It was ok for one person trips but it took much longer than a limo that picks up at your location. If you're a couple travelling to PIA it would only save you $6 over the cost of a limo at $60
 
khristopher said:
I'm so glad the Airport Express bus will be gone. They add to traffic, pollution of the air and noise pollution.
Click to expand...

I'll expect smaller hotel shuttle buses to pick up the slack, to provide door-to-door service. Some neighbouring hotels may even combine shuttles.

Can you say free shuttle?
 
I've never been attracted to the Airport Express buses.
For one thing, the windows are all covered by by ads for online travel agents or luggage companies. I hate sitting in a wrapped bus. I don't have motion sickness on the road as long as I have a clear view of movement - forwards is better, the back is fine. The screens play a "Welcome to Toronto" video with sound - nobody needs that.

Good riddance. Though I would like to see the return of an express bus - perhaps operated by GO - between York Mills/Yorkdale and Pearson. The route 34 is a bit too slow and is only hourly.
 
​
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Private airport coaches. Shutting down early due to declining ridership and the impact of roadwork on their schedule/cost.

AoD
Click to expand...

Prior to PW operating the service, it was operated by Gray Coach Lines, the TTC subsidiary for about 20 years or so before that. There were branches that operated from Islington, York Mills and Yorkdale in addition to the downtown hotel route. Once Gray Coach was sold to Stagecoach, Pacific Western won the contract to operate the service the next time it came up for bids. So in fact, it was actually publicly operated for about 20 years or so.
 
Thanks for posting! Putting a traction power facility at Ordinance Street between the Kitchener and Lakeshore corridor? Unless it's underground or have a publically accessible roof as an extension of the park- no!

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Thanks for posting! Putting a traction power facility at Ordinance Street between the Kitchener and Lakeshore corridor? Unless it's underground or have a publically accessible roof as an extension of the park- no!
Click to expand...

Welp, you're too late if you wanted to submit that comment. It was due to the MOE on May 1.
 
Interesting that the traction scheme changes on the Pearson spur from 2x25kV to single 25kV.

AoD - you're not suggesting that electrification has impacts other than rainbows and butterflies are you? :D
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Putting a traction power facility at Ordinance Street between the Kitchener and Lakeshore corridor? Unless it's underground or have a publically accessible roof as an extension of the park- no!
Click to expand...

I'm curious about that too. It seems to conflict with the bike/pedestrian bridge, park, pool, condo plan that exists for that parcel of land. It seems odd that they couldn't provide alternatives when there is the meat packing site across the tracks.

Considering the amount spent to appease Weston with a fly-under, and this effort of electrification seen as a long-term strategy, not a short term plan, I'm surprised with the recommendation of the Resources Road site being the maintenance facility. From a long term perspective at some point Willowbrook RMF and East RMF will need to be electrified, and from a long term perspective the Willowbrook RMF and East RMF have greater capacity whereas Resources Road is a ridiculously small site. It doesn't seem very forward thinking to create a minuscule trapped in rail facility. It would be better to spend the extra $52 million to have a platform to build out future electrification at Willowbrook.
 
Last edited:
EnviroTO said:
I'm curious about that too. It seems to conflict with the bike/pedestrian bridge, park, pool, condo plan that exists for that parcel of land. It seems odd that they couldn't provide alternatives when there is the meat packing site across the tracks.
Click to expand...

Well the site does offer the advantage of being in the position to serve two corridors. Not overly concerned about the siting at this stage, but the implementation requires more care. Nothing against engineers, but the report is clearly mainly from their perspective.

On the brighter side, they recognize the site is a potential issue:

With respect to the Fort York Heritage Conservation District in particular, the following mitigation measures will be implemented:
Carry out a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) to determine the impact of the Paralleling Station on identified viewpoints to and from Fort York;
To minimize potential temporary construction effects, staging areas (if required) should be carefully selected so that they are non-invasive and avoid all heritage attributes;
Pre-construction vibration studies may be required to mitigate any potential vibration related impacts (to be determined during detailed design);
Pre-construction conditions should be re-established through post-construction landscape treatments, where appropriate;
If possible, construction activities should avoid the removal of soil in the vicinity of Garrison Creek and the former Garrison Creek Ravine.
Click to expand...

http://www.gotransit.com/electrification/en/Exec Summary.pdf (p. 6)

AoD
 
Last edited:
EnviroTO said:
I'm curious about that too. It seems to conflict with the bike/pedestrian bridge, park, pool, condo plan that exists for that parcel of land. It seems odd that they couldn't provide alternatives when there is the meat packing site across the tracks.
Click to expand...

The park/bridge is located in the former Toronto Police site. The traction substation will be located on land that is owned by Metrolinx, abutting it to the east.

Quality only announced the closure of the facility early this year, and to the best of my knowledge has still not announced their intentions with the site. If it was actively being listed for sale a year or two ago, it may have been an option.

EnviroTO said:
Considering the amount spent to appease Weston with a fly-under, and this effort of electrification seen as a long-term strategy, not a short term plan, I'm surprised with the recommendation of the Resources Road site being the maintenance facility. From a long term perspective at some point Willowbrook RMF and East RMF will need to be electrified, and from a long term perspective the Willowbrook RMF and East RMF have greater capacity whereas Resources Road is a ridiculously small site. It doesn't seem very forward thinking to create a minuscule trapped in rail facility. It would be better to spend the extra $52 million to have a platform to build out future electrification at Willowbrook.
Click to expand...

The current Willowbrook site is already at capacity, and that's before even incorporating the UPX trains into the mix. (Indeed, I have been told that UPX will be maintained at the VIA TMC by Bombardier staff.) The Oshawa facility is much too far east to be of any use at this point - even if it was open - and the new location will allow for a reduction of deadhead manoeuvres, thus saving staffing and running costs.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
smallspy said:
The current Willowbrook site is already at capacity, and that's before even incorporating the UPX trains into the mix. (Indeed, I have been told that UPX will be maintained at the VIA TMC by Bombardier staff.) The Oshawa facility is much too far east to be of any use at this point - even if it was open - and the new location will allow for a reduction of deadhead manoeuvres, thus saving staffing and running costs.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, it's my understanding that Willowbrook would need very significant renovations to be electrified. This was the one primary rationale for the East RMF, the other being capacity as GO implements 2WAD service. It was likely cheaper, quicker, and more feasible to build and operate the Resources RMF than upgrade Willowbrook.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top