C
christiesplits
Guest
Maybe the GO Day/Weekend pass can exclude trips past St. Catharines? Or does this punish NF residents?
|
|
|
GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
innsertnamehere
Superstar
It should just exclude trips past West Harbour.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
They could adjust the price of the pass based on the distance, given that you already need to fill in a specific route when you buy the pass. Maybe they could price it at $10 for most trips but above a certain normal ticket price the pass gets more expensive.
Perhaps for routes where the 1-way ticket price is more than $10, the 1-day weekend pass could just be equal to the ticket price, and the 2-day pass could be 1.5x the ticket price.
For example:
Toronto-Oakville pass would be $10.00 for 1 day, $15.00 for 2 days
Toronto-Hamilton pass would be $11.44 for 1 day, $17.16 for 2 days.
Toronto-Niagara Falls pass would be $17.79 for 1 day, $26.69 for 2 days.
anb
Active Member
But if they do that then they’ll more than likely have no problems changing it to the only the GTA proper. Meaning that the rest of the Niagara Region, Bradford/Barrie, Peterborough, Brantford, Guelph and Waterloo Region would be excluded from the $15 flat weekend pass. All these places from Toronto are at least 70% of the distance it takes to get to NF. At that point, there’s nothing that would be worth it from the pass as you’re getting no deal to go to these places, which are arguably where mostly everyone goes to on the weekends.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
If they do what?
In my suggestion, even beyond the $10 distance, the pass would still be 50% cheaper than a round trip on Presto. It's literally always worth it.
I don't think specific areas should be excluded because people in those areas aren't necessarily going all the way to Toronto.
Last edited:
WB62
Senior Member
I have to disagree with the idea of raising the weekend pass price, it defeats the entire purpose on grabbing ridership back with an affordable solution.
The way to fix the trains and buses being over capacity isn’t to raise the prices; it’s to add service. There was a 4th Niagara train last year, why hasn’t that returned? That should be the question rather than raising the prices for transit.
(I was just told that the 4th Niagara train was at 10pm, so it really wouldn’t have affected ridership. But I think my overall point still stands)
The way to fix the trains and buses being over capacity isn’t to raise the prices; it’s to add service. There was a 4th Niagara train last year, why hasn’t that returned? That should be the question rather than raising the prices for transit.
(I was just told that the 4th Niagara train was at 10pm, so it really wouldn’t have affected ridership. But I think my overall point still stands)
Last edited by a moderator:
Richard White
Senior Member
The problem is with boat traffic in the Welland Canal, crewing and coordination with CN you can only add so much service.
Right now, there is little to no wiggle room for extra trains to be added. The only way to reduce crowding is to force people to pay the true cost of the service.
Northern Light
Superstar
@reaperexpress previously modeled how more service could be placed on the line; particularly the idea of double-pumping an extra run in that key morning timeslot.
Absent evidence to the contrary, I see no reason that is not a viable answer.
Truthfully, we need to hear from Mx on this; and any alternatives they have considered or been offered.
****
There is very little CN service in this corridor unless something has changed; there are posters here, notably @smallspy and/or @crs1026 that can speak to that issue better than I.
But I am certainly challenged to see that as a serious conflicting issue at this time. (its much more likely to be one we when look at getting to hourly service to Niagara or the like.)
Still we need to hear Mx on why they have mismatched capacity to demand.
****
Cutting demand, by way of rising prices, when service, is frankly pretty abysmal and demand, in absolute terms not all that high does not seem like an acceptable outcome.
Demand management is something for when you run up against the limits of infrastructure and there is no near-term prospect of improvement. I certainly hope we aren't there!
APTA-2048
Senior Member
I have to say, despite the good $10/15 deal to Niagara Falls, the chaotic service stories have made me avoid it so far. A packed train and long lineups doesn’t sound appealing to me.
crs1026
Superstar
I am actually pessimistic about ML’s options here.
The problem for CN is that they are accustomed to running their two regular trains on this route (one each way) in the same morning slot as GO might covet…. and with the Maple Leaf returning, there is not much wiggle room.
Both CN freights are notoriously long, meaning they take time to clear, and there are not many places to hold them without blocking crossings.… and an overflow train happens on occasion. I am certain that CN will be very reluctant to surrender track and time in the morning. There is also a local freight serving the East Hamilton - Stoney Creek area. It ties up track for substantial amounts of time. Its schedule is a bit more flexible.
Afternoon track and time? Much less of a problem, I suspect… but that doesn’t help get day trippers to the Falls for the day.
As for the Seaway, they can stage boat traffic for short periods, but once the bridge goes up, it will be a while before it can come down again. That really constrains any potential to run a fleet of GO/VIA trains to the Falls in the morning. I suspect the Seaway can accept one-of train passages a few times a day, but a fleet of three trains following each other on 20-30 minute headways (which is about as close as the signalling system will allow) looks to the Seaway as basically one long occupancy. They will be opposed also.
It may not seem like a big ask, but actually ML’s needs are pretty specific and inflexible - in the sense that only a morning slot or two with a fleet of trains will solve their overload issue. And that’s operationally a big ask for the other two stakeholders.
- Paul
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Thanks Paul.
So overall CN traffic is light on this section of track; it just happens that as currently scheduled, its in conflict with optimally placed additional GO runs.
So the options (in theory) are:
1) Get CN to shift its schedule, if needed, to gain at least one additional slot (which you see as unlikely)
2) Build sufficient passing track at at least one location en route such that GO can move around the CN movement (cost being the key question here, I assume, since the majority of this sub was historically double-tracked, so the space is there.)
3) Find a different way to handle that peak demand
- Buses?
- Use CP via Welland and the spur to hit Niagara from the opposite side (requires investment in the spur, a minimum of one round trip clearance from CP and a platform/station in Niagara for off-loading passengers. (cost?) ?
****
Sound about right? If so, what makes sense here in the near-term?
crs1026
Superstar
If it were my decision, I would run the added service to St Catherines only and figure out how to shuttle people from there. Might be hard with all the bikes, but it would solve some of the conflicts.
I haven’t done a detailed look on the map, but even adding track is problemmatic because of the need to keep the freight moving so crossings aren’t blocked.
Possibly one could expedite re-installing the missing second track segment, and that might appease CN… but that’s a lot of money and a lengthy project.
I wonder if a GO train could be J-trained behind the Maple Leaf and making only its stops. I’m really stretching at this point.
Reserved seats might be the best one can accomplish - or beef up the bus alternatives.
- Paul
I haven’t done a detailed look on the map, but even adding track is problemmatic because of the need to keep the freight moving so crossings aren’t blocked.
Possibly one could expedite re-installing the missing second track segment, and that might appease CN… but that’s a lot of money and a lengthy project.
I wonder if a GO train could be J-trained behind the Maple Leaf and making only its stops. I’m really stretching at this point.
Reserved seats might be the best one can accomplish - or beef up the bus alternatives.
- Paul
anb
Active Member
Maybe the buses are key to solving some of the problem. You could have one express bus go from Burlington, and the other from West Harbour so it splits the traffic into 2. Or as crazy as it sounds, we could start a Ferry service which could save a lot in the long run. Looks like that is actually a thing that they're planning in the long run. https://www.blogto.com/travel/2022/06/toronto-niagara-falls-ferry/
reaperexpress
Senior Member
The line still is majority double tracked. 52km out of 72 km (72%). The only portions which are single-tracked are east of Clifton (where most of CN's trains branch off anyway), and a 16.5 km segment between Grimsby and St Catharines. CN would presumably want to schedule meets at the Welland Canal (just east of St Catharines) so each bridge closure can be used by 2 trains simultaneously. So trains probably wouldn't be meeting between Grimsby and St Catharines anyway.
Double-tracked segments in green
Based on Paul's comment, our concept of adding an additional morning GO train would result in a total of 4 eastbound trains in the morning (2 GO, 1 VIA, 1 CN), and 3 westbound trains (2 GO, 1 CN).
The current passenger rail schedules are below.
Eastbound trains cross the canal at 10:03 and 10:35, and westbound at 11:33. If the eastbound CN train crosses at 11:33, then the new GO departure would need to depart Union at 10:51 and cross the canal at 12:33, to leave an hour to raise and lower the bridge between 11:33 and 12:33. If the CN train doesn't cross at 11:33, that's a slot which could be used by an additional morning GO train, departing Union at 09:51 and skipping St. Catharines because there's no platform on the south track.
Given that the line over the canal is double-tracked, it seems like it would be practical to schedule 1 closure per hour, shared by 2 trains (1 per direction). Given the bridge is over a dual lock, each bridge raising would be useable by 2 boats (1 per lock).
I'm not sure what the capacity of the lock would be in the absence of the railway bridge, but I don't imagine it's much more than 1 boat per hour per direction anyway, given that it takes 15 minutes to fill the lock, a few minutes to manoeuvre the boat out, 15 minutes to empty the lock for the next boat, and another few minutes to manouevre that boat in.
Conversely, the 30-minute gap between the Maple Leaf and the GO train might not be enough to raise and lower the bridge, in which case an additional slot for boats could be created by shifting one or both trips to create a 1-hour gap, to let 2 boats through.
Buses may be key in the short term. I like your idea of a Hamilton-Niagara bus - the hourly Lakeshore West trains which turn back at Aldershot could have a 12B connection at Burlington, while the hourly trains which continue to West Harbour could have an express bus connection there. That would provide departures every 30 minutes from Toronto to Niagara. I'd suggest that the Niagara-Hamilton bus should start at Hamilton Centre so it provides a convenient new connection from Hamilton itself, in addition to providing additional frequency for the Toronto-Niagara route. That route would probably generate decent ridership in its own right.
In addition, perhaps the morning train could run non-stop from Union to Burlington, to force people coming from Exhibition, Port Credit, and Oakville to instead take the Lakeshore West local to Burlington, and then the 12B express bus to Niagara.
That option is actually just as fast anyway:
Exhibition - Niagara: 2h01 via route 12B, 1h59 via direct train
Port Credit - Niagara: 1h42 via route 12B, 1h46 via direct train
Oakville - Niagara: 1h28 via route 12B, 1h35 via direct train
June 2022 Route 12 timetable, highlighting the bus trip simultaneous with overcrowded train trip
So although people do prefer taking the train, taking the bus instead wouldn't actually be an inconvenience.
Last edited:
reaperexpress
Senior Member
We are not talking about affordability here. We are talking about providing dirt cheap getaways to Niagara, which cause the Niagara trains to take money out of GO's operating budget rather than putting money into it. Meanwhile the GO system continues to have plenty of places/times with prohibitively expensive tickets.
If we were to make the weekend passes distance-based as I described, the cost per ride to Niagara would increase from $5 to $8.90. That's still extremely cheap for a 130 km journey, and I highly doubt it would dissuade any significant number of riders given that it's still far cheaper than any alternative, and would be a small proportion of the total cost of a trip to Niagara.
If we actually want to make meaningful changes to affordability, we should be implementing systematic changes which address actual affordability issues. For example, by providing free transfers to/from the TTC, just as are provided to/from 905 agencies. And by providing discounts for off-peak travel in general.
Last edited: