Kitchener to Toronto train service & the tech sector

[reaperexpress]

This is the part I don't understand.....sure, it will speed up the trip from KW to Toronto but it means these trains that can make to KW to Toronto in 1.5 hours will be doing so with very few people on them as a lot of the stations that fill the trains will be bypassed. Not sure how we balance this but it is a bit of a conundrum.

The false assumption here is that there is a fixed demand at each station. In fact, the demand is strongly linked to the travel time.

Skipping stops downstream increases the number of passengers getting on upstream, which is actually more profitable for GO because these trips have higher ticket prices. A 30 minute time savings corresponds to a massive increase in ridership.

Going direct from either Brampton or Mt. Pleasant bypasses the busiest station on the line (Bramalea) which also connects to many significant bus routes. If you stop at all 3 Brampton stations....the speed/time pick up on the route is much less. That is the dilemma I am trying to understand.....significant speed pick up by making trains express loses significant potential ridership....stopping to pick up riders does not get you much time improvement.

Based on comparing GO's express and local train schedules, each station stop costs around 2 minutes.

The way I rationalize the stopping pattern for Kitchener-Union trains is that they should stop only in places that are useful to connect to the western cities (Guelph and Kitchener-Waterloo). Places that need only be connected to Toronto are served by plenty of trains that aren't making the full 100 km trek from Kitchener.

I therefore agree with the need to stop at Brampton and Bramalea, given that they are the connections to Züm and crosstown GO buses, respectively. Skipping them precludes people from using the GO Train to commute from western cities to the 905 and North York. Such customers would bring in revenue with no operating cost, given that they get off before the busiest point in the route.

Mount Pleasant, on the other hand, has little to attract a trip from the west - it's more of a bedroom community for Toronto.

So rather than operating "local" service (all stops) and "express" service (non-stop from Mt. P) out of Kitchener as is planned for 2016, we could operate two levels of express service. One would make all stops to Bramalea then run non-stop to Union, and the other would stop only at Guelph, Georgetown, Brampton and Bramalea.

The first express train exists to serve Acton. The second would probably be more popular, providing shorter travel times not only to Union but also to Brampton and Bramalea.

 

[rbt]

Large employers within walking distance or a 20 minute iXpress/LRT trip from the Kitchener station include: Google (which runs its own buses from Toronto), Desire2Learn, Sun Life (also runs buses), Manulife, University of Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University, Open Text, SAP/Sybase. Not to mention the large and growing number of downtown Kitchener based start-ups.

Which today have a grand total of 0 commuters via GO.

Start with something cheap to test if there is any demand at all. Petition for a $100k/year extension of the hourly bus service currently terminating at University of Guelph. As a bonus, the bus trip would be faster than the train trip (tracks still need serious work) so riders won't be missing anything.

 

[TOareaFan]

The false assumption here is that there is a fixed demand at each station. In fact, the demand is strongly linked to the travel time.

Skipping stops downstream increases the number of passengers getting on upstream, which is actually more profitable for GO because these trips have higher ticket prices. A 30 minute time savings corresponds to a massive increase in ridership.

I am not making any false assumption.....I recognize that at any particular station if you provide faster more frequent service you will pick up "X" riders. The question is "is that increase in riders valuable in the context of the cost/investment". Eg. looked at alone the 1 year pick up in ridership on the Lakeshore lines went to 30 minute service was very good.....a 50% increase in off peak ridership is nothing to sneeze at. The fact that it came as a result of a 100% increase in off peak service sorta got lost in the press releases. That is not to say that 50% increase was/is not worth the investment....just that all of these things have to be looked at together.

So when you say that bolded part (emphasis mine)...what is the definition of "massive"....is it a doubling of the people using the GO in KW/Guelph? A tripling? Last I heard KW/Guelph ridership was, what, +/- 300 people.....so the question has to be what is the number you expect from this investment and, if it is that range, is 600 - 900 people a day worth the investment required and if to get at that number you have to bypass riders at other, larger, more "GO proven" stations are you leaving more people at the stations or, worse, in their cars to get to that 600 - 900 people? (and to be clear...in that 600 - 900 you would be including people already using the train so the "pickup" might only be 300 - 600).

Based on comparing GO's express and local train schedules, each station stop costs around 2 minutes.

The way I rationalize the stopping pattern for Kitchener-Union trains is that they should stop only in places that are useful to connect to the western cities (Guelph and Kitchener-Waterloo). Places that need only be connected to Toronto are served by plenty of trains that aren't making the full 100 km trek from Kitchener.

I therefore agree with the need to stop at Brampton and Bramalea, given that they are the connections to Züm and crosstown GO buses, respectively. Skipping them precludes people from using the GO Train to commute from western cities to the 905 and North York. Such customers would bring in revenue with no operating cost, given that they get off before the busiest point in the route.

Mount Pleasant, on the other hand, has little to attract a trip from the west - it's more of a bedroom community for Toronto.

Mt. Pleasant currently has one Zum route connecting to it and by the end of 2016 that will be two.

So rather than operating "local" service (all stops) and "express" service (non-stop from Mt. P) out of Kitchener as is planned for 2016, we could operate two levels of express service. One would make all stops to Bramalea then run non-stop to Union, and the other would stop only at Guelph, Georgetown, Brampton and Bramalea.

The first express train exists to serve Acton. The second would probably be more popular, providing shorter travel times not only to Union but also to Brampton and Bramalea.

And then I get back to the "for how many people" question. I have no problem with getting bigger/better service to KW.....but it just seems to me that we have looked at the current situation (2 peak commuter trains a day and a lot of buses) and said...."let's go crazy"....let's have two different two levels of express service and a HSR. All great things but I am not sold that there is anywhere near the demand/need that would produce the ridership that would support those services.

 

[reaperexpress]

I am not making any false assumption.....I recognize that at any particular station if you provide faster more frequent service you will pick up "X" riders. The question is "is that increase in riders valuable in the context of the cost/investment". Eg. looked at alone the 1 year pick up in ridership on the Lakeshore lines went to 30 minute service was very good.....a 50% increase in off peak ridership is nothing to sneeze at. The fact that it came as a result of a 100% increase in off peak service sorta got lost in the press releases. That is not to say that 50% increase was/is not worth the investment....just that all of these things have to be looked at together.

So when you say that bolded part (emphasis mine)...what is the definition of "massive"....is it a doubling of the people using the GO in KW/Guelph? A tripling? Last I heard KW/Guelph ridership was, what, +/- 300 people.....so the question has to be what is the number you expect from this investment and, if it is that range, is 600 - 900 people a day worth the investment required and if to get at that number you have to bypass riders at other, larger, more "GO proven" stations are you leaving more people at the stations or, worse, in their cars to get to that 600 - 900 people? (and to be clear...in that 600 - 900 you would be including people already using the train so the "pickup" might only be 300 - 600).

I think we're pretty much on the same page here. I was talking about a massive increase, which as you said, is not necessarily a massive number.

In my head I had the figure 200 people per train from somewhere, which I was guessing could expand to 400 solely with the time savings. But compared to the 2000 person capacity of a 10-car GO train, this is pretty insignificant. Doubling the frequency would further increase the total demand, but probably reduce the demand per train.

As for investment, there is not much involved. This is only the ridership on two peak hour trains which can operate using current tracks and the under-construction train yard. In fact increasing the ridership reduces the investment per passenger, given that Metrolinx owns and maintains the railway regardless of the number of trains.

Given that our current highways are operating at capacity between Kitchener and Guelph, any traffic diverted onto trains is highly valuable because it can put off investments on the order of billions of dollars. Even a miserly train ridership of 200 per hour corresponds to 8% of the capacity of a freeway lane at 1.2 people per vehicle.

The big rail investment comes in when we start talking about two-way service. In which case the economics change a fair bit, because it is not only a transportation service, but also an urban growth tool. Kitchener is rapidly growing, and the dependable train service can help direct development into the downtown intensification areas and along the central transit corridor. With growth there will inherently be massive infrastructure investment, such as widening the 401 to 10 lanes or building a new 4-lane freeway from Kitchener to Guelph. Those options undermine the cities' development plans by promoting suburban expansion at the fringes.

Mt. Pleasant currently has one Zum route connecting to it and by the end of 2016 that will be two.

I personally don't anticipate much regional demand from the west to the Bovaird corridor, it's predominantly housing. And from what I can tell, the second Züm route is an extension of the existing 501 Queen, which serves Brampton Station anyway. And I wasn't proposing that all trains skip Mt. Pleasant, just the two fastest ones per day.

And then I get back to the "for how many people" question. I have no problem with getting bigger/better service to KW.....but it just seems to me that we have looked at the current situation (2 peak commuter trains a day and a lot of buses) and said...."let's go crazy"....let's have two different two levels of express service and a HSR. All great things but I am not sold that there is anywhere near the demand/need that would produce the ridership that would support those services.

The scenario I was talking about was the current 2016 plan, which is 4 peak-direction trains per day operating two different stopping patterns. Hardly "going crazy" in my book.

Also keep in mind that service to Kitchener does not come at the expense of service further down the line. With GTS completed in a few months, we will be able to run a great deal more services on the inner half of the line than we do today.

 

[TOareaFan]

I think we're pretty much on the same page here. I was talking about a massive increase, which as you said, is not necessarily a massive number.

In my head I had the figure 200 people per train from somewhere, which I was guessing could expand to 400 solely with the time savings. But compared to the 2000 person capacity of a 10-car GO train, this is pretty insignificant. Doubling the frequency would further increase the total demand, but probably reduce the demand per train.

Precisely....we have to be very careful about which stats/measures we use. And, yes, you have nailed my concern bang on....even if we could get to 400 ppl/train (and that is a stretch) coming out of KW.....have we done the right thing if we then have those underused trains zoom through other stations where potential riders are? In other words...if increasing ridership to those levels requires a 1.5 hour trip....and a 1.5 hour trip requires bypassing busy stations....is the increased ridership worth it (justified) when you consider the riders left behind and the capacity utilization.

You are bang on about average riders per train. The lakeshore line saw a very big (50%) increase in off peak ridership within a year of the 30 minute frequency ...but it required an even bigger increase in capacity to get there (100%) so the cost of that 50% increase in riders was a reduction in the average number of people per train and an increase in the annual cost/subsidy (+/- $7mil a year comes to mind but I am too lazy to look it up so it may have been more or less than that).

As for investment, there is not much involved. This is only the ridership on two peak hour trains which can operate using current tracks and the under-construction train yard. In fact increasing the ridership reduces the investment per passenger, given that Metrolinx owns and maintains the railway regardless of the number of trains.

you are correct that it is difficult to base much on the current ridership levels as it is based on two trains. But they were fairly careful in picking which two trains they extended to/from KW to ensure they were ones that got people to Union in time for the typical work day....so they are likely to represent the most popular time slots (ie. if we can only do 2 which are the best) so adding in two more is not likely to double the riders).

Given that our current highways are operating at capacity between Kitchener and Guelph, any traffic diverted onto trains is highly valuable because it can put off investments on the order of billions of dollars. Even a miserly train ridership of 200 per hour corresponds to 8% of the capacity of a freeway lane at 1.2 people per vehicle.

It's a nice thought but the reality is that the area highways are being expanded anyway....and to get to your 8% capacity of a freeway lane you have now jumped the usage to 200 per hour......I think we are now in the "really massively massive" increase in GO train usage area

The big rail investment comes in when we start talking about two-way service. In which case the economics change a fair bit, because it is not only a transportation service, but also an urban growth tool. Kitchener is rapidly growing, and the dependable train service can help direct development into the downtown intensification areas and along the central transit corridor. With growth there will inherently be massive infrastructure investment, such as widening the 401 to 10 lanes or building a new 4-lane freeway from Kitchener to Guelph. Those options undermine the cities' development plans by promoting suburban expansion at the fringes.

I have no doubt that Kitchener is growing....but its growth pales in comparison to some GTA communities.....some of which are the ones you would be bypassing with those express trains.

The scenario I was talking about was the current 2016 plan, which is 4 peak-direction trains per day operating two different stopping patterns. Hardly "going crazy" in my book.

As far as I can tell...that "doubling service to Kitchener by 2016" plan is simply extending two more of the existing trains to KW....I have seen nothing in that plan (not the ReR plan but the short term promise of two more trains to KW) that suggests they will be anything other than further extension of 2 existing trains. Since only one of the non-extended trains has any express feature to them, I guess one of those would be a bit faster if that one is one of the ones extended (and if you read way back, I have questioned in the past why that was not one of the first two extended)...but the 4th one at least, like the existing 2, would have to continue to be all stops.

 

[reaperexpress]

Precisely....we have to be very careful about which stats/measures we use. And, yes, you have nailed my concern bang on....even if we could get to 400 ppl/train (and that is a stretch) coming out of KW.....have we done the right thing if we then have those underused trains zoom through other stations where potential riders are? In other words...if increasing ridership to those levels requires a 1.5 hour trip....and a 1.5 hour trip requires bypassing busy stations....is the increased ridership worth it (justified) when you consider the riders left behind and the capacity utilization.

You are bang on about average riders per train. The lakeshore line saw a very big (50%) increase in off peak ridership within a year of the 30 minute frequency ...but it required an even bigger increase in capacity to get there (100%) so the cost of that 50% increase in riders was a reduction in the average number of people per train and an increase in the annual cost/subsidy (+/- $7mil a year comes to mind but I am too lazy to look it up so it may have been more or less than that).

It is indeed a very interesting discussion that admittedly neither of us has enough information to make a solid determination on.

But for the sake of discussion here's a quick back of the envelope calculation for a single trainset. As I write this sentence I haven't done it yet and have no idea how it will turn out - this will be just as revelational for me as for you.

Under the current fare system, the ticket price from K-W to Union is $14.94 and from the Brampton to Union is $8.73 to $7.20 (let's say $8). So each KW-Union rider brings in about 1.9 times as much revenue as a Brampton-Union rider.

If we take a really simplistic impression of our current ridership per train as around 200 people from KW and 1800 people from Brampton, we're looking at around $17,400 in revenue.

Cutting the travel time from 2h06 to 1h36 is a 24% reduction, which based on a fixed rate of operating cost I'll assume to correspond to a reduction of 24% in operating cost. So to retain the same cost recovery ratio for the train, we need 24% less revenue - $13,200 in our scenario.

If we work with our "double the K-W ridership per train" scenario (i.e. still two trains per day, but 30 min faster) we'd have a revenue of $6000 from Kitchener, leaving $7200 to be accounted for by Brampton riders, which works out to 900 passengers - only half the ridership in the "current" scenario.

So the question is, would the express service lose more half the ridership from Brampton in the process of doubling the ridership from Kitchener? I don't know.

This simplistic calculation doesn't account for riders from other stations (that would be making way too many assumptions to be any more accurate), or account for any economic benefits/costs.

I feel like the both of express stopping patterns I proposed would do just as well as the current service based on cost recovery - the lost ridership from Mount Pleasant, Malton and Etobicoke being fully offset by increased revenue from Kitchener, Guelph, Georgetown, Brampton and Bramalea.

you are correct that it is difficult to base much on the current ridership levels as it is based on two trains. But they were fairly careful in picking which two trains they extended to/from KW to ensure they were ones that got people to Union in time for the typical work day....so they are likely to represent the most popular time slots (ie. if we can only do 2 which are the best) so adding in two more is not likely to double the riders).

Speaking of arrival times, the more we increase the speed of the train, the more practical it becomes for other commutes along the line. For example, the current eastbound trains arrive at Guelph at 6:08 and 7:26, and depart westbound at 18:20 and 19:23. Given that Greyhound service is terrible, it is pretty much impossible to use the train for commuting from Kitchener to Guelph - a demand that is supposedly so large that they need an additional highway to serve it.

Assuming that the times at Union stay the same, cutting the travel time would make the morning arrivals later and afternoon departures earlier, bringing KW-Guelph commuting more into the realm of possibility. I have no statistics to back me up, but my impression is that the number of people commuting from KW to Guelph exceeds the number of people commuting from KW to Toronto.

It's a nice thought but the reality is that the area highways are being expanded anyway....and to get to your 8% capacity of a freeway lane you have now jumped the usage to 200 per hour......I think we are now in the "really massively massive" increase in GO train usage area

This increase is the same magnitude that you and I have both been talking about. There is currently 1 train per hour in the peak direction. Ergo, 200 people per hour is 200 people per train. If we double service to 2 trains per hour, then that's a mere 100 people per train, which I'd go as far as to classify as "really quite reasonable".

I have no doubt that Kitchener is growing....but its growth pales in comparison to some GTA communities.....some of which are the ones you would be bypassing with those express trains.

Again, we have enough track capacity to run as many trains as we like on the central segment of the line. Adding some express trains to Kitchener does not take anything away from those communities.

As far as I can tell...that "doubling service to Kitchener by 2016" plan is simply extending two more of the existing trains to KW....I have seen nothing in that plan (not the ReR plan but the short term promise of two more trains to KW) that suggests they will be anything other than further extension of 2 existing trains. Since only one of the non-extended trains has any express feature to them, I guess one of those would be a bit faster if that one is one of the ones extended (and if you read way back, I have questioned in the past why that was not one of the first two extended)...but the 4th one at least, like the existing 2, would have to continue to be all stops.

The fact that they are replacing the current two-trainset Kitchener Yard with a new 4-trainset yard suggests that they intended to at least add two trainsets to the line. Given the rhetoric about expanding service and the fact that we just spent a billion dollars expanding the railway, they'd have an awfully hard time explaining two empty storage spots along the line. Furthermore, with double tracks returning to the Weston Sub, we can provide more frequent service by emptying out Georgetown Yard more quickly in the morning and having the later trains arriving counter-peak from Union.

 

[TOareaFan]

It is indeed a very interesting discussion that admittedly neither of us has enough information to make a solid determination on.

But for the sake of discussion here's a quick back of the envelope calculation for a single trainset. As I write this sentence I haven't done it yet and have no idea how it will turn out - this will be just as revelational for me as for you.

Under the current fare system, the ticket price from K-W to Union is $14.94 and from the Brampton to Union is $8.73 to $7.20 (let's say $8). So each KW-Union rider brings in about 1.9 times as much revenue as a Brampton-Union rider.

If we take a really simplistic impression of our current ridership per train as around 200 people from KW and 1800 people from Brampton, we're looking at around $17,400 in revenue.

Cutting the travel time from 2h06 to 1h36 is a 24% reduction, which based on a fixed rate of operating cost I'll assume to correspond to a reduction of 24% in operating cost. So to retain the same cost recovery ratio for the train, we need 24% less revenue - $13,200 in our scenario.

not clear to me how the operating costs reduces in lock step with travel times? help me with that?

If we work with our "double the K-W ridership per train" scenario (i.e. still two trains per day, but 30 min faster) we'd have a revenue of $6000 from Kitchener, leaving $7200 to be accounted for by Brampton riders, which works out to 900 passengers - only half the ridership in the "current" scenario.

So the question is, would the express service lose more half the ridership from Brampton in the process of doubling the ridership from Kitchener? I don't know.

That seems to say....as long as the revenue stays the same who cares if we are carrying less people from those stations? Isn't the goal to develop the system that maximizes the number of people it serves?
arr

The discussion we're having here is regarding the relative merits of skipping stops. I'm wasn't claiming that trains at different points in the peak would have higher ridership than the current arrival times. But speaking of arrival times, the more we increase the speed of the train, the more practical it becomes for other commutes along the line. For example, the current eastbound trains arrive at Guelph at 6:08 and 7:26, and depart westbound at 18:20 and 19:23. Given that Greyhound service is terrible, it is pretty much impossible to use the train for commuting from Kitchener to Guelph - a demand that is supposedly so large that they need an additional highway to serve it.

I was simply suggesting that the current two trains are likely the high-water mark per train in a "limited number of trains peak only service"...they are scheduled to allow KW-Union commuters to be at their desks in a "normal" work day. The proposed doubling of the number of trains in the peak between KW and Union is not likely (IMO) to double the number of users making that journey.

Assuming that the arrival times at Union stay the same, cutting the travel time would make the morning arrivals later and afternoon departures earlier, bringing KW-Guelph commuting more into the realm of possibility. I have no statistics to back me up, but my impression is that the number of people commuting from KW to Guelph exceeds the number of people commuting from KW to Toronto.

Had to re-read that part a few times and I am going to assume you have the two bolded words reversed....in which case I agree with you. If the trains left Kitchener later and still arrived at Union at convenient times for work days...yes it would make that KW-Guelph part more attractive if someone was doing that commute. I have no thoughts/idea on how many people either make that commute now or would switch from a 30 minute drive (according to Google maps) to a 24 minute train.

This increase is the same magnitude that you and I have both been talking about. There is currently 1 train per hour in the peak direction. Ergo, 200 people per hour is 200 people per train. If we double service to 2 trains per hour, then that's a mere 100 people per train, which I'd go as far as to classify as "really quite reasonable".

Sure....but it is not 8% of the total capacity of that lane of traffic. The lane has capacity 24 hours a day......I guess when I read your comment I assumed you had moved to full day all day service rather than restrict the comparison to the hours the trains were available. Sorry about that.

Again, we have enough track capacity to run as many trains as we like on the central segment of the line. Adding some express trains to Kitchener does not take anything away from those communities.



The fact that they are replacing the current two-trainset Kitchener Yard with a new 4-trainset yard suggests that they intended to at least add two trainsets to the line. Given the rhetoric about expanding service and the fact that we just spent a billion dollars expanding the railway, they'd have an awfully hard time explaining two empty storage spots along the line. Furthermore, with double tracks returning to the Weston Sub, we can provide more frequent service by emptying out Georgetown Yard more quickly in the morning and having the later trains arriving counter-peak from Union.

I am very careful when listening to announcements/pronouncements from MTO/GO/ML....in this case they have been 100% consistent in describing the increase as "doubling the number of GO trains to Kitchener"....not once has this suggestion been reworded as "adding two more trains to KW line" or "X% increase in the number of trains on the KW line".

This is, obviously, a separate discussion than the potential increase in service that is possible post-GTS. I am informally banned from discussing that (that is for my regular readers) but, yes, the discussion takes on a different flavour if/when that increase comes and if "X" new trains are added it would be interesting to see if some of them could be partially express. That said, we are back at square 1 in the discussion if new trains are added in shoulder/off peak and some of the current trains are turned into express......that would still represent (in my mind) a reduction in core utility to the stations that are bypassed.....each one of which (possible exception of Bloor) has (and will have) significantly higher demand/usage than KW/Guelph.

 

[reaperexpress]

not clear to me how the operating costs reduces in lock step with travel times? help me with that?

The operating cost increases with operating time because there is a fixed labour rate (crew gets paid in $ per hour), and the time the trainset spends on this run is time not spent serving another trip somewhere else (potentially resulting in a need for more trainsets or alternatively lost revenue). Then there's fuel cost, which increases substantially with each stop. It takes an enormous amount of energy to accelerate a 10-car double decker train from 0 to 100 km/h, and that energy almost all gets lost to heat each time the train stops.

That seems to say....as long as the revenue stays the same who cares if we are carrying less people from those stations? Isn't the goal to develop the system that maximizes the number of people it serves?

I certainly don't mean to say that at all. The difference in our assumptions is that I'm assuming that skipping stations downstream is accompanied by a new run to serve that ridership, while you're assuming that it's the same number of total trips as today. I suppose it comes down to me talking about what GO should do, while you're talking about what they seem like they are doing. You and I both agree that we should not be merely extending existing trains to Kitchener and making them express without any compensation downstream, or operating services which skip Brampton and Bramalea stations.

I was simply suggesting that the current two trains are likely the high-water mark per train in a "limited number of trains peak only service"...they are scheduled to allow KW-Union commuters to be at their desks in a "normal" work day. The proposed doubling of the number of trains in the peak between KW and Union is not likely (IMO) to double the number of users making that journey.

No, and we agree on this. New trains at other times will be less effective per-train for 9-5 downtown Toronto office workers than at the current times. But they might be more effective for some other types of trips.

Had to re-read that part a few times and I am going to assume you have the two bolded words reversed....in which case I agree with you. If the trains left Kitchener later and still arrived at Union at convenient times for work days...yes it would make that KW-Guelph part more attractive if someone was doing that commute. I have no thoughts/idea on how many people either make that commute now or would switch from a 30 minute drive (according to Google maps) to a 24 minute train.

No it's not reversed. The eastbound trains arrive later in Guelph in the morning (from Kitchener for people commuting to Guelph) because it takes less time to get to Toronto.

The big increase will be when we get rid of that 10 mph slow zone through Guelph, which would cut 5 minutes off the travel time. Then raising the track speed in line with other mainlines in Ontario would cut the travel time down to 15 minutes, making the train a seriously competitive option unless they undermine it with a 4-lane freeway.

Sure....but it is not 8% of the total capacity of that lane of traffic. The lane has capacity 24 hours a day......I guess when I read your comment I assumed you had moved to full day all day service rather than restrict the comparison to the hours the trains were available. Sorry about that.

Roadways are provided based on the peak hour demand. Quite often engineers don't even bother modeling off-peak demand.

I am very careful when listening to announcements/pronouncements from MTO/GO/ML....in this case they have been 100% consistent in describing the increase as "doubling the number of GO trains to Kitchener"....not once has this suggestion been reworded as "adding two more trains to KW line" or "X% increase in the number of trains on the KW line".

This is, obviously, a separate discussion than the potential increase in service that is possible post-GTS. I am informally banned from discussing that (that is for my regular readers) but, yes, the discussion takes on a different flavour if/when that increase comes and if "X" new trains are added it would be interesting to see if some of them could be partially express. That said, we are back at square 1 in the discussion if new trains are added in shoulder/off peak and some of the current trains are turned into express......that would still represent (in my mind) a reduction in core utility to the stations that are bypassed.....each one of which (possible exception of Bloor) has (and will have) significantly higher demand/usage than KW/Guelph.

Again, I think this comes down differences in the parameters of our discussion, not differences in opinion. We agree that there should not be any reduction in total service to any individual station.

 

[TOareaFan]

The operating cost increases with operating time because there is a fixed operator cost (crew gets paid in $ per hour), and the time the trainset spends on this run is time not spent serving another trip somewhere else (potentially resulting in a need for more trainsets or alternatively lost revenue). Then there's fuel cost, which increases substantially with each stop. It takes an enormous amount of energy to accelerate a 10-car double decker train from 0 to 100 km/h, and that energy almost all gets lost to heat each time the train stops.

thx.

I certainly don't mean to say that at all. The difference in our assumptions is that I'm assuming that skipping stations downstream is accompanied by a new run to serve that ridership, while you're assuming that it's the number of total trips as today. I suppose it comes down to me talking about what GO should do, while you're talking about what they seem like they are doing. You and I both agree that we should not be merely extending existing trains to Kitchener and making them express without any compensation downstream, or operating services which skip Brampton and Bramalea stations.

Just to be clear, while I am a Brampton based commuter....my concern is not exclusively (nor even primarily) about skipping one or two Brampton stations. While I don't think that makes sense (by observation I think that the 3 stations rank 1-2-3 in terms of ridership on the line....with quite impressive growth at Mt. Pleasant) I guess if trains started skipping stations then people would just adjust their preferred station and drive/park at the one that best served them. This would suck as Brampton would just internalize some traffic issues...at least there would be trains (I have not seen, yet, anyone suggesting express options where any train other than the HSR skipped all 3 of the Brampton stations). Malton/Etob North/Weston, however, provide decent numbers of riders and those commuters get left behind by every express train option I have heard and, yes, if any of the existing trains were converted to express without trains being added I think there would be a net reduction in the number of people on the trains.

No it's not reversed. The eastbound trains arrive later in Guelph in the morning (from Kitchener for people commuting to Guelph) because it takes less time to get to Toronto.

I thought they were reveresed in the sense that I was thinking departures a.m. and arrivals p.m. at KW.....in the end we are saying the same thing and have found a point of agreement.

Roadways are provided based on the peak hour demand. Quite often engineers don't even bother modeling off-peak demand.

perhaps but it is incorrect to suggest that two additional trains over a, what, 2 hour period each taking 100 additional people represents 8% of the capacity of a highway lane....surely?

Again, I think this comes down differences in the assumptions of our discussion, not differences in opinion. We agree that there should not be any reduction in total service to any individual station.

We are on a roll!

 

[reaperexpress]

Just to be clear, while I am a Brampton based commuter....my concern is not exclusively (nor even primarily) about skipping one or two Brampton stations. While I don't think that makes sense (by observation I think that the 3 stations rank 1-2-3 in terms of ridership on the line....with quite impressive growth at Mt. Pleasant) I guess if trains started skipping stations then people would just adjust their preferred station and drive/park at the one that best served them. This would suck as Brampton would just internalize some traffic issues...at least there would be trains (I have not seen, yet, anyone suggesting express options where any train other than the HSR skipped all 3 of the Brampton stations). Malton/Etob North/Weston, however, provide decent numbers of riders and those commuters get left behind by every express train option I have heard and, yes, if any of the existing trains were converted to express without trains being added I think there would be a net reduction in the number of people on the trains.

That's a good point about diverting the parking demand, I hadn't thought about that. Maybe the increased attraction from increased service could be offset by charging for parking? After all Brampton Station is right in the city's downtown, it seems reasonable to charge there while keeping parking free at Bramalea and Mount Pleasant.

I'm having trouble grappling with your take on express trains. From what I'm reading it seems like any form of express train is unacceptable because it doesn't serve some of the stations (which is the definition). How would you implement an express service then?

perhaps but it is incorrect to suggest that two additional trains over a, what, 2 hour period each taking 100 additional people represents 8% of the capacity of a highway lane....surely?

As ridiculous as it sounds, it isn't incorrect other than that the 100 additional people per train includes the existing 2 trains. That 2 hour period includes the 1 hour period during which network demand is analyzed in order to determine the need for transport capacity. The infrastructure is then proposed based on that analysis. Trips taken outside of that period have no direct effect on the amount of roadway capacity that will be provided.

 

[mpd618]

Which today have a grand total of 0 commuters via GO.

Start with something cheap to test if there is any demand at all. Petition for a $100k/year extension of the hourly bus service currently terminating at University of Guelph. As a bonus, the bus trip would be faster than the train trip (tracks still need serious work) so riders won't be missing anything.

There's an existing Toronto-Guelph GO bus that I'm not aware of?

The problem with GO running a small number of buses between Toronto and Kitchener directly is that it would piss off Greyhound (even more), and they might abandon the corridor. In which case GO would pretty much need to take over entirely. Not necessarily bad, but it would require a lot of buses very quickly.

 

[TOareaFan]

That's a good point about diverting the parking demand, I hadn't thought about that. Maybe the increased attraction from increased service could be offset by charging for parking? After all Brampton Station is right in the city's downtown, it seems reasonable to charge there while keeping parking free at Bramalea and Mount Pleasant.

Most of the express options I have heard have the DT station being the one most likely skipped. GO's recent ReR update showed they are leaning towards Mt. Pleasant being the meeting point of express and local service and, in the past, Bramalea (with its #1 ridership and important bus connections) is often suggested as a good spot (also has more platforms/track capacity and is not limited by the track ownership issues as everything east of there is owned by ML).

Having said that, I am not sure how charging for parking offsets a shift in stations by people looking for service? They are not going to say "there are no trains at X, but parking is free so I will go there". A shift would occur if people were looking for service. Anecdotal warning: My neighbourhood is about a 12 minute drive to Brampton GO....is about 16 minutes to Mt. Pleasant and (depending on 410 traffic) 20 - 30 minutes from Bramalea. I have neighbours who drive to Bramalea every day because there are already slightly more travel options......there were more of them when the 6:50 pm WB train terminated there...but there are still some.....if, say, Brampton stn. had way less service than either/both of Mt Pleasant/Bramalea I think you would see a fairly significant shift in people's choice of stations.....they would search out the station that had the best/most frequent service. Using my 'hood as an example, unfortunately the longer trip to Bramalea would win out over the shorter trip to Mt. P because the next variable would be cost of fare....people do very quick and informal calculations and a 25 minute drive to a frequent service station with lower fares would win out over a 16 minute drive to a station with frequent service and higher fares.

I'm having trouble grappling with your take on express trains. From what I'm reading it seems like any form of express train is unacceptable because it doesn't serve some of the stations (which is the definition). How would you implement an express service then?

No that is not what I said at all. I said no existing trains should be converted to express at the expense of those current stations. I think we agree that if new trains are added they can be express. I also said that if new trains are added in off peak or shoulder that should not result in any peak trains being converted because that is a defacto reduction in utility at the skipped stations. If, however, new peak trains are added sure we can (and likely should) look at some of them being some sort of express service.

 

[nfitz]

There's an existing Toronto-Guelph GO bus that I'm not aware of?

Depends what you are aware of. There's the Highway 7 service from Union Station to Georgetown, with many buses extending to Guelph GO Station and then the University of Guelph, approximately hourly (Route 31). Then there are the Highway 7 buses that just go to York Mills (Route 33). And a few that go from Guelph to Bramalea on Highway 401 through the Unverity (Route 39). And then the Guelph to Mississauga Square One buses (Route 29).

There's certainly far better Guelph services than Kitchener services.

 

[rbt]

There's an existing Toronto-Guelph GO bus that I'm not aware of?

Take a look at the Kitchener GO Train schedule which includes parallel bus service. Some trips starting at Union require a transfer (31H to 33) but other trips run straight through (31 and 31A). It's a bit of a mess but it's there.

http://www.gotransit.com/timetables...me=Kitchener (formerly Georgetown)&parentid=1

 

[mpd618]

Depends what you are aware of. There's the Highway 7 service from Union Station to Georgetown, with many buses extending to Guelph GO Station and then the University of Guelph, approximately hourly (Route 31). Then there are the Highway 7 buses that just go to York Mills (Route 33). And a few that go from Guelph to Bramalea on Highway 401 through the Unverity (Route 39). And then the Guelph to Mississauga Square One buses (Route 29).

Take a look at the Kitchener GO Train schedule which includes parallel bus service. Some trips require a transfer (31H to 33) but other trips run straight through (31 and 31A).

Point taken on there being some service. But most of the trips I'm seeing are 2.5-3 hours to get between Union and Guelph, which is weak. About as weak as Union to Kitchener via Route 25.

The whole point of the advocacy is to get decent, reliable, relatively frequent transit between Toronto and Kitchener.