Krypto98
Active Member
If money is no object, the Fergus sub would be a better option.
|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
kalis0490
New Member
There are pretty huge developments that are being built on the Fergus sub. These two separate projects are at VMC density
Even if Milton routing is selected (it won't) The Fergus sub is a good place for an ion stage 4 tram-train anyways as future tod in the area is very dense (seen above)
Northern Light
Superstar
GO Transit is making service adjustments next week, on February 21st (day after Family Day).
Most of it is just some minor shuffling of train lengths.
The only service expansion I noted was extended 30M frequency after 9:30pm at night on LSW. (currently, this service is hourly west of Exhibition)
www.gotransit.com
Most of it is just some minor shuffling of train lengths.
The only service expansion I noted was extended 30M frequency after 9:30pm at night on LSW. (currently, this service is hourly west of Exhibition)
Train Schedule Changes | Service Updates | GO Transit
We’re making time changes to some weekday Lakeshore East and Lakeshore West train trips, some weekday and weekend Barrie line trips, and to some GO bus trips.
www.gotransit.com
Krypto98
Active Member
I'm guessing they have "staffing issues" still why the won't be able to add more trains...GO Transit is making service adjustments next week, on February 21st (day after Family Day).
Most of it is just some minor shuffling of train lengths.
The only service expansion I noted was extended 30M frequency after 9:30pm at night on LSW. (currently, this service is hourly west of Exhibition)
Train Schedule Changes | Service Updates | GO Transit
We’re making time changes to some weekday Lakeshore East and Lakeshore West train trips, some weekday and weekend Barrie line trips, and to some GO bus trips.
C_Johnson_1995
New Member
If this route is to be used, whoever will be operating the service (GO, Region of Waterloo etc) should look to getting their plans sorted. I have heard CN has lost one of their bigger customers on the Fergus Spur and is likely to abandon it soon.
Personally though, I found this alignment to be a bit lacking in that it's terminal was quite far from Galt.
Allandale25
Senior Member
Clarington GO expansion update coming in March
Residents can find out more about the status of the planned GO Train extension at a meeting in March.
www.durhamregion.com
The Bowmanville West Urban Centre plan will get an update next month.
On March 8 residents are invited to attend a webinar updating the Bowmanville West Urban Centre and GO station area plans.
Bowmanville West Urban Centre and Major Transit Station (GO Train) Area Secondary Plan Update
The Bowmanville West Urban Centre is being transformed into a mixed-use neighbourhood that will include a diversity of housing, shopping, and services along with new parks and boulevards.www.clarington.net
A mix of uses, including higher densities and increased building heights to support the planned GO Train extension, have been proposed for the planning area, which will be the largest commercial centre in Clarington. The area is roughly encompassed by Brookhill Boulevard and the Bowmanville Creek to the north, Boswell Drive across to Green Road on the west, Aspen Springs Drive to the south and Bowmanville Avenue to the east.
The Public Information Centre will be held March 8 at 7 p.m. online and by phone, and will outline the project overview and current status, feedback so far, updates on both the secondary plan and GO station area plan and next steps.
For more information or to register visit www.clarington.net/BowmanvilleWest.
Reecemartin
Active Member
I don’t post that often these days but I think people would probably appreciate to see the former Chief Planner saying GO RER has “low ridership potential”
Northern Light
Superstar
I think we need proper perspective here; but first, in order to do that, why don't we see exactly what Jenn had to say:
"to the relatively small ridership potential. But still, good."
I think 'relatively' is an important word here; and that implies a comparison.
GO's ridership in 2015 was ~13M and change, and according to this report:
The potential in ridership growth was 140% with fare integration etc.
So about another ~18M rides annually, based on the 15M service model.
That compares with TTC ridership as a whole at ~450M
So the growth is equal to roughly 3 weeks of ridership of Line 1.
In relative terms, the ridership potential is low.
****
Also, worth saying; Jenn finished by still endorsing the concept 'But, Still Good'.
I'm a proponent of GO RER; but the entire thing put together is fractional relative to the TTC unless you can drive capacity higher, by driving frequency higher than the 15M in the original plan.
That seems likely, I should add, but even at double the original plan (every 7'30) the capacity enhancement isn't huge relative to a single major subway line.
Now if you can get that time to 5'M or less.........
Last edited:
Sunnyside
Active Member
As an aside, and I’m sure your aware, GO Expansion seems to ignore the potential of local bus routes connecting to their stations instead of maintaining the status quo. 5 minutes versus 15 is a big difference, but the potential of any station will be small regardless if we can’t get bus riders passing by the station to use it. For example, Weston GO’s ridership will always be limited to the immediate area without riders on Lawrence/Dixon/etc buses getting off there (fare integration is a prerequisite too, ofc).
I don’t think this potential has even been studied, but I could be wrong. Maybe part of fare integration studies. It seems to be happening slowly in the 905, which do have integration w/GO and soon the TTC.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
With integration, people could start with the TTC, transfer to GO, and then transfer again to the TTC for the last section of their journey. If done within the 2 hour transfer for the TTC.
Last edited:
sixrings
Senior Member
With the integration it makes sense for me to transit to work. Without it there’s no incentive to not drive with my works free parking.
By the way. I like other countries which if the company offers free parking but you decide to take transit then they have to pay for your transit pass. Need more incentives to get drivers out of cars.
Undead
Senior Member
Came here to post the exact same thing. The TTC subway has massive ridership thanks to the robust bus network (by North American standards). We're leaving a LOT of GO ridership on the table if we don't do fare and frequent service integration.
And I agree with Reece that there's been significantly less attention on this issue than on the massive capital spend.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
On the first point, I whole heartedly agree.
On the latter, I would suggest there really have been lots of papers by third-party orgs (Toronto Board of Trade comes to mind as a high profile example) and gov't reports as well.
Its a matter of the province choosing to pay attention to and act upon said reports.
I think you'll find, if you look for it, that Mx actually is planning integration at many of their stations; its implementation of that planning that in many cases, has yet to be funded.
Undead
Senior Member
Oh yeah, well aware of those reports. Just lamenting that station access is getting less relatively less attention from the people who can actually do something about it.
Hmm, how does that square with the ~200k daily (pre pandemic) ridership? Doing a simple extrapolation over 250 working days yields ~49 million.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
The bottom line is the amount spent on GO, is going to be a lot more $/rider than subway in urban areas. But it's not about improving transit, as much as removing congestion on highway and let people from the suburbs get around better.
For annual numbers, 300 is the rule of thumb for systems with half-decent weekend service. Heck, it might be higher, given GO has reported full recovery of weekend ridership, but no where near yet for weekday ridership.