[canarob]

The way I see go stations is that they are a way for people to park in the suburbs where there is space for thousands of cars, and then get transported downtown. I consider it a nice alternative to thousands of parking spots downtown.

Exactly -- I can drive 1.5 KMs to a GO station or much further to a subway station or even further than that to downtown Toronto. I don't feel driving 3 KMs a day in a small car is killing the planet. When it's warmer, I don't mind just walking from home even though it does add time to my commute.

If there was a GO shuttle that went to my neighbourhood, I would gladly take it, but it seems as if the shuttles only go in certain directions from the GO stations in York Region for some reason.

 

[BMO]

Exactly -- I can drive 1.5 KMs to a GO station or much further to a subway station or even further than that to downtown Toronto. I don't feel driving 3 KMs a day in a small car is killing the planet. When it's warmer, I don't mind just walking from home even though it does add time to my commute.

If there was a GO shuttle that went to my neighbourhood, I would gladly take it, but it seems as if the shuttles only go in certain directions from the GO stations in York Region for some reason.

This, most of GO's passengers are from the suburbs, which unfortunately has shitty transit service, it's really a catch 22 either provide free aprking so that people can get to the station at a reasonable amount of time to spare room on congested city highways, or charge for parking and those people drive down anyway. You really can't win. Better for people to be dirving 2 or 3 km to a GO station close to them rather than 45KM downtown IMO. There really should be design provisions for GO station parking structures and stations to be built-up around them in the suburbs, similar to what they are doing in Oakville.

 

[ShonTron]

I recently heard that the cost of a single parking spot on GO's system (between lighting, snow clearing, enforcement, maintainence and capital costs - land and construction) is approximately $9/day. GO would only break even if it charged that amount to drivers. I don't know if that figure includes weekends or not though.

When I heard that, I was flabergasted. A large portion of GO fares go only to parking lot maintenance. A huge portion of their capital expentitures are in parking lot/garage construction and land acquisition for parking lots.

This comes with mixed feelings. GO passengers who walk, bike or get dropped off indirectly subsidize car-driving customers. At least passengers arriving by local transit get a partial cross-subsidy (about $3-$4 off the daily bus ticket rate). But GO wouldn't be building those lots unless there was a demand for them. After all, GO's original purpose was to mitigate the need for highway construction, and it serves this purpose even with all that parking.

Some sort of fare restructuring, such as reduced off-peak and weekend fares, would be a great idea, considering that they have less need for parking, and easy to do now with Presto. I still think a fare decrease coupled with mandatory paid parking should be looked at, though it has some drawbacks for GO's model.

 

[gweed123]

I recently heard that the cost of a single parking spot on GO's system (between lighting, snow clearing, enforcement, maintainence and capital costs - land and construction) is approximately $9/day. GO would only break even if it charged that amount to drivers. I don't know if that figure includes weekends or not though.

When I heard that, I was flabergasted. A large portion of GO fares go only to parking lot maintenance. A huge portion of their capital expentitures are in parking lot/garage construction and land acquisition for parking lots.

This comes with mixed feelings. GO passengers who walk, bike or get dropped off indirectly subsidize car-driving customers. At least passengers arriving by local transit get a partial cross-subsidy (about $3-$4 off the daily bus ticket rate). But GO wouldn't be building those lots unless there was a demand for them. After all, GO's original purpose was to mitigate the need for highway construction, and it serves this purpose even with all that parking.

I wonder if, after the initial capital cost of construction, the per space maintenance rate is lower for parking structure spaces or surface parking spaces. I can see advantages and disadvantages to each from a maintenance POV.

In any case, I still feel that GO should be building their new parking structures with retail on the ground floor (Sobey's, LCBO, Future Shop, etc), with the parking stacked above it. Convenient for the passengers coming home from work, and that way GO at least gets some rent revenue from the space occupied by those parking structures.

Some sort of fare restructuring, such as reduced off-peak and weekend fares, would be a great idea, considering that they have less need for parking, and easy to do now with Presto. I still think a fare decrease coupled with mandatory paid parking should be looked at, though it has some drawbacks for GO's model.

I agree completely (and I posted such on the previous page, haha).

I also think the parking fare collection should be digital (like the 407), and that Presto should be expanded to include a license plate field. How it would work is when a person entered the parking lot, their license plate would be scanned, and matched against the Presto database. Either way, the metre would start running. Upon exiting, their plate would be scanned again and they would be charged an amount depending on a) length of time parked, b) whether or not they have registered their plate with Presto. Yes to B would mean a slightly reduced per hour rate.

This would only be charged on weekdays between say 6am and 6pm.

PS: This setup would tie in wonderfully when tolls are introduced. Your Presto account becomes not only your transit pass, but your GTHA transportation card for everything. Transit fares, GO parking, and road tolls are all paid through the same account.

 

[TOareaFan]

I recently heard that the cost of a single parking spot on GO's system (between lighting, snow clearing, enforcement, maintainence and capital costs - land and construction) is approximately $9/day. GO would only break even if it charged that amount to drivers. I don't know if that figure includes weekends or not though.

I would have to see that to believe it! There is simply no way that a typical GO surface parking lot (which makes up the vast majority of their parking) costs $9/day/spot.

 

[rbt]

I recently heard that the cost of a single parking spot on GO's system (between lighting, snow clearing, enforcement, maintainence and capital costs - land and construction) is approximately $9/day. GO would only break even if it charged that amount to drivers. I don't know if that figure includes weekends or not though.

I've been hearing the number of about $60 to $70 per month per spot for large mall parking lots.

I would guess a large portion of that $9/day is capital invested in the multi-storey parking garages.

 

[MegaMax]

The new garages are more expensive to light and to secure after construction is complete. That $9 includes built-in, long-term capital costs, so I wouldn't be too surprised if it was true.

 

[TOareaFan]

I wonder if, after the initial capital cost of construction, the per space maintenance rate is lower for parking structure spaces or surface parking spaces. I can see advantages and disadvantages to each from a maintenance POV.

In any case, I still feel that GO should be building their new parking structures with retail on the ground floor (Sobey's, LCBO, Future Shop, etc), with the parking stacked above it. Convenient for the passengers coming home from work, and that way GO at least gets some rent revenue from the space occupied by those parking structures.

The answer to that might be at the other end of the equation.....with the retailers themselves. If retailers had any interest in being in that sort of situation (with the traffic patterns that a GO station has) I think anyone of Smart Centres, First Capital or RioCan would have been on this a long time ago.

I can't think of many pluses to a retailer being at most GO locations....I can think of a few negatives.

I agree completely (and I posted such on the previous page, haha).

I also think the parking fare collection should be digital (like the 407), and that Presto should be expanded to include a license plate field. How it would work is when a person entered the parking lot, their license plate would be scanned, and matched against the Presto database. Either way, the metre would start running. Upon exiting, their plate would be scanned again and they would be charged an amount depending on a) length of time parked, b) whether or not they have registered their plate with Presto. Yes to B would mean a slightly reduced per hour rate.

This would only be charged on weekdays between say 6am and 6pm.

PS: This setup would tie in wonderfully when tolls are introduced. Your Presto account becomes not only your transit pass, but your GTHA transportation card for everything. Transit fares, GO parking, and road tolls are all paid through the same account.

I am reasonably certain that the folks at GO have modelled parking options extensively (they have actually had customer surveys on the matter). I can only think that they have found that charging for parking will have a greater negative than positive (that is, the loss in ridership will offset any increase in revenue).

 

[TOareaFan]

The new garages are more expensive to light and to secure after construction is complete. That $9 includes built-in, long-term capital costs, so I wouldn't be too surprised if it was true.

What percentage of GO's parking is in those structures? That $9/spot/day might be the case for those....but most GO commuters park on surface parking that has existed for a long, long, time and would cost a lot less than $9/day/spot to provide/maintain.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

The answer to that might be at the other end of the equation.....with the retailers themselves. If retailers had any interest in being in that sort of situation (with the traffic patterns that a GO station has) I think anyone of Smart Centres, First Capital or RioCan would have been on this a long time ago.

I can't think of many pluses to a retailer being at most GO locations....I can think of a few negatives.

True but part of that is related to GO's ambivalence towards local development, and what goes on in and around it's stations. Right now they simply focus on being a place to catch a train with little interaction with it's surrounding environs. IF they decided to make their stations desirable places maybe people would be more willing to linger around the station and then developers such as smart centres would want to develop near the stations.

I remember when Lisgar station was under development and how absurd it seemed to me that the station could not have been integrated with the Winston-Churchill Argentia power centre.

 

[ShonTron]

True but part of that is related to GO's ambivalence towards local development, and what goes on in and around it's stations. Right now they simply focus on being a place to catch a train with little interaction with it's surrounding environs. IF they decided to make their stations desirable places maybe people would be more willing to linger around the station and then developers such as smart centres would want to develop near the stations.

I remember when Lisgar station was under development and how absurd it seemed to me that the station could not have been integrated with the Winston-Churchill Argentia power centre.

The Milton Station is better integrated with bix-box shopping. One could easily get off the train, go to Loblaws to pickup a few groceries, and then get in the car or on a Milton Transit bus home. Other logical businesses that pair well with an evening commute: dry cleaners, day cares, pizza take-outs, maybe a LCBO.

 

[TOareaFan]

True but part of that is related to GO's ambivalence towards local development, and what goes on in and around it's stations. Right now they simply focus on being a place to catch a train with little interaction with it's surrounding environs. IF they decided to make their stations desirable places maybe people would be more willing to linger around the station and then developers such as smart centres would want to develop near the stations.

I remember when Lisgar station was under development and how absurd it seemed to me that the station could not have been integrated with the Winston-Churchill Argentia power centre.

"near" and "integrated" are different things though. Mt. Pleasant in NW Brampton is "near" lots of existing and planned retail....but I bet you that a) none of those retail developers want their property/parking integrated with a GO station......b) if GO did approach them the answer would have been "no".

It is easy to look at the situation as it sits now, see little/no integration and say "GO is ambivalent (or worse)" but it does not mean it is so. Just because the titanic hit the iceberg does not prove the captain was aiming at the ice! (jeez...that is twice in a week I have used that one!).

 

[TOareaFan]

The Milton Station is better integrated with bix-box shopping. One could easily get off the train, go to Loblaws to pickup a few groceries, and then get in the car or on a Milton Transit bus home. Other logical businesses that pair well with an evening commute: dry cleaners, day cares, pizza take-outs, maybe a LCBO.

Must say, I have never been to the Milton GO...are those retail uses integrated with the station or just nearby?

 

[ShonTron]

Must say, I have never been to the Milton GO...are those retail uses integrated with the station or just nearby?

Not perfectly, no, but it's the best I've seen when it comes to suburban GO stations (not counting urban 905 stations like Hamilton or Brampton). But they are adjacent and they share the same new roadway connecting Main and Thompson. There's also a set of lights between Loblaws and the station that make it easy to cross.

 

[gweed123]

The Milton Station is better integrated with bix-box shopping. One could easily get off the train, go to Loblaws to pickup a few groceries, and then get in the car or on a Milton Transit bus home. Other logical businesses that pair well with an evening commute: dry cleaners, day cares, pizza take-outs, maybe a LCBO.

Exactly my point. There are a certain group of retailers for which it would be very advantageous to locate on the ground floor of a parking structure. Picking up a bottle of wine from the LCBO on your way home from work. Dropping off your dry cleaning in the AM and picking it up on your way home.

Obviously for things like sit-down restaurants and stuff it doesn't make much sense, or for really big box stores like Wal Mart, but for some retailers it definitely does. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean the demand isn't there, or that the concept isn't sound. There may be other logistical issues preventing it from happening at this time.

EDIT: For a sort of proof-of-concept, just look at all of the retailers in the Union GO Concourse. The LCBO at Union (before it was closed because of the renovations) was constantly pretty busy. Many of the patrons were people waiting for their train home from work, or those coming in on the train for a night out somewhere.

Obviously the scale is a little bit different at suburban GO stations, but the principle is still there.