News   Jun 25, 2024
10 Storeys Proposed to Float Over Annex Heritage Building
 1.1K     1 
News   Jun 25, 2024
Madison's Alias Ascending with Height Bump into Downtown Skies
 938     0 
News   Jun 25, 2024
How Toronto Is Responding as the Fastest Growing City in North America
 1.6K     3 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

mdrejhon said:
Operationally, how do they prevent someone accidentally driver a taller bus under the underpass? There must be a procedure or process to make sure that the double decker they drive, can go to Union.
Click to expand...

They have a GPS that is interlocked with the vehicle's ignition system. It will not allow a 'prohibited' route.

- Paul
 
Per the recent discussion about GO Buses on the 407, I tweeted GO, to which they replied: "GO Transit is not exempt, we also pay the fee."

That's really surprising. I could have sworn I'd heard they were exempt. It would seem a very simple, obvious decision to place a clause in the contract that any municipal or provincial public transit vehicles can use the highway with a special transponder/account that bills $0 for any trips taken. Maybe put in an obvious clause limiting that to X vehicles per unit of time, or x cumulative km travelled per some time period per transit agency so that the private owners aren't allowing for it to be flooded with transit vehicles to assure them...seems ridiculous to pay full price on land the province owns and a highway they chose to sell.
 
Megaton327 said:
Per the recent discussion about GO Buses on the 407, I tweeted GO, to which they replied: "GO Transit is not exempt, we also pay the fee."

That's really surprising. I could have sworn I'd heard they were exempt. It would seem a very simple, obvious decision to place a clause in the contract that any municipal or provincial public transit vehicles can use the highway with a special transponder/account that bills $0 for any trips taken. Maybe put in an obvious clause limiting that to X vehicles per unit of time, or x cumulative km travelled per some time period per transit agency so that the private owners aren't allowing for it to be flooded with transit vehicles to assure them...seems ridiculous to pay full price on land the province owns and a highway they chose to sell.
Click to expand...
sure, it may have an impact on the amount the buyer is willing to pay for the lease in the first place though. Probably minor, but any vehicles you give free access to lowers the income the operator will realize and will impact the price they would be willing to pay.
 
Megaton327 said:
Per the recent discussion about GO Buses on the 407, I tweeted GO, to which they replied: "GO Transit is not exempt, we also pay the fee."

That's really surprising. I could have sworn I'd heard they were exempt. It would seem a very simple, obvious decision to place a clause in the contract that any municipal or provincial public transit vehicles can use the highway with a special transponder/account that bills $0 for any trips taken. Maybe put in an obvious clause limiting that to X vehicles per unit of time, or x cumulative km travelled per some time period per transit agency so that the private owners aren't allowing for it to be flooded with transit vehicles to assure them...seems ridiculous to pay full price on land the province owns and a highway they chose to sell.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike Harris. Common Sense my ass.
 
crs1026 said:
They have a GPS that is interlocked with the vehicle's ignition system. It will not allow a 'prohibited' route.

- Paul
Click to expand...

A bit more of an elaboration....

There is a "geo-fence" that has been placed around the regular routes and any possible detours that may be required. All of the routes that are cleared (i.e. inside the "fence") have been and are continually checked for obstructions. If a bus passes through the "fence", an alarm goes off both inside the vehicle and at the central control office at Steeprock, and the bus will shut down if left unchecked. There is also the possibility of remotely shutting down the vehicle from the control office.

On top of that, each bus also has a laser rangefinder built into it which checks for potential overhead obstructions ahead of the vehicle and which also will relay a warning to the driver.

Megaton327 said:
Per the recent discussion about GO Buses on the 407, I tweeted GO, to which they replied: "GO Transit is not exempt, we also pay the fee."

That's really surprising. I could have sworn I'd heard they were exempt. It would seem a very simple, obvious decision to place a clause in the contract that any municipal or provincial public transit vehicles can use the highway with a special transponder/account that bills $0 for any trips taken. Maybe put in an obvious clause limiting that to X vehicles per unit of time, or x cumulative km travelled per some time period per transit agency so that the private owners aren't allowing for it to be flooded with transit vehicles to assure them...seems ridiculous to pay full price on land the province owns and a highway they chose to sell.
Click to expand...

GO does have to pay for the use of the 407, but they also do get charged a lower rate than the regular commercial rate that the highway charges. I *think* that YRT and Brampton Transit also have access to this rate as well, but I would need to verify that.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like there are any clauses in the 407 legislation or lease agreement which would allow the Province to force the 407ETR to allow transit vehicles for free.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
Megaton327 said:
Per the recent discussion about GO Buses on the 407, I tweeted GO, to which they replied: "GO Transit is not exempt, we also pay the fee."

That's really surprising. I could have sworn I'd heard they were exempt. It would seem a very simple, obvious decision to place a clause in the contract that any municipal or provincial public transit vehicles can use the highway with a special transponder/account that bills $0 for any trips taken. Maybe put in an obvious clause limiting that to X vehicles per unit of time, or x cumulative km travelled per some time period per transit agency so that the private owners aren't allowing for it to be flooded with transit vehicles to assure them...seems ridiculous to pay full price on land the province owns and a highway they chose to sell.
Click to expand...

I would think so too, even diplomatic vehicles (aka red plates) are exempted from paying the 407. But they sold it at the time that GO was downloaded to the cities for that short time, and public transit was consider a waste under the Harris era.
 
smallspy said:
A bit more of an elaboration....

There is a "geo-fence" that has been placed around the regular routes and any possible detours that may be required. All of the routes that are cleared (i.e. inside the "fence") have been and are continually checked for obstructions. If a bus passes through the "fence", an alarm goes off both inside the vehicle and at the central control office at Steeprock, and the bus will shut down if left unchecked. There is also the possibility of remotely shutting down the vehicle from the control office.

On top of that, each bus also has a laser rangefinder built into it which checks for potential overhead obstructions ahead of the vehicle and which also will relay a warning to the driver.
Click to expand...
Very interesting to know. I learn something new everyday!
 
What a farce. Do the OPP who patrol it have to pay as well? Man, they really got a good deal fleecing the government not once, but for the life of the lease. Common Sense: best non-revolution ever....really.
 
emergency services get it free. So no, cops don't pay. In fact, my understanding is that the 407ETR pays the cops to patrol. Its contracted / paid duty. Province doesn't subsidize the patrolling of a private companies road. Also probably the reason as to why cops seem way less common on the 407, the company only provides the minimum to meet contract requirements.
 
CodeMonkey said:
I would think so too, even diplomatic vehicles (aka red plates) are exempted from paying the 407. But they sold it at the time that GO was downloaded to the cities for that short time, and public transit was consider a waste under the Harris era.
Click to expand...

Hm. I never knew GO was downloaded. How did GO's governance work at that time, since dozens of municipalities would be involved?
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Hm. I never knew GO was downloaded. How did GO's governance work at that time, since dozens of municipalities would be involved?
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia: "GO Transit also went through three major reconfigurations. In January 1997, the province announced it would hand over funding responsibility for GO Transit to the GTHA municipalities. . However, the Greater Toronto Services Board was abolished on New Years Day 2002, and the province re-assumed funding responsibility."

I remember when it was announced that the province would re-upload GO back to the province years ago, it was one of the last few decisions before Mike Harris fled left office.
 
CodeMonkey said:
Meaning that if one wrong turn or a misread of the GPS data and the engine shutdown while moving...I see no problem there what so ever :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If I read smallspy's info correctly, it is an alarm that can be confirmed by the driver, and shuts down only "if left unchecked" or when initiated by central. The geofence is presumably large enough to cover a lot of detours.

Better than those deaths on that Megabus a few years back. That bus did a wrong turn, and...
 
My goodness, the province really got the short end of the stick on the 407 sell-off. The agreement literally seems like it is encrusted in graphene (the strongest material in the world) and the province will never be able to change even the most minute detail in the agreement.

Ontario should hire those lawyers so they cant get fleeced by them on that level ever again.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top