[andrewmaps]

Nobody is proposing a station east of the bridge. It's just a tail track. See the diagrams in my post above, the platforms are just the two existing ones.

You need to design the transfer time around the slowest user, not the fastest user. And no matter how well you position yourself on the bay platform, you're never going to match the convenience of the tail track option that drops you off on the same platform where the next train picks you up.

Adding retaining walls and acquiring property would definitely be more expensive than adding a second set of spans to a bridge that already has the abutments for them.

That was the image Google Maps gave me, not sure why you're getting an older one. Maybe you have 3D buildings on, they don't update 3D imagery very often.

In any case my go-to for recent images is Google Earth via its Time tool. Many cities also have their own online mapping tool that may have more recent imagery than Google Maps.

Oh, ok, I get it... the DMU stops at the existing platform, then accesses the trail track before coming back? yes, that seems much easier! Thanks for the clarification

 

[CapitalSeven]

It's interesting that the tail track operation described is just what Ottawa designed, paid for, and built for the airport line. Then before they even got to final trials they abandoned it for a simpler operation which at least triples the transfer time. So there is some risk on designing around complex moves.

 

[reaperexpress]

It's interesting that the tail track operation described is just what Ottawa designed, paid for, and built for the airport line. Then before they even got to final trials they abandoned it for a simpler operation which at least triples the transfer time. So there is some risk on designing around complex moves.

My understanding is that the 7-minute same platform transfer I illustrated is actually the pattern currently used at South Keys. The original design was a more complex operation with 2-minute cross-platform transfers and trains running in both directions on both tracks.

 

[CapitalSeven]

It's still a same-platform transfer but 7 minutes instead of 2. Instead of using the pocket track while the main line trains meet, it's timed so that it simply arrives, loads, and departs halfway through the 12 minute cycle using the western track. The switches and pocket track are not being used. They may try to go back to the original eventually, but neither the city nor the media will discuss this issue publically.

None of these issues are a surprise. Ottawa always cheaps out at the expense of future expansion, and places no priority on efficient transfers or fast service.

As it happens I may be riding it to the airport this afternoon. If so I'll report in the Ottawa thread.

 

[nfitz]

Wow, epic fail. Google maps tells me the quickest way from the Airport to Lyon station is take the 97 bus to Herdman (17 minutes), and then 5 minutes later take Line 1 to Lyon (11 minutes). That's 33 minutes total.

Alternatively take the 97 bus 6 minutes to Greenbro, then 8 minutes later take Line 2 to Bayview (19 minute trip) and than 5 minutes later take Line 1 to Lyon (4 minutes). Total time 42 minutes.

If you play with the options enough, it will come up with Line 4 (7 minutes) to South Keys, wait 7 minutes and then take Line 2 to Bayview ( 21 minute trip) and than 5 minutes later take Line 1 to Lyon (4 minutes). Total time 44 minutes.

So best thing to do by far is ignore Line 2 and Line 4, and take the 97 bus.

Surely a direct bus from the airport to downtown would be faster than changing twice on 3 different LRT lines. They should call this new system Transfer City!

 

[CapitalSeven]

It's true that the train adds 15 or 20 minutes from downtown, another thing the media haven't noticed, though it is more dependable. Ottawa buses have become very unreliable. It was always a vanity project, never about speed or capacity. The question for Cambridge to Guelph should hinge on those 2 factors.

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

And yet it's bigger than Brantford, and the city itself is bigger than the City of Kingston (not to mention Peterborough, which is smaller than all three).

The difference is that those cities are conveniently located between two larger cities. Cambridge is not. A city of Cambridge's size doesn't warrant a bespoke rail connection of its own.

It's true that the train adds 15 or 20 minutes from downtown, another thing the media haven't noticed, though it is more dependable. Ottawa buses have become very unreliable. It was always a vanity project, never about speed or capacity. The question for Cambridge to Guelph should hinge on those 2 factors.

Indeed this project feels like checking a box rather than for a real tangible benefit. That's something that unfortunately common to far too many ongoing rail projects in this province.

 

[crs1026]

The difference is that those cities are conveniently located between two larger cities. Cambridge is not. A city of Cambridge's size doesn't warrant a bespoke rail connection of its own.

Population 138,000ish, every single one of those folks living within 10 kms of an overcongested 6-lane 401?

I agree that the Guelph connection may not show the best ROI, but to minimise the importance of getting good transit connections to Cambridge is a bad line of argument.

Indeed this project feels like checking a box rather than for a real tangible benefit. That's something that unfortunately common to far too many ongoing rail projects in this province.

Again, this project may be a B priority.....but....What are these "ongoing rail projects" that you feel are a waste of money?

The only one I would question is the Northlander, and it hardly is opening the door to others.
Barrie ? Kitchener ? Lincolnville ? Bowmanville? Confederation? Niagara? Milton? All sound, and more badly needed, especially a proper London service. What else is there Ongoing ?

- Paul

 

[robmausser]

Population 138,000ish, every single one of those folks living within 10 kms of an overcongested 6-lane 401?

I agree that the Guelph connection may not show the best ROI, but to minimise the importance of getting good transit connections to Cambridge is a bad line of argument.



Again, this project may be a B priority.....but....What are these "ongoing rail projects" that you feel are a waste of money?

The only one I would question is the Northlander, and it hardly is opening the door to others.
Barrie ? Kitchener ? Lincolnville ? Bowmanville? Confederation? Niagara? Milton? All sound, and more badly needed, especially a proper London service. What else is there Ongoing ?

- Paul

I think London GO train is a waste of time and money.

It should be an extension of the HSR project to Windsor.

London is simply too far for GO service.

 

[nfitz]

London is simply too far for GO service.

I see no reason that there shouldn't be London to Kitchener or London to Guelph or London to Hamilton service.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Just totally throwing this out there without any sort of looking into it, but did the study look at creating a spur of the ION LRT along the fergus spur instead of a separate EMU?

Would mean catenary would need to be hooked up but potentially could be a phase 3 of the LRT? Similar to how the LRT uses the Waterloo Spur.

If we are examining the benefits of an EMU over a spur of the GO train from Union, more frequency, more of a connection between Cambridge and Guelph etc, why don't we look into creating an LRT spur off of Pinebush.

Not publicly anyway; this has always been framed as “GO train”, which isn’t all that surprising with the project originating with a pretty explicit presumption that a Milton extension was preferable. I do think we need to take another look at this; the line is quicker, cheaper and easier to implement as mainline absolutely, but I would strongly suggest that yes, regional leadership and ION branding is the way to go.

Catenary doesn’t make much sense with 30 minute frequency, and per the discussions above, more than that has some pretty major implications on GO operations at Guelph… however I WOULD suggest that (not for the first time) that if there is ANY corridor that Tram Trains are suitable for its this once Ion opens. Taking the proposed service, connecting to Ion and running to Galt would be quite compelling, and offer enough time under wire to suggest that in motion charging is feasible for BEMUs.

I’d also point out that with regional leadership and a local focus a second station in Hespeler has a lot to offer, and in the Tram Train version could very easily accommodate more frequent service than the Cambridge Guelph section needs or could accommodate without major work at Guelph Central.

I measure the route to Guelph via the GJR and the Milton Line as being 10 km longer than the current route via the Kitchener Line (88 km to Union vs 78), and the Milton/GJR route has a lot more curves, so I imagine the travel time to Union would be a lot longer that way. I do like the idea of a more direct Guelph-Milton-Mississauga train service though.

No, this isn’t about Cambridge, or even Guelph - Union, it IS about capturing that Mississauga bound traffic. Frankly my view of the importance of the markets is such that if Midtown GO were a live project I’d be inclined to suggest that the service pattern look like ALL Milton trains to Union, and ALL Guelph Trains to Durham via Midtown. And to be clear, no, my point isn’t that we need to extend Milton to Guelph immediately, just that such an extension makes a LOT more sense than going to Cambridge.

To my mind, while it is doable, it may still only be a B priority.

In my mind this falls SQUARELY into a C at best priority if Metrolinx does it… But in terms of the Region working on it, its NOT be the highest priority in transportation terms, but it IS an achievable quick win that has excellent strategic implications… and is also time sensitive given the desire CN seems to have for abandonment. Politically it could also be a nice consolation prize if Ion is going to be pushed off a decade by the cost escalation.

In my view the things that are higher priorities locally are either hugely more expensive like the actual Ion corridor and Stage 3 RT as the transportation master plan sketches it, or are fundamentally much more about operations than capital - ie bus frequency and the highway express that showed up in the business plan.

I think London GO train is a waste of time and money.

It should be an extension of the HSR project to Windsor.

Fortunately for you it’s dead and gone; as is the HSR.

And I don’t think you’ll find anyone who was especially fond of extending un upgraded GO trains to London…. What I did, and DO, suggest is that there are meaningful advantages to getting the full north main into provincial hands so the corridor can operate under a single organization, and be explicitly aimed at regional passengers; Toronto - London traffic really doesn’t make any sense coming through Kitchener without HSR, while directing it south can let VIA focus on one corridor and optimize it for through traffic. At the same time, Ontario already has small charger sets that would be perfectly suited to the corridor coming for Northlander coming…. a few more sets would serve the north main line nicely, and shouldn’t be egregiously complicated organizationally with Ontario Northland seeming to already intend to use VIA facilities for heavy maintenance.

 

[reaperexpress]

I think London GO train is a waste of time and money.

It should be an extension of the HSR project to Windsor.

London is simply too far for GO service.

London is less than an hour by train from Kitchener if the tracks are upgraded and roughly 75 min from Guelph. That's easily within commuting distance.

Fallowfield to Brockville (95 km) is pretty much the same distance as London to Kitchener (94 km):

 

[reaperexpress]

It's still a same-platform transfer but 7 minutes instead of 2. Instead of using the pocket track while the main line trains meet, it's timed so that it simply arrives, loads, and departs halfway through the 12 minute cycle using the western track. The switches and pocket track are not being used. They may try to go back to the original eventually, but neither the city nor the media will discuss this issue publically.

None of these issues are a surprise. Ottawa always cheaps out at the expense of future expansion, and places no priority on efficient transfers or fast service.

As it happens I may be riding it to the airport this afternoon. If so I'll report in the Ottawa thread.

Ah okay. Well there's a big difference in switch wear/tear between the Ottawa Airport line that runs 5x/h and the proposed cambridge line that would run 1x/h. Similarly the challenge of interleaving the DMU with the mainline service is a lot easier when the mainline only runs 1 to 2 trains per hour vs 5 in Ottawa.

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

Population 138,000ish, every single one of those folks living within 10 kms of an overcongested 6-lane 401?

I agree that the Guelph connection may not show the best ROI, but to minimise the importance of getting good transit connections to Cambridge is a bad line of argument.

Right, but a high quality bus line with protected lanes and articulated/bi-articulated vehicles would be a significantly cheaper project with better performance and greater flexibility. Rail isn't the right mode for Cambridge.

Again, this project may be a B priority.....but....What are these "ongoing rail projects" that you feel are a waste of money?

The only one I would question is the Northlander, and it hardly is opening the door to others.

The Northlander is the biggest one by far, but there are also projects like this. Bowmanville doesn't make any sense given its small population and massive infrastructure build out requirements. I believe Stage 2 ION fits in quite handily as well with its dramatic cost escalation. We also must not forget the London GO Pilot. Then there's the Bear Train which hopefully won't get out of the proposal phase.

In my opinion, this project is particularly egregious because of the poor quality of the proposed alignment and service design.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

I believe Stage 2 ION fits in quite handily as well with its dramatic cost escalation.

I’d suggest, in pretty strong terms, that you look at what has caused the escalation. This is a more complex, higher grade project than stage 1 with a lot more grade separation… the infrastructure costs of which first and foremost stem from topographic issues that any highway expansion ALSO HAS. It would be one thing to push the expansion out another decade while shoulder bus lanes can handle the capacity (and I’d suggest that the highway express GRT has proposed is aimed at doing exactly that), but with the regions growth being what it is, big infrastructure will be needed on a less than multi decadal timeframe and none of this is getting cheaper.

Bearing in mind that Ion was always promised as a single project in two stages, I’d suggest that it’s also a long way from fair to assign all stage 2 costs to Cambridge rather than looking at the line as a whole… 4.5 billion for the Cambridge extension isn’t great, but 5.5 -6 for the whole Waterloo region spine isn’t bad at all.