Commentary

West Harbour GO Schedule Change Will Hurt Ridership

Service levels matter, and so long as GO Transit insists on running only two poorly-timed trains a day to/from the station on inconvenient schedules, we are bound to see more images of a barren station.

By Michael Borrelli
Published June 24, 2016

Dispatches from a commuter's diary, day 1,864:

Like any long-term relationship that has lost its intimacy, it's easy for commuters to fall into a love/hate bond with GO Transit. In my case, after a decade of begrudging virtually every minute I spent on the train, GO Transit and I finally found a happy rut last year with the opening of the new West Harbour station.

West Harbour GO Station (RTH file photo)
West Harbour GO Station (RTH file photo)

West Harbour GO is a convenient little station in my neck of the woods on James Street North. A longstanding (and long-delayed) promise to build a station there was one of the reasons my partner and I moved into the Beasley neighbourhood in 2006, and why my family stayed nearby when we moved to the North End in 2014. The station opened to some fanfare, just in time for the 2015 Pan Am Games.

But after a year of lulling us into West Harbour's sweet embrace, and right on the heels of the Province's announcement of new stations to increase service for Toronto riders, GO Transit is now pouring cold water on West Harbour commuters with a series of curse-inducing schedule changes that may seriously impact ridership at the lonely new station.

Credit to Stevan Garic, who turned GO Transit's unwieldy schedule update announcement into something riders could actually understand.

New GO Transit schedule for West Harbour (Image Credit: Stevan Garic)
New GO Transit schedule for West Harbour (Image Credit: Stevan Garic)

Starting next week, the only two weekday outgoing trips from West Harbour are moved up to 6:09 AM and 6:39 AM. For the seasoned commuter, the seven minutes shaved off the old schedule will mean some bleary-eyed mornings, but being forced onto an earlier train is as familiar to a Hamilton GO rider as shouldering the ubiquitous fare increases.

The real pain starts when looking at the options coming home from the Big Smoke. The glorious 4:47 PM train that got us beleaguered souls back to Hamilton just inside of 6:00 PM is gone. We should cheer this, say the Bombardier-employed "Customer Service Ambassadors", because GO "listened" to us by not cancelling the 4:30 PM train to Hunter Street.

Small victories, I guess.

A crazy-early and unfathomable 4:00 PM express train serving West Harbour was added, though, and the two students who can ride it are surely happy. While I'd love to have the same level of work-day flexibility enjoyed by the Metrolinx planners, virtually every other commuter I know has to stick around the office until at least 4:00 PM, making that trip particularly unhelpful.

Thankfully, this time GO schedules have been aligned with HSR's summer changes so that, even though both West Harbour trains are long-gone before the #20 A-Line Express begins service, the #4 Bayfront now serves the North End as a reasonably-timed feeder route to the station, and the #2 Barton continues to offer ten-minute service from the east and south.

West Harbour's commuters are a small but growing group representing just a small piece of the GTHA's regional transit ridership: in April, CHCH reported that only 33 people using the two early-morning trains. Just this week, CHCH returned and reported from West Harbour at rush-hour, offering viewers images of an empty courtyard in front of the station.

Though my personal counts suggest a higher ridership on the return trains in the afternoon, especially on the 4:47 PM train, it's hard to make a case that the West Harbour station has been a prudent and useful investment of $58 million, or that it's even modestly improving regional transit.

When the station opened last year, it presented an opportunity for the North End, Central and Beasley neighbourhoods to become bedroom communities for Toronto-bound workers. And indeed, large price-increases for nearby homes suggest that the area is becoming a haven for refugees from Toronto's hot housing market.

But service levels matter, and so long as GO Transit insists on running only two poorly-timed trains a day to/from the station, on schedules that bear no resemblance to a rider's actual workday, we are bound to see more images of a barren station.

It's bad enough that all-day GO service appears to be way off on the horizon, but after only a year, the existing service to West Harbour has been signficantly weakened.

Construction work on new track across Desjardins Canal (RTH file photo)
Construction work on new track across Desjardins Canal (RTH file photo)

Like many West Harbour commuters I've spoken to since the changes were announced, my commute will soon be 15-20 minutes longer. Due to the disappearance of a well-used rush-hour train, it is almost certain that many current West Harbour commuters will be piling onto the very-crowded 4:30 or 5:00 PM trains to Hunter St. station, and then using Hamilton Bike Share and/or HSR to get home.

Hopefully Metrolinx is monitoring the effects of these inconvenient schedule changes, as they seriously put a dent in the vision of a well-integrated community transportation hub. Hamilton deserves better than this step backward on service. Because, I want to love you again, West Harbour Station, I really do. But you're making it awfully hard.

Michael Borrelli is a social researcher living with his family in the Hamilton's North End. He tweets @BaysideBadger.

12 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted June 24, 2016 at 11:58:34

Good little write up that needs to be publicly known -- I understand it may be temporary (due to Hamilton Rail Junction construction and the Union track closures). This is why the schedule inconveniently changed temporarily.

Hopefully the schedule dramatically improves coming 2017, as my ongoing investigations indicates it should.

The station opened very early for its big-future-plans. Even as early as 2012, it was already known it would take until 2017 to complete the station. Media and PanAm just hyped 2015, but the real station isn't finished yet.

For readers unfamiliar, it is worth noting that I've researched and written huge articles about GO trains here on Raise The Hammer:

Right now, my research indicates Victoria's Day 2017 is the probable "Betting Man's" start date guesstimate of Niagara seasonal GO trains stopping at West Harbour GO. This is no guarantee obviously that would happen, but, I've been visiting four construction sites with ongoing work and all sites completes by then. The image below is a teaser that is part of GO Part 3.

Imgur

  • 2016 (Nov/Dec): Hamilton Junction Expansion
  • 2017 (early): West Harbour GO full completion
  • 2016 (mid-late): Completion of Centennial Parkway rail bridge
  • 2016 (mid-late): Completion and connection of Lewis Yard to the CN mainline.

Funded (2017-2019) is extra track going between West Harbour and Stoney Creek GO station and possibly the Lewis Yard. However, before then, there is supposed to be West Harbour GO reconnection of station track to the CN mainline -- supposedly by end 2016.

Construction on the CP side (Hunter) may occur between now and ~2025 but currently none of them are budgeted or funded, and the tunnel is an expensive proposition.

CN only has 2 trains a day on the Grimsby sub, and CN has been much more of a pleasure for Metrolinx to work with, given all the great developments relating to CN track (Kitchener, etc). I envision Metrolinx eventually being forced to switch all-day GO service to West Harbour GO. Given the fact, according to the Metrolinx 2011 Niagara ESR Appendix (on freight corridor compatibility with 60-minute all-day service) -- the West Harbour GO route gains "technical capability" of all-day 2-way GO train service as early as 2017. But it needs to gain enough ridership (e.g. via Hamilton LRT A-Line) to justify the business case of paying CN for every train trip to West Harbour GO.

The bottom line is that West Harbour GO traffic is slated to dramatically increase roughly beginning next year or two (bus connections, Niagara connection, more West Harbour trains once Lewis Yard opens).

And yes, it is Metrolinxs' onus to do it quickly, to help justify Hamilton LRT A-Line better.

A very pleasant surprise would be the introduction of all-day 2-way GO service to West Harbour GO before the 2018 election (It may be easier for Metrolinx to do if LRT shovels were cemented with a difficult-to-cancel procurement -- Bratina-proofed and ChadCollins-proofed -- because Metrolinx needs to justify the business case of paying CN even if West Harbour gains "technical capability" of all-day service in 2017. Then use pre-2024-LRT years to ramp up ridership at West Harbour with the parking garage, SoBi, and A-Line bus service)

A very sad surprise would be the continuance of 2 trains per day for many years to come, and the planned John Street bridge rebuild putting the kibosh on Niagara trains stopping at West Harbour, and a Hamilton LRT cancellation wrecking West Harbour GO's future plans for a long while.

My prediction is middle ground -- 4 trains a day (including a late morning train) by 2017/2018/2019, and Niagara Seasonal trains by 2017 season. Metrolinx will strategically warehouse the "technical capability" of all-day GO service for later activation (operationally possible 2017 for WH, but not necessarily business justifiable without Hamilton LRT). Factors like Niagara-Hamilton Express, Hamilton LRT shovels, etc, will improve the business case for all-day 2-way GO service -- to anywhere between 2017 and 2024, and could happen sooner especially if the Hunter option (CP negotiations) is clearly failing to bear fruit.

The silver lining in all of this, is, Hamilton, does, indeed, have an option (escape hatch) of being able to provide all-day GO trains to Hamilton even if CP negotiations fail (Hunter). Even the Rail Junction expansion goes above-and-beyond the minimum requirements (in 2011 Niagara ESR document) required for theoretical 60-minute all-day 2-way on the CN side. The Rail Junction expansion only helps West Harbour, and not Downtown GO. While Metrolinx/GO definitely prefers Hunter for all-day, their bets are clearly being hedged (even as late as 2016) [from RER Business Case documents] on using West Harbour for all-day.

Either way, the current 2016 West Harbour GO schedule is a temporary inconvenience -- agreed. And without the parking garage built yet, most drivers (especially already on 403) will head to Aldershot.

At least they kept the 4:30pm train -- it was actually going to be worse..

Watch for Steven Del Duca to set up a press conference at the West Harbour plaza. When? Anywhere between now and 2017 -- my coin flip says July 2016.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-06-24 12:38:44

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted June 24, 2016 at 13:05:32

P.S. If Metrolinx is reading this, as it appears that West Harbour GO appears to be capable of being operationally ready for all-day GO service before the 2018 election, as all the pre-requisites are already under construction with completion dates before then...

...I would suggest seriously considering the possibility of all-day West Harbour GO train service activated before the 2018 election. This will (1) cement Big Move plans, (2) reduce opposition to Hamilton LRT, (3) make it more likely for GO electrification to happen all the way to Hamilton sooner (as a future Phase 2).

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-06-24 13:08:03

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Borrelli (registered) | Posted June 24, 2016 at 13:30:09

Thanks for the insight, Mark. I'm getting a little weary of hearing "temporary" in reference to potentially years-long plans (blame my recent experiences with Hamilton Health Science's attempt to get a 15yr "temporary" parking lot in Beasley), but at least it's not permanent.

Also I'm not sure I'll be cheering Metrolinx not cramming us onto even BUSIER trains by killing the 4:30 AND 4:47 train, the same way I shouldn't have to cheer when a train actually gets me into TO for 7:59 as advertised. But I get the point.

All in all, I'm not too eager to forgive GO on this one--the announcement was intentionally buried and done at the last minute. As of this AM I was still meeting colleagues on the train who had no idea the 4:47 was cancelled. Monday is going to be a painful surprise for some folks.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted June 24, 2016 at 17:31:03

Finally! Those of us who work earlier than others will be able to benefit!

I'll definitely be testing this out now since I will be able to try it on my 7-3 schedule.

Good news!

See, it isn't all doom and gloom. While you may not benefit, others will.

Permalink | Context

By Borrelli (registered) | Posted June 27, 2016 at 07:38:38 in reply to Comment 119581

Definitely test it out--it's a great little station, that West Harbour. Glad you're one of the two people cheering the new sched, but sounds like folks on the 7-3 shifts are getting the same short-shrift as everyone else. The day riders can go back to departing/arriving from the same Hamilton station without artificially extending their work day will be a good day for all commuters.

And as usual, GO was off to a weak start with implementing new schedules. But on the bright side, I only ended up in the office 10 minutes late, this time:

Comment edited by Borrelli on 2016-06-27 07:41:20

Permalink | Context

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted June 24, 2016 at 19:13:05 in reply to Comment 119581

Good point.

Most run 9-5 but there are a lot of 7-3er's who'll find the early train a boon. Hopefully once Lewis is dully operational, new trains will be added that spreads all the time options out, from 5am through 8am. I personally prefer a 7:45am option arriving Union 9am if one existed.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-06-24 19:15:13

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted June 24, 2016 at 21:32:36 in reply to Comment 119583

Agree fully. Waiting anxiously for all-day GO from Hamilton to Toronto - express and all stops. I would really benefit from bus service from Hamilton to Square One running at decent times. But I'll take what I can get.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Haveacow (registered) | Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:31:54

One of the big issues GO Transit has had is vertical versus horizontal expansion of its rail routes. Having trains coming from Hamilton or even further a field like St. Catherines or Niagara to Toronto (Horizontal Expansion) makes the effect of any slow down due to construction or service interruption, become multiplied and cause further problems down the line. Adding more trains (Vertical Expansion) means a more complicated schedule with problems and issues multiplied through distance. After many bear/shot fueled conversations with European colleagues about GO's issues one night, one fact was very clear. The real issue isn't at the Hamilton, Barrie or Oshawa end its at the Union Station end. However many new GO lines and service expansion on existing lines we eventually are able to do its still ignoring the fundamental problem, Union Station. Without a Union station redevelopment on a truly titanic scale, Union Station is really just running out of capacity, for more passengers and trains.

Go Transit has hinted at it but what I think they really need to start doing is building a second downtown railway station of significant size and scope. The Bathurst coach storage yard has been discussed as a possible new downtown station but its capacity and scope will be limited. For example, any serious problem with frozen turnouts (switches)in super cold winter weather leading to or from Union turns into a huge issue for multiple GO train lines. The longer the line the bigger the headache for GO Transit and its passengers. The chief investment that needs to be made IMHO, is a second or third downtown Toronto Commuter Railway Station with semi or completely separate approach tracks from Union Station. Also a real building, good design not just a commuter platform like West Harbor GO and a separate coach storage yards. The new station or stations must also be linked by TTC subway services and underground pedestrian connections to the PATH system. Expensive, yes it would be. Complicated and time consuming, you betcha! However, its becoming quite clear that it will be desperately needed. With GO RER/Smart Track, a new possible Bolton GO Rail Line and access for the Shinning Waters Railway based commuter trains from Peterborough, as well as any attempt at high speed rail access to Union, it has become very clear that the number of trains entering Union will just be, too high. It will also become very hard for the passengers to deal with the crowds at certain pedestrian choke points, trying to access connecting intercity rail and transit services.

Permalink | Context

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:36:26 in reply to Comment 119591

"Without a Union station redevelopment on a truly titanic scale, Union Station is really just running out of capacity, for more passengers and trains."

This be true. What they're doinng is a step towards this, although not the titanic scale. There is currently a plan to almost double train throughput at Union station, to around 49 trains per hour by 2031.

I am aware of the plans to upgrade the USRC to 45mph approaches on the west end and 30mph on the east end. But they have postponed this work until electrification (at least). The messed up part was they have repeatedly re-tendered the USRC work 3 times already and now the "big stuff" (that will increase Union throughput) is postponed until electrification.

With faster approaches before slowing down to the edges of the Union platforms, as well as shorter dwells, plus the addition of Platform 28, and possibly track-sharing with VIA (they left blank-in provisions for a Platform 13/14 stairway in the new concourse -- right now it's the area that displays phamphlets and schedules), and the roughly doubled train throughput, they will have more flexibility but they are going to push that flexibility to the very limits.

The tunnels will indeed be needed eventually, but 15-minute Lakeshore East/West and Kitchener/Stoufville corridor are able to happen before the tunnels will truly be needed. That said, Paris RER manages to pull off 3-minute headways...

Once the new concourses open and the basement mall, there will be about 6x the amount of loitering space than pre-Union-revitalization (3x concourse space, plus the lower level mall). The choke points will definitely be the stairways. Some of them will need to be widened 6 inches (without widening exteriors) to massively improve throughput: That allows them to be double-file stairways, and allows people to go downstairs while going upstairs at the same time. Doors/entryways of some stairs need to be widened to be double-file, they are choke points, and will require optimizations later on. Some of them already have, but some birdbrain moves were made like protruding staircase handles more than necessary (since there were no bulkheads), but it was pretty clear several stairways fully capable of douible-file are running in single-file mode due to being a few inches to narrow, causing problems with people going downstairs versus going upstairs. And a single standard door can't be double file, creating a choke point at the top or bottom of the stairs during high peak where there's counter-commuters trying to fight the way in opposite direction.

Beyond that, titanic redos would be needed like the tunnel.


Also, worth noting is GO wants the CBTC system (RER Business Case) which is a moving-block system instead of a traditional rail block system, which shortens headways. Trains follow each other at braking distances, rather than a traditional fixed-block system (except as fallback). It appears that about $800 million dollars of the already funded $13.5 billion electrification, is for the system that shortens train headways (page 161 of GO RER Business Case).

CBTC is mentioned many times by Metrolinx in recent documents, as being critical to GO RER.

"makes the effect of any slow down due to construction or service interruption, become multiplied and cause further problems down the line."

That would appear to be true.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-06-26 11:38:39

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Haveacow (registered) | Posted June 26, 2016 at 13:24:19

I really do want to have a new type of commuter rail system that GO RER and even Smart Track represents but the change is going to painful. For example, one problem/issue is that any signaling system that greatly reduces headway on the national railway system is also running a foul of most of the safety training and procedures that engineers operating trains on mainline railways in Canada (including GO Transit operators) must follow. The problem really amounts to the safety procedures and rules being written for a system with the pace of a freight and or long distance passenger rail system, while needing a commuter rail operation with a rapid transit, operating pace. The 2 do not work together at all! I see a lot of safety and procedural conflict coming between GO and Transport Canada and the rest of the North American Railway Industry. This was always my big worry about GO RER and Smart Track because it relies so much on altering quickly, very, very quickly altering in a coherent way, a century of government and industry rules and regulations, virtually overnight. You can't make this legal for GO or Smart Track and still say you can't have things like Tram-trains combined with LRT. This leaves a lot of freight railway businesses left behind as well. If passenger rail services can change a century of safety procedures overnight, why can't freight rail services! Then you get in a even worse problem.

Permalink | Context

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted June 27, 2016 at 03:20:37 in reply to Comment 119594

For example, one problem/issue is that any signaling system that greatly reduces headway on the national railway system is also running a foul of most of the safety training and procedures that engineers operating trains on mainline railways in Canada (including GO Transit operators) must follow. The problem really amounts to the safety procedures and rules being written for a system with the pace of a freight and or long distance passenger rail system, while needing a commuter rail operation with a rapid transit, operating pace. The 2 do not work together at all!

I think the rules are about to be changed within 10 years thanks to Trudeau et cetra. Let's consider that they had a waiver for the Ottawa O-Train (a $21M diesel LRT run as a 5-station trial on an existing mainline).

But now we're witnessing 2 orders of magnitude of spending (>$20billion) in the combination of $13.5bn GO RER (funded), the $5.5bn Montreal mainline light metro proposal (funded by Caisse and a little of Fed/Quebec pitch-in, apparently very close to being funded), and the $4.3bn VIA HFR EMU proposal (study now funded by feds, likely completed late this year or by next year).

All of which will require rule changes with $20bn+ of standardized 25kV mainline catenary spanning Aldershot-Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal and lot of spurs (Toronto GO RER, Montreal Caisse light metro), with most of these proposals entertaining non-FRA trainsets (GO RER isn't the only party...). Not to even mention the freight bypass may become a reality, freeing 100% of Kitchener rail to 100% passenger use and electrification to Kitchener-Waterloo by 2024 (...That is defacto the 407 Freight Bypass with the CN-side requirements satisfied -- and admittedly a fairly aggressive date to build the 407 Freight Bypass, IMHO...but CN is already 100% onboard [tweet2, tweet3]...and the feds appear to have their wallet ready).

On top of this, the Kitcheern electrified GO train route is likely also the same route the Ontario high speed rail study currently in progress, will likely run over. It will be interesting to see what congruencers comes up with GO trains and high speed trains, and whether. The proposal is coming out October 2016. Given the infrastructure-happy politics going on occuring, we might end up seeing high speed rail within our lifetime. One possible outcome within twenty years, I see, is something Acela Express style -- "lite" 200-240kph league rather than Japan/France 300kph league -- defacto high speed GO trains as a merger of GO electrification and high speed trains, into a "lite" high speed train that serves both commuter and intercity needs.

Not all of these may pan out, but even if half of all of the above happens in the next 20 years -- this is a massive electrification of Canadian rail infrastructure requiring seismic Transport Canada changes. Which, obviously, is going to have to include the train's own structural strength & modern signalling systems.

Seismically, the large number of mainline electrified train initiatives, means this is going to heave Transport Canada towards operating rule changes for CBTC-equipped corridors.

In fact, Transport Canada has already confirmed flexibility towards non-FRA trainsets:

Transport Canada has recently indicated that they may be more flexible with the FRA structural strength requirements, which might open opportunities for GO to study a broader range of European and Asian EMUs and DMUs. Specifically, they stated their intent to require new GO vehicles to either:

  • Meet FRA structure strength and crash worthiness for passenger cars, or
  • Maintain temporal separation from freight and heavy rail passenger traffic, or
  • Operate under some form of Positive Train Control (PTC) signalling system[/quote]

PTC also shortens headways in some countries already (e.g. Paris RER and their 3-minute headways) and CBTC also is capable of standing in as a (supposedly) superior version of positive train control, since it's a true moving-block signalling system. Also, according to RER Business Case, they are going to end daytime freight traffic on the Metrolinx-owned tracks from the tracks that has overhead catenary, and for the small sections (e.g. western part of Lakeshore West) that need occasional freight traffic, the freight locomotives are to be required to be equipped with CBTC (Appendix

From what I'm aware of from reading the docs (below) EMUs will be only coming to the Bramalea/Aurora/Unionville lines initially, and not to Lakeshore East/West (which will be electric locomotive driven initially). So they only need to focus on the Transport Canada waiver for those lines (as well as ferry to the railyards, e.g. Whitby).

So the deployment of new operating rules could be done incrementally, possibly as an overlay on traditional blocks -- e.g. If CBTC is operating, operating rules may give permission to allow multiple trains to occupy the same block. This is already permitted with railyard rules where you see 2 or 3 trains creep slowly only meters apart at Mimico in the late morning, while they're deadheading into Willobrook. I would imagine that CBTC would allow the trains to follow each other faster within the same traditional block. I imagine traditional blocks will continue to exist for a long time as a fallback. A CBTC failure could automatically cause all trains to brake unless they were able to fallback to a traditional block system and the train was the only one in a series of otherwise clear blocks (e.g. only train). There are probably a lot of complex nuances to solve, before Transport Canada lets all of this happen, and I imagine it has to happen incrementally, one track in one corridor at a time (probably beginning with the electrified version of UPX which is already equipped with PTC, although as far as I know, it is only active at the station end to prevent the train crashing into the end of the line).

I also have an UrbanToronto thread on PTC/CBTC signalling coming to the electrified version of GO's network, as it's a fascinating matter to watch coming to Canada's railroads in the light of the multiple electrification developments happening (including other than GO RER).

126 jobs are being created in Ontario for the CBTC signalling system, thanks to an Ontario $12M grant and $80M investment. Other companies including Bombardier are biting too as well.

It would seem that a seismic move at Transport Canada is occuring between now and 2025(ish), but the above indication of flexibility is a huge indication towards this direction. It might happen slowly, a few fully-grade-separated lines at a time.

Hours and hours of reading, probably over a half thousand pages on Metrolinx's newest 2016 plan documents for RER:

Given the huge order of magnitude of funding on electrified rail initiatives ($20-$30bn, of which $13.5bn is funded and $5.5bn apparently close to being funded) all possibly simultaneously depending on new Transport Canada rules -- you can bet Transport Canada is working on eventual new operating rules for this new era.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-06-27 04:27:38

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted June 27, 2016 at 04:06:49

On the topic of electrification, Metrolinx wants to someday electrify to Hamilton -- but currently it is unfunded beyond Aldershot. That said:

Electric trains Electric trains to Hamilton as further study. observe Metrolinx keeping door open to which station gets all-day service

Imgur Electric train tease at West Harbour GO

Imgur Electric train tease at Stoney Creek GO

With a trip time of roughly only 45 minutes (or so) between West Harbour and Union after going express beyond Burlington, the Hamilton 16 Express would no longer be needed.

By the time this is funded and happens with all-day 30 minute service, we'll already have a Hamilton LRT connected to this. And this GO network would by then be connected to VIA's electric HFR network that connects to Montreal's electrfied light metro/commuter system, the Ottawa LRT, Kitchener-Waterloo LRT, etc. Not to mention the possible high speed corridor (Toronto-Kitchener-London) and all the various Big Move projects.

The European-style "network effect" (electrified Ontario/Quebec) means many people can decrease reliance on their cars, with more ability to be mobile through the urban corridors. Reducing the need to widen freeways further or avoid doing things like building Pickering Airport (Mirabel 2), etc.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-06-27 04:30:08

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds