[DonValleyRainbow]

One solution is to charge for parking, perhaps making it free after the AM peak and on weekends. Pass the revenue on to service improvements, and/or fare reductions.

that is only a "solution" to the off peak problem if it frees up spots (ie. encourages peak riders to not drive and park)....if it just bolsters revenue (ie. people keep driving and parking in peak and paying for the privilage) you will still need additional parking to support any off peak usage......and I think the model I hear most (ie. charge for parking and reduce fares) would just encourage the status quo....a drive and park person would just say "my cost is the same....so for the convenience and service I am paying the same so I might as well continue with the same pattern.

The cost of providing the parking is huge, and that amounts to a subsidy provided by riders who don't use it, and taxpayers in general.

I can't blame drivers wanting to use a subsidy offered to them, but Metrolinx had best start charging the fair value for that parking, or offer an equal subsidy to those who don't in some other form.

It has been said officially by GO again and again that all GO users subsidize parking; the cost of it is built in. Charging for parking is one way to de-couple that cost.

I see this as a big opportunity, if it is done right; lower fares for those who live near and/or walk/bike/transit to a GO station, and keep them about the same for drivers, and see how behaviour changes. If it means people are still willing to drive and pay for the cost of parking infrastructure, let them! If it drives additional urban growth near GO stations, then shit, we're achieving some fricking policy goals!

And the other item to note is the huge increase in service along the GO lines. I think it has been on average 6% growth each year. So over the past 10 years this means that they had to find 50%+ more parking spaces to keep the status quo in terms of driving vs transit. Certain lines have had the lion's share of this growth and in particular Lakeshore West (with the huge increase in the number of trains). I don't have the numbers but I would expect that Lakeshore West experienced 10% growth on average (i.e. 100% more parking spaces needed over the last 10 years and 100% more transit).

They have about 75,000 parking spots and 275,000 boardings (140,000 each way). Assuming 1.25 people per car this means 30% of the people walk, bike or take transit to the GO station.

Would love to see more but we don't want to discourage at least some transit use even if it isn't the last mile. The average GO Transit user travels 30km each way by transit and you don't want to force them into the option to either travel 10km by bus and 60km by train each day vs 70 km by car. The last 10 km by car is the lesser of 2 evils.

If you want some stats on how people arrive at some key GO stations, look at the mobility hub data. It has been tabulated into sortable tables on wikpedia.

 

[TOareaFan]

It has been said officially by GO again and again that all GO users subsidize parking; the cost of it is built in. Charging for parking is one way to de-couple that cost.

I see this as a big opportunity, if it is done right; lower fares for those who live near and/or walk/bike/transit to a GO station, and keep them about the same for drivers, and see how behaviour changes. If it means people are still willing to drive and pay for the cost of parking infrastructure, let them! If it drives additional urban growth near GO stations, then shit, we're achieving some fricking policy goals!

I never said don't charge for parking....I just said that (IMO) the model I see most often (one where fares are reduced for all but parkers pay to park) would most likely not shift the balance between drive/park and transit to station in any meaningful way. Those that drive now will see it as cost neutral so why switch....those (like me) who don't drive and park normally will just say "my cost got lower....great"...but I don't think it will swing many people to change groups......if you started charging for parking and didn't reduce fares (ie increased the cost to the drive and park crowd) you might see a swing towards local transit (but that would require, IMO, quite a large daily parking fee) but keeping it cost neutral for the majority (ie drivers) and lowering the cost for the very small majority won't make much of a difference.

 

[TOareaFan]

If you want some stats on how people arrive at some key GO stations, look at the mobility hub data. It has been tabulated into sortable tables on wikpedia.

So there you have it....the station I use...one of the most transit served stations in the system...with multiple, frequent, bus routes feeding into it....with a parking supply that is sold out early in the day.....sees a grand total of 10% of its users arrive by transit.....not sure much would change that.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Local transit needs to be more frequent and serve longer hours for any of this to happen. Some routes in the 905 still stop at 7pm and some don't start till 7am.

 

[steveintoronto]

It has been said officially by GO again and again that all GO users subsidize parking; the cost of it is built in. Charging for parking is one way to de-couple that cost.

I see this as a big opportunity, if it is done right; lower fares for those who live near and/or walk/bike/transit to a GO station, and keep them about the same for drivers, and see how behaviour changes. If it means people are still willing to drive and pay for the cost of parking infrastructure, let them! If it drives additional urban growth near GO stations, then shit, we're achieving some fricking policy goals!

a grand total of 10% of its users arrive by transit.....not sure much would change that.

Which means that close to 90% drive and park. The opportunity for cost recovery is very fertile. Those that arrive without using that parking must be offered a carrot, and more fiscal resource ploughed back into local transit provision.

I fully realize that local transit looks poor in terms of scheduling, and will continue to deteriorate unless properly monetized. It becomes a case of the chicken and the egg. What comes first?

Thanks for that link for hubs, Don, even more valuable are the slew of PDFs linked at the bottom of the page.

Edit to Add: Just re-reading UT's David Brake piece on this:

[...]
At an open meeting at Ryerson's City Building Institute that we covered in September, Metrolinx’s director of regional planning, Antoine Belaieff acknowledged, “more and more we’re running out of land". More surface parking is therefore increasingly difficult to build. It also makes accessing stations by foot more difficult and impedes mixed use development close to stations. Building new parking garages like those serving Maple and Rutherford is not cheap. The projects are have not been tendered yet but historically such garages cost $35,000 to 40,000 per space, and they do not last forever. According to Metrolinx's own figures, the "useful life" of a parking lot is 20 years. They also cost "$150-200 per space per year to maintain not including preventative maintenance" (surface parking costs about $100 per year).
[...]

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/10/go-transits-parking-problem-are-garages-answer

 

[TOareaFan]

Local transit needs to be more frequent and serve longer hours for any of this to happen. Some routes in the 905 still stop at 7pm and some don't start till 7am.

Perhaps....but (and I have said this before so apologize if people are getting bored with it).....we need to look at existing stations where that is not the case and test if we really believe there is a transit solution to getting people to GO stations that will be palatable.

The one I use is a good example.....multiple bus routes feed into it....in peak hours the frequencies are very good...the routes run late...and in off peak they are still good frequencies....since the line only recently expanded beyond peak only, it is fairly safe to say the vast majority of the rail service happens when the local transit frequencies are very good......and, yet, even with a good co-fare, multiple, frequent, transit routes and limited parking.....transit's share of people arriving at the station tops out at 10%.

I suspect the amount of parking structures that GO is building (including buying land/buildings at that station above to solve the parking issue) indicates they have looked at this too and thought "if we want people on those off peak trains every 15 minutes that we promised....we better give them somewhere to park their cars....because they ain't switching in big numbers to local transit"

 

[steveintoronto]

I suspect the amount of parking structures that GO is building (including buying land/buildings at that station above to solve the parking issue) indicates they have looked at this too and thought "if we want people on those off peak trains every 15 minutes that we promised....we better give them somewhere to park their cars....because they ain't switching in big numbers to local transit"

Then drivers must pay the costs of doing so. Why should everyone else subsidize them, especially those that could drive, but decide it's just not worth the time or money to do it that way?

[...]...historically such garages cost $35,000 to 40,000 per space, and they do not last forever. According to Metrolinx's own figures, the "useful life" of a parking lot is 20 years. They also cost "$150-200 per space per year to maintain not including preventative maintenance" (surface parking costs about $100 per year).[...]

Just up at TorStar:

[...]
Major strides have been made in reducing pollution in the Greater Toronto Area, thanks in large part to changes in Ontario’s energy policies.

But Toronto Public Health says that levels of major pollutants in the air have become stagnant after years of decline, and air pollution is still a serious cause of illness in the city.

In 2004, the city determined that air pollution contributed to 1,700 premature deaths and 6,000 hospitalizations annually. By 2014, the number of pollution-related deaths had fallen by more than 23 per cent, to 1, 300 per year. And the number of hospitalizations had declined by 40 per cent, to 3,550.

But Monica Campbell, director of healthy public policy at Toronto Public Health, estimates that, since 2014, the number of pollution-related deaths and hospitalizations have remained roughly the same.

“We’re not seeing any improvements,” said Campbell. “Things have gotten better but we still have a ways to go. It’s concerning, and more needs to be done.”

Ontario shuttered the last of its coal-fired power plants in 2014, a development that Campbell called “a big positive contributor to cleaning up the air.”

Traffic emissions, the greatest local source of air pollution in Toronto, are the next domino that must fall, Campbell said.

Toronto’s three biggest polluting substances are nitrogen dioxide, ozone and “particulate matter,” a term for any number of solid or liquid chemicals in the air. All three are related to burning fossil fuels.

“These are the common air pollutants because they’re associated with heating our homes and driving our cars and running our industries,” said Kim Perrotta, executive director of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

“Where once upon a time we thought of air pollution as an industrial issue, now it’s becoming a very traffic-related issue.” [...]

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...on-still-causing-serious-health-problems.html

Metrolinx and QP had best take close notice, and adjust the carrot and stick on subsidizing car use accordingly.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Perhaps....but (and I have said this before so apologize if people are getting bored with it).....we need to look at existing stations where that is not the case and test if we really believe there is a transit solution to getting people to GO stations that will be palatable.

The one I use is a good example.....multiple bus routes feed into it....in peak hours the frequencies are very good...the routes run late...and in off peak they are still good frequencies....since the line only recently expanded beyond peak only, it is fairly safe to say the vast majority of the rail service happens when the local transit frequencies are very good......and, yet, even with a good co-fare, multiple, frequent, transit routes and limited parking.....transit's share of people arriving at the station tops out at 10%.

I suspect the amount of parking structures that GO is building (including buying land/buildings at that station above to solve the parking issue) indicates they have looked at this too and thought "if we want people on those off peak trains every 15 minutes that we promised....we better give them somewhere to park their cars....because they ain't switching in big numbers to local transit"

I agree 100 percent. I like RER, but I have always wonder what happens after the 15 minute service is implemented. This gives me insight.

 

[crs1026]

To be fair to GO, their recent station access document does attempt to identify stations where parking is desired and when it isn't. So they are not universally committed to huge amounts of parking in all cases.

Paid parking is the right way to go imho, but we have seen how 'user fees' er tolls fare in 905 transit politics.

- Paul

 

[TOareaFan]

I agree 100 percent. I like RER, but I have always wonder what happens after the 15 minute service is implemented. This gives me insight.

I actually think (and before I get attacked on this....I hope I am wrong) that service every 15 minutes is overkill and will be for quite some time......and if it is launched at that level and trains run anywhere near the level that would allow skeptics to describe them as "empty trains running in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night" (or negative words to that effect) it will lend ammunition to cost cutters.

I would have preferred that me move quicker on increasing the current GO type of service on all non-lakeshore corridors......keep service off peak on Lakeshore at every 30 minutes.....rapidly increase the other lines (all of them....no matter what it costs on the Milton line) to hourly off peak service augmented by hourly bus services from Union (ie. every line and every station on the line has an hourly train on the hour and if that gap is not worth waiting for for some, they can take a bus on the half hour).....get to that level first, build service usage and then look at whether we see the sort of growth in usage that can lead to 15 minute service down the road.

 

[steveintoronto]

Paid parking is the right way to go imho, but we have seen how 'user fees' er tolls fare in 905 transit politics.

It's a delicate political situation, and I can just see the front page of the Sun as I type, but Googling to find predominant public opinion on this (couldn't find any surveys or poll results) this showed, and it's interesting, as it answers the call from some of us to charge for that parking, but for those that do pay for a reserved spot, they often get shafted:

Student comes up with way to stop drivers from taking his reserved parking spot
Student pays $95 monthly to reserve parking spot at Mimico Go Station but people keep taking it
By Michelle Cheung, CBC News Posted: Dec 06, 2016 5:00 AM ET

John Wells decided to take matters into his own hands when it comes to people parking in his reserved parking space at the Mimico GO Transit station.

"I've had this spot since November 1st. It's been an ongoing issue with people continuously parking in my parking spot," said the 26 year old Ryerson student. "I've parked at this GO station 15 times (in November). Of those 15 times, 10 there was someone in my spot."

Late last week he put up a laminated sign by his parking space warning drivers their cars will be tagged and towed if they park in Wells's space. Since he put up the sign, no one has parked in his spot, Wells told CBC Toronto. Wells decided to pay for a reserved parking spot at a cost of $95 a month, because the fourth-year Global Management student said there were never any free parking spots left at the Mimico GO when he has to catch the train to school. But he didn't expect to have so many problems using it.

"I went to the resolutions department at Union Station and asked GO Transit the best course of action and they were like, 'The only thing you can really do is just call our parking enforcement,'" he said.

Running out of space
GO Transit has 74,000 parking spaces at its 64 stations across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area. About five per cent are reserved spots. The rest are free on a first-come, first-served basis.

"Many of our stations have reserved spots. In spite of the fact that it's a $95-a-month charge, we have lists of people that are waiting for spots," said Anne Marie Aikins, spokesperson for Metrolinx, which runs GO Transit. This year, GO Transit received 98 complaints about people parking illegally in a reserved spot, she said. Of those, GO's transit safety officers investigated the majority of them and ticketed about half the vehicles.

Aikins said GO officers issued $125 tickets for cars parked in Wells's spot on two separate occasions. "It's a provincial offence so it's not like a private parking lot ticket; you'll end up in court with it." The number of parking complaints at GO stations has been low but Aikins doesn't expect that to last.

"We are running out of space. They're very expensive to build and maintain and we run out of land and so forth. So, that is something we're looking at as a strategy as we build our service out."

Aikins said GO Transit now provides free reserved parking spots for those who carpool and is looking at ways to encourage commuters to walk, bike or take local transit to GO stations instead of driving and parking. GO also plans to hire another eight transit officers to its roster of 80 to monitor illegal parking at stations.

Wells isn't sure eight more officers patrolling parking at 64 GO stations will be enough. "The part I'm disappointed with is GO Transit oversight into the parking system itself." GO Transit has offered Wells another parking spot farther from the free parking spaces, but he won't be parking there until the new year.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/go-transit-parking-reserved-mimico-1.3881732

Reading that changes my stance considerably. The answer is relatively simple, and GO are already on the right track: Offer more reserved spots, they claim there's a waiting list and find some way to ensure that those who pay get what they pay for. This isn't rocket-science, use a pass controlled gate, perhaps even on a Presto Card (lol...that could be a mixed blessing/curse, but I digress) and have a secured section for reserved parking. As for the others who haven't paid? They take their chances on getting a spot. If they have some compelling reason as to why they should have a spot, perhaps that can be presented (e.g: no transit in their area, handicapped, etc).

It seems the answer is already available...it's the application that needs honing.

 

[crs1026]

I would have preferred that me move quicker on increasing the current GO type of service on all non-lakeshore corridors......keep service off peak on Lakeshore at every 30 minutes.....rapidly increase the other lines (all of them....no matter what it costs on the Milton line) to hourly off peak service augmented by hourly bus services from Union (ie. every line and every station on the line has an hourly train on the hour and if that gap is not worth waiting for for some, they can take a bus on the half hour).....get to that level first, build service usage and then look at whether we see the sort of growth in usage that can lead to 15 minute service down the road.

Hourly certainly gets the ball rolling. That level of precision is needed to organise - the 75-minute interim schedule proposed for Newmarket feels like less than regular service, and marketability may suffer.

Half-hourly is a quantum improvement from that. Hourly puts people on edge about missing a train, but I find that half hourly is as precise as it needs to be to let people just relax and head to the station when their activities permit, without getting worried about missing a train (Anyone who remembers the stampede from Jays games at certain minutes past the hour knows that hourly is mentally limiting.)

Considering that quarter hourly is exactly twice as expensive as half hourly....I agree, it might be overkill for present ridership volumes, outside of peak hours. It certainly makes sense at rush hour. Commuting has its own time pressures, and I find that minutes lost waiting for trains at rush hour have a premium in stress. Just missing the train home, and having to wait 29 minutes for the next one, feels like one has been cheated out of something.

A rush hour schedule with a rigid periodicity would be an improvement over the hodgepodge timings at present. Outside of rush hour, 30 minutes is mellow enough. GO should walk before it runs. I agree that frequent empty trains would be a PR killer.

- Paul

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I actually think (and before I get attacked on this....I hope I am wrong) that service every 15 minutes is overkill and will be for quite some time......and if it is launched at that level and trains run anywhere near the level that would allow skeptics to describe them as "empty trains running in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night" (or negative words to that effect) it will lend ammunition to cost cutters.

I would have preferred that me move quicker on increasing the current GO type of service on all non-lakeshore corridors......keep service off peak on Lakeshore at every 30 minutes.....rapidly increase the other lines (all of them....no matter what it costs on the Milton line) to hourly off peak service augmented by hourly bus services from Union (ie. every line and every station on the line has an hourly train on the hour and if that gap is not worth waiting for for some, they can take a bus on the half hour).....get to that level first, build service usage and then look at whether we see the sort of growth in usage that can lead to 15 minute service down the road.

Hourly certainly gets the ball rolling. That level of precision is needed to organise - the 75-minute interim schedule proposed for Newmarket feels like less than regular service, and marketability may suffer.

Half-hourly is a quantum improvement from that. Hourly puts people on edge about missing a train, but I find that half hourly is as precise as it needs to be to let people just relax and head to the station when their activities permit, without getting worried about missing a train (Anyone who remembers the stampede from Jays games at certain minutes past the hour knows that hourly is mentally limiting.)

Considering that quarter hourly is exactly twice as expensive as half hourly....I agree, it might be overkill for present ridership volumes, outside of peak hours. It certainly makes sense at rush hour. Commuting has its own time pressures, and I find that minutes lost waiting for trains at rush hour have a premium in stress. Just missing the train home, and having to wait 29 minutes for the next one, feels like one has been cheated out of something.

A rush hour schedule with a rigid periodicity would be an improvement over the hodgepodge timings at present. Outside of rush hour, 30 minutes is mellow enough. GO should walk before it runs. I agree that frequent empty trains would be a PR killer.

- Paul

My thing is I feel the costs are inflated and GO is dragging its feet. Look at Milton. This might cost two billion, but where does that come from? Richmond Hill, they're not even trying. Newmarket, why create another Hamilton situation? Sticking to the roll out plan is would help local transit greatly. I feel Milton being so busy can handle half hour train service.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

I never said don't charge for parking....I just said that (IMO) the model I see most often (one where fares are reduced for all but parkers pay to park) would most likely not shift the balance between drive/park and transit to station in any meaningful way. Those that drive now will see it as cost neutral so why switch....those (like me) who don't drive and park normally will just say "my cost got lower....great"...but I don't think it will swing many people to change groups......if you started charging for parking and didn't reduce fares (ie increased the cost to the drive and park crowd) you might see a swing towards local transit (but that would require, IMO, quite a large daily parking fee) but keeping it cost neutral for the majority (ie drivers) and lowering the cost for the very small majority won't make much of a difference.

So there you have it....the station I use...one of the most transit served stations in the system...with multiple, frequent, bus routes feeding into it....with a parking supply that is sold out early in the day.....sees a grand total of 10% of its users arrive by transit.....not sure much would change that.

Which means that close to 90% drive and park. The opportunity for cost recovery is very fertile. Those that arrive without using that parking must be offered a carrot, and more fiscal resource ploughed back into local transit provision.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for a mode shift in the existing customer base. I'm advocating for holding the line.

1. De-coupling fares from parking provides opportunity for cheaper transportation costs within walking and biking distance of a GO station, and along roads that have bus routes that conveniently serve a GO station.
2. A monetary benefit and increased demand is created for dwellings that meet criteria #1.
3. The market responds, seeking to redevelop lands that meet criteria #1 (or at least moreso than under current conditions).
4. More commuters move into dwellings that are developed on lands that meet criteria #1.
5. A majority of new users of a GO station become commuters living in places meeting criteria #1, while the number of car travellers to the station holds relatively steady.
6. ...
7. MODE SHIFT!!!

I also think none of this prevents GO from building parking garages, and selling the surface lots they replace to the highest bidder. This recoups costs AND contributes to the mode shift.

 

[micheal_can]

What it sounds like is the province (who own GO) is not investing in local transit enough. If they had, it would be better to take transit. We have heard for decades about LRT/streetcar plans for other places besides Toronto. If they had been built, more people would switch to the local routes.

Maybe it is also time for fare zones. Each zone is a transit agency. Then you know that that fare you pay to use GO is good for both the start and end points of your trip.