[Jonny5]

I would hope they spoke to the contractors before making the announcement. It wont take much to lay the asphalt but it will be a dark early morning without the lights and the concrete bases the lighting would attach to don't seem to be there yet. Looks like the framing concrete for the accessible ramp might be on site but definitely are not in place. They haven't even taken the Ahrens street signals out yet. It would be interesting to see what they accomplish in the next week.

A lot of the Lakeshore line platform extensions used these things for a while after the platform opened. A little taller and more sturdy models though!

 

[11th]

Is there so much traffic at 5 pm between Kitchener and Unionville (or anywhere really) to justify running a GO train for? Since VIA trains already make the trip to Union in about 1:45....maybe we should just add a trip that passes through Kitchener at 5 p.m.

5pm is just an example. As jwill has mentioned above, there are quite a number of students going Toronto bound on Fridays (K-W has WLU and UW, Guelph has UG). GO can run 6-cars train for that specific run. I used 5pm as an example, since the last rush hour trains leave out of Union station at around 6:30~7:00.

As for getting VIA to provide the service, last I check, Kitchener to Union costs $26. GO fare is more than $10 less for the same trip.

 

[TOareaFan]

5pm is just an example. As jwill has mentioned above, there are quite a number of students going Toronto bound on Fridays (K-W has WLU and UW, Guelph has UG). GO can run 6-cars train for that specific run. I used 5pm as an example, since the last rush hour trains leave out of Union station at around 6:30~7:00.

As for getting VIA to provide the service, last I check, Kitchener to Union costs $26. GO fare is more than $10 less for the same trip.

GO has never (to my knowledge) run shorter trains for any runs....so that is likely an indication of their near future behavior......given the passenger levels, $26 is probably closer to what is needed to pay for the service.

 

[RedRocket191]

As for getting VIA to provide the service, last I check, Kitchener to Union costs $26. GO fare is more than $10 less for the same trip.

Why does it have to be $10 more expensive? We are subsidizing the GO trip, so why no subsidize the VIA trip instead?

Assuming that the status quo cannot change ensures that it never will.

GO has never (to my knowledge) run shorter trains for any runs....so that is likely an indication of their near future behavior......given the passenger levels, $26 is probably closer to what is needed to pay for the service.

The short explanation is that it is not cost effective to split and couple trainsets daily. A ten car train is more expensive than a six car train to operate, but the increased cost is not enough to justify the cost and time of splitting and reassembling. They have run shorter trains in the past (Richmond Hill line, for example) but they stayed short all day.

 

[EnviroTO]

GO doesn't require the same subsidy when they are running rush hour service. The trains leave Union Station near full with 12 cars to divide the costs over. A RDC coach or modern equivalent may use less fuel total but when you divide the costs of the driver and fuel by the number of passengers in a 12 car train the economics are completely different. Towards the end of the line it may be less efficient but that is made up for with the parts of the line closest to Union Station.

 

[TOareaFan]

GO doesn't require the same subsidy when they are running rush hour service. The trains leave Union Station near full with 12 cars to divide the costs over. A RDC coach or modern equivalent may use less fuel total but when you divide the costs of the driver and fuel by the number of passengers in a 12 car train the economics are completely different. Towards the end of the line it may be less efficient but that is made up for with the parts of the line closest to Union Station.

In fact, is it not safe to say that all GO train lines during rush/peak service times generate more than their operating costs from the fare box (ie. they run at a profit) and it is only the off peak services that take those "profits" and use them to subsidize unprofitable runs...reducing the overall "take" to the 85% expense recovery we hear about?

Now before anyone jumps on me for that statement...it is not a statement against off-peak service it is just a reality that we all have to keep in mind when we ask for increased off-peak or extended service on any line.

 

[canarob]

In fact, is it not safe to say that all GO train lines during rush/peak service times generate more than their operating costs from the fare box (ie. they run at a profit) and it is only the off peak services that take those "profits" and use them to subsidize unprofitable runs...reducing the overall "take" to the 85% expense recovery we hear about?

Now before anyone jumps on me for that statement...it is not a statement against off-peak service it is just a reality that we all have to keep in mind when we ask for increased off-peak or extended service on any line.

Well, currently I would even argue that lines like Stouffville and Barrie are also funding off-peak Lakeshore service. Even many of the off-peak buses are so full that they are surely generating a "profit."

 

[TOareaFan]

Well, currently I would even argue that lines like Stouffville and Barrie are also funding off-peak Lakeshore service. Even many of the off-peak buses are so full that they are surely generating a "profit."

If my first statement is correct (or close to correct)...and I think it may be....then all lines that currently only have the profitable peak service are subsidizing the less profitable off-peak service which is currently only available on the Lakeshore lines.

 

[jwill]

I doubt any GO bus service is actually profitable. Yes, buses can be full, but there is very little turnover along the routes. With the possible exception of some 407 buses.

 

[canarob]

I doubt any GO bus service is actually profitable. Yes, buses can be full, but there is very little turnover along the routes. With the possible exception of some 407 buses.

A full bus with 57 people each paying at least $6 is $342 per run. That's certainly more that the gas and labour costs. I have no idea how you'd factor in the capital cost of the bus itself though. Sure most runs aren't completely full, but some also have 15-20 people standing in the aisles (buses right after rush hour or a major event):

 

[RedRocket191]

A full bus with 57 people each paying at least $6 is $342 per run. That's certainly more that the gas and labour costs. I have no idea how you'd factor in the capital cost of the bus itself though. Sure most runs aren't completely full, but some also have 15-20 people standing in the aisles (buses right after rush hour or a major event):

This isn't typical, and the odd overcrowded bus does not outweigh the hundreds of bus runs that still have seats left.

Even if it was typical, they would quickly add service to reduce crowding. That would eliminate any "profit" being made.

 

[gweed123]

This isn't typical, and the odd overcrowded bus does not outweigh the hundreds of bus runs that still have seats left.

Even if it was typical, they would quickly add service to reduce crowding. That would eliminate any "profit" being made.

I guess the real question is: how many passengers need to be on a bus in order for it to break even?

I would imagine that it would vary slightly by route, but I would imagine the number would be around the same.

 

[smallspy]

I guess the real question is: how many passengers need to be on a bus in order for it to break even?

I would imagine that it would vary slightly by route, but I would imagine the number would be around the same.

I don't know what the numbers are, but I doubt that it varies only slightly - some routes have a lot of on-off traffic (Hwy 2 routes) and so could in theory pay for themselves quite quickly, while others (such as the QEW Express) are long distance end-to-end runs with no turnover whatsoever. And then there are the 407 routes, which will have additional expenses - namely the 407 toll.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[canarob]

This isn't typical, and the odd overcrowded bus does not outweigh the hundreds of bus runs that still have seats left.

Even if it was typical, they would quickly add service to reduce crowding. That would eliminate any "profit" being made.

Ok, I guess I was exaggerating a little, but most buses on my line seem to have fewer and fewer empty seats no matter the time of day, and the same runs suffer frequently from overcrowing (people standing) without service being added "quickly" (new runs have been gradually added over time, but the response has been anything but quick). I guess my point is more that I think the revenue recovery of GO bus service has been underestimated. Perhaps it's not 100%, but it's probably higher than off-peak Lakeshore service.

 

[nfitz]

Perhaps it's not 100%, but it's probably higher than off-peak Lakeshore service.

Is it? There's only 3 staff on each train. And people tend to get on and off at each station, which I don't see as much on GO Buses. And there seems to be as many passengers in both directions, unlike GO Buses, that seem rather empty on the reverse trip, even in peak.