GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[Orion VIII]

Do they really know that it will be popular or is this a test to see if there are riders? An earlier poster suggested there were 3,000 daily commuters to the 416 from this region.....another suggested that this trial service was two trains a day that would make no stops east of Guelph (ie. direct to Union from Guelph)...assuming 12 car sets (GO's standard) that means that even if they capture 100% of those potential customers.....the trains would not be close to full! While there are people standing all the way to work on their existing routes.

I think this is a test before spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a service for which there may not be a need/market.

Based on the extensive enquiries about the project, and the fact that more than just a few people have been involved in the groups pushing for the service, we can be sure the service will be well-used. The explosive success of bus services to Guelph and Kitchener shortly after their implementation indicates that demand exists in the area and that if you build it, they will come.

A train, as you suggest, making all stops to Guelph then express to Union would defeat the purpose of this being a "line" making trips from say, Guelph-Bramalea for an intending York U student, impossible. While that is just an example of trip that will be more possible once this extension begins operation, it is an example of a scenario that will now be possible where it wasn't before. Students in the service area will now be able to attend York U without having to live in Toronto. I'm sure this case is and has been repeated time and time again. I, for one, can cite a former classmate who would not have chosen to attend U of Guelph if he couldn't take the GO bus there. His family would not have been able to afford moving him to Guelph.

The idea of K-W becoming a bedroom community as a result of the GO extension is a moot point, judging by the daily commuter traffic on Highways 7 and 401. I believe that it already is a bedroom community to Toronto, however at the same time still has enough business and institutional concentration to be its own city.

 

[TOareaFan]

What do you define as "well used"......what is a success for this service?

Assuming two 12 car trains each way a day....and assuming the previous poster is correct that the trains are express from Guelph to Union....what kind of ridership can we expect on those two return trips monday to Friday?

 

[EnviroTO]

I would no longer worry about VIA-GEXR arbitration. Once the West Toronto grade separation is done and there is capacity for more trains on the Weston Sub, money is sure to be thrown like crazy at double tracking the Guelph Sub and installing CTC. Look at the double and triple tracking of the Oakville and Halton Subs: Many sections of additional track added in those projects were deemed by veteran CN RTCs as being unnecessary for the increased service, however they were still built because the money was there for them, funding that would be lost if said sections were not completed.

Money is sure to be thrown like crazy at double tracking? Based on what? I doubt Hudak will throw money like crazy at anything. If this GO train service does poorly, which with a close to 2 hour trip time on a 100km journey is far from an impossible outcome. it will be hard to justify spending the $400 million on. The Lakeshore track additions were deemed as unnecessary by who and under what kind of a timetable? Funding would be lost by who to who if the money wasn't spent? There are other lines in the GO system which need the money as well.

 

[TOareaFan]

Money is sure to be thrown like crazy at double tracking? Based on what? I doubt Hudak will throw money like crazy at anything. If this GO train service does poorly, which with a close to 2 hour trip time on a 100km journey is far from an impossible outcome. it will be hard to justify spending the $400 million on. The Lakeshore track additions were deemed as unnecessary by who and under what kind of a timetable? Funding would be lost by who to who if the money wasn't spent? There are other lines in the GO system which need the money as well.

This is precisely my point....the k-w extension always seemed politically motivated to me....when trains 20% (assuming 3,000 person each way capacity and a massive 20% capture rate on those 3,000 daily commuters) full are pulling in or leaving from Union and people in much closer locales are cramming onto trains...it will be hard to justifiy spending on better service for k-w.

 

[Platform 27]

another suggested that this trial service was two trains a day that would make no stops east of Guelph (ie. direct to Union from Guelph).

Again, based on what I've heard from someone who ought to know all the details, this is not the case. These will be all-stops trains at least as far as Bramalea, if not all the way into Union.

The Georgetown layover can't be modified to fit 12-car trains, so in order to boost peak capacity from stations like Mt Pleasant/Brampton/Bramalea/Malton into Union, GO has a longstanding need to replace it with something new at the west end of the line. Being able to extend service to Kitchener is a nice perk, but they understand the trains are unlikely to be packed for the outermost parts of the run in the near term.

 

[EnviroTO]

I believe the market exists for better train service to K-W and even VIA service to K-W is pretty abysmal due to the travel times. Considering the alternative is to keep throwing money at the 401 between Toronto and K-W, the Highway 8 connection to the 401, Highway 7 between Guelph and Kitchener, and a new freeway from Guelph to the 400 via Bolton I think it is a good thing the province is looking at trains first. However there is no point delivering train service that takes 2 hours just for the sake of saying it is there. It needs to be a service that provides an improvement to someone. I think the province is looking at Kitchener now because VIA is looking at that corridor now and for the airport corridor investment to be valuable it needs to get used by more than the few that will use it to go to the airport. All the existing lines have greater daily ridership on a few rush hour trains than the airport service is expected to carry so part of the focus on investment is optics rather than number of riders served, but there is value is saying a viable alternative to the car exists.

 

[TOareaFan]

Again, based on what I've heard from someone who ought to know all the details, this is not the case. These will be all-stops trains at least as far as Bramalea, if not all the way into Union.

The Georgetown layover can't be modified to fit 12-car trains, so in order to boost peak capacity from stations like Mt Pleasant/Brampton/Bramalea/Malton into Union, GO has a longstanding need to replace it with something new at the west end of the line. Being able to extend service to Kitchener is a nice perk, but they understand the trains are unlikely to be packed for the outermost parts of the run in the near term.

That would make the most sense from an overall line point of view....but what I seem to be hearing from people in KW is that they have little interest in two hour train rides....since it already takes a train leaving Georgetown and making all stops to Union 1:06, it would seem that a Kitchener trip making all stops would have to be close to the 2 hour mark....no?

At one point I remember a proposal for a new layover facility just west of Mt. Pleasant....did that fall apart?

 

[EnviroTO]

VIA's trip does it in 1 hour and 48 minutes only stopping at Guelph, Georgetown, Brampton, and Union station. Without the big investment in CTC and other track improvements the 2 hour trip will stay. They could pull out all the stops and it still wouldn't be very fast.

 

[Orion VIII]

Trains on the Georgetown line are 10 cars long. This will not change until the existing stations platforms (and the layover) are lengthened, and based on our recent construction at Brampton GO Station, 12 car trains are not a priority on the Georgetown Line. Note how poor the service frequency is in the AM peak. More trains will be added before trains are lengthened. As I previously mentioned, the West Toronto diamond is currently holding back the additional trains. I must add that Georgetown Layover cannot hold 12 car trains.

Who said the trains will serve the outlying communities and then run express from Guelph? Was there any official document saying that this was to be the case? Where was their source? I find that statement to be implausible with many explanations why:

1) This would be unprecedented. All other line extensions have seen the trains continue down their respective lines, stopping at most if not all stations.
2) This would be a gross waste of resources. GO is limited by virtue of train capacity to the number of trains that can be run into Union. To say that the trains leaving the extension must be full (or even mostly full) in order for them to be deemed successful is incorrect. Was the Stouffville line extension to Lincolnville a failure because less than a busload of passengers is carried on each train out of that station? That station has been deemed successful and is obviously doing well enough to justify the line's extension to it.
3) Everything I have seen has indicated this will be an extension to the Georgetown line and there is simply no reason to expect the trains coming from K-W not to stop along the line. I would expect, as is the arrangement now, that not all trains will stop at every station, however there is no reason whatsoever for the arrangement mentioned by TOareaFan to occur.

My definition of well-used would be that the trains are used to a point where their retention is viable.

 

[TOareaFan]

Trains on the Georgetown line are 10 cars long. This will not change until the existing stations platforms (and the layover) are lengthened, and based on our recent construction at Brampton GO Station, 12 car trains are not a priority on the Georgetown Line. Note how poor the service frequency is in the AM peak. More trains will be added before trains are lengthened. As I previously mentioned, the West Toronto diamond is currently holding back the additional trains. I must add that Georgetown Layover cannot hold 12 car trains.

Who said the trains will serve the outlying communities and then run express from Guelph? Was there any official document saying that this was to be the case? Where was their source? I find that statement to be implausible with many explanations why:

1) This would be unprecedented. All other line extensions have seen the trains continue down their respective lines, stopping at most if not all stations.
2) This would be a gross waste of resources. GO is limited by virtue of train capacity to the number of trains that can be run into Union. To say that the trains leaving the extension must be full (or even mostly full) in order for them to be deemed successful is incorrect. Was the Stouffville line extension to Lincolnville a failure because less than a busload of passengers is carried on each train out of that station? That station has been deemed successful and is obviously doing well enough to justify the line's extension to it.
3) Everything I have seen has indicated this will be an extension to the Georgetown line and there is simply no reason to expect the trains coming from K-W not to stop along the line. I would expect, as is the arrangement now, that not all trains will stop at every station, however there is no reason whatsoever for the arrangement mentioned by TOareaFan to occur.

My definition of well-used would be that the trains are used to a point where their retention is viable.

The most plausible premise (again...back to my original post on this if the press release had been more "full" we would not have to be guessing) is that they will be extensions of the existing line and that the new layover will allow 12 car sets.

It seems more, now, that this rush in of the K-W trains has less to do with demand in K-W than the ability to bring 12 car sets to that line by introducing the new layover.

That said, I still need to understand how many people we expect to be on those trains when they arrive in Georgetown each morning? How many people are willing to pay $15 each way for a 2 hour (+/-) train trip to work? If there are not enough of them perhaps the old plan of a layover near Mt. Pleasant made/makes more sense (still not sure what happened to that idea).

The extension to Linconville, as I understand it, was also driven by the layover being there so, if the trains were going there anyway, might as well put people on them....the distance, however, from Stouffeville to Lincolnville is significantly shorter than K-W (or even Guelph) to Georgetown....so it is not such an operational drain (financially) to run near empty trains.

I am never clear what GO determines to be "...used to a point where their retention is viable." a lot of those off-peak Lakeshore trains run with few enough occupants that you have to assume they are losing money....yet the service is retained. What I was trying to get at is if this is a situation where because of the layover need there is a "trial run" of service to K-W (and only I am assuming that) what level of use of those two daily trains justifies the quite large expense of extending the service?

 

[Orion VIII]

Generally GO's cost recovery ratio is very high and as far as I know, the highest of any transit agency on the continent. There's much more to a train's viability than just its riders. Many of the Lakeshore trains run empty in one direction, however carry considerably more people in the opposite direction. This phenomenon is present throughout transit everywhere. Some service must be operated at a loss in order to operate the service that is really needed. That said, midday and late evening trains may not return in the opposite direction with heavy ridership, however removing a single off-peak train carrying say, 100 people, would result in a ridership loss of more than 100, becuse riders of other trains may no longer take those trains because the train they return on would no longer exist. This was felt when TTC extended all service to meet subway service hours. Ridership gains were unprecedented because those who return home in the late evening could then rely on regular service being present, regardless of when else they use the service. Obviously this is a different kind of viability than we are discussing however viability does indeed encompass more than just a single trip's ridership.

This said, the current limited-service lines, I believe, are better served by more frequent bus service. Travelling from Union to Erindale or Square One interchangably, I can take advantage of as good as 10 minute service, 6 times better than what I can likely expect if train service were implemented. Until ridership outgrows feasible bus service, I don't support hourly service on limited-service lines.

 

[doady]

Generally GO's cost recovery ratio is very high and as far as I know, the highest of any transit agency on the continent. There's much more to a train's viability than just its riders. Many of the Lakeshore trains run empty in one direction, however carry considerably more people in the opposite direction. This phenomenon is present throughout transit everywhere. Some service must be operated at a loss in order to operate the service that is really needed. That said, midday and late evening trains may not return in the opposite direction with heavy ridership, however removing a single off-peak train carrying say, 100 people, would result in a ridership loss of more than 100, becuse riders of other trains may no longer take those trains because the train they return on would no longer exist. This was felt when TTC extended all service to meet subway service hours. Ridership gains were unprecedented because those who return home in the late evening could then rely on regular service being present, regardless of when else they use the service. Obviously this is a different kind of viability than we are discussing however viability does indeed encompass more than just a single trip's ridership.

This said, the current limited-service lines, I believe, are better served by more frequent bus service. Travelling from Union to Erindale or Square One interchangably, I can take advantage of as good as 10 minute service, 6 times better than what I can likely expect if train service were implemented. Until ridership outgrows feasible bus service, I don't support hourly service on limited-service lines.

I think most GO lines can support 30 minute train service. The Milton corridor already has 5-10 bus minute service in the midday (each station has it own route). 30 minute train service is not a stretch. The bus service being more frequent would reduce waiting times, but the bus slower than the train, so the travel times increase anyways. Also slower buses operating mixed traffic are less efficient and less reliable than faster trains which operate in their own ROW.

For example, Milton line is probably being served by over 15 buses being used right now to give it 30 minute frequency, but there would only need to be 4 trains to provide the same frequency

 

[TOareaFan]

Generally GO's cost recovery ratio is very high and as far as I know, the highest of any transit agency on the continent.

Yes and that is likely made up of break-even or better on trains operating on all lines in peak times and losing significant money on the off-peak lakeshore service...yet that off peak service still exists.

Just not ever clear to me what is a viable/sustainable level of service is for GO.

I don't support hourly service on limited-service lines.

Yet, in an earlier post, you suggest that K-W should have off peak service? Or did I totally misunderstand you on that point (quite possible....I am losing grey matter as I gain grey hair).

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

2 hr train trips.... :/

At what point does GO's service mandate end and a service such as VIA's begin, and when does the benefit of investment in reaching even further out into the GGH offset the benefit of investing those dollars into the inner portions of the system.

 

[Orion VIII]

Yes and that is likely made up of break-even or better on trains operating on all lines in peak times and losing significant money on the off-peak lakeshore service...yet that off peak service still exists.

Just not ever clear to me what is a viable/sustainable level of service is for GO.

Exactly! If GO only ran its full peak period trains and they were not subject to any ridership loss associated with removing other services, GO would turn a profit.

Yet, in an earlier post, you suggest that K-W should have off peak service? Or did I totally misunderstand you on that point (quite possible....I am losing grey matter as I gain grey hair).

I think you misunderstood me however I do think each line should have off-peak service (as they do now). I only support trains providing that service once, as doady has mentioned, buses are overused. Half hour train service is probably the way to go, and the cost savings of operating fewer coaches on off-peak trains would be outweighed by the costs and hassles involved with changing consists on such a regular basis. It's not, unfortunately, feasable to stop a train at Union at 8:30am, leave 6 of the 12 coaches there, and continue midday service.