How many times do we have to say improved GO lines? That means running them all day, both ways, at pretty good frequencies, probably/eventually with different vehicles altogether, and with some kind of future fare integration.

And, yes, express lines should be dismissed out of hand in today's Toronto, where the exorbitant cost of adding express subway lines to an inadequate network would be better spent on bringing subways to new areas or improving GO service. Maybe we can take another look at express lines on Yonge or wherever in a hundred years.
 
@ DENTROBATE

I think you're over-complicating the issue. The idea on the table now is simply to run replace the one-train-per-hour philosophy with smaller trains every 15 minutes. There are the potentials for branch lines to serve nearby nodes. Nothing more at this stage. But, I commend you for thinking out of the box and trying to vet ideas for their merits.

@ Scarberiankhatru

"Sure"
 
Dentrobate, you've got to think outside the Toronto box here. There are a lot of transit services that just don't exist in Toronto, including real regional rail. Trains would run on a Milton line, presumably with more tracks and hopefully purchased from CP, every 15 minutes or so. It's not a subway, with subway trains, and it's not a light rail line, with streetcar vehicles. It's regional rail. It wouldn't have the stop frequency of a subway, because then it would no longer be an express service. We already have a subway in that corridor. A handful of stops could be added (Dundas West, Parkdale, maybe somewhere in the Junction), but it would remain a regional rail service.

People wouldn't have to pay two fares anymore. In Europe, it doesn't matter what mode you use, you pay a fare based on the distance you're travelling. People would be able to transfer seamlessly from what we now call GO lines to TTC routes. They may be operated by different transit authorities (GO Transit and the TTC, perhaps), but people don't notice it because the fare structure is the same.

I think you're over-complicating the issue. The idea on the table now is simply to run replace the one-train-per-hour philosophy with smaller trains every 15 minutes. There are the potentials for branch lines to serve nearby nodes. Nothing more at this stage. But, I commend you for thinking out of the box and trying to vet ideas for their merits.
Click to expand...

Red Rocket, when you say nothing more...what more do you need? Run them every 10 minutes if needed, or every five. But there's no need for switching technology from compatibility with main line railways. RER lines in Paris, for example, are by far the highest-capacity and busiest transit routes in the city. Far busier than subway lines. They act like a high-capacity express subway.
 
wow you people are crazy for thinking they would ever even consider removing 2 lanes of transit on hurontario. it's the busiest street in both cities. I'm sure there are 100x more people using hurontario to drive their cars than for public transit, and even with the LRT, this will still be the case for a long time.

Like I've said before, it's the narrow-minded urban types on these forums who don't seem to understand such a simple concept. Fortunately the mississauga/brampton councillors seem to.
 
REX = Regional Rail = S-Bahn = Pendeltåg and it works like this:

Current:
* large commuter trains every 20-30 minutes during the rush hour
* large commuter trains every hour during the off peak

Phase 1:
* Increase frequencies to every 15 minutes during the off-peak.
* Consider upgrading trains if the current fleet are ill suited for this kind of service.

Phase 2:
* Add stops at strategic locations only. Typical GO station spacing would be preserved, and not every arterial will get a stop.

Phase 3:
* Build branch lines to serve destinations which are just off the corridor (branch from Cooksville GO to Square One, for example).

So I guess nothing more should really read "not much more." I'm all for debates about station spacing and other fun stuff, but I just don't want the concept to get lost.
 
Red Rocket, we've talked about serving Square One a dozen times. Why would you build a dead-end branch serving Square One? Why not just divert the line north to Square One, and then run west along the 403 Transitway until it can rejoin the existing line. It wouldn't miss a single current stop (Cooksville would move across the street) and it could double as a kind of Mississauga Metro that would allow express trips from Meadowvale, Streetsville, and Milton to Square One.
 
unimaginative2 said:
Red Rocket, we've talked about serving Square One a dozen times. Why would you build a dead-end branch serving Square One? Why not just divert the line north to Square One, and then run west along the 403 Transitway until it can rejoin the existing line. It wouldn't miss a single current stop (Cooksville would move across the street) and it could double as a kind of Mississauga Metro that would allow express trips from Meadowvale, Streetsville, and Milton to Square One.
Click to expand...

I just used that as an example. We could do whatever we wanted.
 
In the long run the current monster GO Trains with 10 double decker cars should be replaced with EMUs with maybe 4 single decker cars.

The current GO Locomotives and cars could be reused on longer distance intercity trains.
 
RedRocket191 said:
REX = Regional Rail = S-Bahn = Pendeltåg and it works like this:

Current:
* large commuter trains every 20-30 minutes during the rush hour
* large commuter trains every hour during the off peak

Phase 1:
* Increase frequencies to every 15 minutes during the off-peak.
* Consider upgrading trains if the current fleet are ill suited for this kind of service.

Phase 2:
* Add stops at strategic locations only. Typical GO station spacing would be preserved, and not every arterial will get a stop.

Phase 3:
* Build branch lines to serve destinations which are just off the corridor (branch from Cooksville GO to Square One, for example).

So I guess nothing more should really read "not much more." I'm all for debates about station spacing and other fun stuff, but I just don't want the concept to get lost.
Click to expand...

Still require large trains for long haul express service.

Need 5 car train for off peak using current fleet with 30 minutes service

Upgrade fleet to handle 3-5 car trains for off peak with 15 minute headway as DMU's/EMU's

Upgrade fleet to handle non spacing GO Stations that can be added with 3 on Lakeshore W, 3 on Milton, 6 on Georgetown, 5 on Richmond Hill, 3 for Lakeshore E. At least 3 on the other lines.

Use DMU's/EMU's for branch lines like Sq One
 
Drum:

As we just discussed, don't you think it would be more reasonable to just divert the line to Square One, by far the largest trip generator in the region, rather than just build a branch?

No regional rail system in the world operates different vehicles on and off peak. Sometimes the trains are shorter, but there's no reason to operate a different fleet. Paris's RER lines serve several times as many riders in the peak hour as GO lines, but they still use the same multiple units. You just run them more frequently, if necessary, and sometimes accept that riders close in won't get seats. The central sections of the RER operate trains as frequently as every minute in the peak.

Note that not all RER trains make all stops. Some run express, in a kind of skip-stop pattern.

Hey, for all you Mississaugans out there: Where would you locate stations on a diverted GO line around Square One? You could probably do two stations, considering the size of the area. Coming north on Hurontario, there could be one right at Hurontario and Burnhamthorpe, and then around Duke of York and Rathburn? Maybe just one diagonal stop on the southwest side of Square One?
 
gei said:
wow you people are crazy for thinking they would ever even consider removing 2 lanes of transit on hurontario. it's the busiest street in both cities. I'm sure there are 100x more people using hurontario to drive their cars than for public transit, and even with the LRT, this will still be the case for a long time.

Like I've said before, it's the narrow-minded urban types on these forums who don't seem to understand such a simple concept. Fortunately the mississauga/brampton councillors seem to.
Click to expand...

Have you visit Hurontario, try walking it and cross it at various point?

Have you look at what exist along Hurontario as well see where large number of riders get on and off 19 and 2?

Any road in Mississauga has more cars on it than riders since the city was built around cars in the first place with no transit on them. That is why only 11% use transit in the first place.

It taken me 8 years to change Mississauga Councillor view of transit to the point lanes will be remove for High Order Transit.

Even City staff understands now where I was coming from for transit and Urban design land use that policy changes have and are changing to support transit.

The city is moving to 1 spot for cars for most new condo's and making it clear visitor space cannot be use for the 2nd car.

There is 46% more cars using Hurontario than transit riders, not the 100x you said.

Like I've said before, it's the narrow-minded urban types on these forums who don't seem to understand such a simple concept
Click to expand...
You are missing the point and where do you plan to 100,000 extra cars for Mississauga without widening roads or building new one for all the new development?

If Toronto is to increase in size over the next 20 years, where are you going to put these new residents cars considering the city is not planning on building or widening roads?
 
If anyone has walked on Hurontario or pretty much any 6 or 8 lane suburban arterial, they will find that drivers treat the road like it were a freeway. If we lay down an LRT on the median of Hurontario, it would be intimidating for many to cross four lanes of madness. It will not be well-used by children, the elderly, and the disabled (who are captive rides in the suburbs) unless drivers treat the road like a city street. And that's not likely until a lane of road is sacrificed.
 
Some planners and sociologists believe that if you narrow the roads and add trees to the boulevard, people will drive more slowly out of fear that something will jump into their lane. This would then make it more welcoming for pedestrians, and increased pedestrians would cause traffic to be even more watchful.
 
gei said:
wow you people are crazy for thinking they would ever even consider removing 2 lanes of transit on hurontario. it's the busiest street in both cities. I'm sure there are 100x more people using hurontario to drive their cars than for public transit...

Like I've said before, it's the narrow-minded urban types on these forums who don't seem to understand such a simple concept.
Click to expand...

Here's a simple concept for you narrow-minded suburban types: the overall transit mode split in Mississauga is 8%, and if factor in people walking and biking, it is therefore impossible for there to be more than 10 times more drivers than transit riders in Mississauga, let alone along Hurontario. This simple concept is called "math".

Roads should only be 3 lanes or more if there are a lot of people traveling long distances, and Hurontario does not fit that criteria. And as a result, intersections of Hurontario (and of all other 6-lane roads in Mississauga) are extremely inefficient and cause much headache since too many people turn left.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top