GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[Northern Light]

Perhaps by then, GO/Metrolinx and its government will have formally figured out what it wants, and is mandated, to be. Is it to be a GGH/GTHA/etc. commuter transit service? VIA-Ontario? Via-Southern Ontario? Ontario Tourist Railway? Some of the above? All of the above. People looking for progress in reliable, regular and affordable ways to get to work every day must wonder about this foray into tourist rail.

I think it makes sense to position GO as the commuter/economy mode of travel; and VIA as the long-distance/luxury way to travel.

Its a fairly clean line that in general has little overlap, but might for areas like Toronto to Niagara, Toronto - Stratford, and Toronto - Picton/Prince Edward County.

I think in those cases, overlapping services with different price points is a reasonable outcome.

 

[reaperexpress]

Can't they borrow some busses from Niagara transit for GO shuttles?

They do. About half of the Green Line shuttle buses are borrowed from Niagara Falls Transit, even though the regular Green Line is normally operated by the Parks Commission.

Or since Metrolinx funds everything just have 3 superLO go buses on standby for those GO meets and drop them off at the closest stop to the falls.

3 double decker buses doesn't even start to come close to the amount of capacity they need. That's a total of 240 seats.

Assuming that the train's load drops by ~100 people in St Catharines, the trains would arrive in NF with around 1400 people on board.

~70 people brought bikes on board, so they can make their own way from the station
~300 people can cram into the 3 articulated Green Line shuttle buses
~100 people could cram into the two regularly-scheduled Green Line articulated buses (in addition to the passengers already on board)
~50? people may take other bus NFT bus routes from the terminal, heading to other parts of NF
So that's 530 people accounted for, and 870 people unaccounted for. Maybe a dozen people get picked up, some take a cab, and some walk away, but that's not going to make a serious dent in the deficit.

An additional 240 seats would certainly help though. Maybe they could run those GO buses non-stop to Table Rock Centre, while the articulated WeGo/NFT buses make the regular Green Line stops. As with the existing NFT shuttle buses, GO would need to collect WeGo fare, so maybe WeGo could provide someone to stand outside the GO bus door with a WeGo card reader.

 

[reaperexpress]

If we care about sustainable tourism, why on Earth would we price out people from the GO train and encourage them to drive their big, stupid SUVs to the falls??

THIS. If we don't make the cost of transit competitive with the marginal cost of driving, people are just going to drive. Even with the gas prices today, the marginal cost of driving will be less than the full GO Transit fare for 2 people. That's why the train was empty when it was $40 per person round trip.

Again, the affordability argument is a straw man in the context of the $10 weekend passes, because those passes do little to nothing to address affordability for most potential GO Transit trips.
A 260 km round trip to Niagara Falls on a $10 pass works out to $0.04/km. Meanwhile a 34 km round trip from Downsview Park works out to $0.29/km.
Or relative to the normal ticket price, a round trip from Downsview Park gets a 3% discount, while a trip to Niagara Falls gets a 72% discount.

Why is it that we are arbitrarily dumping money into getting high-occupancy vehicles off the QEW to Niagara, when for the same money we could divert far more single-occupancy vehicles elsewhere? Surely you'd get far more vehicles off the road by providing a (for example) 40% discount for all trips.

Claiming that the $10 round trip to Niagara is a worthwhile investment in transit affordability can only make sense if you assume that there is an unlimited amount of funding available for GO Transit's operations, which is not the case. There is a finite budget, and funds which are bankrolling day trips to Niagara are funds which are not providing discounts on trips within the GTA, or between other nearby cities. Those are also funds which are not being used to run additional service - something which is also known to attract people out of cars.

And besides, the baseline on GO is not $40 round trip, the baseline is $25 round trip including a WEGO day pass, which is what most passengers were paying prior to the $10 pass. A price of $12.25 each way already undercut all of the competing services and was already attracting very solid ridership on weekends.

Here are the cheapest round trip tickets I could find for next Saturday, on competing services:

Flixbus: $43

Megabus: $50

VIA Rail: $54

Rider Express: $60

To reiterate: my point is not that these are reasonable prices, the point is that the marginal number of riders attracted by reducing the GO round trip from $25 to $10 is definitely fewer than the number of riders which would be attracted by the spending the same amount of money on discounts elsewhere.

 

[crs1026]

Again, the affordability argument is a straw man in the context of the $10 weekend passes, because those passes do little to nothing to address affordability for most potential GO Transit trips.

I have no problem with a short-term loss leader - it gets people coming in the doors. Doesn’t have to be any particular product, although it often coincides with oversupply. It seems counterintuitive however to offer a loss leader where demand exceeds capacity. The capacity issues need to be sorted out anyways, on the premise that a fare calibrated to supply/demand will optimise at a full train - but creating a demand that can’t be satisfied is not sensible strategy.

In terms of ongoing fare structure, however, your point is right on…. as a for instance, the weakest point in the market data right now is the peak commuting, driven by the trend to work at home for at least a couple days a week.. Would a “$10 Mondays” return commuter fare bring some of that ridership back? Maybe, maybe not… but there’s nothing magical about Niagara. Once we have solid weekend 2WAD on all the GO routes, there should be a strategy to maximise use of that entire system.

As for affordability, that is a good discussion to have, but the discussion should address the whole fare structure - there are places that people need to go more, every day of the week.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

Again, the affordability argument is a straw man in the context of the $10 weekend passes, because those passes do little to nothing to address affordability for most potential GO Transit trips.
A 260 km round trip to Niagara Falls on a $10 pass works out to $0.04/km. Meanwhile a 34 km round trip from Downsview Park works out to $0.29/km.
Or relative to the normal ticket price, a round trip from Downsview Park gets a 3% discount, while a trip to Niagara Falls gets a 72% discount.

Why is it that we are arbitrarily dumping money into getting high-occupancy vehicles off the QEW to Niagara, when for the same money we could divert far more single-occupancy vehicles elsewhere? Surely you'd get far more vehicles off the road by providing a (for example) 40% discount for all trips.

Claiming that the $10 round trip to Niagara is a worthwhile investment in transit affordability can only make sense if you assume that there is an unlimited amount of funding available for GO Transit's operations, which is not the case. There is a finite budget, and funds which are bankrolling day trips to Niagara are funds which are not providing discounts on trips within the GTA, or between other nearby cities. Those are also funds which are not being used to run additional service - something which is also known to attract people out of cars.

And besides, the baseline on GO is not $40 round trip, the baseline is $25 round trip including a WEGO day pass, which is what most passengers were paying prior to the $10 pass. A price of $12.25 each way already undercut all of the competing services and was already attracting very solid ridership on weekends.

Here are the cheapest round trip tickets I could find for next Saturday, on competing services:

Flixbus: $43
View attachment 413248

Megabus: $50
View attachment 413247

VIA Rail: $54
View attachment 413246

Rider Express: $60
View attachment 413245


To reiterate: my point is not that these are reasonable prices, the point is that the marginal number of riders attracted by reducing the GO round trip from $25 to $10 is definitely fewer than the number of riders which would be attracted by the spending the same amount of money on discounts elsewhere.

While I'm happy to agree with all of the above; I think the fundamental argument being made was not the relative value of the Niagara discount as compared to other transit investments; but rather the principle that if transit uptake is high, (which one would hope for); the answer is more service to meet demand, rather than implementing measures which either drive (pun intended) that traffic into the car/onto the highway or results in no trip being taken at all.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I love how a transit trip made, no matter how superfluous like a recreational trip to Niagara, is considered sacred at all costs but a car trip eliminated through demand destruction is nothing but good news (yes, it's more complex than that, just pointing the perspective out).

The reality is most trips on the Niagara services are induced trips (i.e. didn't exist before the seasonal GO train and $10 pricing). I'm sure the GO Trian is helping keep traffic on the QEW down, but it's still a disaster out towards Niagara on weekends anyways.

The reality is if we lower demand on GO, most trips will disappear, not shift modes. The highway network is effectively at capacity already for Niagara trips. Most of those trips were created by the $10 policy, and most would disappear if you removed the $10 policy.

We can debate if that's worth it or not, but I'm of the opinion if there is no easy way to increase capacity on the network and the $10 trips aren't really even making GO money, why is GO subsidizing cheap recreational trips to Niagara? Increase pricing to bring crowding down and increase profitability. Perhaps a Niagara pass becomes $15 or something even just to drop demand a bit.

 

[Northern Light]

why is GO subsidizing cheap recreational trips to Niagara? Increase pricing to bring crowding down and increase profitability. Perhaps a Niagara pass becomes $15 or something even just to drop demand a bit.

I assume the desire is to drive additional tourism, including overnights, by visitors both domestic and international, which, in turn will boost spending on hotel construction and attractions.

Should that assumption be correct; should that all be on GO? Probably not, but if you treat it as 'tourism promotion' spending rather than transportation spending, the uptake suggests a better yield
than some TV commercials would get; and its probably a lot more politically palatable and practical than directly subsidizing attractions/hotels.

 

[crs1026]

I have commented before that so much of our recreational infrastructure in Southern Ontario is auto-dependent and may become a more stranded asset should auto use become less accessible. This doesn’t imply an anti-auto mentality - simple population growth will fill the highways. If you think the Niagara GO train is overloaded, think what the 400 will look like on Sunday afternoon with another half million residents in Toronto.

Our entire network of conservation areas and hinterland cycling/walking trails currently requires auto use to access. Ditto for cottage country, Georgian Bay beaches, etc.

Linking the GTA to recreational areas outside the GTA by public transit is a necessary part of our overall densification. It probably does relate to affordability in that costs of using autos, not to mention shoreline in cottage country is a somewhat finite resource so as population grows, access to that resource will likely become even more exclusive and potentially wealth-dependent. Lack of wealth should not chain people to the city.

The Niagara train is really just the test case for that strategy. We should work from the strategy and apply lessons learned from Niagara - but Niagara is not the destination in itself. We need more of a network.

- Paul

 

[innsertnamehere]

I have commented before that so much of our recreational infrastructure in Southern Ontario is auto-dependent and may become a more stranded asset should auto use become more accessible. This doesn’t imply an anti-auto mentality - simple population growth will fill the highways. If you think the Niagara GO train is overloaded, think what the 400 will look like on Sunday afternoon with another half million residents in Toronto.

Our entire network of conservation areas and hinterland cycling/walking trails currently requires auto use to access. Ditto for cottage country, Georgian Bay beaches, etc.

Linking the GTA to recreational areas outside the GTA by public transit is a necessary part of our overall densification. It probably does relate to affordability in that costs of using autos, not to mention shoreline in cottage country is a somewhat finite resource so as population grows, access to that resource will likely become even more exclusive and potentially wealth-dependent. Lack of wealth should not chain people to the city.

The Niagara train is really just the test case for that strategy. We should work from the strategy and apply lessons learned from Niagara - but Niagara is not the destination in itself. We need more of a network.

- Paul

Oh I agree wholeheartedly - I've advocated on this board several times about returning trains to Collingwood and specifically timing Northlander trips to encourage use to access Cottage Country.

Niagara ultimately is extremely well built for public transit visits as it's dense and has a large variety of destinations relatively close to the station, so other recreational destinations will be more challenging to service, but there is definitely room to improve.

Generally, even in Europe, recreational areas are dominated by automotive access though _(though obviously much less so than here) - the returns on the types and variety of activities which can be serviced by transit will be limited, as will uptake overall. Doesn't mean we have to continue with our current model which is basically 0% transit modal share to these types of destinations though either.

 

[Undead]

Tough crowd, eh? We don't build transit, people complain. We do offer transit service, people still complain. I know it's a complicated issue, but this is starting to sound like why we can't have nice things.

 

[Bordercollie]

I have commented before that so much of our recreational infrastructure in Southern Ontario is auto-dependent and may become a more stranded asset should auto use become less accessible. This doesn’t imply an anti-auto mentality - simple population growth will fill the highways. If you think the Niagara GO train is overloaded, think what the 400 will look like on Sunday afternoon with another half million residents in Toronto.

Our entire network of conservation areas and hinterland cycling/walking trails currently requires auto use to access. Ditto for cottage country, Georgian Bay beaches, etc.

Linking the GTA to recreational areas outside the GTA by public transit is a necessary part of our overall densification. It probably does relate to affordability in that costs of using autos, not to mention shoreline in cottage country is a somewhat finite resource so as population grows, access to that resource will likely become even more exclusive and potentially wealth-dependent. Lack of wealth should not chain people to the city.

The Niagara train is really just the test case for that strategy. We should work from the strategy and apply lessons learned from Niagara - but Niagara is not the destination in itself. We need more of a network.

- Paul

Too bad they ripped out the CP tracks through Clifton Hill. They could have built a station right downtown.

If you took the CP line from Hamilton GO it will bring you to
6740 Fallsview Blvd, Niagara Falls, ON L2G 3W6

I don't know what the track conditions are to get there but this would allow you to have a station downtown.

Is the Niagara Falls LRT dead? It really needs to be along the Parkway between the butterfly conservatory and the Falls.

 

[Northern Light]

Too bad they ripped out the CP tracks through Clifton Hill. They could have built a station right downtown.

If you took the CP line from Hamilton GO it will bring you to
6740 Fallsview Blvd, Niagara Falls, ON L2G 3W6

I don't know what the track conditions are to get there but this would allow you to have a station downtown.

It is still feasible to build a station next to Fallsview Casino along the CP tracks; though the spur track is in poor condition and will require investment.

Going further would require demolition of at least a portion of, if not the entirely of Fallsview (no great loss); and you could reasonably get to Victoria Street and put a station there; but I think the business case would really limit one to the
Fallsview Station unless there was a compelling reason to demo the casino.

Is the Niagara Falls LRT dead? It really needs to be along the Parkway between the butterfly conservatory and the Falls.

Was there a serious proposal in the past?

Its been discussed at a high level, but I wasn't aware of it ever being particularly advanced in terms of planning.

I expect you will see an LRT at some point, but its likely more than a decade, and perhaps two from happening; It will also, most likely, follow Victoria in order to connect the GO Station to the Clifton Hill area.

 

[innsertnamehere]

the ROW still exists to extend Niagara Service from the CP corridor south to Fallsview / Clifton Hill as well, if desired.

 

[Garuda]

the ROW still exists to extend Niagara Service from the CP corridor south to Fallsview / Clifton Hill as well, if desired.

That route IMO should street car/tram that runs from the train station south along the right of way towards the park & rides.

 

[reaperexpress]

Tough crowd, eh? We don't build transit, people complain. We do offer transit service, people still complain. I know it's a complicated issue, but this is starting to sound like why we can't have nice things.

Nobody here has complained about the existence of the weekend Niagara GO train. We are only debating what to do about the fact that the current schedule and price structure (1 gigantic train in the morning; $10 round trip) is resulting in crowding on the train and on the connecting bus services at Niagara Falls station.

In no way does discussing the limitations of current service and fare structures prevent or even discourage new services from being introduced.