London's rail station is right downtown, which is where it should be in some ways, but not necessarily helpful for an early departure/late return scenario. It is not directly on a transit hub, although there are many routes passing within the general area.... meaning a moderate sidewalk schlep with baggage, although in fairness not necessarily any worse than the schlep to rapid transit in Toronto, Montreal, or Ottawa.
The best thing that can be said for it is, it's surrounded by lots of parking lots. (..... say no more.....).
The significant thing for me that detractors are missing is that ML began its service without the benefit of any of the usual business case analysis. Not taking a position for or against ML, but they have stuck to that methodology up to now. That tells me that the new service originated at a political level without (or perhaps even against) sage input from ML. No wonder the service is being criticised.
If there ever were a case for making the political-bureaucracy process more transparent and accountable, this is it. Ford has his vanity subway a-building in Etobicoke....and now we have the PC's running a vanity train to London.
As for VIA - 0nce ML secured its slot, VIA had little option to find its own slot that was a) operationally doable and b) not a total redundancy or revenue-splitter with ML.... especially given that VIA has to charge a higher fare. They have done the best they can.
The solution is clearly to upgrade the line, and solve once and for all the difficult issues that affect CN from Georgetown to Bramalea. Again, I'm not supporting or blaming CN, except to note that a) they had a 2009ish agreement with GO that they may have relied upon as GO's end game.... and b) they have seen a succession of grandiose and not necessarily doable subsequent proposals, which have shifted repeatedly as Ministers and Premiers came and went. If I were in their shoes, I would be hunkering down and not believing a thing ML or QP are telling them.
- Paul
View attachment 366991