GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[crs1026]

If (when?) electrification comes to GO, the electricity rates would likewise be built around long term contracts. Any amount of subsidy could happen, just like other industrial electricity contracts. Of course, that just moves the true cost from one pocket to another, but there's no reason for GO to get less of Ms Wynne's Hydro love than any other big customer.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

With a privatised Hydro One the government can't play that game very easily.

 

[crs1026]

With a privatised Hydro One the government can't play that game very easily.

http://www.ieso.ca/Pages/Ontario's-Power-System/Electricity-Pricing-in-Ontario/Large-Electricity-Consumers.aspx

Hydro One is not the only determining factor in Hydro rates. Big customers don't have their bill calculated the same way as you or I do as homeowners. The regulatory setup - and not Hydro One's business fortunes - is what sets price.

Edit: see http://www.ampco.org/index.cfm?pagePath=Analysis/Benchmarking&id=36556

My point is not that Hydro in Ontario is cheap - it ain't - it's that there are Class A customers and Class B customers, and they don't pay the same rate. The Class A rate is a lot closer to other jurisdictions that the rate the little guy in Ontario pays. Not all kilowatts are equal.

- Paul

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Meant to respond to this sooner

It's good they are dropping the prices for short haul routes but that doesn't change the fact thet the system still grossly benefits long haul travel. Someone travelling from Exhibition to Union still pays about quadruple what someone does from Burlington on a per km based fare.

It might not seem fair to use a similar formula for GO users when you consider that ridership revenue is only used towards operating costs and not the capital costs, the reality is that GO is in fact competing against vehicle usage. And people make a decision to use transit(aside from convince factors) based on a comparison of what it would cost compared to alternative methods of travel. And the daily costs of getting to work by car it will always be much more expensive to on a per km basis the closer you live to work. Regardless of where you are traveling from parking costs are the same for everyone. These fee's account for a significant portion of cost of owning and driving a vehicle to work. The ratio gets even worse when you factor in all ownership costs(vehicle cost, insurance, licensing, maintenance). While living farther away costs more overall, it is much cheaper on a per km basis for car ownership.

Aside from that GO's main function, at this time, is to reduce congestion caused from those traveling longer distances and not short distance users. Short distance users afterall have more viable transit options available to them. As the system evolves(RER, electrification) it will eventually be better able to handle increased usage by short distance travelers and presumably/hopefully, the fare formula will change to promote such use when the time comes. But at this time it is not ideal for GO to promote such usage as the system is not designed or priced to be convenient for short distance users because it would overwhelm current capacity limits.

 

[ShonTron]

Meant to respond to this sooner


It might not seem fair to use a similar formula for GO users when you consider that ridership revenue is only used towards operating costs and not the capital costs, the reality is that GO is in fact competing against vehicle usage. And people make a decision to use transit(aside from convince factors) based on a comparison of what it would cost compared to alternative methods of travel. And the daily costs of getting to work by car it will always be much more expensive to on a per km basis the closer you live to work. Regardless of where you are traveling from parking costs are the same for everyone. These fee's account for a significant portion of cost of owning and driving a vehicle to work. The ratio gets even worse when you factor in all ownership costs(vehicle cost, insurance, licensing, maintenance). While living farther away costs more overall, it is much cheaper on a per km basis for car ownership.

Aside from that GO's main function, at this time, is to reduce congestion caused from those traveling longer distances and not short distance users. Short distance users afterall have more viable transit options available to them. As the system evolves(RER, electrification) it will eventually be better able to handle increased usage by short distance travelers and presumably/hopefully, the fare formula will change to promote such use when the time comes. But at this time it is not ideal for GO to promote such usage as the system is not designed or priced to be convenient for short distance users because it would overwhelm current capacity limits.

All due respect, that still sounds like justification for GO's auto-centric policy: not so much a transit system, but more of parking authority.

 

[crs1026]

All due respect, that still sounds like justification for GO's auto-centric policy: not so much a transit system, but more of parking authority.

Yes and no. GO serves central Toronto's interests more than anyone else - by creating a very good reason not to build any more highway capacity into the downtown. That is the historical reason for GO's inception, and it remains paramount. Imagine if today's ridership came into the city by car every day!

The lack of attention to service within 416 is a huge flaw, but one can't blame GO alone. The fiefdom mentality has always been strong at TTC too. Realistically, regional trains can't stop everywhere within the city, although better tie-ins to city transit should have been built all along. I wish Tory would move his Smarttrack focus to LSE/LSW, where we are much closer to having the track capacity for an added-stops local service as well as regional express service.

My 905 transit friends fume at GO's parking garage investment, as they maintain that the same money directed towards better feeder route transit would have made more sense. I'm not sure that is doable, even if the numbers bear them out. There's a good case to be made that 905 families could get by with one fewer vehicle if transit were better out there.... the individual expense of buying maintaining and insuring the extra beater that sits at the GO station all day is significant, probably more than the added fares for the feeder ride. But 905 is wedded to an automotive lifestyle just yet. The parking lots are a regrettable necessity, for now.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

GO *isn't* a transit system. It's a transit operator, whose capital spend priorities are politically driven by battleground ridings in the 905/705/519. Becoming a transit system would involve integration with local transit which to some extent would be whether local politicians liked it or not (see Brampton and HMLRT). In any event, if Toronto wants intra-416 transit to be a GO priority, a good way to make it happen is to ante up some $ for a seat at the planning table rather than watch passing trains and say "hey, we wanna ride for a token".

As for the oft-provided example of Exhibition-Union, a distance which can be walked in 45-50 minutes according to Google, it has yet to be demonstrated that trains operating that segment are so under capacity at the time when local transit is the most stretched that having a cheaper ticket would make a material difference to the current position. The GO-TTC fare deal involving Danforth-Union-Exhibition created handfuls of sales, not milling crowds.

Where GO can make the most difference in 416 residents quality of life is in commutes by TTC exceeding an hour from Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough, not whingers in Liberty Village who have the ear of local media and never hesitate to bend it.

 

[Komiksulo]

Minor note...
Just now, I saw one of the new cab cars leading a westbound train out of Oshawa. I just glimpsed it as I was standing by the door of the easternmost car of my arriving train (to minimize the walk to my bus), and because it was pulling out, we passed it at some speed.

 

[Megaton327]

Minor note...
Just now, I saw one of the new cab cars leading a westbound train out of Oshawa. I just glimpsed it as I was standing by the door of the easternmost car of my arriving train (to minimize the walk to my bus), and because it was pulling out, we passed it at some speed.

I've noticed them on a number of different trains now. For at least a week or two the only one was on the "photo op train" (the one that's 100% end-to-end painted in the new Metrolinx colours), now I've seen several different lakeshore runs using one.

 

[Allandale25]

Because of Transport Canada rules post Lac Megantic, reversers cannot be kept in place on the engine/cab car.

Sorry maybe I missed this but what is a "reverser" and what's the relation to the new cab coaches? Thank you.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Sorry maybe I missed this but what is a "reverser" and what's the relation to the new cab coaches? Thank you.

To operate from the cab car or locomotive you need to insert the reverser into the control stand before the train can be placed in forward or reverse and power applied.
Basically it's the key to the train, you can't go anywhere without one.

 

[Allandale25]

To operate from the cab car or locomotive you need to insert the reverser into the control stand before the train can be placed in forward or reverse and power applied.
Basically it's the key to the train, you can't go anywhere without one.

Thanks!

 

[mdrejhon]

My wild guess:
I imagine that an employee-card-operated lockbox inside the cab would be a potential solution.

(which may or may not be the solution deployed -- information probably embargoed for security purposes, if this is the actual solution).

 

[smallspy]

Because of Transport Canada rules post Lac Megantic, reversers cannot be kept in place on the engine/cab car. Instead the train crews carry it with them(https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/emergency-directive-947.html #2). Problem is they decide to use a new and unique type of reverser exclusive to only these cab cars. Gotta love(i.e. hate) how there's a lack of standardization between brand new equipment. Furthermore they didn't order any spares for the crews, or at least they're just a few hundred short.

The reverser in the new cab cars is the same as the ones used in the ALP-45s and -46s, and in the MultiLevel cab cars. So Bombardier has produced at the very least 300-some-odd ones at this point, not including however many of the 63 cab car order for GO (and 7 for Seattle's Sounder).

As to why they didn't order any spares, well, I think that you need to talk to your employer about that.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

The reverser in the new cab cars is the same as the ones used in the ALP-45s and -46s, and in the MultiLevel cab cars. So Bombardier has produced at the very least 300-some-odd ones at this point, not including however many of the 63 cab car order for GO (and 7 for Seattle's Sounder).

As to why they didn't order any spares, well, I think that you need to talk to your employer about that.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Specifically I was referring to GO's current equipment roster, as the new cab cars are the only ones that require the new reverser. Though I suppose that if it's something that is becoming an industry standard, can't really lay any blame there, it was going to happen eventually then. I take it it was not an option for the MP40's(or UP's for the matter), otherwise it would make little sense to have two different reversers for the same equipment.

In one sense I can see how it would be the Bombardier's responsibility to supply their employee's with the tools to do the job. But on the other hand the equipment is owned by GO, so would the tools to run that equipment not be as well? Ultimately I don't know who's job it was to procure the reversers, just that somebody clearly failed in that respect.