GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[reaperexpress]

I regret saying 'most'. I meant, could 10 minute GO-RER handle the demand if a significant number of commuters were taken off the Gardiner due to a toll?

What is the absolute capacity of GO-RER running 15 or even 10 minute headways?

According to the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, a freeway lane can carry 2400 passenger car units (pcu) per hour under ideal conditions.
The QEW/Gardiner have 3 lanes per direction, so their capacity is therefore around 7,200 pcuph per direction.
If we assume that only cars use the freeway (no trucks or buses) and apply the average occupancy of 1.2/vehicle, we get:
= 8,640 people per hour in the peak direction.

The Lakeshore line currently operates around 6 tph in the peak direction, which is every ten minutes on average. The total capacity is therefore:
= (6 trains) * (10 cars each) * (276 people per BiLevel car*)
= 16,560 people per hour in the peak direction.

*Wikipedia lists the capacity as around 150 seats (depending on exact model) and 276 standees. However I don't think there's room for twice as many standees as seated passengers in the train, so I assumed they meant 276 passengers including standees.

So currently the capacity of the Lakeshore GO line is about double the capacity of the QEW/Gardiner.

With RER, I'd hazard that we run around 12 trains per hour in the peak direction, maybe smaller EMUs running local service every 10 minutes, and another 6 tph of large locomotive-hauled bilevel trains running the long-haul express services.

I'd assume that the express trains are still running double-decker trains so their capacity is the same as currently: about 16,560 pphpd. In addition, the single-level local services would add:
= (6 trains) * (8 cars each) * (170 people per single-level car*)
= 8,160 people per hour in the peak direction
Including the aforementioned express trains, the capacity is:
= 24,720 people per hour in the peak direction.
So with RER the total capacity of the Lakeshore line would be about three times the capacity of the Gardiner.

*I couldn't find crush load capacity for any North American commuter rail cars so I assumed the value of a T1 subway car. Commuter rail cars are 10 feet longer than subway cars (85 ft vs 75 ft), but that's offset by having a lower percentage of standing passengers.

So now we need to determine the number of people who would be displaced from the highway by a toll. My guess is very few. Because as a roadway gets congested, its capacity actually starts to decrease. (See the graphs on this webpage). The more cars you put on the road, the fewer cars per hour actually get through. It's technically possible that implementing a toll would actually increase the number of cars carried by the Gardiner, by keeping the road at its saturation point rather than above it.

Then there's the fact that adding a toll will move people out of cars and onto buses, which also increases the highway's capacity. Just compare the 401 GO buses to the 407 GO buses. The 407 buses are way more popular, even though there are fewer destinations around that highway.

And in any case, given that the service increase with RER equals the entire capacity of the Gardiner, we can be pretty confident that it could absorb what little (if any) loss of highway capacity comes with a road toll.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

you are still assuming that the only people using the Gardiner have access to the Lakeshore R eR as a commuting alternative.

In my original post, I mentioned the Georgetown line as well. I would have mentioned the Milton line too if it was being upgraded for RER.

@reaperexpress Fantastic insights! The case for the toll is therefore very strong, which should not actually be surprising considering so many cities world-wide employ tolls.

What about the GO-RER stations in Peel and Halton? Can their parking lots absorb this kind of ridership, or would there have to be significant investments in their respective transit systems in order to serve the GO stations?

I'm thinking the toll would have to be priced at a level where the Gardiner is kept at its saturation point and to not overwhelm GO stations parking capacity further up the line. (And of course being politically palatable)

Also good point in referencing GO buses. That is another interesting dynamic I have not thought about.

 

[Jonny5]

According to the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, a freeway lane can carry 2400 passenger car units (pcu) per hour under ideal conditions.
The QEW/Gardiner have 3 lanes per direction, so their capacity is therefore around 7,200 pcuph per direction.
If we assume that only cars use the freeway (no trucks or buses) and apply the average occupancy of 1.2/vehicle, we get:
= 8,640 people per hour in the peak direction.

The Lakeshore line currently operates around 6 tph in the peak direction, which is every ten minutes on average. The total capacity is therefore:
= (6 trains) * (10 cars each) * (276 people per BiLevel car*)
= 16,560 people per hour in the peak direction.

*Wikipedia lists the capacity as around 150 seats (depending on exact model) and 276 standees. However I don't think there's room for twice as many standees as seated passengers in the train, so I assumed they meant 276 passengers including standees.

So currently the capacity of the Lakeshore GO line is about double the capacity of the QEW/Gardiner.

With RER, I'd hazard that we run around 12 trains per hour in the peak direction, maybe smaller EMUs running local service every 10 minutes, and another 6 tph of large locomotive-hauled bilevel trains running the long-haul express services.

I'd assume that the express trains are still running double-decker trains so their capacity is the same as currently: about 16,560 pphpd. In addition, the single-level local services would add:
= (6 trains) * (8 cars each) * (170 people per single-level car*)
= 8,160 people per hour in the peak direction
Including the aforementioned express trains, the capacity is:
= 24,720 people per hour in the peak direction.
So with RER the total capacity of the Lakeshore line would be about three times the capacity of the Gardiner.

*I couldn't find crush load capacity for any North American commuter rail cars so I assumed the value of a T1 subway car. Commuter rail cars are 10 feet longer than subway cars (85 ft vs 75 ft), but that's offset by having a lower percentage of standing passengers.

So now we need to determine the number of people who would be displaced from the highway by a toll. My guess is very few. Because as a roadway gets congested, its capacity actually starts to decrease. (See the graphs on this webpage). The more cars you put on the road, the fewer cars per hour actually get through. It's technically possible that implementing a toll would actually increase the number of cars carried by the Gardiner, by keeping the road at its saturation point rather than above it.

Then there's the fact that adding a toll will move people out of cars and onto buses, which also increases the highway's capacity. Just compare the 401 GO buses to the 407 GO buses. The 407 buses are way more popular, even though there are fewer destinations around that highway.

And in any case, given that the service increase with RER equals the entire capacity of the Gardiner, we can be pretty confident that it could absorb what little (if any) loss of highway capacity comes with a road toll.

Great post and point. The real constraint is not the trains, but the access to the trains at the stations outside of Toronto. It doesn't matter if every coach on each 10 minute headway train can hold 276 people when you move to headways beyond the ability to accommodate sufficient arrivals of passengers at the stations to fill them.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Great post and point. The real constraint is not the trains, but the access to the trains at the stations outside of Toronto. It doesn't matter if every coach on each 10 minute headway train can hold 276 people when you move to headways beyond the ability to accommodate sufficient arrivals of passengers at the stations to fill them.

How much can this be solved with more infill stations along the Lakeshore corridor?

 

[andrewpmk]

If you toll the Gardiner then Lake Shore will have massive traffic jams, like Highway 7. I think that tolling an existing highway is political suicide. People will put up with HOT lanes, or tolling new roads like 407 East.

Any type of tax increase is unpopular, but I suspect that people are more willing to put up with a gas tax increase because gas prices are so low. It should be increased by a few cents a litre per year so that people don't notice it.

 

[LNahid2000]

I don't understand when people make the point that we shouldn't toll existing highways because "they were already paid for by taxpayers". Existing highways still have increasing yearly maintenance costs, and a toll probably wouldn't even cover those.

 

[smallspy]

According to the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, a freeway lane can carry 2400 passenger car units (pcu) per hour under ideal conditions.
The QEW/Gardiner have 3 lanes per direction, so their capacity is therefore around 7,200 pcuph per direction.
If we assume that only cars use the freeway (no trucks or buses) and apply the average occupancy of 1.2/vehicle, we get:
= 8,640 people per hour in the peak direction.

The Lakeshore line currently operates around 6 tph in the peak direction, which is every ten minutes on average. The total capacity is therefore:
= (6 trains) * (10 cars each) * (276 people per BiLevel car*)
= 16,560 people per hour in the peak direction.

*Wikipedia lists the capacity as around 150 seats (depending on exact model) and 276 standees. However I don't think there's room for twice as many standees as seated passengers in the train, so I assumed they meant 276 passengers including standees.

So currently the capacity of the Lakeshore GO line is about double the capacity of the QEW/Gardiner.

Except that you're giving the average capacity of one mode, versus an absolute maximum capacity of the other. It's apples and oranges. The ultimate maximum capacity of a highway is much larger if you take into account that the average maximum capacity of an average car is probably 5.

GO calculates the average capacity of each car at 160ppl - that way, it allows for a couple of standees, but shouldn't be so crowded as to prevent anyone else from joining. Thus, 1600 people for a 10-car train, and 1900 people for a 12-car train.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[mdrejhon]

There are 8 trains for Lakeshore West from 4:45pm to 5:45pm.

 

[gweed123]

How much can this be solved with more infill stations along the Lakeshore corridor?

That's a good point. Metrolinx released a report a while ago showing potential infill stations. Those definitely have the capability of adding capacity, even if it's just more parking. It also helps that most of the Lakeshore West line, especially in Halton, is bordered by industrial land. At least along Lakeshore West, additional stations at Ford Drive (vacant land), and Walkers Line (a scrap metal depot) would significantly boost parking capacity, and would reduce crowding at existing adjacent stations, effectively increasing capacity there.

 

[muller877]

That's a good point. Metrolinx released a report a while ago showing potential infill stations. Those definitely have the capability of adding capacity, even if it's just more parking. It also helps that most of the Lakeshore West line, especially in Halton, is bordered by industrial land. At least along Lakeshore West, additional stations at Ford Drive (vacant land), and Walkers Line (a scrap metal depot) would significantly boost parking capacity, and would reduce crowding at existing adjacent stations, effectively increasing capacity there.

The change to more frequent but lower volume trains will also reduce the strain on local road capacity. Instead of 200 people / 160 cars trying to leave Oakville Station every 20 minutes there will be 100 people/80 cars trying to leave every 10 minutes. This will free up road capacity and allow for greater parking volume at each station.

But the eventual constraint will be local road capacity at rush hour (and hence the need to increase the Milton line capacity which will divert commuters in very far northern Oakville area from the Lakeshore line)

 

[reaperexpress]

There are 8 trains for Lakeshore West from 4:45pm to 5:45pm.

Oops, you're correct. Same in the morning, there are 8 trains arriving Union between 7:10 and 8:10.
(7:11, 7:14, 7:29, 7:42, 7:45, 7:59, 8:06, 8:08)

Except that you're giving the average capacity of one mode, versus an absolute maximum capacity of the other. It's apples and oranges. The ultimate maximum capacity of a highway is much larger if you take into account that the average maximum capacity of an average car is probably 5.

GO calculates the average capacity of each car at 160ppl - that way, it allows for a couple of standees, but shouldn't be so crowded as to prevent anyone else from joining. Thus, 1600 people for a 10-car train, and 1900 people for a 12-car train.

It's simply a question of realism. In the GTA it is commonplace for trains to be at capacity at rush hour (including people standing), but it is completely unheard of for cars to have an average occupancy anywhere near 5. Similarly if I were to estimate the number of people a bicycle path could carry, I wouldn't use the physical capacity, I'd use the number of people we could likely attract to it.

That said, you have a good point about seated vs standees. I suppose it would make more sense to assume seated-only loads for the long-haul express trains given that that's what they're designed for. I still maintain that the local service EMUs would be planned with a standing load, just like the subway (see the loading standards that TTC Service Planning uses).

So here it is again, but this time with 160 people per bi-level car and 8 trains per hour currently. I'll conservatively reduce the EMU load from 170 to 160 as well to make the calculations simpler.

3-lane highway capacity:
= 7200 cars * 1.2 people
= 8,640 people per hour per direction

Current GO Lakeshore Line capacity with seated-only load
= 8 trains * 10 cars * 160 people
= 12,800 people per hour per direction

RER capacity
= 12 trains * 10 cars * 160 people
= 19,200 people per hour (net change: 6,400 people per hour per direction)

 

[gweed123]

The change to more frequent but lower volume trains will also reduce the strain on local road capacity. Instead of 200 people / 160 cars trying to leave Oakville Station every 20 minutes there will be 100 people/80 cars trying to leave every 10 minutes. This will free up road capacity and allow for greater parking volume at each station.

But the eventual constraint will be local road capacity at rush hour (and hence the need to increase the Milton line capacity which will divert commuters in very far northern Oakville area from the Lakeshore line)

That's true. The biggest capacity constraint right now, aside from the trains themselves, is the parking capacity. If you want to add more parking, you can either add more parking at existing stations (which does nothing except benefit drivers), or you can add infill stations to increase parking AND add a new station/connection point to the system. Personally, I'd prefer the latter, especially once RER is implemented and you basically have two independent routes running on the same line (outer + express to Union and inner + local to Union).

 

[flyinggoats]

I would rather see infill stations have minimal parking. I would like to see intensified development around existing GO stations and new high density development (office buildings, condos, town homes) around infill stations. In other words, design neighbourhoods so that people live / work within walking distance of a station. This would provide ridership for the line without having to construct expensive parking structures and roads capacity going in/out of the parking.

Obviously not everyone is going to live within walking distance of a GO station, but it would be nice to see more transit-oriented development and less greenfield urban sprawl development.

 

[ShonTron]

I think infill stations in the 905 suburbs can make it easier to redevelop those existing stations that are prime for intensification. For example, Oakville Station is at a point now where most of the remaining surface lots could be redeveloped for condos and/or offices and commercial. A new station at Ford Drive, in an area that is much less development-friendly, could replace those parking spots. The Ford Drive station could cater to 9-5 park-and-ride commuters, while Oakville could be the urban station with frequent, 7 day/week, 20 hours/day train service with the transit connections and walk-up ridership.

In come cases, infill stations could have more parking than the original stations they replace.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

I think infill stations in the 905 suburbs can make it easier to redevelop those existing stations that are prime for intensification. For example, Oakville Station is at a point now where most of the remaining surface lots could be redeveloped for condos and/or offices and commercial. A new station at Ford Drive, in an area that is much less development-friendly, could replace those parking spots. The Ford Drive station could cater to 9-5 park-and-ride commuters, while Oakville could be the urban station with frequent, 7 day/week, 20 hours/day train service with the transit connections and walk-up ridership.

In come cases, infill stations could have more parking than the original stations they replace.

You are completely right about Oakville GO station. Currently, there is an application in to the Town of Oakville for 3 towers across the street from the GO Station (http://oakville.ca/business/6810.html), but there is no reason why towers shouldn't be built closer. It really is a shame Oakville is so anti-high/midrise development. It will be interesting to see how fast Metrolinx moves on infill stations. Is it within the 10 year RER service plan or beyond?