TOareaFan
Superstar
seen it in a few places...the easiest to find is
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ry_30_minutes_all_day_on_lakeshore_lines.html
|
|
|
GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
seen it in a few places...the easiest to find is
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ry_30_minutes_all_day_on_lakeshore_lines.html
nfitz
Superstar
It was before that. This June 2007 press release talks about construction having already started in April 2007 between Port Credit and Kerr Street. http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/65475/start-of-improvements-to-the-lakeshore-west-rail-corridor
TOareaFan
Superstar
in answering you I realize a math error (but it only makes it worse)....I had been using "50% increase" against LSW ridership of 15 million (2010) and coming up with 7.5 million new riders. I now realize that it should be LSW + LSE which had ridership in 2010 of 26,668,400 so they are actually projecting about 13 million new riders "almost immediately"....I would redo the reasonable tests above but I am sure you can see they would just come out "worse".
nfitz
Superstar
That's a Toronto Star article. We're supposed to trust that Tess Kalinowski didn't once again misquote someone? All it says is "the 30-minute Lakeshore line boost is expected to attract 50 per cent more GO riders almost immediately". I'd have assumed that if the quote was correct talking about a 50% increase in off-peak ridership. It makes no sense otherwise ... you can't get a 50% increase for ridership for the entire line ... that doesn't seem conceivable.
There's a lack of context in the quote to tell what time period is being talked about for the 50% increase.
TOareaFan
Superstar
We can only go with what they tell us....that article and quote has been out there a while...but no correction....remember how fast GO/Metrolinx had the Star correct the part about the service levels on the other lines contained in the same article? Wasn't it within minutes?
Even if the increase is 50% of the off peak, it still means (as I am saying ) that the average number of people per off peak train will drop (100% increase in the number of trains produces 50% increase in ridership?).
I do get confused about when we are supposed to take their word and when we are supposed to apply our own assumptions to what they are saying....that may be intentional
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
Correct what though ... clearly it isn't talking about the total line ridership. That wouldn't make sense. The article is about an off-peak service increase. Presumably they are expecting an increase in off-peak ridership. And presumably that's what he was discussing.
I'd assume that double the trains would mean less riders per train. That goes without saying I'd think. But I can't imagine there'd be less riders than there were in September 1967 when they adopted the currrent schedule.
There's nothing about this expected increase in the official release, or other Metrolinx documents I can see. I wouldn't read too much into an off-the-cuff comment that hasn't been clearly documented.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I apologize....I will no longer comment on this....I had no idea these were the first new trains added to Lakeshore since 1967.
I will now be quiet on the subject.
k10ery
Senior Member
I hope not! I'm late to reading all this, but it's quite interesting.
I think you've got it about right. But there's still a lot of information in those numbers.
The 50% must refer to off-peak ridership only. As you said earlier this means a much more modest increase in total ridership.
The $7.7 million incremental cost estimate is interesting. The new service means about 12,000 additional trains per year, each one spending about 1 hour in revenue service. So GO's incremental operating cost is $583 per hour of revenue service. That's a bit higher than I would have guessed given current fuel prices.
Is extra service a good idea? If current off-peak average load is 350 passengers, and if off-peak ridership increases by 50%, then ridership increases by 175 pax per additional train. The incremental operating cost is therefore $3.30 per new pax. The value of those trips has GOT to be at least as high as $3.30 I think, so service explasion is a good idea. Can it pay for itself though? At cash fares it obviously would, but presumably a lot of new passengers will be on Presto and be paying much less. Does anybody know what Metrolinx estimates is its incremental revenue per passenger?
Bottom line: tiny mistake in Tess's piece, but lots of information, and service expansion looks like a no-brainer if the crews can be found.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I am gonna break my (short) silence because, until someone says so, I am not sure it was a mistake by the writer ...otherwise it would be corrected as was the bit about the other lines. There was nothing factually incorrect about the original statement in the star:
This original is still available because while the Star changed the story in their main paper their Metroland subsidiary continues to carry the original.
Since they have told us that there will be new trains (5 return trips at a capital cost of $1.2B) on KW in 2015 we knew that they were adding and we know what they are adding....this clarification seemed important to them.
So they clarified one part of the story but left the confusion on the other? Does not seem reasonable to me.
Normal silence will resume
This original is still available because while the Star changed the story in their main paper their Metroland subsidiary continues to carry the original.
Since they have told us that there will be new trains (5 return trips at a capital cost of $1.2B) on KW in 2015 we knew that they were adding and we know what they are adding....this clarification seemed important to them.
So they clarified one part of the story but left the confusion on the other? Does not seem reasonable to me.
Normal silence will resume
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
We are discussing the off-peak schedule. All I've seen added since then are peak runs, and some shoulder services more recently - and of course the extensions west of Oakville and east of Pickering. And perhaps some earlier and later departures. But the core of the mid-day and evening weekday along with the weekend service is unchanged. I wish I could find a URL for a good old schedule.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I don't get your 5 trains fo 1.2 billion. You keep mentioning it, and while it is technically true, it misses most of the point of the Georgetown project. While only 5 trains will be added, the project is prepping the line for much more future service. Before, each GO line essentially connected onto 2 tracks, which is not enough to handle high service levels on 3 GO lines. The project upgrades the shared tracks of the three lines to handle all day 2 way on the three lines, so now all that is left is the need to upgrade the lines themselves. Plus the ARL needs some new tracks to operate, so it pays for most of that as well. The corridor being upgraded was in horrible shape anyways, full of trees, and single track bridges.
TOareaFan
Superstar
It is not that hard to understand. Prior to the spending of $1.2B there were "X" train trips on the line. After the spending there will be "X+10 (5 each way)" on the line.
What are we prepping for?
The time when the populations and densities arrive on the line? GO/Metrolinx identified the corridor as having the second highest density of all the transit corridors in the region....since #1 already has a subway what does this say about their position that population and density drive transit use?
When the government was criticized in the early days of the project for spending so much money for the privately run (at the time) ARL they would counter that it was not for the ARL it was mostly to boost public transit......and the fact that it gave us the ARL was a nice side benefit. Now we are supposed to feel good that the total expenditure (and if we are going to lump the newly named UPE into it we really have to bring the total to $1.7B) yields the UPE plus 5 return trips on public transit.
Yes the corridor was in poor shape before....but it had the ability to move "X" number of trains. What is the point of spending $1.2B (or whatever portion of the total $1.7B you want to allocate to the public/GO side of it) if all we are going to do is boost the capacity of the line by about 8,000 return trips a day and only on weekdays?
It is a horrible yield on public expenditure, it does not serve the population and densities adequately and it certainly is a poor example for a government to show how much they can do with public money on the transit front when they are about to ask the public to give/donate more to that cause.
nfitz
Superstar
??? This was announced by Prime Minister Chretien when much of the funding was delivered. Improved VIA service, the Air Rail link, and increased GO service.
Is this not a good thing? We're 10 years into this ... I'd guess we are over half-way there already!
TOareaFan
Superstar
Well, since then we have removed (permanently I understand) some VIA trains in the corridor, the amount of the GO increased service is not enough and the public purse took on the entire cost of the ARL.
Of course 5 return train trips is an improvement and, in isolation, is a "good thing".....that has never been my point.....my point is (and always has been) it is not enough. What is the resistance to providing hourly (I know its not good enough for some but we'll take it
) GO train service and on weekends not just weekdays?nfitz
Superstar
They dropped an AM and PM peak VIA train shortly after GO added 2 AM and PM peak trains to Kitchener, that cost half-as-much.
Why focus on the minimum Day 1 service. Metrolinx has already promised they are going to electrify the service after 2015. Service increases are coming. I think you are focusing too much on something that will either be short-term, and may well be far different from what actually happens in 2015.