Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Click here to get started.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
GO Transit
Would GO be willing to operate one railway line to two different destinations so far apart? (Hamilton notwithstanding)
Reply
This one's for the railfans - one of the original GO Train cab cars from the 1960's is now on display at the Toronto Railway Museum roundhouse, opposite CN Tower:

https://www.facebook.com/GOtransitOffici...9654158444
Reply
(05-13-2017, 03:17 PM)DHLawrence Wrote: No reason we can't have economic activity too. Kitchener and Waterloo are going to run out of easy to develop/redevelop land eventually. Send a little of that our way.

There's not much impetus to extend rail lines to reach new parking lots. All Cambridge has largely been interested in is getting parking lots for their residents to use GO, but what economic activity does this add? It might drive up home prices by making Cambridge akin to some of the farthest Lakeshore East stations, a place to buy a cheaper-than-GTA home and then drive to a GO parking lot. Kitchener has gotten theirs in no small part because of a committment they've started towards making a 2-way system viable, which includes focusing on creating workplaces near transit, and effective transit to get you to workplaces (ION). Waterloo region even has stats showing that more people commute into the region than out of it for work, which only adds to the priority of the Kitchener line over any extension of Milton's. Perhaps when Doug Craig isn't only finding problems with LRT enough to throw wrenches in the process, or working hard to make sure any kind of usable density comes to any part of Cambridge, then we might see changing fortunes.
Reply
I think that’s pretty well-said. The case for a commuter line into downtown Toronto from a park-and-ride probably makes a whole lot more sense from Oshawa (60 kilometres from downtown) than from Cambridge (100+km), especially nowadays.

Investments in the Kitchener Line will serve to further progress towards development goals, and create better connections within the Waterloo-Toronto economic cluster. That’s the better case. It’s not just an issue of ridership on day one.
Reply
That's the thing that has always kind of bugged me about Doug Craig. He doesn't want Cambridge to be the forgotten and neglected sibling in the Region, but instead of focusing on strengthening ties within the Region and strengthening it's role in a local context, his vision seems to instead focus on becoming a bedroom of Toronto. It may help spur housing development and allow artificially low property taxes for residents in the short term (as was the case in Mississauga for the longest time), but it won't do the city any favours in the long term.
Reply
(05-15-2017, 07:30 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote:
(05-13-2017, 03:17 PM)DHLawrence Wrote: No reason we can't have economic activity too. Kitchener and Waterloo are going to run out of easy to develop/redevelop land eventually. Send a little of that our way.

There's not much impetus to extend rail lines to reach new parking lots. All Cambridge has largely been interested in is getting parking lots for their residents to use GO, but what economic activity does this add? It might drive up home prices by making Cambridge akin to some of the farthest Lakeshore East stations, a place to buy a cheaper-than-GTA home and then drive to a GO parking lot. Kitchener has gotten theirs in no small part because of a committment they've started towards making a 2-way system viable, which includes focusing on creating workplaces near transit, and effective transit to get you to workplaces (ION). Waterloo region even has stats showing that more people commute into the region than out of it for work, which only adds to the priority of the Kitchener line over any extension of Milton's. Perhaps when Doug Craig isn't only finding problems with LRT enough to throw wrenches in the process, or working hard to make sure any kind of usable density comes to any part of Cambridge, then we might see changing fortunes.

It would get cars off the road to begin with, and add possibly add some downtown activity in building a commuter hub downtown that could eventually expand to all day 2 way Go service. I'm not sure how this is different from the go train going to kitchener. Most busses connect to downtown
Reply
It would get a limited number of cars off the road, for what amounts to a 100km journey. Where GO wants to invest is in cities that invest in themselves, to make bidirectional and all-day loading feasible. So far, as was said, Craig seems to be interested in being a bedroom community only, and so he gets widening of the 401 at various points between highway 8 and Mississauga, which is fitting for his efforts.
Reply
(05-16-2017, 07:09 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: It would get a limited number of cars off the road, for what amounts to a 100km journey. Where GO wants to invest is in cities that invest in themselves, to make bidirectional and all-day loading feasible. So far, as was said, Craig seems to be interested in being a bedroom community only, and so he gets widening of the 401 at various points between highway 8 and Mississauga, which is fitting for his efforts.

like restore a building downtown and put a library in it, build a city hall downtown, build a bridge, have a theatre built and dorms, convert traffic to 2 way traffic downtown, put those poles in the road to facilitate more open street events by the farmers market, try and entice developers to buy and find tenants for the former courthouse downtown that was abandoned, put in street scaping in guelph, spend double the budget to put in streetscaping in hespeler, suspend development fees for low income housing for 20 years (taxes too?), not collect any development fees for projects in the downtown area.
Reply
Don't forget the Royal Hotel, the architecture school, and the two condos near the Water and Ainslie wedge. Would love to see the streetscaping at Central Park in Preston happen, but after the nightmare with redoing Shantz Hill to Eagle I think it's reasonable to stick a pin in that for a couple years.
Reply
(05-16-2017, 08:48 PM)darts Wrote:
(05-16-2017, 07:09 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: It would get a limited number of cars off the road, for what amounts to a 100km journey. Where GO wants to invest is in cities that invest in themselves, to make bidirectional and all-day loading feasible. So far, as was said, Craig seems to be interested in being a bedroom community only, and so he gets widening of the 401 at various points between highway 8 and Mississauga, which is fitting for his efforts.

like restore a building downtown and put a library in it, build a city hall downtown, build a bridge, have a theatre built and dorms, convert traffic to 2 way traffic downtown, put those poles in the road to facilitate more open street events by the farmers market, try and entice developers to buy and find tenants for the former courthouse downtown that was abandoned, put in street scaping in guelph, spend double the budget to put in streetscaping in hespeler, suspend development fees for low income housing for 20 years (taxes too?), not collect any development fees for projects in the downtown area.

In the case of Guelph, the current administration also oversaw a large decrease in transit service hours. In the case of Galt, they are trying to put a blanket 3-storey maximum on the entirety of the area, as Doug goes about still opposing LRT. Making a space easier to convert for the occasional weekend festival is not an important factor in determining whether an area is supportive of GO, but how dense they allow their transit station to become, how hard they push to connect it to local transit systems of the highest calibre, that does tell you a great deal.
Reply
(05-16-2017, 08:48 PM)darts Wrote:
(05-16-2017, 07:09 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: It would get a limited number of cars off the road, for what amounts to a 100km journey. Where GO wants to invest is in cities that invest in themselves, to make bidirectional and all-day loading feasible. So far, as was said, Craig seems to be interested in being a bedroom community only, and so he gets widening of the 401 at various points between highway 8 and Mississauga, which is fitting for his efforts.

like restore a building downtown and put a library in it, build a city hall downtown, build a bridge, have a theatre built and dorms, convert traffic to 2 way traffic downtown, put those poles in the road to facilitate more open street events by the farmers market, try and entice developers to buy and find tenants for the former courthouse downtown that was abandoned, put in street scaping in guelph, spend double the budget to put in streetscaping in hespeler, suspend development fees for low income housing for 20 years (taxes too?), not collect any development fees for projects in the downtown area.

I would question how many GTA residents would commute from home to Cambridge for a downtown library, city hall, a pedestrian bridge or 2 way traffic.  A dense city has more customers willing to use the service.  Limiting density to 3 stories would seem counter productive.

I'd also question his anti-LRT stance as another road block for the city.  [How do the non-car owners get to/from the station?]

Coke
Reply
Most of the development potential is closer to Dundas and Beverly. I could see up to about half a dozen stories in Galt proper (think the affordable apartments across from the bus station), but any more than that would look out of place. Less so at the fringes - closer to the CPR tracks, south of Concession, within reason between Water and Concession, etc. There needs to be a balance.
Reply
(05-17-2017, 11:24 AM)Coke6pk Wrote:
(05-16-2017, 08:48 PM)darts Wrote: like restore a building downtown and put a library in it, build a city hall downtown, build a bridge, have a theatre built and dorms, convert traffic to 2 way traffic downtown, put those poles in the road to facilitate more open street events by the farmers market, try and entice developers to buy and find tenants for the former courthouse downtown that was abandoned, put in street scaping in guelph, spend double the budget to put in streetscaping in hespeler, suspend development fees for low income housing for 20 years (taxes too?), not collect any development fees for projects in the downtown area.

I would question how many GTA residents would commute from home to Cambridge for a downtown library, city hall, a pedestrian bridge or 2 way traffic.  A dense city has more customers willing to use the service.  Limiting density to 3 stories would seem counter productive.

I'd also question his anti-LRT stance as another road block for the city.  [How do the non-car owners get to/from the station?]

Coke

How many are going to KW for their library and courthouses and condos? Yes there are tech companies in both cities, there are companies in cambridge that are also in Toronto as well, and for the most part for meetings there are telephones

His LRT stance as I understood it was more along the lines of the LRT wasn't coming to Cambridge and the residents in cambridge would end up subsidizing the operation costs, which is true since it looks like phase 2 is 10 years out assuming there is provincial and federal money. How much of his LRT stance and how you perceive him affecting your thoughts on this matter, if he were to die today the next mayor would likely be in favour of a go train coming to Cambridge.

And as DH lawrence has pointed out there is a lot of land between Beverly and Shade st, at Beverly just past Dundas, there is a bunch of buildings near dundas st that will be next to the LRT.
Reply
(05-17-2017, 07:18 PM)darts Wrote:
(05-17-2017, 11:24 AM)Coke6pk Wrote: I would question how many GTA residents would commute from home to Cambridge for a downtown library, city hall, a pedestrian bridge or 2 way traffic.  A dense city has more customers willing to use the service.  Limiting density to 3 stories would seem counter productive.

I'd also question his anti-LRT stance as another road block for the city.  [How do the non-car owners get to/from the station?]

Coke

How many are going to KW for their library and courthouses and condos? Yes there are tech companies in both cities, there are companies in cambridge that are also in Toronto as well, and for the most part for meetings there are telephones

His LRT stance as I understood it was more along the lines of the LRT wasn't coming to Cambridge and the residents in cambridge would end up subsidizing the operation costs, which is true since it looks like phase 2 is 10 years out assuming there is provincial and federal money. How much of his LRT stance and how you perceive him affecting your thoughts on this matter, if he were to die today the next mayor would likely be in favour of a go train coming to Cambridge.

And as DH lawrence has pointed out there is a lot of land between Beverly and Shade st, at Beverly just past Dundas, there is a bunch of buildings near dundas st that will be next to the LRT.

I read your initial response as things that have been done to "support themselves" as referenced earlier.  While these are great things for the city, they are not reasons to bring people in. [Notice I left the theatre off my list].

If I was Metrolinx, I wouldn't be jumping at the chance to head to a new location that is anti-"local transit initiative". 

K-W has already proven we have commuters coming this way.  Cambridge can only prove they are taking in those willing to do a longer drive into Toronto.

Coke
Reply
(05-17-2017, 07:18 PM)darts Wrote: How much of his LRT stance and how you perceive him affecting your thoughts on this matter, if he were to die today the next mayor would likely be in favour of a go train coming to Cambridge.

Everyone would be happy to take improved GO service since there is no cost to it, either financial or planning.  But Metrolinx has to prioritize, and cities that are not supportive of transit or intensification will surely rank lower on the list.

(05-17-2017, 07:18 PM)darts Wrote: And as DH lawrence has pointed out there is a lot of land between Beverly and Shade st, at Beverly just past Dundas, there is a bunch of buildings near dundas st that will be next to the LRT.

There are buildings -- but would Cambridge allow them to be replaced with taller ones?  And will they even accept any reasonable LRT routing in the first place?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)