[ssiguy2]

For Ottawa I was specifically thinking of Carleton Place. For Windsor it is definitely the Windsor/Esses/Kingsville/Leamington corridor which has 70,000 people and is already such a heavy commuter route that it is currently being twinned between Leamington & Windsor.

For London, it is right smack dab in the middle of a number of commuter towns. St.Thomas 47,000, Ingersol 14,000, Woodstock 50,000, Aylmer 8500, Tillsonburg 19,000, Strathroy 18,000, Middlesex Centre 23,000, Thames Centre 14,0000, as well as St.Mary's 7,000 and Stratford 32,000 in Perth counties. What also makes a GO bus network particularly competitive in London is that London has no urban freeways so the buses can move just as fast as any car and faster if they can use the new London BRT routes.

London is not only a large city but also a regional one for education, healthcare, gov't services, shopping, entertainment, and, of course, employment.

 

[kEiThZ]

This falls under a solution to a problem that we don't want to admit - sprawl. Picture taking a place like Renfrew and building 20+ story towers. How quickly would the sell or rent if there was a good transit connection to Ottawa? The same can be asked of places like St Thomas.

You're promoting transit induced sprawl. Why the heck should anybody build 20 storey towers in Renfrew over simply building more quadplexes and townhouses in Ottawa? All to justify buses to Renfrew? Ridiculous.

And even if towers are to be put up for cheap housing, there's no need to be 90+ km from Parliament Hill. Plenty of cheap land within the service area of OC Transpo and STO. And if necessary, just beyond that.

 

[kEiThZ]

For Ottawa I was specifically thinking of Carleton Place.

Personally never known anybody in Carleton Place or a town like that that was really interested in bus commutes. Not in the least, because they tended to have a wide distribution of final destinations (not all going downtown) which made any bus commute quite difficult. Any subsidized bus service would end up about as successful as GO's 4 hr train from London to Toronto.

For London, it is right smack dab in the middle of a number of commuter towns. St.Thomas 47,000, Ingersol 14,000, Woodstock 50,000, Aylmer 8500, Tillsonburg 19,000, Strathroy 18,000, Middlesex Centre 23,000, Thames Centre 14,0000, as well as St.Mary's 7,000 and Stratford 32,000 in Perth counties.

Simply being near a city doesn't make them "commuter towns" for that city. For example, why would you assume that somebody in Stratford is more interested in commuting to London than KWC? And go ahead and show us how commuter interest in Woodstock compares between London, KWC, Hamilton and even the GTA.

The discussion here gets ridiculous when it's all based on emotional nonsense and appeals to fairness that never consider actual need. You don't care about ridership. You want buses (even if they are empty) running to these places just to say they have regional service. The very fact that these cities aren't themselves clamouring for regional transport (especially to London) over all the other priorities they have should tell you that they don't consider it substantially important. Put it this way, how many of them have subsidized their own transit services to London or have high shuttle demand to London? I would bet Pearson Airport shuttles from London have higher demand than commuters from every town you listed.

 

[crs1026]

The discussion here gets ridiculous when it's all based on emotional nonsense and appeals to fairness that never consider actual need. You don't care about ridership. You want buses (even if they are empty) running to these places just to say they have regional service. The very fact that these cities aren't themselves clamouring for regional transport (especially to London) over all the other priorities they have should tell you that they don't consider it substantially important. Put it this way, how many of them have subsidized their own transit services to London or have high shuttle demand to London? I would bet Pearson Airport shuttles from London have higher demand than commuters from every town you listed.

This is the gap. There is no *plan* beyond a GTA transit plan.

Various people here want someone, anyone, to run out and start running their favourite imaginary service, today. That would be foolish. Ontario muddied the water by doing just that with its GO expansion to Niagara and London - and Timmins.

Much as I hate studies - and much as I deplore ML for its ivory tower mentality - Ontario got it right by developing a 25 year transit plan for the GTA, and then scoping out specific projects within that plan.

The proper and rational approach beyond the GTA would be to do a comprehensive review of needs and transportation patterns and costs, and decclare what kind of network would make sense. We could call it The Bigger Move. Then we could begin execution. (Digression - some bits of that plan are already in the can or in the works eg the SW Ontario consultation, the Northlander IBC.... but this needs a framework)

I do believe that the proper placement of this planning is at the Provincial level, because it should be looking at where highways can be leveraged versus where building transit infrastructure is more economical than further highway construction. It also greatly is impacted by land use planning - particularly with respect to where we tolerate urban sprawl.

There is a huge legislative gap because Ontario as a province has no leverage towards either VIA or freight railways and cannot even contract with VIA without considerable intrusion by the feds. This may lure some into thinking that VIA is at fault for not jumping into the gap. Down the road, VIA may be the better placed agency to execute under contract - but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Ontario needs to lay out its plan for what its transportation plan looks like, choosing modes and priorities on a level basis across road rail etc - and then we can discuss how to build it.

Whether the plan is built by ML, the MTO, or a new agency is a lesser detail. Just get the planning going.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

You're promoting transit induced sprawl. Why the heck should anybody build 20 storey towers in Renfrew over simply building more quadplexes and townhouses in Ottawa? All to justify buses to Renfrew? Ridiculous.

And even if towers are to be put up for cheap housing, there's no need to be 90+ km from Parliament Hill. Plenty of cheap land within the service area of OC Transpo and STO. And if necessary, just beyond that.

Canada has a problem with building housing appropriate for the land it is sitting on. Point was that if the plan was to extend anything out, then there needs to be a plan to avoid the sea of single family housing that is being built everywhere. So, one of the best ideas would be that within 1km of where a future rail station is to be built in somewhere like Renfrew, it be zoned for density

As far as within the existing catchment area, why is it not already being built on?

 

[kEiThZ]

As far as within the existing catchment area, why is it not already being built on?

For a whole host of reasons. And virtually all of those reasons apply substantially more to some insane idea to build a high rise 95 km from Parliament Hill.

Tall buildings aren't cheap to build. It's only done because land assembly is cheaper. There's no real business case to build 20 storey buildings in a place like Renfrew when the cost per unit would be only marginally than a house 10 mins drive from the station. So what rail service would do is simply create massive demand for more subdivisions with maybe a few token 5 storey buildings near the station.

Broadly, these insane fantasy plans based on nothing but grievance and conjecture will thankfully never be funded. Want a regional network for your region? Prove there's demand by putting your own money into regional bus service first. There are towns in the Ottawa area that have done this. London is actually quite poor for this.

 

[micheal_can]

For a whole host of reasons. And virtually all of those reasons apply substantially more to some insane idea to build a high rise 95 km from Parliament Hill.

Tall buildings aren't cheap to build. It's only done because land assembly is cheaper. There's no real business case to build 20 storey buildings in a place like Renfrew when the cost per unit would be only marginally than a house 10 mins drive from the station. So what rail service would do is simply create massive demand for more subdivisions with maybe a few token 5 storey buildings near the station.

Broadly, these insane fantasy plans based on nothing but grievance and conjecture will thankfully never be funded. Want a regional network for your region? Prove there's demand by putting your own money into regional bus service first. There are towns in the Ottawa area that have done this. London is actually quite poor for this.

You could have just said one thing:there is no incentive to build on vacant land.

 

[kEiThZ]

You could have just said one thing:there is no incentive to build on vacant land.

There is more than factor. But just like your insistence that safety was the only reason North American rail costs were higher, you're going to have a time understanding the multi& factoral nature of the housing crisis. And I don't need to waste my time or others with your off-tangent trolling.

 

[micheal_can]

There is more than factor. But just like your insistence that safety was the only reason North American rail costs were higher, you're going to have a time understanding the multi& factoral nature of the housing crisis. And I don't need to waste my time or others with your off-tangent trolling.

This off tangent thing was brought to you by the ones saying that a bus route between St Thomas and London will be a failure.

 

[kEiThZ]

This off tangent thing was brought to you by the ones saying that a bus route between St Thomas and London will be a failure.

Talking about regional transport to London in a thread about London is not off-tangent you absolute troll. Talking about building 20 storey buildings in Renfrew is.

 

[micheal_can]

GO should be running intercity commuter services in all of areas of Ontario, it is called Government of ONTARIO. This would mean services in Greater Ottawa, London, and Windsor to start as long as it's not run by a bunch of Toronto-centric bureaucrats who can't get their heads around the fact that not everyone wants to go to Toronto. This is what killed the GO rail service to London..............it was designed and built for Torontonians and not Londoners. Only someone who has never been to London, except at the ribbon cutting ceremony, would be stupid enough to build a "commuter" line that takes 4 hours to a destination no Londoner needs to get to, and all while not bothering to check the London Transit schedule to find out that you couldn't catch the only train by transit because it leaves before any of the morning London buses arrive downtown.

There are over 800,000 people in the greater London Economic Region as defined by StatsCan.........Middlesex, Elgin, and Oxford counties all of which are growing very quickly. There is a solid need for GO commuter bus system and the subsidies that come along with it, including fare integration. Ottawa also needs a similar GO system to serve it's outer commuter suburbs as does Windsor connecting to Leamington. The Windsor to Leamington stretch has 70,000 people.

It's a matter of fairness. If Toronto commuters get GO bus/transit expansion free of charge and a subsidized fare structure including fare integration, then why shouldn't areas outside of the GGH? Last time I checked, people outside the GGH pay the same taxes as those in it so they should enjoy similar benefits. These are not some little cities asking for Toronto benefits but the 3 biggest cities outside the GGH. Ottawa has over 1.1 million and the nation's capitol, London has a commuter shed of over 800,000 and is {arguably with Hamilton} the 3rd most important city in the province, and Windsor/Essex has 500,000 and the busiest international crossing in the country and a huge manufacturing base.

This kind of inequity from Queen's Park is what produces animosity between the GGH and the rest of the province and that is not healthy economically, socially, or politically.

Ottawa needs a GO like system? Where?

STO and OCTranspo already have fare integration, so that's not a problem. I've used some STO busses to get around Gatineau and especially used the Rapidbus, its mostly fine if you need to get around some of the core suburbs. The only real issue that persists is getting around the region quickly, but even then that's a product of much of infrastructure not being available due to O-train construction (Bus services between Kanata and Lincoln Fields are a nightmare to use atm). Furthermore, based on the performance of Stage 1, I'm concerned about how quickly Line 3 will be able to move people from Bayshore/Kanata to Downtown, not to mention all the way to Place D'Orleans. However, these aren't the type of issues that need to be solved by bringing in Metrolinx and creating a 3rd bus system, these are all issues that the city is fully capable of solving and can be solved for cheap (a lot can be said about building a Trillium Line style service on the Beechburg Sub which the city could easily afford in the next 5-10 years), and simply running more regional express bus services along the 417, something OCTranspo should be more than capable of.

Ok, I want you to state exactly what you're asking for. You bring up Ottawa, but the Ottawa region already has full fare integration excluding VIA, and the Otrain Phases 2+3 will bring rail services within 5km of like 80% of the population. The only reason Phase 3 has been put on hold is due to how incompetent the construction of Phase 1 has been. London could've had a lot more built if it wasn't for local politics. You want London to have a GO like system? Please tell me where and how. You claim that 800k live in Middlesex, Elgin, and Oxford Counties, but you do realize just how massive that area is right? Even if I take your word for it that those 3 counties combined have a population of 800k, London alone has 400k over only 437km^2. Serving the 3 counties using GO busses would almost certainly leave those routes being some of the lowest ridership routes on GO's network. Fact of the matter is, London is far from being a city that has the need for a provincially subsidized regional bus service, and it certainly shouldn't be a priority for the provincial government.

Talking about regional transport to London in a thread about London is not off-tangent you absolute troll. Talking about building 20 storey buildings in Renfrew is.

Look above. This is where it all stems from.

 

[Haljackey]

I would bet Pearson Airport shuttles from London have higher demand than commuters from every town you listed.

It's usually easier and cheaper overalll just to fly to Pearson from the London airport. Connecting flights are a steal. I'm flying to Vegas this summer and it cost me a loonie more to take a flight from London to connect at Pearson than flying out of Pearson itself. Saves the cost of airport shuttles, or driving (stress, gas $, parking $).

You can get to the London airport less than an hour before your flight its super simple- but your layover time in Pearson can depend how the flights are lined up. I'm there for 2h, and I kinda need that time to clear customs anyway.

The original HSR plan the old libs had was to connect from London to Toronto via Kitchener and Pearson. That would put these connecting flights out of business if built.

 

[micheal_can]

It's usually easier and cheaper overalll just to fly to Pearson from the London airport. Connecting flights are a steal. I'm flying to Vegas this summer and it cost me a loonie more to take a flight from London to connect at Pearson than flying out of Pearson itself. Saves the cost of airport shuttles, or driving (stress, gas $, parking $).

You can get to the London airport less than an hour before your flight its super simple- but your layover time in Pearson can depend how the flights are lined up. I'm there for 2h, and I kinda need that time to clear customs anyway.

The original HSR plan the old libs had was to connect from London to Toronto via Kitchener and Pearson. That would put these connecting flights out of business if built.

Part of the goal is to make more space for more planes to land at Pearson. So, if you get rid of those regional flights, you have more space for other flights from further away.

 

[kEiThZ]

Look above. This is where it all stems from.

Look who brought up 20 storey towers in Renfrew.

Picture taking a place like Renfrew and building 20+ story towers. How quickly would the sell or rent if there was a good transit connection to Ottawa?

 

[kEiThZ]

It's usually easier and cheaper overalll just to fly to Pearson from the London airport. Connecting flights are a steal. I'm flying to Vegas this summer and it cost me a loonie more to take a flight from London to connect at Pearson than flying out of Pearson itself. Saves the cost of airport shuttles, or driving (stress, gas $, parking $).

You can get to the London airport less than an hour before your flight its super simple- but your layover time in Pearson can depend how the flights are lined up. I'm there for 2h, and I kinda need that time to clear customs anyway.

This is true providing your flight doesn't get cancelled, which given recent pilot shortages is a problem.

In the long run, using a slot at a very expensive airport and valuable pilots to fly puddle jumpers 200 km isn't going to be highly lucrative for the airline. Especially if, as you point out, they make nothing on these hops. Airlines will cut these services or replace them with buses first chance they get. You can follow some of this discussion in the Pearson thread.

Aside from just improving access to Toronto and KWC though, what a rail connection to Pearson does is substantially improve options. A trains every 30 - 60 mins offers a lot more options than 6 flights a day.