innsertnamehere
Superstar
I didn't say all of the riders are students, but probably 1 in 5 off peak users from my experience, especially on GO bus routes. around 150,000 students go to school downtown, that is a large commuter base.
|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
I didn't say all of the riders are students, but probably 1 in 5 off peak users from my experience, especially on GO bus routes. around 150,000 students go to school downtown, that is a large commuter base.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Not at all opposed to increased service but we do need to keep all these numbers in context......off peak service doubled and we see an increase in ridership of 29%. So off peak trains are now, on average, running emptier than before.
I recall when the doubling was announced they said the average off peak train on the Lakeshore(s) carried 350 passengers. A doubling of trains with a 29% increase in ridership would equate, now, to an average ridership of 226. So the cost recovery of those off peak trains is also lower than the average before.
Great that we have this increase in service but I am actually a little disappointed in the increase that it has generated. So far it would indicate that there was not a huge number of people avoiding GO because of the frequencies and that we are just spreading the existing ridership (and a small increase) over a lot more trains.
I would suspect that everyone on the Lakeshore(s) is experiencing more pleasant travel.....but the real success has to be in attracting more people to those off peak trains.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
you are obviously going to see a drop in average use, I don't think anyone was deluding themselves into thinking that there would be 100% growth on off peak frequencies in less than a year. better transit service will always result in lower returns. A perfect example is the recent splitting of a bus service on the Stouffville line (the 1:05 union arrival), which I took for the first time this week since it was introduced in February. Before February the bus usually ran with standing room only, and now the northern portion of the split (which is what I use) is less than half full heading into Union. Its to be expected that you won't see a 100% increase in ridership after doubling service, and I think having a 30% increase in ridership on one line and 40% increase on the other is a big deal, especially since this growth has occurred in only 5 months.
TOareaFan
Superstar
One of us is reading Drum's quote wrong. I think he is saying that overall, the increase is 29% and it is 41% on the west only. If that is so, then the increase in the East (assuming roughly equal service levels pre and post increase on both Lakeshores) is more like 17%.....also, the service launched on June 29 so we are nearing the end of 8 months.
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Lakeshore east traditionally has lower ridership than Lakeshore West, but they have always had equal off peak service. (west has better peak service to deal with the additional demand)
drum118
Superstar
The overall average for the line has seen a 29% increase. The western section has seen 41% increase and not surprising since it out performs the eastern section even before the increase of service. The eastern section has seen a lower increase than the west 41% to reduce the overall increase to 29%.
Since the service is less than a year old, too early to talk numbers.
More so, this is decades late in happening and it will take a few years to bring numbers up and get new riders for the system. Then we are planing for the future where headways will be less than 15 minutes.
I have said for years there is no need to run 10-12 cars trains in off peak when there is no need to do so in the first place other being to costly to breaking trains down under the current setup. The day we move to EMU's, that the day where you can run shorter trains in off peak and not having to worry about cost doing so.
The east has less density and development than the west and one reason there will be more service in the west than the east down the road. The east will never see the ridership as the west does today as well down the road
At some point down the road the western trains will only run to Union and you will have to change to another train going east because the headways are different. At various time, there will trains going the full route like they do today. It could be every other train or every 3rd train depending on the headway.
It shows there is a demand for more service and the other lines will see it also once they get all day service.
Some of the peak ridership will fall at first since riders can plan their trips better and not worrying about missing that last train as well being able to stay downtown longer.
On average, it will only require an extra 100 riders per hour to justify the 30 minute service. You are only paying extra cost for the crews and the fuel since the rest of the cost is already cover under the old setup.
Since the service is less than a year old, too early to talk numbers.
More so, this is decades late in happening and it will take a few years to bring numbers up and get new riders for the system. Then we are planing for the future where headways will be less than 15 minutes.
I have said for years there is no need to run 10-12 cars trains in off peak when there is no need to do so in the first place other being to costly to breaking trains down under the current setup. The day we move to EMU's, that the day where you can run shorter trains in off peak and not having to worry about cost doing so.
The east has less density and development than the west and one reason there will be more service in the west than the east down the road. The east will never see the ridership as the west does today as well down the road
At some point down the road the western trains will only run to Union and you will have to change to another train going east because the headways are different. At various time, there will trains going the full route like they do today. It could be every other train or every 3rd train depending on the headway.
It shows there is a demand for more service and the other lines will see it also once they get all day service.
Some of the peak ridership will fall at first since riders can plan their trips better and not worrying about missing that last train as well being able to stay downtown longer.
On average, it will only require an extra 100 riders per hour to justify the 30 minute service. You are only paying extra cost for the crews and the fuel since the rest of the cost is already cover under the old setup.
Ard9001
New Member
I think the other reason (adding to Drum comment) why there is less ridership in the east (Lakeshore east) than the west is because 5/9 stations of the LSE line are within Toronto, so riders in Toronto could easily just take the TTC (for a flat and cheaper fare) to get to places in Toronto (and not just Downtown). In the LSW line, most of the stations are in Peel and Halton region so people will most likely take the Gotrain it's faster and more direct since there are 3 different transit agency in the west which rider will have to wait and transfer for buses.
doady
Senior Member
Isn't Lakeshore West longer than East? Of course West is going to have higher ridership than East. I don't see how that would be justification for splitting them. The ridership per station is esssentially the same. Splitting the line in two would suppress ridership for both East and West. And wouldn't having more through routes require less capacity around Union too? I don't see why you'd split the only through route at Union...
LNahid2000
Senior Member
Aldershot is maybe 5km farther from Union than Oshawa...not that big of a difference.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
DRT is also crap which is another reason why. If the bus ran later on weekends and more frequently on mid weekdays there would be more ridership.
doady
Senior Member
And the difference in ridership between Lakeshore West and East is that big of a difference?
Aldershot is not the terminus of Lakeshore West anyways...
Lakeshore West: 63.5km long and 60,499 boardings per weekday
Lakeshore East 50.5km and 51,525 boardings per weekday
Is the ridership of Lakeshore East that poor? You be the judge.
I think I'd rather use Durham Region Transit than Oakville Transit or Burlington Transit.
I think the real obstacle for Lakeshore East is the TTC, or more specifically the lack of fare integration between TTC/GO and GO's extremely high fares compared to TTC for traveling within Toronto. You can see even in east Mississauga, the TTC suppresses GO ridership a lot (e.g. the abysmal ridership levels of Malton, Dixie and Long Branch stations). And most of Lakeshore East is inside the City of Toronto and TTC territory.
Last edited:
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Very True. I think with that the TTC should have worked something out service levels increasing. I think the ridership of Lakeshore east is okay given the situation.
I disagree about Oakville transit. Other then sundays its very good, never had a problem with schedule
nfitz
Superstar
Is it? My Oakville experience is that more often than not, the train arrives 5 minutes late, just in time to see all the buses leaving the station in the distance, which I quickly overtake in a taxi. Which seems bizarre that they don't just hold them a few minutes.
But I've only done it weekdays. How is the Sunday service on Oakville Transit?
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
I get off at Oakville go and not Bronte, but nowadays the train actually attempts to get there on time. Of course you have about 30 seconds to get the bus bays but it's ok. Sunday service is awful. For those who don't have cars it's tough to come in late after a party downtown.
LNahid2000
Senior Member
The reason I mentioned Aldershot is because the discussion was about the impact on ridership due to 30 minute off-peak service...