Not exactly. At the risk of turning this into a semantics debate, what they've said is that they will increase service as demand warrants with all-day two-way service in the long term. That's quite different than "we have no plans", but whatever.
Not really semantics though.
I am, and can only, quote the email they sent me. It says they have no plans. Yes they say there will be a, small, increase on day one and yes, they say perhaps when demand warrants they may have plans....but they don't say "when demand warrants there will be .....".
It is interesting because they seem to ignore a few things.
1) that current demand far exceeds the demand that was in place when the Lakeshore lines got 7 day two way service (ie. day one). I know that was a long time ago but it is interesting that, because they could, they did not feel the need to phase that in.
2) there really is a positive impact on demand by offering the service. In some regards, there is a "build it we will come" relationship. Saying to people...show us the demand and we will offer the service is a bit disingenuous because it is hard to show the demand when the current trains are full. The best example, recently, is that new 8:20 morning train that the extension to K-W brought. The first time I rode it (2nd or 3rd day) I was in a car with 2 other people the entire trip from Brampton to Union and judging from the platform traffic I could see, most cars were similar.......last time I rode it, the car I was in was about 2/3 full and, again, the platform traffic would indicate that this was common.....the demand is built by the availibility of the service! (similar experience back when the, now, 6:50 "late" train home was added...started off empty...steadily grew and saw a significant jump in use once it extended beyond Bramalea to Mt. Pleasant.
On the inverse, a lot of off-peak Lakeshore trains have a significant number of empty seats. Yet we all (and I do, to an extent) agree that increasing the frequency of those trains to 30 minutes is a long term good thing. Where is the "show us the demand" logic there? It is thought that providing a reliable, frequent, service is good for transit use, even if initially, some of those trains will be not quite full.
3) A very significant investment of public funds have gone into this line...which is good....but it is not good if it is not going to be used/maximized. In fact it makes their initial defense to critiques that they were spending $1B to subsidize a train to the airport for rich biz folks a bit hollow. On day one, when the ARL opens, that is exactly what we will have. A lot of public money spent and the only real change will be that ARL. They said it was going to lead to more GO service. Their own "day 1" estimates on the number of GO trains can be achieved by simply puting back the trains that were cut for the construction period.....so we could have had that service and not spent the money?
Anyway, all that said, I was responding to someone who was suggesting that "GO
will provide the local service" that the ARL can't/won't......GO won't either, on day 1, and there is no timeline or "plan" for them to do that.