RS3488
Active Member
And what would that compare to the current Union layout?(In all seriousness, by my eye it looks like they should be able to attain about 75 moves/hour with that new projected layout.)
|
|
|
And what would that compare to the current Union layout?(In all seriousness, by my eye it looks like they should be able to attain about 75 moves/hour with that new projected layout.)
Except - again - through-running will allow for fewer trains to be served at Union Station.
Then I'm going to keep saying it, because you don't seem to understand how Metrolinx arrived at it.Yes I know you keep saying that.
Terminating certainly allows you to store more trains, but through running can allow for more movement capacity via frequency. It's not just about platform capacity, it's also about conflicts in the adjacent corridor. To achieve very high frequencies you need grade separation, which is not possible when trains need to cross over to return the other way.
There is a reason so many cities have spent billions of euros to turn their termianl stations into through stations.
The technicalities of this surpass my learning, but what about the customer service dimension? Most customers get off at Union, but with Exhibition there and Spadina and East Harbour in the planning, along with potential changes to the way Pearson service operates, doesn't having more routes paired up and through-running make sense for the riders?
I guess that our differences lie in our assumptions. You are assuming that the current archaic North American rail operations practices remain in effect, while I'm assuming that given that we're spending tens of billions of dollars to build this infrastructure, that we would make the effort to adopt similar practices to places which have a proven track record of operating extremely frequent and extremely safe rail service.Is through-running more efficient at operating services at high frequencies? Usually, in most places - but it also requires operating rules and the fixed plant to take advantage of it as well. And in the North American operating sphere - and particularly with Metrolinx/GO - the rules are such that it actually becomes less efficient at Union.
I'm not assuming anything.I guess that our differences lie in our assumptions. You are assuming that the current archaic North American rail operations practices remain in effect, while I'm assuming that given that we're spending tens of billions of dollars to build this infrastructure, that we would make the effort to adopt similar practices to places which have a proven track record of operating extremely frequent and extremely safe rail service.
Good thing that it will actually be DB running the trains soon enough, and Germany happens to be one of those placesI'm not assuming anything.
I'm repeating what Metrolinx has been saying for many years now.
Do I think that Metrolinx is doing many things wrong? Absolutely. But at the end of the day they're the ones running the trains, not me.
Dan
I don't generally feel the need to be so generous given past statements such as "elevated rail destroys neighborhoods". I really do not think her statement is accurate here.I think we need proper perspective here; but first, in order to do that, why don't we see exactly what Jenn had to say:
"to the relatively small ridership potential. But still, good."
I think 'relatively' is an important word here; and that implies a comparison.
GO's ridership in 2015 was ~13M and change, and according to this report:
The potential in ridership growth was 140% with fare integration etc.
So about another ~18M rides annually, based on the 15M service model.
That compares with TTC ridership as a whole at ~450M
So the growth is equal to roughly 3 weeks of ridership of Line 1.
In relative terms, the ridership potential is low.
****
Also, worth saying; Jenn finished by still endorsing the concept 'But, Still Good'.
I'm a proponent of GO RER; but the entire thing put together is fractional relative to the TTC unless you can drive capacity higher, by driving frequency higher than the 15M in the original plan.
That seems likely, I should add, but even at double the original plan (every 7'30) the capacity enhancement isn't huge relative to a single major subway line.
Now if you can get that time to 5'M or less.........
As others have mentioned ridership is not ~15m a year. At peak GO was moving well over 200,000 per day (200,000 is 52m a year weekdays only!),
My biggest concern has been and continues to be this institutional level misunderstanding of the ridership potential of regional rail. There are substantially more people in the GTHA living outside of Toronto than inside it, and yet we somehow don't expect ridership to even be the same order of magnitude of our currently small subway? The only rationale I could understand for this is assuming that 1) regional rail is a flawed concept 2) we aren't building it (but we are) 3) we will run very little service (we don't appear to be planning to!).
Thats fair enough, but the ability to turn over passengers will increase a lot with Eglinton, OL, and all the new urban stations etc etc.Fair enough. I went back and looked at the report, and the growth figures I quote in percentage terms are from the report I cited/linked to.
That report didn't have an annual figure, and I googled that, and failed to note that the number came from 2021:
View attachment 461363
You correctly note, I should have used a pre-pandemic year:
View attachment 461364
The above would attribute 80.8% of weekday ridership to rail. I'm not sure if that cleanly extrapolates to weekends.......
But assuming it did, 62.2M would the be the annual rail ridership in 2019.
Actually, I think this requires some finessing. I agree there is enormous potential in regional rail, and I have never suggested differently. And Jenn Keesmaat said she supported it as well.
But I do think we need to clarify some things here, GO's ridership, as has been noted, stays on trains over vastly greater distances, , meaning fewer actual riders (people) in terms of seat-kms.
That by the way is still a great thing, I don't want to diminish it all. I'm merely clarifying that IF the metric chosen is ridership the numbers will be somewhat lower for the reason of that long-distance from outer areas.
***
Second, thus far the province has refused to adopt GO Co-pay in the City of Toronto, or materially reduce inter-regional transit/GO long-haul fares. GO RER will certainly be able to support much higher ridership, to a point, if those things are addressed, but as yet, we do not have proof they will be.
** (FWIW, stay tuned to the provincial budget as there might just be something on this point...)
Third, even at every 5M service (which GO hasn't yet got the ability to deliver) its ridership figures will be lower for the reason of distance per rider/turnover already discussed. Which again, doesn't devalue the project in the least
I
And how much experience does DB have with operating in North America?Good thing that it will actually be DB running the trains soon enough, and Germany happens to be one of those places
And how much experience does DB have with operating in North America?
I wouldn't expect too much of them, especially at the start. They are going to have a very steep learning curve.
Dan