GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[crs1026]

One can do anything with enough money, so I won't chase down a rabbit hole over whether a heavy rail line is technically possible alongside (rather than down the middle of) the 407. (But the junction at Langstaff would be very tight.).

I wonder, however, if the ridership would make this investment worthwhile, especially with TTC Line 1 also heading towards Richmond Hill.

There are two other logistical issues I see - one, to upgrade the Richmond Hill service to 2WAD and impose this on the Barrie Line might not be possible - it effectively doubles the volume of trains on the Barrie line south of the 407. And two, CN's willingness to accept a 2-track electrified line from Langstaff northwards is doubtful and difficult to accomplish. Freight trains also travel on the north to east leg of the Doncaster Junction - meaning CN needs access to both the west and east sides of this corridor. Accommodating rush hour diesel trains is doable, but CN is extremely reluctant to have its trains use or even cross an electrified route at any point.

Then, there is the question of how to serve Oriole and Old Cummer stations. Withdrawing service from these catchment areas would be problemmatic. And I don't see much potential for transit oriented development along the 407 without adding new stops (and hence adding to trip time) - whereas Leslie/Finch might be able to absorb a little densification..

The better answer might be to reroute the Richmond Hill line down the former Leaside spur. The NIMBY potential of that route is so high that I wonder if it's even possible. But even if trenched, and including a flyunder under the CP at Leaside and under the CN at Doncaster it would likely cost less and offer the same improvement in trip time as the proposed jog along the 407

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

If I understand @TRONto correctly, he is envisioning the 407 Transitway Corridor as opposed to the York Sub.

I don't want to get further into the weeds on this at the moment, for the reference of those who do, I think looking at the conceptual Transitway alignment may be of interest (from way back in 2006!)

http://lrt.daxack.ca/images/407-Transitway-Implementation.pdf

I believe the concept is only for BRT ( I could stand to be corrected, as I only gave it a quick skim); needless to say if it were rail there are issues around grade and turning radii that would vary vs bus service.

 

[anb]

I believe this was mentioned before but now is officially confirmed by GO. Co fares are no more as of March 14, except for TTC transfers still having to pay full fares, but that was expected anyways.

https://www.gotransit.com/en/blog/save-with-new-fare-discounts

 

[reaperexpress]

I believe this was mentioned before but now is officially confirmed by GO. Co fares are no more as of March 14, except for TTC transfers still having to pay full fares, but that was expected anyways.

https://www.gotransit.com/en/blog/save-with-new-fare-discounts

Thoroughly disappointing that they chose to increase the GO transfer discount from 75% to 100% for 905 agencies, rather than reinstating the 50% discount for TTC trips connecting to GO which already existed until the Ford government cancelled it. Politically, I get it, since the provincial Conservatives have more votes to gain in the 905 than in the City.

It's amusing to note that for agencies which don't use Presto*, you can now get on the bus for free just by showing a Presto card. So really those entire transit systems are now completely free since there's no way of checking that you're actually transfering to/from GO.

* Milton Transit, Grand River Transit, Guelph Transit, Bradford Transit, Barrie Transit

And bizarrely, GO e-passes are not accepted as proof-of-payment, even though those other agencies could actually check those.

Here were the local bus ticket prices for transfers to/from GO prior to this change:

 

[innsertnamehere]

wait, Milton Transit doesn't use PRESTO? I'm not surprised the other ones don't as they are sort of outside the GTA, but Milton surprises me.

Metrolinx needs to renew efforts to expand PRESTO to more areas IMO, at the very least every agency which GO covers.

 

[allengeorge]

I’m surprised that municipalities that GO services do not use Presto (and that the provincial government hasn’t forced them to). For all its faults - and there are many - it’s truly convenient to have a single transit card across agencies.

 

[reaperexpress]

I’m surprised that municipalities that GO services do not use Presto (and that the provincial government hasn’t forced them to). For all its faults - and there are many - it’s truly convenient to have a single transit card across agencies.

I recall when GRT was looking at adopting a farecard, they considered joining Presto (of course) but ended up making their own contract with the same company who implemented Presto in Ottawa, because Presto's fees were too high.

Waterloo Region's 2014 report on the new EasyGo fare card proposed a convoluted system with extra card readers at Kitchener GO station to implement the Connect-to-GO fare discount:

Presto Integration
The proposed system supports the Region’s Connect-to-GO discount fare agreement with GO transit. Customers who present a valid Go Transit fare on boarding a GRT bus
may ride at a reduced rate of $0.50. GO Transit subsidizes this discount by reimbursing the Region for the difference between the reduced fare and the price of a regular ticket.
[EasyGO] card holders who also use Presto would be able to register to participate in the Connect to GO discount program. At the time of registration, the customer would
provide their Presto card ID number, and would commit to carry a minimum balance on their [EasyGO] card. When riding Regional transit service that would connect with GO
service, [EasyGO] would debit $0.50 per trip from the customer’s card. Customers arriving on GO trains would be able to validate their [EasyGO] card at a dedicated reader
on the GO platform to authorize their trip on ION or GRT at the reduced rate. The [Fare System] would provide a full reconciliation of discount rides provided and associated use
of the customer’s Presto card on GO service.
Staff has spoken with Metrolinx about [EasyGO] integration with Presto. Accordingly, the proposed [EasyGO] includes hardware that is capable of supporting fuller integration with
Presto. Staff will continue discussions with Presto as a future phase of the [Fare System].

But that never happened, so people transferring from GO need to pay cash in order to get the discount:

So (prior to this month) it is not easy to use EasyGo to go to GO.

 

[Krypto98]

I’m surprised that municipalities that GO services do not use Presto (and that the provincial government hasn’t forced them to). For all its faults - and there are many - it’s truly convenient to have a single transit card across agencies.

TorontoStar would likely make a scathing article how metrolinx is overreaching others by forcing them to use presto

 

[Jonny5]

I’m surprised that municipalities that GO services do not use Presto (and that the provincial government hasn’t forced them to). For all its faults - and there are many - it’s truly convenient to have a single transit card across agencies.

There's high fixed costs for low marginal benefits to a very small number of transit users in a place like Milton.
You know, back when GO had punch cards, commuting was not some horrible nightmare simply because of that (there were other reasons it was bad back then). For all its benefits, PRESTO has added relatively little marginal benefit to the experience of pro-commuters in a place like Milton.

 

[robmausser]

I’m surprised that municipalities that GO services do not use Presto (and that the provincial government hasn’t forced them to). For all its faults - and there are many - it’s truly convenient to have a single transit card across agencies.

Most of PRESTO's faults have been worked out at this point. It would have been easier to go with an off-the-shelf system like Oyster, but most of the PRESTO teething issues are done with and its at a pretty good place. Credit/Debit tap and other such features are almost finalized.

 

[nfitz]

Most of PRESTO's faults have been worked out at this point. It would have been easier to go with an off-the-shelf system like Oyster, but most of the PRESTO teething issues are done with and its at a pretty good place. Credit/Debit tap and other such features are almost finalized.

There's still issues. Not to mention the huge annual cost to maintain it, much which seems unnecessary with credit/debit. It would be interesting to see a good cost per ride comparison between systems.

Lots of issues still though. The transfers issued by drivers and the ticket machines on vehicles were supposed to be tappable. I still don't know how you are supposed to use a paper transfer to get into an often unstaffed subway station, unless you are travelling with someone with Presto.

The on-vehicle machines still don't accept debit/credit for payment - this was removed "temporarily" years ago. Which might have worked, but they don't take paper money either ... meaning you travel with lots of loonies and toonies. Yeah, you could get Presto, but with only a 5-cent fare difference between Presto and cash - what's the point? You have to take 120 rides just to get back your $6 for the card (yeah, my daughter lost her Presto card ... sigh).

And it's not even the cheapest way to travel - for example on UP, you can buy paper tickets for some trips that are cheaper than using your Presto Card - like a quick visit to the airport to meet someone.

 

[wopchop]

And it's not even the cheapest way to travel - for example on UP, you can buy paper tickets for some trips that are cheaper than using your Presto Card - like a quick visit to the airport to meet someone.

Weekend pass too is cheaper than Presto fare, and only available online. $10 for a weekend day or $15 for whole weekend.

 

[reaperexpress]

I do think a Niagara style express weekend train could be a big hit. I do think the train times aren't optimal but I would like to see maybe GO replacing the former VIA 85,88, trips and then adjusting the current trips

As I've described before, I too have wondered about VIA temporarily leaving the north mainline until it is upgraded to the point that they can provide half-decent intercity service.

Here's an edit of the October 2021 GO timetable which replaces VIA west of Kitchener. I added a Stratford-Toronto commuter trip like VIA wanted to do in 2016, because the Stratford-Kitchener segment is slightly less dilapidated than the London-Stratford segment.

Table only shows trips continuing west of Georgetown.

This change depends on CN permitting VIA to reroute the Sarnia service via Brantford. If necessary, we could mitigate the impacts on CN by building an additional platform at Woodstock station. Although the CN Dundas Subdivision is fully double-tracked, the stations along it only have platforms on the south track. So in order to meet trains in the opposite direction, VIA trains need to weave back and forth across the two tracks between stations. A second platform at Woodstock would allow VIA to schedule meets there, enabling ordinary double-track operations from London to Brantford (or Ingersoll to Brantford if meeting trains both stop at Ingersoll).

Brantford would have been a more obvious location for upgrades, but it looks a platform there would be a lot more expensive due to space constraints. Woodstock actually has enough space to add dedicated VIA sidings, which would allow the platforms to be raised for level boarding.

By the time the new platform is built, there would already be hourly AD2W GO service to Kitchener, providing far more scheduling options for GO trips to London than the conceptual timetable I made. There's a good chance my timetable is impossible anyway due to freight movements which I don't know about.

 

[Krypto98]

As I've described before, I too have wondered about VIA temporarily leaving the north mainline until it is upgraded to the point that they can provide half-decent intercity service.

Here's an edit of the October 2021 GO timetable which replaces VIA west of Kitchener. I added a Stratford-Toronto commuter trip like VIA wanted to do in 2016, because the Stratford-Kitchener segment is slightly less dilapidated than the London-Stratford segment.

Table only shows trips continuing west of Georgetown.
View attachment 382906
View attachment 382907

This change depends on CN permitting VIA to reroute the Sarnia service via Brantford. If necessary, we could mitigate the impacts on CN by building an additional platform at Woodstock station. Although the CN Dundas Subdivision is fully double-tracked, the stations along it only have platforms on the south track. So in order to meet trains in the opposite direction, VIA trains need to weave back and forth across the two tracks between stations. A second platform at Woodstock would allow VIA to schedule meets there, enabling ordinary double-track operations from London to Brantford (or Ingersoll to Brantford if meeting trains both stop at Ingersoll).
View attachment 382908
Brantford would have been a more obvious location for upgrades, but it looks a platform there would be a lot more expensive due to space constraints. Woodstock actually has enough space to add dedicated VIA sidings, which would allow the platforms to be raised for level boarding.

By the time the new platform is built, there would already be hourly AD2W GO service to Kitchener, providing far more scheduling options for GO trips to London than the conceptual timetable I made. There's a good chance my timetable is impossible anyway due to freight movements which I don't know about.

Only freight movements I'm aware of West of Georgetown are, cn533,cn540 cn568 and the gexr one.

 

[crs1026]

^Both Woodstock and Brantford deserve the same kind of station investment that has been made further east at Cobourg and Belleville. I doubt that either CN or VIA would be comfortable with a second platform without a pedestrian overpass or underpass. I agree that putting the Sarnia service on the Brantford route and fixing the “weaving” would at least give better service.

The key to improving service on the north line - and at this point I don’t care who runs it, so your suggestion that VIA withdraw is quite palatable - is passing capacity. While ML may be using its funding wisely, by starting with tackling bridges and crossings and track east of Kitchener, those sidings are an urgent prerequisite to getting things right. I sure hope we see shovels go in the ground on these this spring.

What the Kitchener-Stratford-London line needs is 4-5 runs each way spaced out over the day. As you noted, a departure out of Toronto as early in the AM as possible is the start of that. (The fact that it can’t be run west of Georgetown earlier than 09:42 demonstrates the siding problem).

I doubt that VIA would withdraw, no matter how rational a solution that might be…. too much political ammunition if they folded their flag, even if it produced better interim service.

What this route needs is an integrated business case and service plan… you know, the kind where federal and provincial people get in a room together, take off their hats, and works together to find the best solution without regard to politics or level of government.. Only then will we know just how much investment is required, and where. I’m not sure we will ever see that train arrive.

- Paul