^ It's clear from their writeup on Concord that their methodology punished stops which were closer to the center of the network, on the premise that the more people who have already boarded, the more painful adding a stop and delaying those folks would be.
This is good economics but not necessarily good city/region building. It assumes that seats fill only once on a trip, gradually filling the train until it reaches the terminal. In this model, the optimum train is one that fills completely at the outermost stop, and takes every passenger all the way to the other end of the line. That amounts to 100% seat utilization and revenue at 100% of potential. Anything that harms the marketability of a seat at the outermost stop is rated negatively.
On an urban transit network, as opposed to a regional commuter network, seats may empty and refill en route, and the marketability of intermediate points matters because one wants to refill seats as they empty. In that kind of a system, the inner stations matter more.
I have a feeling that RER sits with a foot in each camp. Certainly at peak, there need to be fast-running trains that fill in the hinterland and skip most intermediate stops. The original GO model was built on this, so it's not surprising that this continues to have weight in such studies. If I were a commuter from a bedroom community (ie anywhere north of about King City), that's what I would demand.
The wisdom in Smarttrack (yes there was some) was that there needs to be a second stopping service that addresses the innerland traffic.The issue is whether that service can be run on the same line as the regional service. If that isn't doable, I can understand why one would serve Concord by running a bus to Line 1 at the VMC, rather than adding a GO stop at Concord.
- Paul