[micheal_can]

I would think the land costs alone to get rail to the foot of the hills would be pretty steep (likewise to the Beach) but I am only speculating (as, no doubt, would others ). Much of the land to the southwest of town is zoned residential, and I will guess already in the hands of developers.

Part of me wonders why GO, whose primary mandate is to deliver a GTHA commuter network, is involved in what is essentially a tourist train to Niagara Falls in the first place. Perhaps it is filling a vacuum, but the argument is similar to proponents who wish to see GO expand to London, Brantford, etc. I'm not even sure how these services fit into its legislated mandate (he said without looking it up).

Fun fact, GO stands for Government of Ontario. So, expanding across the province does make sense. GO is stepping up where VIA has failed. The Maple Leaf runs, but only runs through Niagara Falls. A service that only goes there a couple times a day makes sense. on top of the service into USA.

GO is becoming much more than just a commuter network. One could argue that the Barrie line will be more of an intercity line than a commuter line when it's fully upgraded. Same with Kitchener and Hamilton. As the system grows more complex, differentiating between commuter and other types of services will become next to impossible, which isn't a bad thing. It's a sign of a mature rail network.

GO is moving from a simple in-out commuter rail to a Regional Rail. In that, it is bringing back service from long ago served, but shut down due to a variety of reasons.

OK? I thought we are talking about the future here.
There is a large market of households in GTA without cars. I think something like 1/3 of Toronto households have no vehicle.
This trend is likely to keep increasing in the coming decades.
Preparing our public infrastructure to accommodate that growth is essential. Especially if we want to continue encouraging that trend so that we can drive down emissions.
We won't be able to grow a transit culture if our transit options are so limited.

He is helping you understand how those 2/3rds think. The idea of a shuttle isn't the greatest one, unless it eliminates "the last mile" problem.

 

[DirectionNorth]

OK? I thought we are talking about the future here.
There is a large market of households in GTA without cars. I think something like 1/3 of Toronto households have no vehicle.
This trend is likely to keep increasing in the coming decades.
Preparing our public infrastructure to accommodate that growth is essential. Especially if we want to continue encouraging that trend so that we can drive down emissions.
We won't be able to grow a transit culture if our transit options are so limited.

The point is that if you have to transfer, driving might be a better option. But I agree with you.

I would think the land costs alone to get rail to the foot of the hills would be pretty steep (likewise to the Beach) but I am only speculating (as, no doubt, would others ). Much of the land to the southwest of town is zoned residential, and I will guess already in the hands of developers.

I suppose so. We only need 10 km of ROW to get to Blue Mountain.

Taken from somebody else's map of old railway corridors. The thick green one is intact until Collingwood downtown, but will probably need grade separation. As you can see to the top right, there is no easy corridor to the beaches. We're stuck with what we have, unless we build to the outskirt of the beaches and hope people walk.

Part of me wonders why GO, whose primary mandate is to deliver a GTHA commuter network, is involved in what is essentially a tourist train to Niagara Falls in the first place. Perhaps it is filling a vacuum, but the argument is similar to proponents who wish to see GO expand to London, Brantford, etc. I'm not even sure how these services fit into its legislated mandate (he said without looking it up).

I've never seen a point in following a mandate perfectly. If this serves people efficiently, why do we care about the mandate? It's not like they're ignoring it by building new service.

 

[wopchop]

He is helping you understand how those 2/3rds think. The idea of a shuttle isn't the greatest one, unless it eliminates "the last mile" problem.

Yes, I understand how the 2/3 think. I am one of them. I have a vehicle too, and have always had one.
But building the future by catering towards them is silly.
We should be encouraging growth in the 1/3 demographic by creating a large regional transit network that gives people the ability to live a transit first lifestyle.
If you create more and more hurdles, like making driving a requirement to get to regional destinations, then less and less people will live a transit first lifestyle.
Saying that "I might as well drive" is missing the point of a regional rail system. You could say that about any destination in the network, including Toronto.

 

[micheal_can]

Yes, I understand how the 2/3 think. I am one of them. I have a vehicle too, and have always had one.
But building the future by catering towards them is silly.
We should be encouraging growth in the 1/3 demographic by creating a large regional transit network that gives people the ability to live a transit first lifestyle.
If you create more and more hurdles, like making driving a requirement to get to regional destinations, then less and less people will live a transit first lifestyle.
Saying that "I might as well drive" is missing the point of a regional rail system. You could say that about any destination in the network, including Toronto.

If you think that then you have no idea who the GO demographic is. They are the ones driving to the parking garage to take the train downtown. They are the ones that if better bus service comes, they may take it to the train to go downtown. So, actually, since it's inception, GO has be catering to them.

 

[wopchop]

If you think that then you have no idea who the GO demographic is. They are the ones driving to the parking garage to take the train downtown. They are the ones that if better bus service comes, they may take it to the train to go downtown. So, actually, since it's inception, GO has be catering to them.

Yes our commuter train system caters to drivers who make up the majority. Go figure.
The past does not need to define the future.
You are missing the point of regional rail.
I bet you that the typical GO demographic is not the same group of people riding trains to Niagara Falls.

 

[lenaitch]

The point is that if you have to transfer, driving might be a better option. But I agree with you.

I suppose so. We only need 10 km of ROW to get to Blue Mountain.
View attachment 333603
Taken from somebody else's map of old railway corridors. The thick green one is intact until Collingwood downtown, but will probably need grade separation. As you can see to the top right, there is no easy corridor to the beaches. We're stuck with what we have, unless we build to the outskirt of the beaches and hope people walk.

I've never seen a point in following a mandate perfectly. If this serves people efficiently, why do we care about the mandate? It's not like they're ignoring it by building new service.

The former ROW may be 'unencumbered' to Hume St. but it is far from intact. Beyond that, it is either encroached or built over.

Mandates of the government and its agencies, boards and commissions are defined by legislation. If its okay for them to wander off them for something we like, we really can't complain when they do it for something we don't.

I get what many are saying, that perhaps we need something like an 'Ontario VIA' , perhaps even to convince the federal government to transfer over any intra-provincial service (along with the requisite funding, of course), but the government needs the proper legislative and regulatory authority to do that and, concomitantly, spending our money. If you looks at the Metrolinx Act, the "regional transportation area" is actually quite broad, roughly encompassing Peterborough west to Waterloo and south to Niagara, plus "any other prescribed area" (covering both rail and bus). Ideally, the Board should somehow reflect to areas served. As a very simple example, the proposed squiggly red line goes into Gray County, which is currently not part of Metrolinx's legislated service area. Easily fixed? Sure, but it should be addressed.

What if some government got it in their head that they want to operate an airline (remember NorOntair?) There might be all sorts of great functional reasons for that, but I would hope there would be public debate and enabling legislation.

I think Metrolinx needs to decide what it wants to be. A commuter network? A regional transportation system? A provincial transportation system? A tourist system? All or some of the above?

 

[OntarioOnTheMove]

On the freight side of things:

 

[44 North]

Schenectady eh. Curious what the chemicals are, and where they're going. It's fun to follow the manufacturing supply chains sometimes.

 

[micheal_can]

Yes our commuter train system caters to drivers who make up the majority. Go figure.
The past does not need to define the future.
You are missing the point of regional rail.
I bet you that the typical GO demographic is not the same group of people riding trains to Niagara Falls.

The point of regional rail is to get more people out of their cars. The point of commuter rail is to get people out of there cars. The difference is that regional rail tends to go both directions all day, where as commuter rail tends to go with the flow of commuters. I'd say they might be the same demographic - people who don't feel the need to sit in traffic. Your argument makes one believe that most of Via riders don't own cars. That is most likely not the case.

 

[Northern Light]

Mandates of the government and its agencies, boards and commissions are defined by legislation. If its okay for them to wander off them for something we like, we really can't complain when they do it for something we don't.

LOL, we can always complain; its just that sometimes it would be hypocritical............nothing new there!

I get what many are saying, that perhaps we need something like an 'Ontario VIA' ,

Sorta, not exactly, but Yes.
We want to be able to offer transportation services that the private sector can't or won't, at least at prices that work for people, and that VIA cannot or will not offer.
That doesn't mean from anywhere to anywhere or unlimited subsidy, it means the ability to intelligently fill gaps.
On longer distance trips and/or those aimed at higher end tourism (by rail) that might mean contracting VIA to provide service; rather than duplicating their rolling stock, maintenance facilities and service models.
On shorter distance or commuter-oriented trips, it might mean mimicking the current GO model; but not necessarily hubbed out of Toronto.
Many U.S. States have Transportation depts which contract Amtrak to run some commuter or other services. At the same time, many States also have state or regionally owned commuter rail.
Its about the ability to find the right fit for the circumstances.

Ideally, the Board should somehow reflect to areas served. As a very simple example, the proposed squiggly red line goes into Gray County, which is currently not part of Metrolinx's legislated service area. Easily fixed? Sure, but it should be addressed.

Were Mx involved in province-wide transit, I would not expect it to have people on its Board from ever regional municipality in the province.
I do agree it would be useful to have people on the Board who have knowledge of regional needs......but I'd be cautious about over quota-ization.

What if some government got it in their head that they want to operate an airline (remember NorOntair?)

Can't say I do. But of course, you're making me look it up, but not tonight! LOL

There might be all sorts of great functional reasons for that, but I would hope there would be public debate and enabling legislation.

For Mx to operate a mode that to my knowledge has no obvious public transport counterpoint anywhere else in North America...........sure
I tend to think that comparison overreaches though. We're really talking about growing the geographic mandate of an agency, that's all.
Yes, that should be in either the legislation or regulation............it does matter...........still, I wouldn't over sell it.

I think Metrolinx needs to decide what it wants to be. A commuter network? A regional transportation system? A provincial transportation system? A tourist system? All or some of the above?

It should be an agency in terms of meeting the public interest, in transportation services, by bus or rail that are not otherwise met by existing public or private sector operators.

 

[wopchop]

The point of regional rail is to get more people out of their cars. The point of commuter rail is to get people out of there cars. The difference is that regional rail tends to go both directions all day, where as commuter rail tends to go with the flow of commuters. I'd say they might be the same demographic - people who don't feel the need to sit in traffic. Your argument makes one believe that most of Via riders don't own cars. That is most likely not the case.

No, the goal should be to convince people they don't need to own a car at all.
Once they own cars, the battle is nearly lost before we start.
To do that you need a robust network with many regional destinations. Not only hubs of employment, but destinations that also offer education, recreation, nightlife, events, etc. You need to connect as many places as possible.
I am not talking about a simple hub system that goes 2-ways, but true regional transit options.
The more gaps in the network, the more reasons for people to buy cars.

This is a total lifestyle change versus a commuter demographic.

The commuter demographic is slightly different as they only need the transit to go to their place of employment. After that they will drive home, to the store, to the relatives houses, and everywhere else. Lots of these people still drive to watch the Leafs or Blue Jays or see a concert downtown, despite good transit options and high parking costs.
Convincing the majority of these people to change those habits will be incredibly difficult. Probably impossible. That's not to say we should not try, but a bigger effort needs to be placed or nurturing young ridership.
Focus on the future and give them the ability to live that radically different lifestyle.

Don't understand your point about VIA.The long distance market is not perfectly comparable to regional travel. Regional trips will happen on a more frequent basis for the majority of people. It's not so simple to say people are flying or taking the train to Montreal because they want to avoid traffic. A big reason they are doing it is because they don't want to drive 500 km one way.

 

[picard102]

OK? I thought we are talking about the future here.
There is a large market of households in GTA without cars. I think something like 1/3 of Toronto households have no vehicle.
This trend is likely to keep increasing in the coming decades.
Preparing our public infrastructure to accommodate that growth is essential. Especially if we want to continue encouraging that trend so that we can drive down emissions.
We won't be able to grow a transit culture if our transit options are so limited.

The point is that to grow a "transit culture" you have to make it appealing.
Transfering to a shuttle bus isn't appealing. If I didn't own a car, I'd rent one.

Once they own cars, the battle is nearly lost before we start.

I go up to Collingwood several times a year, as my partner has family there, and my mother and brother live in Owen Sound.
I'd love nothing more than to have an easy way to get there without driving.

The more gaps in the network, the more reasons for people to buy cars.

A shuttle bus is a gap.

 

[micheal_can]

No, the goal should be to convince people they don't need to own a car at all.
Once they own cars, the battle is nearly lost before we start.
To do that you need a robust network with many regional destinations. Not only hubs of employment, but destinations that also offer education, recreation, nightlife, events, etc. You need to connect as many places as possible.
I am not talking about a simple hub system that goes 2-ways, but true regional transit options.
The more gaps in the network, the more reasons for people to buy cars.

This is a total lifestyle change versus a commuter demographic.

The commuter demographic is slightly different as they only need the transit to go to their place of employment. After that they will drive home, to the store, to the relatives houses, and everywhere else. Lots of these people still drive to watch the Leafs or Blue Jays or see a concert downtown, despite good transit options and high parking costs.
Convincing the majority of these people to change those habits will be incredibly difficult. Probably impossible. That's not to say we should not try, but a bigger effort needs to be placed or nurturing young ridership.
Focus on the future and give them the ability to live that radically different lifestyle.

Don't understand your point about VIA.The long distance market is not perfectly comparable to regional travel. Regional trips will happen on a more frequent basis for the majority of people. It's not so simple to say people are flying or taking the train to Montreal because they want to avoid traffic. A big reason they are doing it is because they don't want to drive 500 km one way.

The reality is that kind of change is not going to happen with this line running trains both ways. That is because outside of the core, transit is almost useless. Look at the mess of the BLAST network or Brampton's handling of the HLRT. So, if you really want people to give up their cars, you need to focus on local transit, not regional rail.

 

[wopchop]

The point is that to grow a "transit culture" you have to make it appealing.
Transfering to a shuttle bus isn't appealing. If I didn't own a car, I'd rent one.


I go up to Collingwood several times a year, as my partner has family there, and my mother and brother live in Owen Sound.
I'd love nothing more than to have an easy way to get there without driving.

A shuttle bus is a gap.

Of course that is true. We need to make it appealing.

A shuttle bus is a gap, true. But that gap will exist for users everywhere in almost every case, even in transit meccas. When people arrive at Union, many need to transfer (i.e to the subway). Functionally that isn't much different than a shuttle. Transferring is an unfortunate reality of public transit, and really the only way around that is with cars.
I'm curious to hear what you would consider to be easy.

In the case of Collingwood, if the Province had the will, it appears they could easily push transit along the ROW to Hume St. It would be walking distance to downtown.

 

[Northern Light]

Of course that is true. We need to make it appealing.

A shuttle bus is a gap, true. But that gap will exist for users everywhere in almost every case, even in transit meccas. When people arrive at Union, many need to transfer (i.e to the subway). Functionally that isn't much different than a shuttle. Transferring is an unfortunate reality of public transit, and really the only way around that is with cars.
I'm curious to hear what you would consider to be easy.

In the case of Collingwood, if the Province had the will, it appears they could easily push transit along the ROW to Hume St. It would be walking distance to downtown.

I do think its important to distinguish a 'last mile' shuttle bus from an essential part of a core trip.

***

I'm not anti-bus; but if I was hauling skis up to Blue Mountain, and had to get that gear onto a train, but then I can relax, have a comfy seat, speed past the highway traffic, maybe even enjoy meal service or snacks.........I'm sold..........tell me to get out at Barrie, take all my gear off the train, schlep it on to the bus, where I'll be lucky if there's an on-board bathroom, and the travel speed is the same as traffic...........my enthusiasm is dropping rapidly.

vs

I got to Blue Mountain or within 1km of it, and I have a bus designed/laid out for skiiers which literally takes me to the door of my accommodation.....

or...

That same run......but aiming at Wasaga, maybe it only makes sense to have a station near the furthest beach, but many of family amenities are near Beach 1.
I could just walk to the nearest Beach, or I could grab a local bikeshare, ideally with cargo bike, or child seat...........or I could grab a local bus that runs parallel to all the beaches.........
since I'm not hauling skis, I think that might work.

Its a question of whether you want to grab the discretionary rider. I own a car
What are you offering me in exchange for ??? $40 round trip. That's a similar cost to the gas.........

You need to match or beat speed (travel time); you need to offer a level of comfort and amenity to offset some loss of flexibility (I'm now at the mercy of a train schedule) etc.
The point is not to be anti-bus, or to fail to acknowledge 'last mile' issues......But to say that a trip that is too cumbersome isn't worth it to the discretionary rider;
and the 'captive' rider is likely not a robust enough market to support such a service.