Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Ed T. said:

You don't trust them. Why would you?

Because how often do you see the savings get passed on to customers?  From anybody?  I racked my brain and I can think of only one example and that's when Teksavvy's occasionally nudged rates down in response to when wholesale and last mile carriage fees have gone down.  Other than that, I can't think of any.

4 hours ago, Ed T. said:

It's not a fare increase, it's a parking charge. If you call it a fare increase, you might as well say that if the price of gas goes up, your GO fare has increased.

A parking charge at the train station on top of the train ticket results in a net increase in cost to use the Go train.  It is a de facto fare increase.

4 hours ago, Ed T. said:

I recall moans of protest when the free parking for Metropass users was taken away at TTC parking lots. Imminent collapse of the TTC, cats sleeping with dogs, etc. Oddly, the parking lot at Kipling station remained packed during the day, those times I had to walk through to get to the station entrance. Maybe the other parking lots I haven't visited are empty?

They're probably filled with people who are not happy their TTC costs have gone up.

4 hours ago, Ed T. said:

I am biased because I never park at a GO station, and would look forward to any reduction in my fare. On the other hand, charging for parking will give some people an incentive to figure out an alternative to driving by themselves to the GO station and plopping their car down for the day. I don't agree with arguments that GO should keep expanding parking lots, including building multi-storey parking palaces, to preserve the right to easy, plentiful, free parking.

Lucky you.  So you don't need it means nobody else should have it?  We're back at the last mile bullshit which in my case, this other Metrolinx thing called the Hamilton LRT was going to solve a major problem for me in that respect.  Trashing the local, last mile rapid transit project and leave behind a bus service that doesn't integrate with the train times, fine, don't even think about charging me for having to park in fucking Burlington in order to get to work on time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 9.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Original GO Cab Car 104 is at the Toronto Railway Museum

For the sake of convenience, I’ll leave this here: Total of 5 ex go 8000s being loaded in Agincourt yard this morning, destined for their second lives in parts unknown. Numbers still on, th

omg I think its time for some social distancing for you two

Posted Images

41 minutes ago, Wayside Observer said:

A parking charge at the train station on top of the train ticket results in a net increase in cost to use the Go train.  It is a de facto fare increase.

Lucky you.  So you don't need it means nobody else should have it?  We're back at the last mile bullshit which in my case, this other Metrolinx thing called the Hamilton LRT was going to solve a major problem for me in that respect.  Trashing the local, last mile rapid transit project and leave behind a bus service that doesn't integrate with the train times, fine, don't even think about charging me for having to park in fucking Burlington in order to get to work on time.

GO will happily sell you a fare and let you on the train whether or not you have parked at the station. Therefore it's not a de facto fare increase.

The last mile problem is indeed something that Metrolinx needs to address. You'd be better off tying your argument to something like "fix the last mile problem!"

I will note that reserved parking already runs $98/month as per GO's website. I'd guess that at least half of Long Branch's parking lot is reserved. Of course the rest of it is full before 7 AM.

I guess you can go complain to Premier Doug.

What will you say if the per-km fare is actually balanced out? Guess what, your commute from Burlington (to Toronto?) will be even more expensive. I guess you'll have to spend some of that $10,000 you saved by knowing oil burners.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Last week, Metrolinx updated their July 2019 blog entry about the Highway 401 tunnel for the Kitchener GO line, with the note: "This story was updated on Jan. 9, 2020 to better reflect the project timelines"

They removed the sentence at the end that said "The project is expected to be completed by 2021."

So at least a 12-month delay, after only 6 months of construction! Yikes ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed T. said:

GO will happily sell you a fare and let you on the train whether or not you have parked at the station. Therefore it's not a de facto fare increase.

The last mile problem is indeed something that Metrolinx needs to address. You'd be better off tying your argument to something like "fix the last mile problem!"

I will note that reserved parking already runs $98/month as per GO's website. I'd guess that at least half of Long Branch's parking lot is reserved. Of course the rest of it is full before 7 AM.

I guess you can go complain to Premier Doug.

What will you say if the per-km fare is actually balanced out? Guess what, your commute from Burlington (to Toronto?) will be even more expensive. I guess you'll have to spend some of that $10,000 you saved by knowing oil burners.

Judging by the comments on the CBC article, I'd probably say the same thing that everyone else is and drive the whole way to work if the cost shift becomes high enough.  It's getting close and is a lot closer than it was five years ago.  The per-KM on Go transit was always slanted towards easing the costs on longer trips since the Go train was originally started to be a QEW easement and long distance commuter hauler while short distance travellers in Toronto were already provided for with the TTC.  Now if the purpose has shifted and the fare structure revised, you'll see the usage shift a bit.

As for the $10K I saved, a good chunk of that went towards putting the house on natural gas in order to save operating costs long term since the cost per BTU on fuel oil for heating and the cost per BTU on electricity for water heating are considerably higher than for natural gas.  Putting a one time windfall against recurring commute costs like you suggest would be foolish.  I honestly thought you were smarter than that but that obviously was a mistake on my part.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nfitz said:

Last week, Metrolinx updated their July 2019 blog entry about the Highway 401 tunnel for the Kitchener GO line, with the note: "This story was updated on Jan. 9, 2020 to better reflect the project timelines"

They removed the sentence at the end that said "The project is expected to be completed by 2021."

So at least a 12-month delay, after only 6 months of construction! Yikes ...

The 12 month delay likely has more to do with the amount of time it took the winning bidders to design the structure - 14 or 15 months. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me to find that the MTO had a hand in that as well.

 

Dan

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wayside Observer said:

This is the funniest thing I’ve seen all day.

939B6FB0-B6DD-48F0-9B90-EFA9E9A5BCFA.thumb.png.24901211cddc54ebf93b3f6415f63e72.png

Its so true though.  The political correctness crowd might be upset, rightly so, at the species of primate depicted in the cartoon being denigrated by being compared to Metrolinx though.

The comic is still wrong though. An ape would at least know how to ride a train. Metrolinx can't even make trains run, they rely on Bombardier for that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t have a number but it was a DDL. Attached photos that are not mine. Reminds me of that incident last year I believe when a similar unit got hit by debris on its way south from Beaverton. 
 

OPP really should start heavily enforcing clearing snow off cars, especially trucks (though I’m aware of the difficulties involved with trucks. Still no excuse though).

 

3987B7A3-DA88-4AA6-B8F8-DABF8CD8A712.jpeg

84DB535E-3289-49CB-8B96-0E64A9AD731A.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Doppelkupplung said:

Don’t have a number but it was a DDL. Attached photos that are not mine. Reminds me of that incident last year I believe when a similar unit got hit by debris on its way south from Beaverton. 
 

OPP really should start heavily enforcing clearing snow off cars, especially trucks (though I’m aware of the difficulties involved with trucks. Still no excuse though).

 

3987B7A3-DA88-4AA6-B8F8-DABF8CD8A712.jpeg

84DB535E-3289-49CB-8B96-0E64A9AD731A.jpeg

This was from a semi. Unless you’re advocating for commercial drivers to walk the roofs of their ladder less van trailers with shovels, these types of things are a possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bus_Medic said:

This was from a semi. Unless you’re advocating for commercial drivers to walk the roofs of their ladder less van trailers with shovels, these types of things are a possibility.

Disclaimer: I may be mis-remembering, and I think I'd have to be on internal systems to find any information.

But I seem to recall that a municipal worker was seriously injured by ice falling on his head from the top of a garbage truck. And yes, the Ministry investigated, and steps were taken. So some analogue to your suggestion may be required of CVOR operators.

(I am certified for JHSC; this would have come up at some meeting, probably 2017. Wasn't our division.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ed T. said:

Disclaimer: I may be mis-remembering, and I think I'd have to be on internal systems to find any information.

But I seem to recall that a municipal worker was seriously injured by ice falling on his head from the top of a garbage truck. And yes, the Ministry investigated, and steps were taken. So some analogue to your suggestion may be required of CVOR operators.

(I am certified for JHSC; this would have come up at some meeting, probably 2017. Wasn't our division.)


While one of these would be nice to have, forcing operators and customers to install them at all conceivable points of origin everywhere isn’t going to happen, and that’s what it’ll take to eliminate the risk for certain. 
 

The alternative is to compel drivers to somehow ascend to an already slippery surface, and shovel it manually, without anything to tie a fall arrest to.

Ain’t gonna happen.
 

I stand behind my earlier statement.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

A while back someone reported one DD has luggage racks for use on route 40. Whatever happened to this unit and why didn't they put more of them for this route?

With the DD's luggage racks so high up above the rear wheels, most people just bring their luggages into the wheelchair area of the lower deck and cramps that area. Route 40 is better served with D4500s since they can actually make use of their luggage racks,

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Orion V said:

A while back someone reported one DD has luggage racks for use on route 40. Whatever happened to this unit and why didn't they put more of them for this route?

There is a semi-permanent luggage rack that can be fitted into the lower level of the Superlos, taking up the space of 2 pairs of seats. Several in the low-8400s have this fitted, and it wouldn't surprise me to hearthat others have as well.

 

 While it may make sense at a quick glance to use them exclusively on the 34 and 40, there are also other routes that see a lot of baggage, and they may cycle through those routes as well.

 

Dan

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, smallspy said:

There is a semi-permanent luggage rack that can be fitted into the lower level of the Superlos, taking up the space of 2 pairs of seats. Several in the low-8400s have this fitted, and it wouldn't surprise me to hearthat others have as well.

 

 While it may make sense at a quick glance to use them exclusively on the 34 and 40, there are also other routes that see a lot of baggage, and they may cycle through those routes as well.

 

Dan

So the luggage racks in the back are never used?

If they got rid of those luggage racks and pushed the space back could they add more seats?

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Shaun said:

So the luggage racks in the back are never used?

If they got rid of those luggage racks and pushed the space back could they add more seats?

They are absolutely used. Just take a ride on the 21, 34 or 40, or even the Niagara region routes, where there’s a lot of tourist traffic. 

They added those compartments for a reason. A big gripe with the older E500s was that they had no proper luggage storage areas and essentially any pieces that weren’t secured became a safety hazard on the lower level. I can’t speak for East routes but on the west side, overcrowding is almost never a problem nowadays with SLs operating basically everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doppelkupplung said:

They are absolutely used. Just take a ride on the 21, 34 or 40, or even the Niagara region routes, where there’s a lot of tourist traffic. 

They added those compartments for a reason. A big gripe with the older E500s was that they had no proper luggage storage areas and essentially any pieces that weren’t secured became a safety hazard on the lower level. I can’t speak for East routes but on the west side, overcrowding is almost never a problem nowadays with SLs operating basically everywhere.

I happened to see a packed SuperLo on the 52 once, with a lot of students carrying light carry on bags which were not loaded into the baggage compartment but were carried onto the bus by passengers; it was packed to the point where some people thought it was okay to stand on the upper deck...

In theory, the drivers are supposed to use the luggage racks (if equipped) on any bus if there is a lot of luggage or if the passengers are carrying larger pieces of luggage, such as large suitcases, strollers and foldable bicycles (anything not permitted in the passenger area)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not sure if the installation of display boards at the bus platforms at Erindale GO is a pilot project or part of a wider rollout.  They've progressed beyond the concrete bases and appear like the ones at YRT bus terminals.  Even the MiWay stops are getting them.  Just wondering who will be in charge of programming/feeding the data to the displays.

There also appears to be a single larger display screen (likely a colour screen similar to Square One or what's used for train info) in the middle of the station grounds.  Smaller colour screens at the bus stops would be overkill where an LED one would suffice. 

It would make sense hopefully that the bus info will be included in the display screens for train departures. No point in having 2 separate screens, right?!

IMG_20200130_0844185.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gil said:

I'm still not sure if the installation of display boards at the bus platforms at Erindale GO is a pilot project or part of a wider rollout.  They've progressed beyond the concrete bases and appear like the ones at YRT bus terminals.  Even the MiWay stops are getting them.  Just wondering who will be in charge of programming/feeding the data to the displays.

IMG_20200130_0844185.jpg

This same project is ongoing at Ajax GO. I know in the case with the signs at Durham Transit platforms, DRT will provide GO their platform allocations and their GTFSRT feed so that GO can properly program the signs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

GO is rolling out new bus stop signage.  They're installed on Yonge Street in North York, and likely other places, at this point. See the Metrolinx blog for details and photos.

There are some interesting aspects - adoption of a more "black" colour scheme matching other recent Metrolinx work, adoption of a new "T" symbol intended to be a universal cross-agency symbol for transit in the GTAH, though of course that will depend on whether other agencies actually end up using the symbol.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DavidH said:

GO is rolling out new bus stop signage.  They're installed on Yonge Street in North York, and likely other places, at this point. See the Metrolinx blog for details and photos.

There are some interesting aspects - adoption of a more "black" colour scheme matching other recent Metrolinx work, adoption of a new "T" symbol intended to be a universal cross-agency symbol for transit in the GTAH, though of course that will depend on whether other agencies actually end up using the symbol.

 

 

Looks an awful lot like the Boston T symbol!  Perhaps at stops that are served by multiple agencies it would serve as a unifying feature (now how do you decide what order to put the individual agencies?).

An example of the new universal transit symbol coming to a GO bus stops around the region

What I'd also like to see (and this may be straying from GO, but certainly within Metrolinx' mandate) is some sort of either co-operation/harmonization with stop ID info or a universal number to call to get transit stop information.  Stops shared by MiWay and Brampton Transit have to list both stop IDs and the number to call to get that information.  Include the schedule(s) for other agencies when you call either number or at least give the stop the same number for all agencies.  It's a far cry from YRT and Brampton Transit where the latter isn't even acknowledged.  It'd be nice to see the Züm buses show up on the Viva Station screens, especially along the VIVA Orange route where they overlap and essentially combine for better service.

Currently on the Triplinx site you can't enter a stop by its stop ID, which leaves you having to enter the intersection.  The list doesn't distinguish the direction at the intersection though leading to a 50/50 guess as to which stop to choose to get the schedule you're looking for.  Their maps will show you individual transit stops as well, but won't identify them with the individual agency stop ID.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Gil said:

Looks an awful lot like the Boston T symbol!  Perhaps at stops that are served by multiple agencies it would serve as a unifying feature (now how do you decide what order to put the individual agencies?).

An example of the new universal transit symbol coming to a GO bus stops around the region

The T is solely an indicator to tell people that it is a transit stop. Each agency serving that particular stop will have their own logo - which is why that stop in your example has a GO logo on it.

 

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...