Mont Royal is one of the oldest station. New ones are a lot more fonctionals.
It's a centennial station though. The town of Mount Royal was formed as a garden suburb and built by the Canadian Northern in 1912 and the CN was operating the line. The former station building is located on top, and is now a restaurant.
The Mascouche line Infrastructure is way too elaborate for the amount of ridership expected. With ridership projected to be 14,000 across the whole line, I would rather see money spent improving existing services with this one built more bare bones.
And some of those GO stations look very odd with those huge parking garages. Yes I would far prefer them out in the boonies rather than in central Toronto, but why can't people use feeder bus routes to connect to the GO train? And what about encouraging TODs? Those structures make the area rather unattractive IMO and less likely to attract residential development.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Erindale Station is impressive but is it really necessary to have such a big building? I know it's used for indoor parking, but it looks like a major train terminal when really it's a normal train station. Must've cost a lot to build all this.
One thing I am glad of is the fact that Canada is much more advanced in commuter rail (nothing compared to Europe, but still) than the U.S. Toronto and Montreal respectively have the 5th and 8th most used CR systems, in front of cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Baltimore/Washington and Miami. And AMT's ridership will increase this year by at least 10,000 with the Mascouche Line, so the average daily ridership should rise to about 85,000.
The one I am most sad about is the Music City Star in Nashville. They are failing to get a daily ridership of 1000 users with 6 stations.
And some of those GO stations look very odd with those huge parking garages. Yes I would far prefer them out in the boonies rather than in central Toronto, but why can't people use feeder bus routes to connect to the GO train? And what about encouraging TODs? Those structures make the area rather unattractive IMO and less likely to attract residential development.
GO and/or local transit definitely run bus routes that hookup with the stations.
I agree about the TODs, in a lot of cases, though, the stations aren't necessarily in great locations which makes it tougher. Where it is feasible there is a push to build TODs.
The one station (Pickering) I posted has a new bridge for pedestrians, and cyclists, that connects with a new office complex and existing mall. The plan is to develop a hub of sorts at this location.
^ Well that's a relief anyway. I suppose it will be easier to design local bus systems that integrate with GO when the GO network frequency is better as the bus routes would be somewhat wasted if the connection is not useful most of the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkahHigh
Erindale Station is impressive but is it really necessary to have such a big building? I know it's used for indoor parking, but it looks like a major train terminal when really it's a normal train station. Must've cost a lot to build all this.
One thing I am glad of is the fact that Canada is much more advanced in commuter rail (nothing compared to Europe, but still) than the U.S. Toronto and Montreal respectively have the 5th and 8th most used CR systems, in front of cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Baltimore/Washington and Miami. And AMT's ridership will increase this year by at least 10,000 with the Mascouche Line, so the average daily ridership should rise to about 85,000.
The one I am most sad about is the Music City Star in Nashville. They are failing to get a daily ridership of 1000 users with 6 stations.
Not sure I'd say Canada is overall more advanced in CR than the US. Some cities are and some aren't. Sure Toronto has fairly high percapita ridership, but the actual systems are just mediocre. Chicago's network for example has 12 lines with two electric and 875km. Boston has 13 lines and 634 km of rail routes compared to Toronto's 450km and Toronto is a larger city. Philadelphia only has about 356km but entirely electrified. Large parts of NYC's CR is also electrified. Yes there are some US cities who do poorly like Houston and LA, but that's not an overall pattern.
I agree though that Canada has an overall higher transit mode share.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Not sure I'd say Canada is overall more advanced in CR than the US. Some cities are and some aren't. Sure Toronto has fairly high percapita ridership, but the actual systems are just mediocre. Chicago's network for example has 12 lines with two electric and 875km. Boston has 13 lines and 634 km of rail routes compared to Toronto's 450km and Toronto is a larger city. Philadelphia only has about 356km but entirely electrified. Large parts of NYC's CR is also electrified. Yes there are some US cities who do poorly like Houston and LA, but that's not an overall pattern.
I agree though that Canada has an overall higher transit mode share.
Montreal has 256km and Toronto 451km, that's really not bad.
Not sure I'd say Canada is overall more advanced in CR than the US. Some cities are and some aren't. Sure Toronto has fairly high percapita ridership, but the actual systems are just mediocre. Chicago's network for example has 12 lines with two electric and 875km. Boston has 13 lines and 634 km of rail routes compared to Toronto's 450km and Toronto is a larger city. Philadelphia only has about 356km but entirely electrified. Large parts of NYC's CR is also electrified. Yes there are some US cities who do poorly like Houston and LA, but that's not an overall pattern.
I agree though that Canada has an overall higher transit mode share.
How do they compare ridership wise? Also, GO Transit will look completely different here in the next few years with decent frequencies, expansion and electrification.
Also, GO Transit will look completely different here in the next few years with decent frequencies, expansion and electrification.
You guys are about ten years ahead of us now that AMT is done with building lines (the only next expansion could be the Candiac Line to Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu), they should focus on improving the current service. This means adding multi-level coaches during rush hour trains on the Deux-Montagnes Line, adding more frequencies on the Vaudreuil-Hudson Line and improving infrastructure. It would be tougher to improve frequencies on other lines because they share the tracks with the CN and CP...
NYCs commuter system is nuts, but its transit network in general is pretty crazy.
Outside of the US northeast, commuter rail is a bit of a joke in the US.
Chicagos commuter rail is probably the most famous outside of NYC's.
GO Transits incoming expansions is going to elevate it to NYC type level of service. 15 minute or better electrified service using EMUs.
The Metrolinx meeting on December 11th should have a whole bunch of additional details on the GO expansion too, plus we will finally be getting the fares for the UPx.
New York - 1 user per 21,34 people
Chicago - 1 user per 31,30 people
Toronto - 1 user per 28,34 people
Philadelphia - 1 user per 46,10 people
Boston - 1 user per 36,9 people
Montreal - 1 user per 48,75 people LA - 1 user per 321,85 people
Wow, I thought Montreal did better, even though most of the other systems are a lot older than the AMT's... LA is just pathetic.
The Mascouche line Infrastructure is way too elaborate for the amount of ridership expected. With ridership projected to be 14,000 across the whole line, I would rather see money spent improving existing services with this one built more bare bones.
And some of those GO stations look very odd with those huge parking garages. Yes I would far prefer them out in the boonies rather than in central Toronto, but why can't people use feeder bus routes to connect to the GO train? And what about encouraging TODs? Those structures make the area rather unattractive IMO and less likely to attract residential development.
It's hard to encourage TOD along GO lines simply because most railway lines in Toronto bypass areas that are residentially desirable. If you look at where most GO lines run, and where most GO stations are, they tend to be in very inhospitable places that are really only suitable for drive-in commuting: beside heavy industry, next to freeways and generally far away from other residential areas or the kinds of amenities people want to live near to.
Toronto is kind of unique in this. Most cities in North America developed old, suburban downtowns along existing rail corridors. Notice that the Lakeshore line skips every historic downtown along its length apart from downtown Toronto: Oshawa, Whitby, Oakville, Burlington and, soon, Hamilton. Port Credit is sort of the anomaly.
The other lines have more TOD potential but, of course, lack all day service.
Notice that the Lakeshore line skips every historic downtown along its length apart from downtown Toronto: Oshawa, Whitby, Oakville, Burlington and, soon, Hamilton. Port Credit is sort of the anomaly.
Hamilton already has downtown service with the Lakeshore line. They're just building a new station to allow higher frequencies. (I'm also not totally sure if I would call Burlington's downtown, but I suppose it's only like 1 km from it.)
Prev
now that AMT is done with building lines (the only next expansion could be the Candiac Line to Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu), they should focus on improving the current service. This means adding multi-level coaches during rush hour trains on the Deux-Montagnes Line, adding more frequencies on the Vaudreuil-Hudson Line and improving infrastructure. It would be tougher to improve frequencies on other lines because they share the tracks with the CN and CP...
Linear Mode
