GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[TOareaFan]

RE: Cycling.......I haven't been on a bike in 37 years....don't think I ever will....just not for me.....i get around by a combination of car, public transit and foot.....that said, I am a supporter of building bike infrastructure....it is relatively inexpensive, for those that use it is very impactful and, aside from transit, has societal benefits that are good.

That said, we can support it and reach the obvious conclusion that it will not become the transit choice for the majority (particularly in the suburbs but even down here in the city) and that, yes, there is a dramatic drop off in use when the weather turns bad. It is just an obvious, and observable fact. When I drive I spend some time daily on Adelaide....on nice days like today the flow of bycicles is quite impressive......but the vast majority of those people find another way on bad/cold weather days. No number of posts showing you can cycle year round will convince the majority that they should.

I am always impressed when I see someone who is so committed to cycling that weather does not put them off.....but I recognize that they are (and will be) the minority.

So, to conclude, cycling infrastructure good, something I support, but it is not the solution to our transit/gridlock problems...it is a small, but important, contributor.

 

[reaperexpress]

That said, we can support it and reach the obvious conclusion that it will not become the transit choice for the majority (particularly in the suburbs but even down here in the city) and that, yes, there is a dramatic drop off in use when the weather turns bad. It is just an obvious, and observable fact. When I drive I spend some time daily on Adelaide....on nice days like today the flow of bycicles is quite impressive......but the vast majority of those people find another way on bad/cold weather days. No number of posts showing you can cycle year round will convince the majority that they should.

I am always impressed when I see someone who is so committed to cycling that weather does not put them off.....but I recognize that they are (and will be) the minority.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting people should cycle in winter, or that we can "convince" them to do so, but simply that they may end up doing so if we make it practical and safe. I don't think I would be comfortable cycling on Adelaide in winter either, to be honest. Despite the bike lane being "separated", there are still tons of situations with sudden manoeuvres, and awkward conflicts. Wouldn't want to try that when there's the chance of slippery roads. Queen's Quay, on the other hand, I could see myself riding in winter.

I didn't start cycling in winter because someone told me it was possible, or because I willed myself to do it. It's not so much that I decided to cycle in winter, but rather that I never decided to stop cycling as the weather got colder. The bicycle is my fastest commuting option, and it just never got to the point where the weather dissuaded me from the travel time savings, and then it was spring again. Sure, people don't like going out in the cold, but they don't like sitting in traffic or waiting for the bus either. I personally don't like taking longer than I need to to get where I'm going. Every mode has its own advantages and disadvantages, which is why we need to provide a range of options if we want to create viable alternatives to driving.

And of course the majority of people will not cycle. There are only a couple cities in the world where the majority of all trips are by bicycle. Similarly, the majority of people will not use transit, which is why we need a variety of options to serve different demands. Car travel does create serious issues with space usage and cost, but it does offer flexibility that is not matched by transit or cycling individually. Having both convenient transit and cycling is our best shot at changing a significant number of people's habits.

So, to conclude, cycling infrastructure good, something I support, but it is not the solution to our transit/gridlock problems...it is a small, but important, contributor.

We're totally on the same page here. No one network is a solution to gridlock/transit problems. Regional rail is not that useful without the local transit and cycling infrastructure to serve it, and transit isn't going to be that attractive if there's no faster mode than local routes. And cycling is great for short trips, but we need the other transit options to serve longer ones.

 

[TOareaFan]

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting people should cycle in winter, or that we can "convince" them to do so, but simply that they may end up doing so if we make it practical and safe.

Yeah, sorry, it was directly "aimed" at you...but I see a lot of cycling stuff on twitter (due to one guy I follow) and they spend a lot of time tweeting about how it can and should be done and, bizarrely, always seem to point to Copenhagen as proof that year round cycling in Toronto is possible (Copenhagen has much milder winters and far less snow than Toronto...but it fits the argument, I guess).

So it was a general statement I made but I get why you might think it was directed at you and I apologize for that and not explaining my comment better.

We're totally on the same page here. No one network is a solution to gridlock/transit problems. Regional rail is not that useful without the local transit and cycling infrastructure to serve it, and transit isn't going to be that attractive if there's no faster mode than local routes. And cycling is great for short trips, but we need the other transit options to serve longer ones.

Yep, we are in near agreement ( )....I would amend your final sentence this way .....Cycling is great for short trips for some people, but we need the other transit options to serve other people and on longer ones.

 

[reaperexpress]

Yeah, sorry, it was directly "aimed" at you...but I see a lot of cycling stuff on twitter (due to one guy I follow) and they spend a lot of time tweeting about how it can and should be done and, bizarrely, always seem to point to Copenhagen as proof that year round cycling in Toronto is possible (Copenhagen has much milder winters and far less snow than Toronto...but it fits the argument, I guess).

So it was a general statement I made but I get why you might think it was directed at you and I apologize for that and not explaining my comment better.

Ah, yeah, I get that. There's a lot of really loud people out there, and there is a tendency to treat the term "cyclists" as if it's a group of people rather than a descriptor for a road user. A "cyclist" is a person who is riding a bike, not a person who rides a bike. I'm not a cyclist, because I'm currently sitting in a chair. When I go downtown I will be a "transit rider", etc.

Yep, we are in near agreement ( )....I would amend your final sentence this way .....Cycling is great for short trips for some people, but we need the other transit options to serve other people and on longer ones.

Yes, of course.

 

[TOareaFan]

Ah, yeah, I get that. There's a lot of really loud people out there, and there is a tendency to treat the term "cyclists" as if it's a group of people rather than a descriptor for a road user. A "cyclist" is a person who is riding a bike, not a person who rides a bike. I'm not a cyclist, because I'm currently sitting in a chair. When I go downtown I will be a "transit rider", etc.

In all of the discussions about transit/mobility, I think the biggest mistake is the arbitrary grouping of people into one category or the other. Very few people who we call "drivers" (or "drivists" as I have recently seen) rely on their car for 100% of their mobility....and very few cyclists are 100% reliant on bikes. The sooner we all realize that we are all multi-modal and reliant on improvements to all facets of mobility the better.

 

[reaperexpress]

On a completely different note, I have been speculating about how the two new Kitchener Line trips will fit into the schedule (starting this fall??). What we know is that the total trips from Kitchener will increase from 2 to 4, and that some of the trips will run express from Bramalea.

My guess is that the new train trips will replace some of the current Route 30 bus trips.

I'm pretty confident the morning schedule will change like this:

There is currently a 30-minute gap right at the height of rush hour, which is an obvious slot for a new express trip. And the 9:00 trip from Mount Pleasant is a prime candidate for extension since its trainset currently gets deadheaded from downtown, and it replaces an existing route 30 trip. I also included a few wishful but less likely items: that the trainsets for the 7:52 and 7:55 arrivals into Union be swapped so that longer distance commuters get a more civilized departure time, and that off-peak services skip Acton.

The afternoon schedule is a bit harder to anticipate. There isn't an obvious gap in the peak period, so I guess the two new trips would simply replace the shoulder-peak route 30 bus trips. In order to make them express, I moved the last local trip earlier, closer to the peak period. The schedule would look nicer if the last trip operated local, but that would massively increase travel time to Kitchener compared to the current train+bus.

Interestingly, with later morning departures from Kitchener and earlier afternoon arrivals, it would become technically possible to commute by GO train from Kitchener to Guelph or Brampton.

 

[TOareaFan]

you are assuming that doubling the number of trains going to/from Kitchener increases the number of trains in total?

I have assumed they will just pick two current runs and extend them to/from Kitchener....same number of trains but doubling the number that serve Kitchener.

 

[reaperexpress]

you are assuming that doubling the number of trains going to/from Kitchener increases the number of trains in total?

I have assumed they will just pick two current runs and extend them to/from Kitchener....same number of trains but doubling the number that serve Kitchener.

Sort of. I was assuming that the Kitchener trains would not be extensions of existing trips originating in Georgetown, because then there would be empty storage spots there. So the total of trains originating out on the line would increase from 6 (2 Kitchener + 4 Georgetown) to 8 (4 Kitchener, 4 Georgetown). Runs which are deadheaded from Union, on the other hand, are absolutely candidates for extension (like the current 9:00 from Mount Pleasant, which will almost certainly be one of the Kitchener runs).

I don't see any of the early morning trains being extended to Kitchener, the current first departure is already obscenely early. And extending the second off-peak run would create issues with the VIA train. Which leaves the half-hour gap as the obvious place for a Kitchener run.

In the afternoon, the trips may well be simple extensions, but based on the announcement of express trains, I figured they would need to be new, otherwise there would be a reduction in service to local stations.

In my scenario, the total number of trains (including UP and VIA) increases from 97 to 98 eastbound and from 95 to 97 westbound.

 

[nfitz]

There's also the plans or a new VIA service to arrive earlier in Toronto.

 

[reaperexpress]

There's also the plans or a new VIA service to arrive earlier in Toronto.

True. Maybe that's what will fill the 30 minute gap in the morning.

Also, does anyone know what happens to the 17:02 train after it arrives in Mount Pleasant? Does it stay there overnight?

 

[salsa]

So, to conclude, cycling infrastructure good, something I support, but it is not the solution to our transit/gridlock problems...it is a small, but important, contributor.

Not a solution in the suburbs perhaps, but in the old city where the cycling culture is already quite substantial, it's more than just a "small contributor". On Harbord St for example, there are more cyclists than drivers.

 

[minilude]

A lot of examples of GO being too car-centric..Oriole GO, Old Cummer GO, Milliken GO. Train stops at where the parking lot is, not where the transit is (Sheppard, Finch, Steeles). Transit users need to walk an awful long way to access the stations, without any sheltering. Finch subway station is just a much better choice, shorter walk and sheltered. No wonder the Yonge Subway is filled right at the start of Finch station.

 

[TOareaFan]

Not a solution in the suburbs perhaps, but in the old city where the cycling culture is already quite substantial, it's more than just a "small contributor". On Harbord St for example, there are more cyclists than drivers.

Sure, we can pick and choose examples.....but, by and large, it is a percentage. Harbord probably "benefits" from a few factors (eg. feeding into the University...being the closest east/west cycle routing to Bloor, etc).....when we (as we should) expand the number of cycle routes/lanes, I would expect Harbord to lose some traffic as other (better?) safe options are provided.

Look, I (in no way) mean my comments to be negative towards cycling lanes/infrastructure....I am a big fan of them even though I will never use them. I just think we (not you and I but as a community) need to call a truce in this whole "this not that" or "we not them" type of discussion and accept that we need to expand options....all kinds of them. Whenever I see some of the "claims" on twitter by the cycling community I fall into a trap of saying "oh, yeah that'll be the day"....then I think about it and realize that some of the "outlandish" claims are probably forced on the cycling community because they fear if they don't give the impression (or sell the idea) that "everyone will use it"..."it" won't be built.....that should never be the measure.

I think that transit advocates do the same thing with ridership projections....some of the projections for some of the projects that I follow are just impossible to swallow....but, again, I think there is this feeling that if they can't show that "line X" has a gazbillion users by Y year then it will never be funded.

The reality, is that we need to balance things out...we are playing catch up on non-car mobility and "balance" does not mean "for every $ biking gets transit gets a $ and roads get a $"....balance means that in each corridor we look at how we can provide the right options....and if cycling is deemed by the users of the corridor as cheaper/safer/faster (or some combination) then that investment in the cycling part will pay off....but we don't need to convince ourselves (or others) that if we build cycling infrastructure that (colloquially) "everyone" will cycle.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

There's also the plans or a new restored VIA service to arrive earlier in Toronto.

FTFY

 

[wolfewood]

re. the Kitchener line, I'm not 100% certain but I thought I saw work being done in Acton on the siding. At least, there was a rail vehicle on it (a small yellow one that only runs on rails, not a pickup truck or anything like that). Might've just been stored there but maybe there's work starting to rebuild the passing sidings between Guelph and Georgetown?