[gweed123]

Don't be so sure, what everyone here forgets is that its 15 minute MINIMUM frequency all day.

The lakeshore lines already have service almost every 7 minutes at times during rush hour. Go look at the schedules.

The rush hour trains are already packed even with the 7-10 minute frequencies.

A lot of people here get confused with 15 minute... its 15 minute MINIMUM.

Yup, very important distinction. There will likely be layered service overtop of the "full" GO RER routes, which could be SmartTrack or a similar implementation, which means that in Toronto the minimum level of service could very well be 7.5 mins (2 overlapped 15 min frequencies). Get 2 branches overlapping with each other, and you've got subway-level frequencies, even off-peak.

 

[nfitz]

The lakeshore lines already have service almost every 7 minutes at times during rush hour. Go look at the schedules.

Went to look at schedule http://www.gotransit.com/timetables/en/PDF/Timetables/08141214/Table10.pdf

When an express train and a local train leave within about 7 minutes of each other, and one stops everywhere, and the other is express to/from Oakville or Clarkson or Pickering, I don't think you can call that service every 7 minutes, as local train is of no value for those using the express (because the even later express beats the local), and the express doesn't help those needing the local.

Peak ervice looks more like every 13-20 minutes to me. Though there's an oddball period eastbound from Oakville to Toronto at 8:30 with 2 local trains in 8 minutes. And there is 3 expresses westbound to Clarkdon between 5:18 pm and 5:37 pm. But these are the exceptions.

A lot of people here get confused with 15 minute... its 15 minute MINIMUM.

Which means that at Kennedy, most will take subway, because it's more frequent, and you have to walk less to your destination (unless you work within a block of Union.

 

[TOareaFan]

^isn't that conclusion station dependand?

If you are Oakville and headed for Union and there is a local and express 7 minutes apart then you have service every 7 minutes.....using those two hypothetical trains in isolation, though, the person at Port Credit headed for Union has less frequency as one of those trains is of no use to them

 

[nfitz]

If you are Oakville and headed for Union and there is a local and express 7 minutes apart then you have service every 7 minutes....

There's a local at 7:05 AM. And an express at 7:15 AM. Then a local at 7:25 AM, and an express at 7:35 AM. As the 7:15 AM express arrives at it's next stop (Union) before the 7:05, then someone travelling from Oakville to Union doesn't see service every 10 minutes, but service every 20 minutes. As does someone travelling from Oakville to Exhibition.

Sure, there might be a train whizzing past more than once every 15 minutes in rush hour. But for any given destination, that doesn't mean that the service is better than once every 15 minutes.

 

[TOareaFan]

There's a local at 7:05 AM. And an express at 7:15 AM. Then a local at 7:25 AM, and an express at 7:35 AM. As the 7:15 AM express arrives at it's next stop (Union) before the 7:05, then someone travelling from Oakville to Union doesn't see service every 10 minutes, but service every 20 minutes. As does someone travelling from Oakville to Exhibition.

Sure, there might be a train whizzing past more than once every 15 minutes in rush hour. But for any given destination, that doesn't mean that the service is better than once every 15 minutes.

Being on the KW line I don't have a lot of experience with express trains so I guess I was just thinking in terms that if you show up at the station you get on the first train you see that is going to your destination but I guess in the example above you are better waiting for the express.

 

[reaperexpress]

While they are still deciding all the details, single level additions are all but assured, just by the sheer numbers and frequency they need to meet. They are going to bring in single-level trains while keeping using bilevels. Single levels are all but assured for 15-minute offpeak service; it makes no sense to use bilevels offpeak that frequently on many routes, even Lakeshore. But we need all of them (more bilevel trainsets, plus a whole networkful of single decker EMUs). Plus SmartTrack likely isn't going to use bilevels. They will stop at the same stations, so naturally, it is possible they'll use the same EMUs for the single-level trains.

The warrant for single-level trains has nothing to do with ridership. A double decker train is always cheaper per rider than a single-level train. That's partly why many starting commuter rail systems still use bi-levels.

The warrant for single-level trains is boarding speed. Single-level trainsets can have far more doors per passenger than bi-levels, which are typically limited to doors only at each end of the car (yes, I'm aware of the exception in Paris). At the moment, GO doesn't need to worry too much about dwell times becuase there tends to be single-direction flow: people get on at suburban stations and get off at Union or vice versa.

In the future I hope that we will see a more dispersed access points to the city centre rather than just the single point of Union, which would have both on and off demand. And that's why we should be moving to single-level high-platform trains.

 

[silvercity]

Complete wish list for future GO "RER" or "SmartTrack" service:

* Complete freight/passenger separation (at least provide station bypass tracks)
* Complete electrification
* More infill stations (at least inside Toronto)
* EMUs (regardless single-level like Tokyo's or lightweight bi-level like Paris')
* High platforms
* Better fare integration
* Much higher frequency than now.
* Renovated stations without the need to cross tracks.

Some of these are already on Metrolinx's list but I'm not sure how far does the province want to go.

 

[Catenary]

Very soon GO/Metrolinx should commit to one level of boarding...the cost of having 2 different platform sizes is too prohibitive beyond the 4 high level stations they have now.

If they want high-level boardings, they should purchase dual-door level cars to replace the BBD trains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:X-Tåget_på_Gävle_Centralstation_2005-05-14.JPG

If they want low-level boarding, they will need to look for low-level DMU/EMU trains (or 75% low level)
http://www.stadlerrail.com/media/uploads/GARRV0312e.pdf

But I understand that high-speed rail really needs to be high-level. So if we will have 3 types of trains at certain stations (i.e. high-speed, DMU/EMU and bi-level) I think it is a no-brainer to stop buying low-level bi-level trains and invest in dual-level boarding trains (and then build high-level platforms on the lines that will have EMU/DMU service first).

I also wonder if the current fleet of vehicles can be converted to dual-level boardings. Basically take above the wheels and add extra doors (once it becomes high-level you swap the seats above the wheels to where the low-level doors were)

If you're interested and haven't already, look into the current discussions between CalTrain and CAHSR. They're currently trying to reconcile the differences between high-floor HSR trainsets, and low floor commuter cars, some of which are Bombardier BiLevels. In North America, high level platforms are usually 48 inches above head of rail, as the UPL, Montreal and NEC use, while in Europe, heights of 550mm (21.6") and 760mm (29.9") are the new standards for high speed rail, with some areas using the older 1100mm (43.3") or 960mm (37.7") heights. 48 inches is much higher than any of the existing European platforms by quite a bit, but Japan and China do use it for High Speed Rail, and this will all impact the use of off the shelf train designs in the future.

 

[Markster]

GO Transit fare increase has been effectively announced:

Base adult single fares would be increased as follows:
a 10 cent increase on our minimum fare of $5.20
a 30 cent increase on fares between $5.21 and $6.50
a 40 cent increase on fares between $6.51 and $8.25
a 50 cent increase on fares greater than $8.25.

And here's a graph showing the distribution of percentage increases:

 

[raptor]

GO Transit fare increase has been effectively announced:



And here's a graph showing the distribution of percentage increases:

View attachment 39069

Gosh, why can't they introduce paid parking instead?

 

[dowlingm]

Gosh, why can't they introduce paid parking instead?

Because MPPs don't like losing their jobs in the face of angry mobs of GO train users would be my guess. For me, paid parking should not be universal in scope or price, but taking a view of the adequacy of nearby transit and the size of the catchment area. Most inner 905 stations should be slated as development opportunity+transit hub, not car park forevermore.

 

[mdrejhon]

Because MPPs don't like losing their jobs in the face of angry mobs of GO train users would be my guess.

Gosh, why can't they introduce paid parking instead?

The already do. It's GOTransit's "reserved parking" system which you pay 90 dollars a month at any GO station with parking, for a spot near the tracks, reserved just for yourself. Some GO stations now only have reserved parking (aka "paid") spots, being too small for a parking garage expansion. Also, some levels in some of the new GO parking garages (e.g. the entire 1st level of the huge new Pickering garage) are 100% reserved for paid parking.

I expect they will make increasing use of this paid parking over time in some of the more urban stations, as some stations become even more popular (e.g. Tory's SmartTrack).

But GO paid parking is ALREADY here today.

 

[raptor]

The already do. It's GOTransit's "reserved parking" system which you pay 90 dollars a month at any GO station with parking, for a spot near the tracks, reserved just for yourself. Some GO stations now only have reserved parking (aka "paid") spots, being too small for a parking garage expansion. Also, some levels in some of the new GO parking garages (e.g. the entire 1st level of the huge new Pickering garage) are 100% reserved for paid parking.

I expect they will make increasing use of paid parking over time in some of the more urban stations, as some stations become even more popular (e.g. Tory's SmartTrack).

But GO paid parking is ALREADY here today.

Well, I meant paid parking for everyone, not just those who choose to pay.

 

[nfitz]

Because MPPs don't like losing their jobs in the face of angry mobs of GO train users would be my guess.

Good point. Time to bombard my new Liberal MPP with complaints about my fare going up 6% to go only 8 km, while those who live further pay less. For the umpteenth year in a row. And not even a parking lot at my station!

 

[Markster]

Well, I meant paid parking for everyone, not just those who choose to pay.

Or rather, a system where someone does not need to choose to pay $90/month more than 90% of everyone else for the option to park close to the train.

I'm sure there's a market for people to choose, on a day to day basis, to pay $5 to park close to the train. Whether they're running late for their train, or have arrived at 9:30 and don't want to park at the edge of the universe.

Realistically, one can tell that Metrolinx does not really want to get into any kind of large scale parking enforcement. Selling a parking spot once for $90 a month is a lot easier than selling it 20 times for $5.