In i
smallspy said:
You said that Metrolinx had no plans for service on this line. I'm simply pointing out that they do.



Two reasons: One, Old Cummer is as far as they can get on their own track and not interfere with CN's operations.

Two: the actual point of this service (as envisioned) is to try and avoid having buses from the north and east come down the DVP. They would likely connect at Oriole, with some of the buses that currently take the 407 trekking down Leslie to Old Cummer.

Dan
Click to expand...
In order to terminate buses at Oriole they need to build an actual bus stop or loop. I don't think they can fit under the bridge.
 
cplchanb said:
There's hardly any buses coming down the dvp anyways. The most I've seen are 1 or 2 go buses during the rushes so it's a non factor really.

Old cummer not to mention is in the middle of nowhere. You're basically going to transfer all the congestion from 404 directly to finch and Leslie IF there's going to be ridership due to the above concern.

Langstaff at least is bordering 407, hwy 7 and yonge which makes it a central location. The need to buy the corridor up to this point if it were to make any sense.
Click to expand...

No one is debating that Langstaff isn't a better option than Oriole or Old Cummer. But if you think that CN is going to allow a train every hour or two all day on weekends, you'd be sorely mistaken.

Bordercollie said:
In order to terminate buses at Oriole they need to build an actual bus stop or loop. I don't think they can fit under the bridge.
Click to expand...

What's the problem with using the parking lot by the station building?

Dan
 
smallspy said:
No one is debating that Langstaff isn't a better option than Oriole or Old Cummer. But if you think that CN is going to allow a train every hour or two all day on weekends, you'd be sorely mistaken.



What's the problem with using the parking lot by the station building?

Dan
Click to expand...
I think the clearance is too low for buses to enter, but I could be wrong.
 
11th said:
Don't forget Metrolinx also submitted application to relocate the station right next to TTC Leslie - no clearance issue there.
Click to expand...
That would work better. But that left turn onto Esther Shiner Blvd would need to be tweeked. It takes forever to make that left turn.
 
smallspy said:
You said that Metrolinx had no plans for service on this line. I'm simply pointing out that they do.



Two reasons: One, Old Cummer is as far as they can get on their own track and not interfere with CN's operations.

Two: the actual point of this service (as envisioned) is to try and avoid having buses from the north and east come down the DVP. They would likely connect at Oriole, with some of the buses that currently take the 407 trekking down Leslie to Old Cummer.

Dan
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but except for the very limited bus service on the Richmond Hill corridor, how many buses normally go down the DVP, especially on weekends?

Evening and weekend service on the Stouffville is almost entirely served by trains, and the RH corridor has no weekend or weekday counter-peak bus service.

It’d make sense, I guess, when there are scheduled construction disruptions on the Uxbridge and Kingston Subs, so there’s that. But I’d think there were several higher priorities for train service expansion, like Kitchener Line weekend service and half-hourly service to West Harbour.
 
ShonTron said:
Fair enough, but except for the very limited bus service on the Richmond Hill corridor, how many buses normally go down the DVP, especially on weekends?

Evening and weekend service on the Stouffville is almost entirely served by trains, and the RH corridor has no weekend or weekday counter-peak bus service.

It’d make sense, I guess, when there are scheduled construction disruptions on the Uxbridge and Kingston Subs, so there’s that. But I’d think there were several higher priorities for train service expansion, like Kitchener Line weekend service and half-hourly service to West Harbour.
Click to expand...
There are potentials for east west routes to stop there to make it easier to transfer and go downtown or come from downtown.

The point is not how many buses go down the DVP it's about how many car trips can you eliminate.

The DVP is a huge choke point and a lot of people would rather take the GO train than the subway.
 
smallspy said:
No one is debating that Langstaff isn't a better option than Oriole or Old Cummer. But if you think that CN is going to allow a train every hour or two all day on weekends, you'd be sorely mistaken.



Dan
Click to expand...
Thats why ML should find a way to buy that line from CN, or at the very least build a parallel track for CN to exclusively use.
 
cplchanb said:
Thats why ML should find a way to buy that line from CN, or at the very least build a parallel track for CN to exclusively use.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you are smoking but this is CN's main line to western Canada. No way they are giving that up unless you are building a new corridor for them.

If I'm not mistaken the stub track at Bloomington is specifically for GO use, the bottleneck is at Langstaff.
 
Bordercollie said:
I'm not sure what you are smoking but this is CN's main line to western Canada. No way they are giving that up unless you are building a new corridor for them.

If I'm not mistaken the stub track at Bloomington is specifically for GO use, the bottleneck is at Langstaff.
Click to expand...
build them new track then! If we are ever to get true reliable and expansive passenger rail here, its about time we emerge from CN and CP having ML by its balls.
 
cplchanb said:
build them new track then! If we are ever to get true reliable and expansive passenger rail here, its about time we emerge from CN and CP having ML by its balls.
Click to expand...
Okay so then why dont you setup a meeting with CN and negotiate to build additional track on their corridor.
 
If we are going to add track for the betterment of GO service, this is not the place. There are many, many other places that present themselves as lower-hanging fruit; Milton, Kitchener, LSW around Hamilton (past Bayview, CN or CP's tracks) etc.

I know I floated some recommendations a page or two back, but deliberately going north of the York sub seems really cost-inefficient. We would rather extend Line 1 than to do so. I think the future of the Richmond Hill line predominantly lies south of Richmond Hill for the time being.
 
sunnyside said:
If we are going to add track for the betterment of GO service, this is not the place. There are many, many other places that present themselves as lower-hanging fruit; Milton, Kitchener, LSW around Hamilton (past Bayview, CN or CP's tracks) etc.

I know I floated some recommendations a page or two back, but deliberately going north of the York sub seems really cost-inefficient. We would rather extend Line 1 than to do so. I think the future of the Richmond Hill line predominantly lies south of Richmond Hill for the time being.
Click to expand...
They already have dedicated track to Hamilton and will continue to Confederation station and beyond.
 
cplchanb said:
build them new track then! If we are ever to get true reliable and expansive passenger rail here, its about time we emerge from CN and CP having ML by its balls.
Click to expand...

The corridor between Steeles and Langstaff GO seems to be wide enough to add one more track. Perhaps some backyards will have to be cut, but no conflicts with the houses.

The conflict between the GO trains and the freight traffic (through traffic on the York sub, and between Bala sub north and York sub east) will remain. Building grade separation at that diamond won't be easy. But the grade crossing might be good enough if the goal is hourly counter-peak and off-peak service.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top