GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[TOareaFan]

I wish that the 16 terminated somewhere like Port Credit, Clarkson, or Long Branch to avoid the downtown insanity. I've always been confused by the existence of that route, anyways. I understand the desire to avoid a transfer, but surely at most times of day it can't be appreciably slower to take a train to aldershot and connect to hamilton?

At the very least, I wish that for the duration of construction they'd consider rerouting 16, 21, and 31 to terminate at Long Branch--have that be the new temporary west-side bus terminal for all affected routes. It's less than a year, anyways.

I agree. In fact, I would go one step further.........when GO announced that it had reached a deal to not only move but enlarge it's GO bus terminal at Union I questioned this expenditure. The moving to a more accessible location made sense....but in a world where all GO rail lines were moving towards 15 minute each way service 7 days a week I wondered where the buses were going to come from to fill/use that enlarged GO bus terminal.

Should we not be moving to a world where no GO buses come into the downtown but the bus fleet is used to extend the service at the end points of the ReR lines to bring people to the trains from places further afield.

We are so "transfer sensitive" that we do whatever we can to avoid them....even though it may be the most efficient thing for, both, the riders and the service.

As you note.....this may be a very good time to try out these sort of connections and see if it can work......the 31 buses could also go to Long Branch....it is short scoot from there up to the 427 and that bypasses the Gardiner completely.....not as familiar with the 21....but could they not do the same thing?

 

[nfitz]

It's funny that she's being so snotty about it ...

I'd be getting snotty if my day off for a funeral was interrupted first by some wanker on Twitter posting a photo of a joke on a Metrolinx whiteboard, and then by a suicide interrupting service.

 

[Northern Light]

I agree. In fact, I would go one step further.........when GO announced that it had reached a deal to not only move but enlarge it's GO bus terminal at Union I questioned this expenditure. The moving to a more accessible location made sense....but in a world where all GO rail lines were moving towards 15 minute each way service 7 days a week I wondered where the buses were going to come from to fill/use that enlarged GO bus terminal.

Should we not be moving to a world where no GO buses come into the downtown but the bus fleet is used to extend the service at the end points of the ReR lines to bring people to the trains from places further afield.

We are so "transfer sensitive" that we do whatever we can to avoid them....even though it may be the most efficient thing for, both, the riders and the service.

As you note.....this may be a very good time to try out these sort of connections and see if it can work......the 31 buses could also go to Long Branch....it is short scoot from there up to the 427 and that bypasses the Gardiner completely.....not as familiar with the 21....but could they not do the same thing?

Its worth saying that if/when GO service on non-Lakeshore routes finally ramps up, resulting, in materially fewer GO buses heading DT, that this may allow any surplus capacity to be captured by intercity bus services now based at Bay/Dundas.

 

[steveintoronto]

As you note.....this may be a very good time to try out these sort of connections and see if it can work......the 31 buses could also go to Long Branch....it is short scoot from there up to the 427 and that bypasses the Gardiner completely.....not as familiar with the 21....but could they not do the same thing?

The 21(of the Union Station variety, I've lost track of the suffix, was the H, then L...) remains a ridiculous conundrum. Coming in from the West (usually 25 or 29), I buy a paper ticket on my Presto Card, I take MiWay Express from Square One in lieu of the atrocious 21, either down to Port Credit (thus the paper ticket, so I'm not charged again on Presto boarding Lakeshore Line due east) or the Islington subway station, pay my minimal MiWay co-fare, then my TTC fare and then into the west end of TO from there. Countless years of conversation trying to get Presto to realize it as a contiguous through-trip Sq One to Port-Credit and back on GO with me willingly paying the Mi-Way co-fare on top is hopeless.

Someone's not thinking...Square One has become symbolic of my cynicism in GO ever getting rationale into routing and fare appropriation right. It used to be the 29 went the extra bit further to allow picking up the Mi-Way Express to Port Credit at Cooksville, now no longer done.

Square One...there should be a clause in the Geneva Convention banning its use.

 

[mind_the_gap]

Something I've been wondering for a very long time is whether having bus stops under overpasses along 400-series highways would be feasible (obviously physically separated from the high-speed highway traffic, eg. in between the off- and on-ramps).

This is an example of a typical bus stop along a motorway in Helsinki. These types of interchanges are very common throughout Finland. The amber boxes on the map highlight the location of the bus bays. They are all wheelchair accessible as well.

Here is a close-up of the outbound bus bay at the same interchange, also highlighted in amber. You can see it's clearly separated from the fast-moving highway traffic, by a bus lane along the off-ramp.

Although they are common in suburban Helsinki, they are used throughout the country, primarily for intercity bus services (eg. Greyhound in Canada), so buses don't have to exit the highway to pick up passengers. Typically these stops are accompanied by carpool lots, and kiss-and-ride areas.

The main advantage of these bus stops is that you can build them at every interchange, and the bus simply passes through them, whether there are any passengers waiting or not, without having the bus exit the highway. This increases the catchment area of an intercity bus service drastically.

We have an unused example of (fairly similar to) this in Toronto. The NB on-ramp to the DVP at Eglinton features an area that was clearly designed to be a bus stop, but remains unused by long-distance buses, GO buses, or the TTC's route 144.

The bus stops on Kingston Rd. at Military Trail (Highland Creek) are the closest examples to a "Finnish" interchange that I've found in Toronto.

I can't help but look to Mississauga, and look at the missed opportunity there to implement this sort of "Finnish" highway interchange along Highway 403. This sort of interchange could've been implemented at Creditview and Mississauga Rds, even by just building physically separated bus bays - ie. no on-/off-ramps for cars.

EDIT: The speed limit on Finnish motorways is 120km/h. If this works safely there, there's no reason it couldn't be done here.

 

[jamincan]

The Queensway Station on the Transitway in Ottawa has bus bays off of the 417. I think they may be closing that station, though, with the second phase of the Confederation Line.

 

[micheal_can]

Something I've been wondering for a very long time is whether having bus stops under overpasses along 400-series highways would be feasible (obviously physically separated from the high-speed highway traffic, eg. in between the off- and on-ramps).

This is an example of a typical bus stop along a motorway in Helsinki. These types of interchanges are very common throughout Finland. The amber boxes on the map highlight the location of the bus bays. They are all wheelchair accessible as well.

Here is a close-up of the outbound bus bay at the same interchange, also highlighted in amber. You can see it's clearly separated from the fast-moving highway traffic, by a bus lane along the off-ramp.

Although they are common in suburban Helsinki, they are used throughout the country, primarily for intercity bus services (eg. Greyhound in Canada), so buses don't have to exit the highway to pick up passengers. Typically these stops are accompanied by carpool lots, and kiss-and-ride areas.

The main advantage of these bus stops is that you can build them at every interchange, and the bus simply passes through them, whether there are any passengers waiting or not, without having the bus exit the highway. This increases the catchment area of an intercity bus service drastically.

We have an unused example of (fairly similar to) this in Toronto. The NB on-ramp to the DVP at Eglinton features an area that was clearly designed to be a bus stop, but remains unused by long-distance buses, GO buses, or the TTC's route 144.

The bus stops on Kingston Rd. at Military Trail (Highland Creek) are the closest examples to a "Finnish" interchange that I've found in Toronto.

I can't help but look to Mississauga, and look at the missed opportunity there to implement this sort of "Finnish" highway interchange along Highway 403. This sort of interchange could've been implemented at Creditview and Mississauga Rds, even by just building physically separated bus bays - ie. no on-/off-ramps for cars.

EDIT: The speed limit on Finnish motorways is 120km/h. If this works safely there, there's no reason it couldn't be done here.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@48.4643...HKvju3iPR67Y6sBJ6xfw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

In Victoria BC, they have some. This is an good example.

 

[smallspy]

We have an unused example of (fairly similar to) this in Toronto. The NB on-ramp to the DVP at Eglinton features an area that was clearly designed to be a bus stop, but remains unused by long-distance buses, GO buses, or the TTC's route 144.
View attachment 105237

It has been used by both the 144 and what is now the route 61 GO bus at various times in the past. And because it was never well used by passengers, it's been removed from service.

There are other places that have been done in Toronto that do work - Keele at the 401 comes to mind - and others that likely could work should the service be there. But for whatever reason Eglinton doesn't seem to be a good one.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[salsa]

Something I've been wondering for a very long time is whether having bus stops under overpasses along 400-series highways would be feasible (obviously physically separated from the high-speed highway traffic, eg. in between the off- and on-ramps).

This is an example of a typical bus stop along a motorway in Helsinki. These types of interchanges are very common throughout Finland. The amber boxes on the map highlight the location of the bus bays. They are all wheelchair accessible as well.
View attachment 105235

Here is a close-up of the outbound bus bay at the same interchange, also highlighted in amber. You can see it's clearly separated from the fast-moving highway traffic, by a bus lane along the off-ramp.
View attachment 105236

Although they are common in suburban Helsinki, they are used throughout the country, primarily for intercity bus services (eg. Greyhound in Canada), so buses don't have to exit the highway to pick up passengers. Typically these stops are accompanied by carpool lots, and kiss-and-ride areas.

The main advantage of these bus stops is that you can build them at every interchange, and the bus simply passes through them, whether there are any passengers waiting or not, without having the bus exit the highway. This increases the catchment area of an intercity bus service drastically.

We have an unused example of (fairly similar to) this in Toronto. The NB on-ramp to the DVP at Eglinton features an area that was clearly designed to be a bus stop, but remains unused by long-distance buses, GO buses, or the TTC's route 144.
View attachment 105237

The bus stops on Kingston Rd. at Military Trail (Highland Creek) are the closest examples to a "Finnish" interchange that I've found in Toronto.

I can't help but look to Mississauga, and look at the missed opportunity there to implement this sort of "Finnish" highway interchange along Highway 403. This sort of interchange could've been implemented at Creditview and Mississauga Rds, even by just building physically separated bus bays - ie. no on-/off-ramps for cars.

EDIT: The speed limit on Finnish motorways is 120km/h. If this works safely there, there's no reason it couldn't be done here.

GO Transit are you reading this? For example I took the bus to Peterborough recently, and everytime the bus left the highway to serve a commuter lot it added several minutes to the trip.

 

[micheal_can]

As commuters move further away, the lines will get extended. They did it to Kitchener and to Barrie. So how would they extend the line to Orillia. It will be the next place to extend North.

 

[Megaton327]

As commuters move further away, the lines will get extended. They did it to Kitchener and to Barrie. So how would they extend the line to Orillia. It will be the next place to extend North.

And what tracks would they use, exactly, to service Orillia as an extension of the existing Barrie line? I'm not aware of any tracks existing in or immediately near Orillia at all, and certainly not as an extension of the tracks at Allandale Waterfront.

There were existing rails to Barrie South and then Allandale Waterfront, running service was just a matter of fixing a few things up, building stations, and having the trains continue after Bradford.

For Orillia, all-new tracks would need to be constructed, which would be unprecedented in GO's recent history, wherein they have only extended service along existing rails or they've created/are creating (e.g. Oshawa split service) a small connector rail to move trains onto a nearby existing line from their current route.

Also, I'm not sure where you'd want to put those tracks. Allandale is roughly in downtown Barrie, you can't demolish their downtown to install a railway. You might run trains west-southwest along the existing tracks then curve around just outside of Barrie's city limits to head northeast to Orillia, but again this would require unprecedented new track construction/right of way acquisition, and result in a long circuitous route to get to a small town.

Same thing for Kitchener. There were existing rails and even existing VIA stations at Guelph and Kitchener, fairly little infrastructure had to be built for service to be extended, relative to what already existed there.

The other GO lines can all extend, subject to negotiations with CN/CP--LSW is expanding towards full(er) service through to Niagara Falls (where it must terminate due to the US border) and could gain another branch towards Brantford/London if ever justified, Milton to Cambridge, Kitchener to Stratford, Richmond Hill to the middle of nowhere, Stouffville to Uxbridge, and LSE to courtice/bowmanville/clarington then if justified to Port Hope, Coburg, and through to even Kingston. However, such expansions are beyond GO's current mandate, and in the LSW/Kitchener/LSE branches are much better served by existing VIA services.

At some point, it will become impractical to continue expanding GO lines to the point that it's a 3, 4, 5 hour trip from Toronto. Look at Bloomington GO station as an example of Metrolinx's big-picture, long-term strategy: build a station far out on a GO line, adjacent to a highway/major commuting route, with tons of parking, and have it be very attractive, all in order to get people coming from far away on that highway to get off at that exit, and switch to the train instead of continuing downtown in the car. So far from Toronto, there is ample excess highway capacity and it largely makes more sense to expand highways than rail service due to the spread-out small communities. For instance, Bloomington can capture commuters from the southeastern side of Lake Simcoe in Keswick, Beaverton, etc., who can drive down the 404 and switch to GO at Bloomington, rather than building new rails up there for a few riders; there's excess capacity on the northern 404 so having them in cars up there is fine, but this gets them out of their cars before the congested Richmond Hill/Markham/Toronto stretch.

A lot of anti-GO-parking-garage people are making the same fallacy saying we should improve local transit service but maintain a general status quo of traditional buses serving traditional routes; it simply won't provide much benefit for the cost, and to provide substantial benefit we'd need to run so many additional bus routes it would be prohibitively expensive. In that case, we need to go down some sort of micro-transit uber-like service, much as in the rural areas we need partial-drive partial-train commutes rather than full-drive or full-train.

 

[micheal_can]

And what tracks would they use, exactly, to service Orillia as an extension of the existing Barrie line? I'm not aware of any tracks existing in or immediately near Orillia at all, and certainly not as an extension of the tracks at Allandale Waterfront.

There were existing rails to Barrie South and then Allandale Waterfront, running service was just a matter of fixing a few things up, building stations, and having the trains continue after Bradford.

For Orillia, all-new tracks would need to be constructed, which would be unprecedented in GO's recent history, wherein they have only extended service along existing rails or they've created/are creating (e.g. Oshawa split service) a small connector rail to move trains onto a nearby existing line from their current route.

Also, I'm not sure where you'd want to put those tracks. Allandale is roughly in downtown Barrie, you can't demolish their downtown to install a railway. You might run trains west-southwest along the existing tracks then curve around just outside of Barrie's city limits to head northeast to Orillia, but again this would require unprecedented new track construction/right of way acquisition, and result in a long circuitous route to get to a small town.

Same thing for Kitchener. There were existing rails and even existing VIA stations at Guelph and Kitchener, fairly little infrastructure had to be built for service to be extended, relative to what already existed there.

The other GO lines can all extend, subject to negotiations with CN/CP--LSW is expanding towards full(er) service through to Niagara Falls (where it must terminate due to the US border) and could gain another branch towards Brantford/London if ever justified, Milton to Cambridge, Kitchener to Stratford, Richmond Hill to the middle of nowhere, Stouffville to Uxbridge, and LSE to courtice/bowmanville/clarington then if justified to Port Hope, Coburg, and through to even Kingston. However, such expansions are beyond GO's current mandate, and in the LSW/Kitchener/LSE branches are much better served by existing VIA services.

And there is the dilemma. I picked Orillia because it is close to Barrie and is already seeing major construction. It also used to have a railway line through it. The old station still exists. The old line used to run along the shores of Simcoe, and right through downtown Barrie.

Many places are low hanging fruit. They already have rails. However, many other places, those rails have been torn up decades ago, and now are trails, or the ROW is no longer even visible.

What really needs to happen is places that are currently not served by GO, but are on rail lines and are closer to Toronto need to have GO train service added. I am thinking of places like Bolton and Uxbridge.

I am waiting for the day they announce GO train service in Kingston and London. It will happen in our lifetime.

 

[crs1026]

And what tracks would they use, exactly, to service Orillia as an extension of the existing Barrie line? I'm not aware of any tracks existing in or immediately near Orillia at all, and certainly not as an extension of the tracks at Allandale Waterfront.

There were existing rails to Barrie South and then Allandale Waterfront, running service was just a matter of fixing a few things up, building stations, and having the trains continue after Bradford.

For Orillia, all-new tracks would need to be constructed, which would be unprecedented in GO's recent history, wherein they have only extended service along existing rails or they've created/are creating (e.g. Oshawa split service) a small connector rail to move trains onto a nearby existing line from their current route.

Agree with your main point, ie that Orillia may be SOL. Nitpick: Rails did exist, and were ripped out, from Bradford to Orillia. GO did restore the rails as far as Barrie. But redevelopment of Barrie's waterfront, and construction of new buildings north of there, makes it much more difficult to go any further. Orillia is the one that got away.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

Agree with your main point, ie that Orillia may be SOL. Nitpick: Rails did exist, and were ripped out, from Bradford to Orillia. GO did restore the rails as far as Barrie. But redevelopment of Barrie's waterfront, and construction of new buildings north of there, makes it much more difficult to go any further. Orillia is the one that got away.

- Paul

The Allendale line extends along Tifton St and then head out of town. They could add a new line to spur it to the old ROW eventually. Certain future extensions will be a challenge.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I said it before. There is an upper limit on how much further we can extend GO Service before we begin drifting from a Regional Rail Service (really a peak commuter rail service at the moment) to a passenger rail service, and I think we are already there. How can an Orilla resident even consider a GO rail service on the Barrie corridor economical when the travel time to Union from Allandale is already nearly 2 hrs. How can someone rationalize spending 4-5 hours a day simply commuting to and from work everyday.

I realize that part of GO's new mandate is to have growth nodes and have service to these locations, as such, not all demand will be destined to Union. However the majority of riders are still bound for Union and even significant growth in the growth centres will only be a fraction of the demand at Union. So, the main concern remains travel time to Union which is getting obscenely long.

At these distances I can't help but believe that the better option in a passenger rail service (provided by VIA, or express go trains) rather than a Regional Commuter Rail system.