GO Transit

[Ed T.]

7 hours ago, TRENT_TRANSIT_SYSTEM said:

install fare gates...

How would fare gates work at Union station?

[New Flyer]

30 minutes ago, Ed T. said:

How would fare gates work at Union station?

There are far too many spots to put fare gates at Union. It would take forever for all of them to get installed, plus the movement would not be very economical. Union has infinite entryways to the GO platforms. If they wanted to put fare gates at stairwells leading UP to the platforms it's one thing. But still, it's highly unrealistic to find an effective method of doing so.

[Gil]

I still think the system they have on the Long Island Railroad is the most effective at ensuring everyone has paid.  There's the regular fare if you pre-pay at the station and a higher fare which you pay on board the train.  There are multiple ticket checks during a typical trip, so unless you're only going a stop or two and know when the ticket checks are being done there's less of a chance to dodge your fare.

This avoids the "I forgot to tap on" excuse and with payment on debit, credit or by phone on top of PRESTO there shouldn't be a problem paying.  The ticket checkers on LIRR also take cash as it was the only reasonable option at the time.  If for whatever reason you can't pay, then issue them a fine.

If they were concerned about fare evasion they would do the ticket checks more often.  I've seen countless people rushing for the train not tap on hoping that there won't be a ticket check.  Can you use that GO security number to report people who haven't paid their fare?  The extra revenue from the higher on-board fares could go toward paying the extra staff required to collect them.  I'm not sure if GO is planning on hiring extra station ambassadors to do these ticket checks on the platforms, but adding this responsibility to sometimes the only ambassador in the station seems like spreading themselves too thin.

With regard to payment on the PRESTO readers, some stations could use extra readers.  Long Branch's primary reader outside the station is often very temperamental when it comes to working.  The one inside the station building is of no use when the station is closed meaning if I want to avoid the fine/extra fare for not tapping off I had to go to the secondary exit at the stairs to Enfield at the other end of the platform.  Thankfully with the construction, the (temporary?) secondary exit along with the reader has been moved much closer.  There should still be another reader installed next to the TVMs or figure out a way to turn them into readers as well so that they're an all-in-one terminal.

[Ed T.]

4 minutes ago, New Flyer said:

There are far too many spots to put fare gates at Union. It would take forever for all of them to get installed, plus the movement would not be very economical. Union has infinite entryways to the GO platforms. If they wanted to put fare gates at stairwells leading UP to the platforms it's one thing. But still, it's highly unrealistic to find an effective method of doing so.

I was hoping the original poster might explain.

Some very high percentage of GO train rides start or end at Union, so not having gates there will miss something close to half of all GO train boardings. Doesn't sound too effective to me.

Then at smaller stations, the station building may be locked up outside of peak or daytime hours. Presto machines sitting outside under the roof overhang seem to work okay in lousy weather. How are fare gates going to work when there's a pile of snow or freezing rain?

And how much space would you need to handle busy times? The TTC has plenty of fare gates at Union station, but when a few GO trains' worth of commuters wants to get on the subway, while a whole subway trainload of commuters wants to get to the GO platforms, it's human gridlock down there.

But it's easy to propose solutions, eh!

1 minute ago, Gil said:

With regard to payment on the PRESTO readers, some stations could use extra readers.  Long Branch's primary reader outside the station is often very temperamental when it comes to working.  The one inside the station building is of no use when the station is closed meaning if I want to avoid the fine/extra fare for not tapping off I had to go to the secondary exit at the stairs to Enfield at the other end of the platform.  Thankfully with the construction, the (temporary?) secondary exit along with the reader has been moved much closer.  There should still be another reader installed next to the TVMs or figure out a way to turn them into readers as well so that they're an all-in-one terminal.

There are two readers at Long Branch on the north side of the building. I think I once mentioned some kind of issue with one of them, maybe screen not working, but otherwise they seem to work okay.

[Gil]

18 minutes ago, Ed T. said:

I was hoping the original poster might explain.

Some very high percentage of GO train rides start or end at Union, so not having gates there will miss something close to half of all GO train boardings. Doesn't sound too effective to me.

Then at smaller stations, the station building may be locked up outside of peak or daytime hours. Presto machines sitting outside under the roof overhang seem to work okay in lousy weather. How are fare gates going to work when there's a pile of snow or freezing rain?

And how much space would you need to handle busy times? The TTC has plenty of fare gates at Union station, but when a few GO trains' worth of commuters wants to get on the subway, while a whole subway trainload of commuters wants to get to the GO platforms, it's human gridlock down there.

But it's easy to propose solutions, eh!

I've run into the issue of trying to get into a subway station as a subway has just unloaded and having to wait for a gap or fighting your way down the stairs is annoying.  I can only imagine what would happen at Union when one train arrives on one platform with a departing one on the adjacent platform!  Some of the stairwells are tight enough as it is.  Putting a fare gate of some kind would also add to the backup!  Kids riding free might be another issue as would people with luggage (I always run into that problem in Paris using the RER B to get to CDG) or bikes.

18 minutes ago, Ed T. said:

There are two readers at Long Branch on the north side of the building. I think I once mentioned some kind of issue with one of them, maybe screen not working, but otherwise they seem to work okay.

The second reader might be relatively new then.  Yes, I've run into the issue of the screen not working but also it not making a sound so you don't know if you've tapped on or not.  I dont know that if a ticket check occurred leaving Long Branch and if enough people said the reader wasn't working that they'd give them a pass.  When there's a game or concert downtown and the station is closed having the one reader the leads to the parking lot was problematic. 

[Cityflyer]

Finch Kennedy GO Station was identified as 2 of the 5 that might not go if funding does not appear due to the increase cost.

My question is, does anyone know if they decide not to build the Finch Kennedy GO Station, will they at least do the grade separation of Finch Ave at the GO train tracks since there's some visible minor construction already started on site?

[Lex Reid]

Demo MCI D45 CRT currently at Streetsville Garage this morning

[FlyerD901]

I'm sure these will be GOs next bus order. 

 

[GTAmissions1]

2 hours ago, FlyerD901 said:

I'm sure these will be GOs next bus order. 

Metrolinx did close a tender several months ago to replace the existing MCI coaches. The challenges of not being able to maintain current service levels leading to a reduction of bus trips a few months ago alongside bus refurbishment on older buses to hold them together long enough until new vehicles arrive sometime next year.

It is long overdue since I have seen the challenges of not having sufficient buses available to meet current and future service demands leading to cuts in-service. 

[Lex Reid]

On 12/16/2024 at 3:12 PM, GTAmissions1 said:

Metrolinx did close a tender several months ago to replace the existing MCI coaches. The challenges of not being able to maintain current service levels leading to a reduction of bus trips a few months ago alongside bus refurbishment on older buses to hold them together long enough until new vehicles arrive sometime next year.

It is long overdue since I have seen the challenges of not having sufficient buses available to meet current and future service demands leading to cuts in-service. 

End of 2025 we should start seeing buses roll in

[TRENT_TRANSIT_SYSTEM]

On 12/11/2024 at 5:51 PM, Ed T. said:

How would fare gates work at Union station?

At the top or bottom of the stair ways/doors to platform access, but yeah, it would be a challenge. most younger people I know dont pay for the GO Train and look at me like Im stupid when I do pay. thats only my experience, but Im sure eveyone knows at least one chronic GO fare dodger.

[Ed T.]

2 hours ago, TRENT_TRANSIT_SYSTEM said:

At the top or bottom of the stair ways/doors to platform access, but yeah, it would be a challenge. most younger people I know dont pay for the GO Train and look at me like Im stupid when I do pay. thats only my experience, but Im sure eveyone knows at least one chronic GO fare dodger.

There is more than enough crowding on the platforms and in the stairwells right now, especially when a morning train delivers a full crowd of commuters. It's a safety issue already. There is no way you can put fare gates at the bottom of steep narrow steps. Ditto at the top of steep narrow steps.

[FlyerD901]

On 12/16/2024 at 3:12 PM, GTAmissions1 said:

Metrolinx did close a tender several months ago to replace the existing MCI coaches. The challenges of not being able to maintain current service levels leading to a reduction of bus trips a few months ago alongside bus refurbishment on older buses to hold them together long enough until new vehicles arrive sometime next year.

It is long overdue since I have seen the challenges of not having sufficient buses available to meet current and future service demands leading to cuts in-service. 

I hope GO gets regular coaches instead of DD. But we'll see. 

I didn't see the tender, so I don't know if it specified DD or regular coaches. 

[fromthe905]

54 minutes ago, FlyerD901 said:

I hope GO gets regular coaches instead of DD. But we'll see. 

I didn't see the tender, so I don't know if it specified DD or regular coaches. 

Alexander Dennis is no longer producing the Enviro500 Super-Lo's so GO is forced to get regular coaches.

[2044]

31 minutes ago, fromthe905 said:

Alexander Dennis is no longer producing the Enviro500 Super-Lo's so GO is forced to get regular coaches.

That’s not true. The SuperLo is still available. It’s GO who is no longer interested in purchasing double deckers.

[GTAmissions1]

1 hour ago, FlyerD901 said:

I hope GO gets regular coaches instead of DD. But we'll see. 

I didn't see the tender, so I don't know if it specified DD or regular coaches. 

Here is the link to the tender which would have indicated regular coach buses. 

https://www.metrolinx.merx.com/public/solicitations/2885531612/abstract?origin=0

SuperLo double decker coaches, there was an option for an additional 150 buses. Metrolinx chose not to exercise that option.

[Gil]

5 hours ago, TRENT_TRANSIT_SYSTEM said:

At the top or bottom of the stair ways/doors to platform access, but yeah, it would be a challenge. most younger people I know dont pay for the GO Train and look at me like Im stupid when I do pay. thats only my experience, but Im sure eveyone knows at least one chronic GO fare dodger.

I know and have seen the fare dodgers, which is why the on board fare seem like a decent way to address the issue.  The LIRR charges about a $6 surcharge on the ticket (presumably from the last station passed) which works out to about $8 here.  It's a steep enough disincentive to encourage people to tap on at the start as even if you manage to evade a ticket check until you say get closer to Union, that would still be close to $12 payable by card or a fine if you don't/can't pay. 

At this point in time aside from maybe tourists, I don't know who doesn't have a means of contactless payment on them.  Any overdraft fees are on the passenger.  I've seen plenty of people cry poor when paying a fare despite appearances to the contrary.  

3 hours ago, Ed T. said:

There is more than enough crowding on the platforms and in the stairwells right now, especially when a morning train delivers a full crowd of commuters. It's a safety issue already. There is no way you can put fare gates at the bottom of steep narrow steps. Ditto at the top of steep narrow steps.

When a train arrives while another one is leaving from the adjacent platform or rush hour in general, trying to a reader to tap on or off can be problematic.  You also face traffic jams of people negotiating two-way traffic with a faregate, presumably similar to the ones for the subway.

[MRD10]

9 hours ago, fromthe905 said:

Alexander Dennis is no longer producing the Enviro500 Super-Lo's so GO is forced to get regular coaches.

They are still in production, and the SuperLos were specifically produced for GO Transit, and later made available for other operators.

[Mind_the_gap]

The D45 CRT implies somewhat that GO is willing to shift away from having only one set of doors per bus, unless the lower accessibility area would be permanently closed-off from passengers on the upper level??

The only efficient use of this model is to have passengers enter at the front doors and exit at the rear.

Which begs the question, why not get Suburban artics (like Airdrie or St. Albert, Alberta) through the Metrolinx joint bus purchases?

What was (NYC)MTA's reasoning for going with Prevost X3-45s?

Ps. I hope the MCIs will have "commuter" front doors, like they had.

[2044]

43 minutes ago, Mind_the_gap said:

The D45 CRT implies somewhat that GO is willing to shift away from having only one set of doors per bus, unless the lower accessibility area would be permanently closed-off from passengers on the upper level??

The only efficient use of this model is to have passengers enter at the front doors and exit at the rear.

Which begs the question, why not get Suburban artics (like Airdrie or St. Albert, Alberta) through the Metrolinx joint bus purchases?

What was (NYC)MTA's reasoning for going with Prevost X3-45s?

Ps. I hope the MCIs will have "commuter" front doors, like they had.

It’s not a CRT LE. It’s a CRT with a lift.

[FlyerD901]

2 hours ago, Mind_the_gap said:

The D45 CRT implies somewhat that GO is willing to shift away from having only one set of doors per bus, unless the lower accessibility area would be permanently closed-off from passengers on the upper level??

The only efficient use of this model is to have passengers enter at the front doors and exit at the rear.

Which begs the question, why not get Suburban artics (like Airdrie or St. Albert, Alberta) through the Metrolinx joint bus purchases?

What was (NYC)MTA's reasoning for going with Prevost X3-45s?

Ps. I hope the MCIs will have "commuter" front doors, like they had.

If GO operated more local service like they did in the early 2000s and prior , it would make sense to go with LF suburban buses. 

But I doubt ppl want to be on a LF bus crossing the 401, which would be a more uncomfortable ride. Then you have the luggage situation.

I get the DD are LF too, so maybe there's an argument for LF, but you still lose a lot of capacity with 40ft LF.  With an artic, you now have a length problem at various stations like Union, Yorkdale and many other bus Terminals. Imagine backing up an artic at Hamilton, and the rear of the bus sticking out. 

Best option for GO is sticking with a 45 or even 40ft coach. 

Now, the geek in me thinks GO can pull off asking NFI to make a 40ft transit coach, a High Floor Xcelsior. Lol 

 

 

[MorningsideExpress]

4 minutes ago, FlyerD901 said:

If GO operated more local service like they did in the early 2000s and prior , it would make sense to go with LF suburban buses. 

But I doubt ppl want to be on a LF bus crossing the 401, which would be a more uncomfortable ride. Then you have the luggage situation.

I get the DD are LF too, so maybe there's an argument for LF, but you still lose a lot of capacity with 40ft LF.  With an artic, you now have a length problem at various stations like Union, Yorkdale and many other bus Terminals. Imagine backing up an artic at Hamilton, and the rear of the bus sticking out. 

Best option for GO is sticking with a 45 or even 40ft coach. 

Now, the geek in me thinks GO can pull off asking NFI to make a 40ft transit coach, a High Floor Xcelsior. Lol 

 

 

I could see the the suburban LF option being very efficient on the 92, where in Durham, riders might use this route for one stop and comfort isn't necessarily a priority. Route 71 from Unionville would be a great fit as well. Short trips, efficient loading. For the long distance trips, this CRT model looks great, and the ease of wheelchair loading looks to be a great asset for GO...loading a wheelchair on the D4500s or any other standard coach can take quite some time. 

[Articulated]

11 minutes ago, FlyerD901 said:

If GO operated more local service like they did in the early 2000s and prior , it would make sense to go with LF suburban buses. 

But I doubt ppl want to be on a LF bus crossing the 401, which would be a more uncomfortable ride. Then you have the luggage situation.

I get the DD are LF too, so maybe there's an argument for LF, but you still lose a lot of capacity with 40ft LF.  With an artic, you now have a length problem at various stations like Union, Yorkdale and many other bus Terminals. Imagine backing up an artic at Hamilton, and the rear of the bus sticking out. 

Best option for GO is sticking with a 45 or even 40ft coach. 

Now, the geek in me thinks GO can pull off asking NFI to make a 40ft transit coach, a High Floor Xcelsior. Lol 

 

 

When GO put out a tender for what became the Enviro500 SuperLo buses, they wanted a low-entry bus (for easy wheelchair access) with coach-like quality. My understanding is that a double-deck bus was not necessarily the original vision, but given GO's ideal specs don't readily exist in any other format, ADL was willing to adapt their existing product to come closer to meeting GO's demands in exchange for locking in a large, lucrative, and long-term contract. Of course, getting 250+ examples of them mean their drawbacks become more readily apparent over time.

GO doesn't want transit buses, as they do not provide the ride quality, comfort, and amenities that GO passengers expect, given they are often on board for much longer than typical local transit riders. Transit buses also aren't designed for extended periods of high-speed operation that most GO buses operate on. GO has operated suburban-spec transit buses before (namely the New Flyer D40S and Orion V), neither of which lasted in service as long as comparable coaches, and of which drivers were not necessarily fans of.

[FlyerD901]

2 hours ago, MorningsideExpress said:

I could see the the suburban LF option being very efficient on the 92, where in Durham, riders might use this route for one stop and comfort isn't necessarily a priority. Route 71 from Unionville would be a great fit as well. Short trips, efficient loading. For the long distance trips, this CRT model looks great, and the ease of wheelchair loading looks to be a great asset for GO...loading a wheelchair on the D4500s or any other standard coach can take quite some time. 

I understand the case for a easy entry for wheelchairs. But I don't think there's a large amount of wheelchair users to go with a new design for GO. I think the Lift is still good enough considering the low percentage of wheelchair users. 

I'm sure as population ages a bit more, then maybe that will be a need. But I agree the wheel chair lift can be an annoying tedious process, especially if it had to be done frequently. 

38 minutes ago, Articulated said:

When GO put out a tender for what became the Enviro500 SuperLo buses, they wanted a low-entry bus (for easy wheelchair access) with coach-like quality. My understanding is that a double-deck bus was not necessarily the original vision, but given GO's ideal specs don't readily exist in any other format, ADL was willing to adapt their existing product to come closer to meeting GO's demands in exchange for locking in a large, lucrative, and long-term contract. Of course, getting 250+ examples of them mean their drawbacks become more readily apparent over time.

GO doesn't want transit buses, as they do not provide the ride quality, comfort, and amenities that GO passengers expect, given they are often on board for much longer than typical local transit riders. Transit buses also aren't designed for extended periods of high-speed operation that most GO buses operate on. GO has operated suburban-spec transit buses before (namely the New Flyer D40S and Orion V), neither of which lasted in service as long as comparable coaches, and of which drivers were not necessarily fans of.

The D40S was built during an era when NFI didn't have the best build quality. Something even NFI had admitted. But some that were second did last almost 14 years. 

But yes, I doubt the GO customers wants to ride glorified city buses. If I remember correctly, Grimsby wanted transit , but not a city bus, they specifically wanted, in their words, Coach buses like what GO has. 

Does GO still have an expect 12 year cycle for their bus fleet?

[Articulated]

4 minutes ago, FlyerD901 said:

I understand the case for a easy entry for wheelchairs. But I don't think there's a large amount of wheelchair users to go with a new design for GO. I think the Lift is still good enough considering the low percentage of wheelchair users. 

I'm sure as population ages a bit more, then maybe that will be a need. But I agree the wheel chair lift can be an annoying tedious process, especially if it had to be done frequently. 

The biggest reason why GO wanted to move away from wheelchair lifts was the time it took to deploy the lift, load the passenger, operate the lift, secure the passenger, and restow the lift; then do the same thing all over again to unload the passenger. Buses were getting delayed 10+ minutes whenever they got a passenger with a mobility device. Plus there was the cost of maintaining the lifts, and issues when they broke down, the bus would need to be removed from service (and passengers inconvenienced waiting for a replacement bus) instead of just disabling the ramp.