[1overcosc]

Canadian cities don't really have commuter rail, because our urban forms don't really need it.

Commuter/regional rail works in geographically large metropolitan areas with exurbs. Places too far for conventional rapid transit to work. Imagine trying to extend TTC subway or STM metro service from Oshawa to Stoney Creek, or from Repentigny to Hudson. That's just WAY too far for conventional rapid transit so regional/commuter rail has to fill in the gap.

Whereas in all of our smaller cities beyond the big 3 that already have commuter rail, the urban area is much more contained. There's really no exurban cities in Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, etc.--rather the core urban area itself drops off directly to countryside. In Ottawa the existing rapid transit comfortably reaches outwards to Trim Road in the east & Terry Fox Drive in the west--the very outer limits of the city. Beyond that is countryside and small towns of only a few thousand people. It would be like if Toronto stopped at Steeles and everything north of that was small towns like Beaverton. GO Transit would have no reason to exist.

 

[junctionist]

Detroit could really use regional rail. It has a downtown dominated by office towers, with much of the white collar workforce living in the suburbs and commuting downtown by car everyday.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

Yea, the open top-floor was bizarre.. Aren't all Metra Bilevels like that?

Weird that ridership is declining...

I'd also add Chicago's commuter rail is stupidly spread out over three terminals which don't even have good integration with the L network.

I don't like Gallery cars at all. Caltrain has a number of Gallery cars, and I found the top level to be cramped, and uncomfortable. After you ride a gallery car, you realize just what a revolution the bi-level coaches really were when they were introduced in the late '70s.

 

[ShonTron]

Detroit could really use regional rail. It has a downtown dominated by office towers, with much of the white collar workforce living in the suburbs and commuting downtown by car everyday.

There was a commuter rail in Detroit, operated by SEMTA (the predecessor to SMART), from Pontiac, serving Birmingham and Royal Oak, to a station a block from the Renaissance Center. It shut down in 1983. The tracks are gone (the Dequindre Cut), and there's really no huge traffic problems in Detroit. Apart from GM, Compuserve and government and financial offices downtown (downtown Detroit remains the financial centre of the region), the jobs are really decentralized in Metro Detroit. The university is too far to the north and is really easy to drive to.

The closest active station to Downtown Detroit is the current Amtrak Station on Woodward in New Center (which replaced Michigan Central Station in 1994. While the station itself closed early 1988, Amtrak still stopped at the platform and used a outbuilding).

 

[cbrown2009]

Just spitballing here, but would the question of a lack of high speed rail, especially in the Windsor-Quebec corridor, be relevant to this discussion? Because, beginning with a Toronto-Montreal connection, and expanding to Windsor & Quebec City through various cities like London, Kitchener etc, could be a real boon. I personally would almost rather have seen a high speed link to Kitchener instead of Go if it could have been done within a reasonable time frame.

 

[doady]

Detroit could really use regional rail. It has a downtown dominated by office towers, with much of the white collar workforce living in the suburbs and commuting downtown by car everyday.

The white collar workforce opposes SMART service in their community and funding for SMART, I don't they'd supposed regional rail or any transportation system that would allow the black workforce into their neighbourhoods.

 

[Wrenkin]

Just spitballing here, but would the question of a lack of high speed rail, especially in the Windsor-Quebec corridor, be relevant to this discussion? Because, beginning with a Toronto-Montreal connection, and expanding to Windsor & Quebec City through various cities like London, Kitchener etc, could be a real boon. I personally would almost rather have seen a high speed link to Kitchener instead of Go if it could have been done within a reasonable time frame.

It would be relevant to some extent. Some corridor upgrades, like electrification, would benefit both GO and VIA even if the services are kept separate.

 

[junctionist]

The white collar workforce opposes SMART service in their community and funding for SMART, I don't they'd supposed regional rail or any transportation system that would allow the black workforce into their neighbourhoods.

Many people would prefer to take transit versus the hassle of rush hour traffic and downtown parking costs. Commuter rail would be the transit expansion that would make the biggest difference in Detroit. They're planning a commuter train to Ann Arbor to get the ball rolling, but unfortunately, the city doesn't have a downtown railway station, so they'll need a local transit connection from New Center to downtown. Eventually, they should come up with a way of getting trains downtown. The easiest option I see would be a connection from the tracks around Michigan Central Station by underground tunnel to a station near Joe Louis Arena, which will soon close.

 

[Long Island Mike]

Commuter Rail service in North America...Thoughts...

Everyone: I will agree with the mention that outside of major sprawling cities that many North American cities do not have the suburban
or outer area population to support regional Commuter Rail services...

Commuter Rail is a necessity in cities like New York,Chicago and Toronto to name three because of the large area covered by their sprawl
and the large traffic congestion problems that they have - that would be even worse without them...

Another problem with Commuter Rail is that many systems are "biased" to serve those traveling to the central cities primarily for work
noting their highest ridership is during peak weekday commuting times...It seems only the major cities have enough ridership to
justify their use at other times and to serve outlying areas and/or venues that attract riders...

I do agree that smaller cities can be adequately served by a local rail system of some type may it be "light" (LRV types) or "heavy"
(Region-wide rail like Washington's Metro or Atlanta's MARTA) and that the area both of these two cities have grown enough to make
a Commuter Rail option worthwhile...

DM: Chicago's METRA rail system is split between stations that were "inherited" from the former private companies that provided these
services and to an extent it was separate from the CTA Rapid Transit system...

I have a strong interest in rail transit and growing up on Long Island I was exposed to the LIRR to start from a very early age...LI MIKE

 

[diminutive]

DM: Chicago's METRA rail system is split between stations that were "inherited" from the former private companies that provided these
services and to an extent it was separate from the CTA Rapid Transit system...

I have a strong interest in rail transit and growing up on Long Island I was exposed to the LIRR to start from a very early age...LI MIKE

Two questions;

One, why did Chicago not develop like other cities where railways created a joint company to manage a common station? It seems not all railways participated in Chicago's Union Station.

Two, why didn't Metra or whoever try to unify operations? The Northbound tracks from Union Station pass *right* next to the OTC two or three blocks north! It's kind of surprising they didn't just make one big station with a proper connection to the L.

 

[Long Island Mike]

Chicago Union Station questions...

Two questions;

One, why did Chicago not develop like other cities where railways created a joint company to manage a common station? It seems not all railways participated in Chicago's Union Station.

Two, why didn't Metra or whoever try to unify operations? The Northbound tracks from Union Station pass *right* next to the OTC two or three blocks north! It's kind of surprising they didn't just make one big station with a proper connection to the L.

D: I will try and answer these two questions:

First - Chicago Union Station was built by a distinct group of member railroads to serve them and then when Amtrak
was formed in 1971 it turned out to be the best station location to serve Downtown Chicago...

Those railroads were the Pennsylvania, Burlington Route (Chicago,Burlington and Quincy), Gulf Mobile and Ohio and
the Milwaukee Road (Chicago,Milwaukee,St. Paul and Pacific)...All operated passenger rail services into Chicago and
the Milwaukee Road and Burlington operated frequent Commuter Rail services into CUS...PRR and GM&O
operated just a few peak-period commuter trains between them...

Today CUS hosts the BNSF Aurora Line (Former Burlington); The Milwaukee District's (former MR) North and West Lines and the Heritage
Corridor to Joliet (former GM&O) operated by METRA...and again is Amtrak's primary Chicago station...

Second: The METRA Ogilvie Transportation Center (formerly North Western Station owned by the Chicago and North Western Railway-now part of
Union Pacific) was always separate from the tracks serving the north side of Union Station - they are on separate levels - and would require a
major re-routing and grading project for these tracks to run into Union Station...

SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Union_Station

LI MIKE

 

[howl]

The real problem is competition. Regional rail is too inflexible (only goes to population centres) to compete with cars; its too slow to compete with airplanes; and its too expensive to compete with commuter rail and other regional public transit. If Southern Ontario had the population density of Europe or Asia it might be feasible to find enough customers.

 

[MisterF]

The real problem is competition. Regional rail is too inflexible (only goes to population centres) to compete with cars; its too slow to compete with airplanes; and its too expensive to compete with commuter rail and other regional public transit. If Southern Ontario had the population density of Europe or Asia it might be feasible to find enough customers.

Untrue. Southern Ontario as a whole has the same population density as France and Spain. The extended Golden Horseshoe (GO's service area) is right in between Germany and England when it comes to density. We really need to stop using density as an excuse, this region is more heavily populated than people think.

Just spitballing here, but would the question of a lack of high speed rail, especially in the Windsor-Quebec corridor, be relevant to this discussion? Because, beginning with a Toronto-Montreal connection, and expanding to Windsor & Quebec City through various cities like London, Kitchener etc, could be a real boon. I personally would almost rather have seen a high speed link to Kitchener instead of Go if it could have been done within a reasonable time frame.

Well Glen Murray was saying the goal for regional rail is trains going "a couple hundred kilometres an hour", so high speed GO trains aren't that farfetched. Of course, I'll take that with a grain of salt until it actually happens.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2592430

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Often (in particular Southwestern ONT) the population centres that might be connected by regional or commuter rail are too close together for rail to be time competitive vs commuting by car.

I once did a little study to try to connect Ontario's top 10 cities by population and found that 6 out of the 10 cities were within the Greater Golden Horseshoe where the travel distances allow the automobile to compete on travel time.

 

[kEiThZ]

I have long said this. I would take investment in GO to turn it into a proper suburban rail service over any other project including the DRL. It would have the biggest impact on transit usage and support for transit region-wide.

Nothing will change the mentality in this region to something prioritizing transit until people can actually get around the region using transit. And to me it's, ass backwards to prioritize the short-haul last mile, like the LRT corridors, when the biggest complaints everyone has are long-haul.

This is why all those transit fees will never take off and will face massive public resistance. The public does not perceive tangible benefits if you live in an area not getting an expensive LRT or subway. On the other hand, a regional service benefits absolutely everybody in the region. Very supportable.

Just my 2 cents....