while it is certainly material to tourisn at the Falls proper, recreational visits to Niagara Region probably already outweight visits to the Falls themselves)
Adding track is no doubt necessary, but there’s no reason why this can’t be worked out with CN.
- Paul
Adding track is no doubt necessary, but there’s no reason why this can’t be worked out with CN.
- Paul