RedRocket191

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,306
Reaction score
0
Hate to keep bringing this up but GO's current response to that is that they have no plans to introduce full (ie. Lakeshore type) service on that line.

Not exactly. At the risk of turning this into a semantics debate, what they've said is that they will increase service as demand warrants with all-day two-way service in the long term. That's quite different than "we have no plans", but whatever.
 

TOareaFan

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
11,927
Reaction score
2,517
Not exactly. At the risk of turning this into a semantics debate, what they've said is that they will increase service as demand warrants with all-day two-way service in the long term. That's quite different than "we have no plans", but whatever.

Not really semantics though.

I am, and can only, quote the email they sent me. It says they have no plans. Yes they say there will be a, small, increase on day one and yes, they say perhaps when demand warrants they may have plans....but they don't say "when demand warrants there will be .....".

It is interesting because they seem to ignore a few things.

1) that current demand far exceeds the demand that was in place when the Lakeshore lines got 7 day two way service (ie. day one). I know that was a long time ago but it is interesting that, because they could, they did not feel the need to phase that in.

2) there really is a positive impact on demand by offering the service. In some regards, there is a "build it we will come" relationship. Saying to people...show us the demand and we will offer the service is a bit disingenuous because it is hard to show the demand when the current trains are full. The best example, recently, is that new 8:20 morning train that the extension to K-W brought. The first time I rode it (2nd or 3rd day) I was in a car with 2 other people the entire trip from Brampton to Union and judging from the platform traffic I could see, most cars were similar.......last time I rode it, the car I was in was about 2/3 full and, again, the platform traffic would indicate that this was common.....the demand is built by the availibility of the service! (similar experience back when the, now, 6:50 "late" train home was added...started off empty...steadily grew and saw a significant jump in use once it extended beyond Bramalea to Mt. Pleasant.

On the inverse, a lot of off-peak Lakeshore trains have a significant number of empty seats. Yet we all (and I do, to an extent) agree that increasing the frequency of those trains to 30 minutes is a long term good thing. Where is the "show us the demand" logic there? It is thought that providing a reliable, frequent, service is good for transit use, even if initially, some of those trains will be not quite full.



3) A very significant investment of public funds have gone into this line...which is good....but it is not good if it is not going to be used/maximized. In fact it makes their initial defense to critiques that they were spending $1B to subsidize a train to the airport for rich biz folks a bit hollow. On day one, when the ARL opens, that is exactly what we will have. A lot of public money spent and the only real change will be that ARL. They said it was going to lead to more GO service. Their own "day 1" estimates on the number of GO trains can be achieved by simply puting back the trains that were cut for the construction period.....so we could have had that service and not spent the money?

Anyway, all that said, I was responding to someone who was suggesting that "GO will provide the local service" that the ARL can't/won't......GO won't either, on day 1, and there is no timeline or "plan" for them to do that.
 
Last edited:

EnviroTO

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
4,552
Reaction score
1,630
The Weston Community, however, does have a very valid point about the pollution. When the ARL gets going there will be a diesel train rolling by every 5 minutes............that is a hell of a lot of pollution effecting hundreds of thousands of people.

No it isn't. It is a Tier 4 DMU, not a 2 engine freight train slowly dragging tonnes of freight. If the service is every 15 minutes then a train will pass Weston on average every 7.5 minutes and will be there for an instant. How much pollution will an engine only moving the weight of those passengers and luggage generate in the 5 seconds they are in front of any particular property? It is ridiculous. The bigger joke is that the ARL stop the Weston Community won in their fight will cause there to be more pollution than there would have been to serve a near non-existant demand for ARL service in Weston, as this stop will cause the trains to be accelerating rather than running at speed.
 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
3,552
Reaction score
1,466
Remember that your 7.5 minutes doesn't include the VIA, GO, and freight trains which is why I approximated every 5 minutes.

The TTC should completely take over the Airlink and run it as regular TTC service, electrifying it and slowly adding more stations. It would become an effective rapid transit corridor as opposed to a glorified limo service for Bay Street. GO should not run it as the reality is that people in Toronto still won't take it as a transit alternative because GO is expensive and made even more so by not having fare integration.

This should be a PPP regular rapid transit line no different than the subway except using EMU. Get Pearson to electrify it's station and all of the "spur" line which would relatively be very little, get some funds from the feds, Toronto, Metrolinx, and get a private partner. It can be run just by the TTC but the extra, say $3 for those going all the way to Pearson, would go to the private partner to pay it back with interest. Many pension and security plans are looking for a a place to invest their money without the risk of the very turbulent markets these days.

Thee great thing about this line is that it could eventually continue east along the rail corridor for a DRL. Toronto has a wonderful opportunity to expand it's rapid transit at a VERY cheap price but instead is building a slow, polluting, tonka-toy that Torontonians will never use. Its a scandelous waste of taxpayer money and opportunity.
 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
3,552
Reaction score
1,466
Just did a little research and came across BART electrifcation. BART is going to be electrifying it's current 52 MILE SF to SJ line.
Despite it being built in the ultra high wage, very hilly, earthquake zone Bay Area the total cost id coming out at $18 million per mile or roughly $11 million per km. That price level would bring the Pearson line in at the very most $250 million not the $450 that Metrolinx figure that they pulled out of a hat.
 

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
24,985
Reaction score
5,628
City:
Toronto
Just did a little research and came across BART electrifcation. BART is going to be electrifying it's current 52 MILE SF to SJ line.
Despite it being built in the ultra high wage, very hilly, earthquake zone Bay Area the total cost id coming out at $18 million per mile or roughly $11 million per km. That price level would bring the Pearson line in at the very most $250 million not the $450 that Metrolinx figure that they pulled out of a hat.
I'm sure the Metrolinx numbers weren't pulled out of a hat.

Some, if not most of that Caltrain line is single-track. Doesn't the Metrolinx electrification take into account 2-3 tracks (or even 4?) as it's also the electrification for the Georgetown GO line?

Did you take that into account before you slandered those who did the work?
 

ShonTron

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
11,454
Reaction score
6,433
Not exactly. At the risk of turning this into a semantics debate, what they've said is that they will increase service as demand warrants with all-day two-way service in the long term. That's quite different than "we have no plans", but whatever.

I'm with TOAreaFan on this one. For years and years GO said that there was no demand for proper Union Station bus service apart from the overcrowded, slow milk runs every three hours counter-peak and weekends, and "go to Yorkdale" was the response to my fustration. What happened when they finally relented and offered hourly GO buses midday and weekends with buses from Georgetown/Brampton running express? Within a year of that, that service went to every 30 minutes at many hours to cope with the demand. How can one defend the comments made to me about "demand" after what actually happened once Brampton got a basic, reliable service to places people actually want to go to? (ie Downtown, not a milk run to a shopping mall with another fare to get on a subway?)

We're still dealing with cabbageheads at GO who are clinging to their pathetic 2015 service model for us peons who aren't on the ARL.
 
Last edited:

doady

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,984
Reaction score
343
Maybe GO is too content with the way things are now, they see their service as a success, it has a high cost recovery rate, and so they see no reason to make changes or think long term. Only providing the bare minimum of service to meet the current demand is short term thinking, not long term, especially for an underdeveloped system like GO.

Georgetown line is 20 minute service now (3 trips per hour per direction). Milton is 10 minutes (6 trips per hour per direction). I think all-day train service is viable for these corridors already. Lakeshore could use more train service outside rush too. The train service has remained basically unchanged for so long, and will likely remain that way in the near future, it is hard to understand.
 

EnviroTO

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
4,552
Reaction score
1,630
Just did a little research and came across BART electrifcation. BART is going to be electrifying it's current 52 MILE SF to SJ line.
Despite it being built in the ultra high wage, very hilly, earthquake zone Bay Area the total cost id coming out at $18 million per mile or roughly $11 million per km. That price level would bring the Pearson line in at the very most $250 million not the $450 that Metrolinx figure that they pulled out of a hat.

When I read comments like this I just have to laugh. If numbers "pulled out of a hat" doesn't mean grabbing some number googled on the web and saying it is a reliable indicator of cost when applied to an entirely different project, what does it mean? How many tracks are included, are the electrical substations included, is the equipment included, are adjustments to any low obstructions included, etc. I hope money donate to curing cancer doesn't lead to similar quality of "research".
 

dowlingm

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
3,844
Reaction score
1,702
Just did a little research and came across BART electrifcation. BART is going to be electrifying it's current 52 MILE SF to SJ line.
Despite it being built in the ultra high wage, very hilly, earthquake zone Bay Area the total cost id coming out at $18 million per mile or roughly $11 million per km. That price level would bring the Pearson line in at the very most $250 million not the $450 that Metrolinx figure that they pulled out of a hat.
That's per track mile, plus it doesn't look like it includes Union-Willowbrook Yard. Personally I'd have found somewhere to build a bespoke DMU yard in the Pearson vicinity, given that the initial order is only for 18 coaches, but that would trigger different costs like land acquisition.

As far as all-day service... there's the big question over whether ARL will actually work in the short term. I suspect that after a short time when it becomes clear that the economics of the ARL aren't all that, ARL will lose its total exclusivity on their track with some paths being given to GO to introduce limited service without the necessity to lay the extra track Metrolinx are looking at (I think the crossing of the 401 needs widening for that right?)
 

Woodbridge_Heights

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,070
Reaction score
1,002
Hate to keep bringing this up but GO's current response to that is that they have no plans to introduce full (ie. Lakeshore type) service on that line.

Point taken (including your discussion with RedRocket). I suppose what I should have said is that building the ARL should not be precluded until local all day service is provided on the line (by GO or someone else). Both projects are worthy projects which offer different, unique products, and we should not stop one just because the other isn't on any short term timeline.

If anything the pressure should be placed on GO to begin planning for improved service on this corridor once the upgrades are complete, not trying to stop the ARL.
 

TOareaFan

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
11,927
Reaction score
2,517
Point taken (including your discussion with RedRocket). I suppose what I should have said is that building the ARL should not be precluded until local all day service is provided on the line (by GO or someone else). Both projects are worthy projects which offer different, unique products, and we should not stop one just because the other isn't on any short term timeline.

If anything the pressure should be placed on GO to begin planning for improved service on this corridor once the upgrades are complete, not trying to stop the ARL.

I was (and am not) opposed to the ARL.....I was simply pointing out that in the early days of the planning whenever there was criticsim of so much public money going into the line as a "subsidy" for the, then, privately operated ARL the criticism was countered with (paraphrase) "the money is for the expansion of public transit service as well"....I, and others I presume, bought this "line" and saw (see) great potential in improved service on the line.

I guess I am just expressing extreme disappointment that there are no plans to, significantly, increase that service.

All around the GO network there are physical barriers to introducing full service on the other lines......the work on the Georgetown/Kitchener corridor removes a bunch of them....yet the only thing seemingly preventing introduction for full 7 day service is, now, desire to do so.

What do you do to "prove demand"? Grow population?....check. Increase density?...well, to some extent, that was done a long time ago (one of Metrolinx' own reports - I want to say "Big Move" but I can't be sure - identified the, then, Georgetown GO line as having the 2nd highest existing density of all transit routes in the study area {2nd only to the BD subway})....sop up the space on available transit? Check. I gave some examples of how demand grew on new service, others pointed out the increased use of buses as service grew.

As someone who has been following this since the 80's....as someone who has letters from GO/Provincial authorities back to the 80s telling us when the work is done then you will see full service...it is, frankly, insulting to now (after so much tax money has gone into the line) hear you have to prove the demand to get the service.

As I mentioned above, their own estimates of initial service levels after the work is complete can be met by simply re-instating the train trips that were cancelled to allow the construction to happen. I can say with great honesty that if I had been asked if it were worth spending $1B of precious transit dollars just to offer the same service...I would have said "never mind".

I know some will say "there are crew limitiations".....the construction work is 3 years from completion...it was started 2 years ago.....if there was a desire to introduce full service, there is/was plenty of time to address this matter.

I have no idea what the reasoning is behind spending all that money and then not increasing service.....it seems nuts to me. Imagine if after building the extension of the YUS subway they said ....."service will remain as is {ie. stopping at Downsview} until people can prove the demand exists"....aren't demand studies/models you do before spending public funds?
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
7,095
Reaction score
3,148
I have no idea what the reasoning is behind spending all that money and then not increasing service.....it seems nuts to me.

Capital funds were free to GO.

GO is more-or-less on their own for operations, and has been getting pullback on contributions from the province for several years. Ultimately, if more people ride the current boundary service (slightly off-peak) then more boundary service will be provided until there is full day coverage.


McGuinty's investment pattern into GO seems to be with the purpose of making them self-sustaining. Buying rail corridor, signalling, maintenance facilities, grade separations, etc. are all things which improve operating efficiency. Hopefully it works and if/when Hudak demands GO cut their annual operating budget subsidy and stops making capital contributions; they will be able to survive without much difficulty and still make minor service expansions to accomodate some ridership growth.


It's not a bad long-term strategy to help GO survive government turmoil even though it does create some oddities like this massive corridor expansion without any additional (short-term) service.


I do think Metrolinx could be a little more agressive with fare increases and run more trial services to see if ridership exists; but oh well.
 
Last edited:

TOareaFan

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
11,927
Reaction score
2,517
Capital funds were free to GO.

GO is more-or-less on their own for operations, and has been getting pullback on contributions from the province for several years. Ultimately, if more people ride the current boundary service (slightly off-peak) then more boundary service will be provided until there is full day coverage.


McGuinty's investment pattern into GO seems to be with the purpose of making them self-sustaining. Buying rail corridor, signalling, maintenance facilities, grade separations, etc. are all things which improve operating efficiency. Hopefully it works and if/when Hudak demands GO cut their annual operating budget subsidy and stops making capital contributions; they will be able to survive without much difficulty and still make minor service expansions to accomodate some ridership growth.


It's not a bad long-term strategy to help GO survive government turmoil even though it does create some oddities like this massive corridor expansion without any additional (short-term) service.


I do think Metrolinx could be a little more agressive with fare increases and run more trial services to see if ridership exists; but oh well.

That would make sense to me if it weren't happening concurrently with the expansion of service to areas farther afield (Kitchener, NF) during the same time period which have virtually no chance of being as positive (if at all) than increased service levels to denser areas closer to Toronto.

I think, like many things, the real answer is....politics.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
7,095
Reaction score
3,148
That would make sense to me if it weren't happening concurrently with the expansion of service to areas farther afield (Kitchener, NF) during the same time period which have virtually no chance of being as positive (if at all) than increased service levels to denser areas closer to Toronto.

I think, like many things, the real answer is....politics.

Yes, politics is a huge influence. You kinda need to find the logic through the distortion that politics creates.

Getting re-elected is the first job of a politician.
 

Top