GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[Krypto98]

Should have done bus service to London first. Liberal government will catch flack if they cancel this. Going to Stratford is fine although just building out a low cost bus network would have been cheaper.

If hourly train service to Kitchener becomes a reality perhaps a bus connection from Kitchener will be feasible.

If they can make them exclusive for London and Kitchener it's possible to add runs.

How about upgrading the track on the st Mary's bridge to accommodate MP40's?

I haven't heard anything on St marys, I do know some speed restrictions have been lifted however now there is a 10 mph tso at Shakespeare due to recent flooding

 

[TRONto]

Although not exactly this topic I thought this would be the best place to ask this question.

What would stand in the way of using the Barrie track (aside to an expropriation for a west to south curve) for the Richmond Hill line? What I was thinking was to go west after leaving Langstaff station around John street and south on the Barrie track. I realize this would orphan the Oriole station but I feel that the possible increase in frequency using the Barrie track more than offsets the cons of dropping that station.

From what I remember, there seems to be space to add more tracks on that east-west line (at least around John st). Would whomever owns the line by staunchly against it? Otherwise what about using the 407 ROW to meet the Barrie track and go south to Union from there (also dropping Langstaff unfortunately)?

 

[ARG1]

Although not exactly this topic I thought this would be the best place to ask this question.

What would stand in the way of using the Barrie track (aside to an expropriation for a west to south curve) for the Richmond Hill line? What I was thinking was to go west after leaving Langstaff station around John street and south on the Barrie track. I realize this would orphan the Oriole station but I feel that the possible increase in frequency using the Barrie track more than offsets the cons of dropping that station.

From what I remember, there seems to be space to add more tracks on that east-west line (at least around John st). Would whomever owns the line by staunchly against it? Otherwise what about using the 407 ROW to meet the Barrie track and go south to Union from there (also dropping Langstaff unfortunately)?

First you need to build a connector track onto the York Sub from the Barrie Line (South to East), and then you have to acquire the track rights from CN of the York sub - all for... what improvements exactly?

 

[Northern Light]

Although not exactly this topic I thought this would be the best place to ask this question.

What would stand in the way of using the Barrie track (aside to an expropriation for a west to south curve) for the Richmond Hill line? What I was thinking was to go west after leaving Langstaff station around John street and south on the Barrie track. I realize this would orphan the Oriole station but I feel that the possible increase in frequency using the Barrie track more than offsets the cons of dropping that station.

From what I remember, there seems to be space to add more tracks on that east-west line (at least around John st). Would whomever owns the line by staunchly against it? Otherwise what about using the 407 ROW to meet the Barrie track and go south to Union from there (also dropping Langstaff unfortunately)?

A few points for clarity here:

As noted by @ARG1 above, the east-west track is CN's mainline, known as the York sub here. Its very unlikely they would have any enthusiasm for several new GO trains per day (or more with all-day service) using their existing track. While additional track could be laid, presumably at taxpayer expense, its not a small undertaking.

The distance along the York sub from the Bala (Richmond Hill) tracks, to the Barrie corridor is ~8km. That's a material distance for those heading to downtown.

I recognize that the Bala/R-H tracks are windy and that adds some extra km; but that routing to the Barrie Corridor adds 8km upfront, and at least 3km more working your way back to downtown from the west.

I haven't looked closely, but I can't imagine that saves any trip time for R-H to downtown commuters, and I'd be somewhat surprised it if it didn't add trip time; which is never a popular call.

What is the advantage that you imagine from this routing? (sincere, not snarky question)

 

[crs1026]

It's roughly 13 miles from Union to Snider on the Barrie line, and then a further five miles across the York Sub to Doncaster for a total of 18 miles, versus 16 miles up the Don Valley. Doesn't sound like a lot further, but there would not be much in time savings given that trains would have to slow to navigate the connecting tracks at both points. And the trip up the Barrie line is not really that much faster than the Don Valley when one considers there may be stopping trains ahead that stop at some or all of Spadina, Liberty, Bloor, and Downsview Park.

As noted, CN would be far from eager. That's a congested area for CN. They too will be using the connecting track at Doncaster, again at lower speed ....so GO might encounter delays. It's common for both existing main tracks to be occupied at the same time. GO would have to build its own track.... and there would be the added challenge of GO having to cross from north to south, or vv, leaving CN without a through route for its trains whenever a GO is on line. That might actually force construction of a flyover similar to Silver or Snider or Davenport.

Could GO add enough track to make this workable? Possibly, with a pile of money. It would probably be cheaper to grade separate the Doncaster diamond so that GO doesn't tie up CN's line when it crosses.

I too am curious what you'd see as the benefits of this routing?.

- Paul

 

[TRONto]

It's roughly 13 miles from Union to Snider on the Barrie line, and then a further five miles across the York Sub to Doncaster for a total of 18 miles, versus 16 miles up the Don Valley. Doesn't sound like a lot further, but there would not be much in time savings given that trains would have to slow to navigate the connecting tracks at both points. And the trip up the Barrie line is not really that much faster than the Don Valley when one considers there may be stopping trains ahead that stop at some or all of Spadina, Liberty, Bloor, and Downsview Park.

As noted, CN would be far from eager. That's a congested area for CN. They too will be using the connecting track at Doncaster, again at lower speed ....so GO might encounter delays. It's common for both existing main tracks to be occupied at the same time. GO would have to build its own track.... and there would be the added challenge of GO having to cross from north to south, or vv, leaving CN without a through route for its trains whenever a GO is on line. That might actually force construction of a flyover similar to Silver or Snider or Davenport.

Could GO add enough track to make this workable? Possibly, with a pile of money. It would probably be cheaper to grade separate the Doncaster diamond so that GO doesn't tie up CN's line when it crosses.

I too am curious what you'd see as the benefits of this routing?.

- Paul

From all your feedback (thank you), I am guessing that a Richmond Hill Station to Union Station trip along a 407 ROW to Barrie track would allow for a ~30 minute trip (similar to the current Union to Rutherford) and allow for electrified RER frequencies as Metrolinx would own the entire track. Maybe add a station at Dufferin/407 to increase coverage area.

Goal >>> This version of the Richmond Hill GO line would better service Richmond Hill riders. The trip to Richmond Hill to Union is ~13 minutes shorter (~30 min vs 43 min) and could have all day frequency. The rider gets the option of rapid transit to access either branch of Line 1 and also Line 2. They lose out on accessing the Sheppard Line which should be ok with the Line 1 extension to Richmond Hill. Overall I would expect a much higher ridership on this version of a GO line then the current one. I imagine building this spur would be cheap (relatively speaking) as the province owns the 407 ROW and would require one or two new stations.

Just a thought that occured to me today. The line might not be useful for much else as it seems that CN owns the track north of Old Cummer from what I saw.

What challenges would this option face?

 

[Northern Light]

From all your feedback (thank you), I am guessing that a Richmond Hill Station to Union Station trip along a 407 ROW to Barrie track would allow for a ~30 minute trip (similar to the current Union to Rutherford) and allow for electrified RER frequencies as Metrolinx would own the entire track. Maybe add a station at Dufferin/407 to increase coverage area.

Goal >>> This version of the Richmond Hill GO line would better service Richmond Hill riders. The trip to Richmond Hill to Union is ~13 minutes shorter (~30 min vs 43 min) and could have all day frequency.

I have the R-H trip pegged at 40M on the current schedule. (Langstaff to Union) (maximum savings 10 minutes)

If you're going to jaunt the train 8km sideways, you'd require 6 minutes, assuming you maintained 80km/ph the entire way.
There is no way you would manage that based on the speed at which the turning movements could be made.
Add at least 1 minute per movement, and 1 more for acceleration/deceleration and at best its time-neutral.

That's before factoring in new stations, and the Barrie Corridor is getting 3 of those between the York sub and Union. (Eglinton (Caledonia), St. Clair, and Bloor)

Just a thought that occured to me today. The line might not be useful for much else as it seems that CN owns the track north of Old Cummer from what I saw.

CN owns the track north of Doncaster (where the E-W York sub and the N-S Bala (R-H) tracks meet.
Metrolinx owns all the track to the south. So there would no change in terms of whose tracks the trains run on in that scenario.

What challenges would this option face?

Lots, the 407 is leased to a private company who will not be ceding any portion of what they control under the terms of their agreement without compensation. A further portion of the corridor is controlled by Hydro One; and then CN has full ownership of its corridor.

Permission and expense are material issues.

Also, as @crs1026 noted, there's the small matter of how to get the GO trains from one set of tracks to the other without crossing-over the CN York sub at grade. That means bridges/tunnels which add costs.

 

[TRONto]

Lots, the 407 is leased to a private company who will not be ceding any portion of what they control under the terms of their agreement without compensation. A further portion of the corridor is controlled by Hydro One; and then CN has full ownership of its corridor.

Permission and expense are material issues.

Also, as @crs1026 noted, there's the small matter of how to get the GO trains from one set of tracks to the other without crossing-over the CN York sub at grade. That means bridges/tunnels which add costs.

Even with comparable duration, having direct access to Line 1 (west branch), Line 2, Line 5 and St Clair offers more value to the rider then the current route.

My understanding is that the 407 corridor was always intended to be a transportation corridor (hydro, road, rail, gas) and is owned by the province so I assume the 407 contract is for running the highway, not all the 407 area lands. Obviously I don't know, but the land is owned by the province so the land for rail shouldn't be an issue.

I looked again after your message and I can't see any track between Richmond Hill station and the Barrie track along the 407 ROW. Did I miss it? Under this proposal the Richmond Hill station would sit on the 407 ROW and thus the spur wouldn't touch CN/CP rail as far as I can tell.

 

[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.