If I want to go to Burlington, I want to go to Burlington's town centre. Same goes for Mississauga - I'd rather go to Square One via GO rather than to Cooksville. This is simply how it's done with comparable systems (Sydney, Berlin, London, etc).
Well let's see what options we have to fix this:
1) Change the Alignment to divert and serve the existing town center
2) Bring the town center to the GO station.
Guess which option GO is going with?
Sure, Cooksville isn't at Square One, but overtime as Mississauga City Centre densifies, the density will reach Cooksville GO (and relatively soon might I add), and all of a sudden this station you're complaining doesn't go to the town center will suddenly be in the town center. This is how it's always worked. If we look at your examples like Sydney and London, especially for the latter, density and development has always come after the introduction of the railway, not the other way around. Many major railway termini that we take for granted as within the city such as King's Cross or Paddington were initially built in what was farmland outside the city, or at the very least at the outskirts of any form of development.
Also, being unsatisfied with where the train stops doesn't stop doesn't mean that something isn't Rapid Transit, so this whole conversation is pointless anyway.
Finally, I'd like to point out that this exact strategy of making the empty space the train serves into actual places is quite literally the same strategy the CDPQ is using for the REM. Areas like Brossard and Bois-Franc that at the moment aren't really places will become places and town centers in their own right.
If you are going to state that something isn't true, then your response should be fact, not opinion.
Of course my statement is going to be opinion, since what you're stating is opinion as well:
and unless GO differentiates Milton/RH from the rest of the network, it will take some time before GO is perceived as an integrated part of Toronto's RT.
You're telling me this is a fact? This is about as opinionated as it can possibly get. What one "perceives" to be the truth doesn't necessarily mean it is the truth. In my opinion the Lakeshore Lines can already be seen as Rapid Transit, they meet the baseline frequencies required for Rapid Transit, and are certainly more rapid than getting around by even the subway.
In summary, the definition of RT is narrow and I can see that it bothers some here that Toronto's system will be smaller for the foreseeable future. I would fully agree that with nearly twice the population and significantly higher per-capita wealth, this makes no sense but it's just how it is.
This screams to me like projection, like you're implying that the members of this board have an inferiority complex and don't want to believe that a smaller city has better transit. If you want to play that game, I can accuse you of trying to gatekeep the definition of rapid transit to make it seem like Montreal has some upper edge in this game. Of course if you set the definitions, you're obviously going to win. The goal with my last several posts was to show the point that the REM and GO RER really aren't that different of products, and any major differences between them can frankly be marked down as academic differences. They both try to achieve the exact same goals, just with different technology.
And, let's say I choose to play ball and agree to a more favourable definition of rapid transit, and say that to qualify as Rapid Transit you have to have a minimum headway of every 10 minutes, and the rail has to be electrified. Even under these favourable conditions, Montreal only has the upper hand for the best case scenerio of maybe 4 years? That's not a long time to be in first so, take your W I guess?
GO will still be a game-changer for the region and maybe Toronto will ultimately feel like the more-comprehensive, faster system, making these metrics moot.
I am going to be nice and say that this wasn't intentional, and you meant this the whole time. However the way this convo started makes this seem like a retraction.
Yes, despite Mtl's network flaws, it will be the most extensive RT network in Canada, probably for a long time.
GO is improving but is still commuter rail, and the streetcar is a non-starter - I don't think it could possibly get any less rapid.
UP has a lot of potential, for sure.
As you say, these services have value, but I was only talking about RT network size, not value.
With the completion of REM A, Montreal's rapid transit network will be 136 km, 94 stations.
Vancouver is at be 80km, 53 stations (increasing in 2025).
Toronto is at 77 km, 75 stations (increasing in 2030).
This doesn't scream "Go will be a game changer", this screams to me "I don't really consider GO to be relevant for my view of Rapid Transit" to which, sorry that isn't going to fly.
Now I can agree with you that calling Lines 5 and 6 "Rapid Transit" is a bit much. I've been pretty vocal about how both of these lines are basically glorified streetcars so I'm willing to meet with you there. But I'm sorry, if you're not going to include GO with these numbers, you're effectively just making a Metro system comparison chart which is interesting to look at, but isn't exactly relevant to the greater scope of these cities. Let's have a more accurate chart shall we?
By 2028
> Montreal's rapid transit network will be 142km, 99 stations
> Toronto's rapid transit network will be 182km, 97 stations
>Vancouver will be at 86km, 59 stations
I decided to be generous and only include GO stations that are within the City of Toronto itself, but realistically it should encompass much more, considering how services like the REM extend outside the City of Montreal.
dailyhive.com
