[robmausser]

Yes! Thank you! Thank you!

Exactly what I've been arguing for years on this forum. There are people on this forum that would be content to see stop spacing for the GO trains equivalent to a downtown streetcar because they can't say "No" to any station proposal. In their minds every proposed station is justified and warrants being built.

I'm against the Park Lawn proposal as well because of it's close proximity to Mimico. Would rather see the Ontario Line extended from Exhibition to Mimico with a stop at Park Lawn.

I don't understand the logic of claiming we can add more stops due to electrification. Why not get all the benefits of electrification and NOT add more stops? That would certainly make the GO train more competitive with highway driving. Build more subways and BRTs connecting to existing GO station instead of constructing infill GO stations.

Unfortunately I disagree with both of you, however on one caveat:

Using EMU's and advanced signalling CAN transform a regional rail system into basically an overground subway with stops as close as 1km apart, as long as their is a third and even a fourth track for express service.

You can't have a ton of stops on a service that comes in from Hamilton, but, those trains should almost never be making milk runs with a stop at every station.

They already have some express service on Lakeshore West, but it should be a consistent thing. Trains from Oakville and west should stop at a couple of stations at most on their way to Union, permanently. All the infill stations should be a service that only runs as far as Oakville (or even further east) and back to Union.

As long as there are two tiers of service like this, its totally feasible to have subway stop spacings on an EMU regional line.

 

[nfitz]

As long as their is two tiers of service like this, its totally feasible to have subway stop spacings on an EMU regional line.

But we don't (or seldom) put stops that close together on subway lines in the suburbs!

 

[Bojaxs]

As long as their is two tiers of service like this, its totally feasible to have subway stop spacings on an EMU regional line.

Vehemently disagree.

 

[T3G]

I think that, as long as people insist on turning the subway into a quasi-GO train, it's only reasonable to expect the reverse to be done as well.

Personally, I have no idea why local transit can't serve a local function and regional transit a regional function, but at this point the lines are so blurred I have no idea what the point of any transit system is supposed to be anymore. Does the Yonge line exist to provide local transit in Toronto, or to replace the GO train as a commuter service from Richmond Hill? Who knows? When you have opponents of the Crosstown station spacing saying the stations should be further apart so the line can serve a cross regional purpose akin to a GO train, all logic has gone out the window.

 

[Dan416]

Isn't it Metrolinx's job to coordinate what should serve regional trips versus local trips? If Lakeview is too close to Long Branch, so be it. I like the idea of extending the streetcar service further west.

 

[drum118]

Isn't it Metrolinx's job to coordinate what should serve regional trips versus local trips? If Lakeview is too close to Long Branch, so be it. I like the idea of extending the streetcar service further west.

Metrolinx responsibility is the Golden Horse Shoe and it includes all existing transit system per say. ML goal from day one is to merger all existing systems into one and farm out routes to various companies like London UK. All vehicles, uniforms would be own by ML to have one look across the system and follow their standards. York Region is this way now.

Back in 2007/08, John Howe and his team writing the Big Move Report asked me a number of times what was my views were for more stations on the existing lines. My answers that there should more stations, but not like the current ones as well a new type of service to services the stations.

There was to be no parking for them other pickup and drop off with the main goal for walk-in and transit users. Stations would be haft the size of current ones.

Service would be the milk run like it is today, Hop Scotch, limited express from x station to Union with local service beyond the start of the express run or only where express starts, Express like today in some cases to Regional Express.

The best place for the Lakeview station would be Dixie Rd as there are a fair number of development taking place there let alone the new Lakeview Community. There are 2 golf courses on the northside of the track.

You have Dixie Route 5 and the Lakeshore 23 route that would service the station.

As for streetcar servicing the Lakeshore is 2050 plus out if every with the BRT being the main goal with an ROW only as far as Cawthra Rd. Anything west of Cawthra has to be underground as there is no service room on the surface until west of Mississauga Rd. Even having an BRT going west of Mississauga Rd is over kill, let along streetcar until there is the density in the Clarkson area and on the Lakeshore.

 

[ARG1]

Exactly what I've been arguing for years on this forum. There are people on this forum that would be content to see stop spacing for the GO trains equivalent to a downtown streetcar because they can't say "No" to any station proposal. In their minds every proposed station is justified and warrants being built.

I'm against the Park Lawn proposal as well because of it's close proximity to Mimico. Would rather see the Ontario Line extended from Exhibition to Mimico with a stop at Park Lawn.

Literally no one on this forum has ever argued anywhere remotely this position, and hardly what even @crs1026 is claiming. Even in the most generous infill proposals, station spacing is usually limited to being ~2km apart, and even then most local services on lines like Kitchener are limited to a station every 3km or so. The closest 2 stations ever appear are Park Lawn and Mimico, but even then that's a 1 off thing where the stations are 1.3km apart. By contrast, the subway usually has stations every km on average if not less, never mind the "streetcar" where stops are usually closer together than the length of a single GO platform. Making extreme caricatures of what people you disagree with propose on here won't win you points with anyone.

I don't understand the logic of claiming we can add more stops due to electrification. Why not get all the benefits of electrification and NOT add more stops? That would certainly make the GO train more competitive with highway driving. Build more subways and BRTs connecting to existing GO station instead of constructing infill GO stations.

Most stations people propose/are being planned are stations located on highly trafficked streets that have extremely busy busses, or have BRT/LRT, or are a potential corridor for BRT/LRT. The only exception to this I can think of is maybe Park Lawn, but that's being planned to an existing and rapidly growing high density development that will see a lot of walk in traffic. Not exactly "someone's backyard as you put it".

Every other station that's being planned, whether its Concord GO (Viva Orange and Highway 407 busses), St. Clair - Old Weston (St Clair LRT/Streetcar), Spadina (Spadina LRT/Streetcar), or even East Harbour (Ontario Line, Future Broadview Ave Streetcar, and eventually maybe finally Waterfront East LRT) are all planned and built around Rapid Transit/local transit connections, exactly what you're asking for.

 

[nfitz]

Literally no one on this forum has ever argued anywhere remotely this position, and hardly what even @crs1026 is claiming. Even in the most generous infill proposals, station spacing is usually limited to being ~2km apart, and even then most local services on lines like Kitchener are limited to a station every 3km or so. The closest 2 stations ever appear are Park Lawn and Mimico, but even then that's a 1 off thing where the stations are 1.3km apart. By contrast, the subway usually has stations every km on average if not less, never mind the "streetcar" where stops are usually closer together than the length of a single GO platform. Making extreme caricatures of what people you disagree with propose on here won't win you points with anyone.

Most stations people propose/are being planned are stations located on highly trafficked streets that have extremely busy busses, or have BRT/LRT, or are a potential corridor for BRT/LRT. The only exception to this I can think of is maybe Park Lawn, but that's being planned to an existing and rapidly growing high density development that will see a lot of walk in traffic. Not exactly "someone's backyard as you put it".

Every other station that's being planned, whether its Concord GO (Viva Orange and Highway 407 busses), St. Clair - Old Weston (St Clair LRT/Streetcar), Spadina (Spadina LRT/Streetcar), or even East Harbour (Ontario Line, Future Broadview Ave Streetcar, and eventually maybe finally Waterfront East LRT) are all planned and built around Rapid Transit/local transit connections, exactly what you're asking for.

That would actually be cool if the GO stations were as close together as streetcar stops. Then you could install moving sidewalks on the platforms, and just stand on the platform until you get to the destination.

That's a great suggestion Bojaxs! The roads must roll!

 

[Bojaxs]

Literally no one on this forum has ever argued anywhere remotely this position, and hardly what even @crs1026 is claiming. Even in the most generous infill proposals, station spacing is usually limited to being ~2km apart, and even then most local services on lines like Kitchener are limited to a station every 3km or so. The closest 2 stations ever appear are Park Lawn and Mimico, but even then that's a 1 off thing where the stations are 1.3km apart. By contrast, the subway usually has stations every km on average if not less, never mind the "streetcar" where stops are usually closer together than the length of a single GO platform. Making extreme caricatures of what people you disagree with propose on here won't win you points with anyone.

Most stations people propose/are being planned are stations located on highly trafficked streets that have extremely busy busses, or have BRT/LRT, or are a potential corridor for BRT/LRT. The only exception to this I can think of is maybe Park Lawn, but that's being planned to an existing and rapidly growing high density development that will see a lot of walk in traffic. Not exactly "someone's backyard as you put it".

Every other station that's being planned, whether its Concord GO (Viva Orange and Highway 407 busses), St. Clair - Old Weston (St Clair LRT/Streetcar), Spadina (Spadina LRT/Streetcar), or even East Harbour (Ontario Line, Future Broadview Ave Streetcar, and eventually maybe finally Waterfront East LRT) are all planned and built around Rapid Transit/local transit connections, exactly what you're asking for.

I support adding stations where it makes sense. East Harbour, Concord, Confederation, Stock Yards station for the Milton line (which IMO would better serve the St. Clair street car), etc. As long as there's a decent amount of space between the stations, then I'm all for it.

But you guys understand what's going on here with this Lakeview station? Doug didn't agree to build this station because he cared about offering transit to the people in this neighbourhood. His developer buddies want to use the tax payers to fund a GO station to be constructed in this area so they can mark up the homes in this new master planned community on Lakeshore.

 

[Willybru21]

The only exception to this I can think of is maybe Park Lawn

Let’s not forget Park Lawn GO and the Humber Bay area are extremely similar to the Lakeview development and its proposed accompanying station. The population of the entire Humber Bay Shores neighbourhood is 39,186, and the population of just the Lakeview development on its own, not including the existing neighbourhoods nearby, will be 40,000.
Should we drop Park Lawn and only have Mimico?

City Place in Toronto only has 18,000 residents (based on 2020 numbers), should we drop Spadina-Front because Union is close enough?
I don't think so.

The average GO station stop spacing shouldn’t be under 2 kilometres outside of downtown Toronto unless the line has been upgraded beyond the scope of GO Expansion, however that doesn’t mean there can’t be exceptions for major residential areas.

 

[Metroscapes]

The average GO station stop spacing shouldn’t be under 2 kilometres outside of downtown Toronto unless the line has been upgraded beyond the scope of GO Expansion, however that doesn’t mean there can’t be exceptions for major residential areas.

While I would need to do some mapping and thinking to take a firm position, I'll insert some (what I think is) relevant content from the original Big Move (2008 Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan):

 

[reaperexpress]

Exactly what I've been arguing for years on this forum. There are people on this forum that would be content to see stop spacing for the GO trains equivalent to a downtown streetcar because they can't say "No" to any station proposal. In their minds every proposed station is justified and warrants being built.

This is a delusional interpretation. The average stop spacing on the streetcar network is 250 metres, and the length of a GO train platform is 315 metres. Like nfitz pointed out, you'd literally need a continous platform along the entire line to have that, since the stops would overlap. There's a big difference between 2 km spacing and 0.3 km spacing.

I'm against the Park Lawn proposal as well because of it's close proximity to Mimico. Would rather see the Ontario Line extended from Exhibition to Mimico with a stop at Park Lawn.

I don't understand the logic of claiming we can add more stops due to electrification. Why not get all the benefits of electrification and NOT add more stops? That would certainly make the GO train more competitive with highway driving. Build more subways and BRTs connecting to existing GO station instead of constructing infill GO stations.

We have explained about a bajillion times to you that Park Lawn will have ABSOLUTELY ZERO IMPACT on travel times from Oakville and points west because it's quad-tracked with platforms only on the 2 local tracks, the express trains won't stop there, and there will be express trains all day. Whether the local service is operated by GO trains or Ontario Line trains makes very little difference to passengers on express trains.

I do agree that the local service should be taken over by an Ontario line extension, but that's to free up track capacity within the Union Station Rail Corridor. It wouldn't speed up the express trains at all, but it would speed up local service since a light metro train will accelerate faster and have shorter dwells than a regional rail EMU.

I'm actually not a fan of the Lakeview proposal either but that's because even with the development it's not a particularly large development node, and not a great site for local transit connections. Even just looking at the local service as if it were a metro line, the station is a dubious proposition.

 

[robmausser]

I think that, as long as people insist on turning the subway into a quasi-GO train, it's only reasonable to expect the reverse to be done as well.

Personally, I have no idea why local transit can't serve a local function and regional transit a regional function, but at this point the lines are so blurred I have no idea what the point of any transit system is supposed to be anymore. Does the Yonge line exist to provide local transit in Toronto, or to replace the GO train as a commuter service from Richmond Hill? Who knows? When you have opponents of the Crosstown station spacing saying the stations should be further apart so the line can serve a cross regional purpose akin to a GO train, all logic has gone out the window.

Something that a lot of people on here don't think about, because we are mostly just transit fetishists, is cost.

Deciding what mode of transit should be used in a specific area should have a cross analysis between its usefulness and its ROI in terms of how expensive it will be to do.

An example would be say, running and building an LRT/elevated transit as infill stations beside a GO corridor, versus adding an extra GO train track, signalling upgrades, EMU trains and adding those infill stations as GO service along the corridor.

Whats the cross section of cost to do each and their usefulness, and what other usefulness and benefits would they have. For example, while purchasing EMU's may be more expensive, they add benefits to the entire GO line. Or, an LRT is more expensive, but it bridges the gap between local service better. etc.

But most people here just want done what they think is a nicer version of transit, and not whether it will be 4 times more expensive to do and offer no real tangible benefit over another mode.

 

[kaptrice]

In this case, there was a Lakeshore transportation study that considered extending some form of LRT west from Long Branch to Port Credit. That extension would serve the area and the proposed development much better than re-spacing GO stops, creating local connectivity as well as Regional connectivity - and likely in a similar range of cost.

I support electrification and a more frequent go service, but we really need to not fall into the fantasy that electrification and signalling is a magic bullet that can transform LSE/LSW into everybody's favourite subway system with stops spaced like the Yonge subway.. . GO should be left as a regional system with measured station spacing capable of competing with longer distance highway travel, and we need to build higher order transit for those first/last mile legs and to meet local needs.

- Paul

GO is slooooow, with terrible performance of huge, underpowered trains the culprit. Modern electrification, trains, and signalling as on the Munich S-Bahn delivers higher speeds than GO with triple the stations. Not quite a magic bullet, but certainly reason to jettison reflexive opposition to infill stations.

 

[nfitz]

View attachment 612442
GO is slooooow, with terrible performance of huge, underpowered trains the culprit. Modern electrification, trains, and signalling as on the Munich S-Bahn delivers higher speeds than GO with triple the stations. Not quite a magic bullet, but certainly reason to jettison reflexive opposition to infill stations.

Doing a bit of spot-checking. The average station distance for REM is 4.2 km, not (about) 2.6 km. That does put that graph into question. (though I suspect that the general trends are correct).