[denfromoakvillemilton]

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.

I think also placing the train stations in the middle of nowhere in most places also hurts transit. More stations need to be like Brampton or the new Oshawa station.

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.

There needs to be a 40% subsidy for all suburban GTA systems from the province in order to increase service.

 

[TOareaFan]

I think also placing the train stations in the middle of nowhere in most places also hurts transit.

Since GO lines are largely just re-purposed freight lines...it is not always in anyone's control and not at all surprising that some seem to be in industrial wasteland type areas.

More stations need to be like Brampton or the new Oshawa station.

So that we can get the transit mode share up to 10%

There needs to be a 40% subsidy for all suburban GTA systems from the province in order to increase service.

40%? of operating costs? where did that number come from.....and I think you might get a bit of push back from other agencies in other places that don't get that subsidy (eg Toronto?)....but, seriously, what level of service do you think is required to get people to start taking local suburban transit to GO stations?

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Since GO lines are largely just re-purposed freight lines...it is not always in anyone's control and not at all surprising that some seem to be in industrial wasteland type areas.

True, but they could make an effort to do more TOD

So that we can get the transit mode share up to 10%

Heh... yeah that too. But it serious making the stations walkable could help

40%? of operating costs? where did that number come from.....and I think you might get a bit of push back from other agencies in other places that don't get that subsidy (eg Toronto?)....but, seriously, what level of service do you think is required to get people to start taking local suburban transit to GO stations?

I chose 40% out of thin air. I think 40% is required in order to expand service. May be a bit much, but it would help expand bus service greatly. I think Toronto should be 50/50 city province.

 

[TOareaFan]

True, but they could make an effort to do more TOD

Most talked about example around where i live is Bramalea.....but who would want to live around that station....the lands are industrial.....and jobs (and the taxation of those jobs) are important to the community too.....I think there will always be a mix of station types.

Heh... yeah that too. But it serious making the stations walkable could help

10% arrive by transit and 83% arrive by car....the rest walk or cycle (although cycling is shown at zero in the table in the last page...the cycle parking area is pretty well used for about 7 months a year)......so, regardless of the type of station or location or the level of public transit service....the car is the way the vast majority of people choose to get to GO.

I chose 40% out of thin air. I think 40% is required in order to expand service. May be a bit much, but it would help expand bus service greatly. I think Toronto should be 50/50 city province.

Fair enough (not likely to happen but fair enough)....but in typical GTA suburb...what level of public transit service are you looking to get to that will get people shifting to that mode of arrival rather than the car?

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Most talked about example around where i live is Bramalea.....but who would want to live around that station....the lands are industrial.....and jobs (and the taxation of those jobs) are important to the community too.....I think there will always be a mix of station types.

I agree, but I think some of the other areas (Whitby for example), could do more for sure.

10% arrive by transit and 83% arrive by car....the rest walk or cycle (although cycling is shown at zero in the table in the last page...the cycle parking area is pretty well used for about 7 months a year)......so, regardless of the type of station or location or the level of public transit service....the car is the way the vast majority of people choose to get to GO.

I fully admit as much, But I think that transit number could easily be double with a little more cooperation and focus.

Fair enough (not likely to happen but fair enough)....but in typical GTA suburb...what level of public transit service are you looking to get to that will get people shifting to that mode of arrival rather than the car?

30 mins on most major routes and being able to run until 1am rather then 7pm.

 

[TOareaFan]

I agree, but I think some of the other areas (Whitby for example), could do more for sure.

I fully admit as much, But I think that transit number could easily be double with a little more cooperation and focus.




30 mins on most major routes and being able to run until 1am rather then 7pm.

So the example we are using (just because I fairly familiar with it) has multiple bus routes running to it from all four directions at frequencies far exceeding 30 minutes and run past midnight........and yet 10% is the number!

 

[steveintoronto]

I chose 40% out of thin air. I think 40% is required in order to expand service. May be a bit much, but it would help expand bus service greatly. I think Toronto should be 50/50 city province.

Your guesstimate is actually well aimed:

William Wolfe-Wylie
Published: January 14, 2013, 5:25 pm
Updated: 4 years ago
A A A

Transit rates are a sticking point of public policy across North America.

In most cities, public transit use is highly stratified across income brackets, meaning poorer populations tends to take public transit more often than people in higher income brackets. But most consumers think they’re getting gouged.

But government contributions to public transit programs are highly variable. Some cities are able to fund almost all of their public transit needs through taxpayer dollars, easing the burden on those who are forced to use the system. Other cities, though, including most Canadian cities, shift more than half the cost of running a public transit system on the people who use it the most.

Out of a sampling of 34 North American cities, commuters in the Toronto area pay the highest percentage of their transit operation costs at 82% for the Toronto Transit Commission and 71% for the broader regional GO Transit system.

This is call the farebox recovery ratio: The percentage of operating expenses that are recovered from riders purchasing fares.

Edmonton, Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa all have farebox recovery ratios over 50%. The average farebox recovery ratio in Canada is 58%, while in the United States it’s only 36%.

The most expensive systems on a per-ride basis are in the United States, though. With Long Island (part of the New York City transit system) and the Las Vegas monorail each costing about $5 to ride. The cheapest rides are also in the U.S., with Austin, Los Angeles and Detroit all under $2 per fare.

Check out our interactive map and find your city, including the transit system, a map of the system, average fare and its farebox recovery ratio.

http://o.canada.com/business/money/...re-paid-by-riders-in-34-north-american-cities

There's many studies and articles on-line, but the above one is the most succinct to make the point. Note the irony of how much US systems are subsidized, albeit the US Feds *up until now*!!! have been heavily involved. Trump has announced plans to radically alter that, a real bone-headed move (huge surprise there) because that subsidy, both operating and infrastructure, has saved far more than it cost in terms of alleviating road-building.

The 10 U.S. metro rail systems that lose the most money per passenger
[...]
The benefits of mass transit
Like roads, mass transit is not self-sustaining: it requires a combination of user fees and other government funding to pay for operations, maintenance, and expansion.

But according to THP’s Melissa S. Kearney, Brad Hershbein, and Greg Nantz, there is plenty of evidence that suggests government subsidies for transit might be justified: Development of transit stations has been linked to higher land values, higher office rents, and lower office vacancy rates. Mass transit also alleviates congestion for drivers. For example, a strike by Los Angeles transit workers that temporarily shut down service in 2003 resulted in a 47 percent increase in highway delays.

To learn more, read THP’s Racing Ahead or Falling Behind? Six Economic Facts About Transportation Infrastructure in the United States.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/broo...stems-that-lose-the-most-money-per-passenger/

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

So the example we are using (just because I fairly familiar with it) has multiple bus routes running to it from all four directions at frequencies far exceeding 30 minutes and run past midnight........and yet 10% is the number!

Wow, I guess I was off.

I guess the key is to get more people to use suburban transit.

Your guesstimate is actually well aimed:

http://o.canada.com/business/money/...re-paid-by-riders-in-34-north-american-cities

There's many studies and articles on-line, but the above one is the most succinct to make the point. Note the irony of how much US systems are subsidized, albeit the US Feds *up until now*!!! have been heavily involved. Trump has announced plans to radically alter that, a real bone-headed move (huge surprise there) because that subsidy, both operating and infrastructure, has saved far more than it cost in terms of alleviating road-building.


https://www.brookings.edu/blog/broo...stems-that-lose-the-most-money-per-passenger/

Canada seriously needs to catch up.

 

[TOareaFan]

Wow, I guess I was off.

I guess the key is to get more people to use suburban transit.

Canada seriously needs to catch up.

Continuing the Brampton example....more people are using the local transit (it's growth in ridership is quite impressive)......but not to GO trains. So the investment in the local transit system is generating impressive returns in ridership....but, even with significantly lower fares, not encouraging GO users to take the bus to the station.

It is all anecdotal (I know) but when I take the #7 BT bus in the morning it is packed (seats and standing full) when it arrives at Queen Street....about 75% of the people on the bus get off there.....all but a few of them cross the street to catch an EB bus (either 501 or 1)....a few of us cross in the other direction to catch a WB bus (towards the GO station).....depending on the size of Zum bus that arrives it is, I would guess about 50% full typically and stays that way until it gets to the GO/Bus terminal.......where everyone gets off and most people (and I mean nearly everyone) scurries off that bus and heads to the 502/2 SB station and walk alone over to the GO train...where there are hundreds of people waiting for the train....but they either parked or were dropped off by a car......people use the well invested and scheduled local transit...but not, typically, to GO trains.

This should serve as a warning/signal to us in planning how people get to GO stations.

 

[crs1026]

people use the well invested and scheduled local transit...but not, typically, to GO trains.

This should serve as a warning/signal to us in planning how people get to GO stations.

My theory on what makes the difference - The ideal state would be a GO connection that

a) picks you up or lets you off at or close to your driveway (quick and weatherproof)
b) warns you in real time that the bus is approaching
c) has a predictable time to reach the GO station (advance assurance of connection)
d) reliably makes the connection
e) is relatively comfortable and uncrowded
f) requires zero or minimal transfer en route

My theory would be that current transit knowingly or inadvertently violates these ideals, each of which causes stress or reluctance to use transit. Cost is not really a dealbreaker - owning an extra car is not cheap, after all. Commuting is stressful, for a variety of reasons, and driving to GO gives a sense of control and (subjectively, if not truthfully) removes some of these stresses.

The self-driving car vision and various existing apps address some of these pretty well, which is why we dream about them. (For instance, I find that having the Airline Limo app notify me when the call has been assigned to a car, and notify me again when the car is approaching, takes huge amounts of stress out of getting to the airport).

I wonder whether municipal transit, with their one-size-fits-all, big lumbering vehicle that you aren't confident will come until you actually see it mentality, are up to the challenge of customising their service to attract GO riders.... Things as simple as better pedestrian shelters and routings within backstreets, with info displays that tell both time to next bus and estimated time to GO station, might make the connection "feel" more secure.

If they just want to keep running the status quo transit grid,with status quo vehicles, on the main streets only, I don't expect that much can change.

- Paul

 

[TOareaFan]

My theory on what makes the difference - The ideal state would be a GO connection that

a) picks you up or lets you off at or close to your driveway (quick and weatherproof)
b) warns you in real time that the bus is approaching
c) has a predictable time to reach the GO station (advance assurance of connection)
d) reliably makes the connection
e) is relatively comfortable and uncrowded
f) requires zero or minimal transfer en route

My theory would be that current transit knowingly or inadvertently violates these ideals, each of which causes stress or reluctance to use transit. Cost is not really a dealbreaker - owning an extra car is not cheap, after all. Commuting is stressful, for a variety of reasons, and driving to GO gives a sense of control and (subjectively, if not truthfully) removes some of these stresses.

The self-driving car vision and various existing apps address some of these pretty well, which is why we dream about them. (For instance, I find that having the Airline Limo app notify me when the call has been assigned to a car, and notify me again when the car is approaching, takes huge amounts of stress out of getting to the airport).

I wonder whether municipal transit, with their one-size-fits-all, big lumbering vehicle that you aren't confident will come until you actually see it mentality, are up to the challenge of customising their service to attract GO riders.... Things as simple as better pedestrian shelters and routings within backstreets, with info displays that tell both time to next bus and estimated time to GO station, might make the connection "feel" more secure.

If they just want to keep running the status quo transit grid,with status quo vehicles, on the main streets only, I don't expect that much can change.

- Paul

View attachment 101743

Everyone riding transit in the morning is on some kind of schedule....either going to school or work or, in my case, going to the GO station....what makes GO riders so uniquely "stressed" about their schedule that they won't ride the bus to work but the student going to York, or the worker going to their job in mississauga or elsewhere does not feel? Why does the GO rider need this personalized transit solution (pick up at their driveway, guaranteed no delays, no transfers) but the other users of Brampton transit do not?

 

[Megaton327]

Everyone riding transit in the morning is on some kind of schedule....either going to school or work or, in my case, going to the GO station....what makes GO riders so uniquely "stressed" about their schedule that they won't ride the bus to work but the student going to York, or the worker going to their job in mississauga or elsewhere does not feel? Why does the GO rider need this personalized transit solution (pick up at their driveway, guaranteed no delays, no transfers) but the other users of Brampton transit do not?

Because they have the option of driving. This is a discussion about how to increase GO riders' use of transit. Other local transit users in the GTA outside Toronto generally use transit because they don't have a car. GO riders generally do have a car available. If we want to get people 1) out of cars and onto GO by any means including parking, and 2) get people to take transit to the GO station rather than park there, we need to make local transit more appealing and convenient to GO riders. If we don't want to do that, great, people will keep driving instead creating more pollution and congestion.

 

[TOareaFan]

Because they have the option of driving. This is a discussion about how to increase GO riders' use of transit. Other local transit users in the GTA outside Toronto generally use transit because they don't have a car. GO riders generally do have a car available. If we want to get people 1) out of cars and onto GO by any means including parking, and 2) get people to take transit to the GO station rather than park there, we need to make local transit more appealing and convenient to GO riders. If we don't want to do that, great, people will keep driving instead creating more pollution and congestion.

and my point is if running comfortable buses on ~7 minute frequencies and buying down the fare to less than a buck is not making it attractive....I understand why GO seems to be swinging over to just building parking garages.

 

[crs1026]

and my point is if running comfortable buses on ~7 minute frequencies and buying down the fare to less than a buck is not making it attractive....I understand why GO seems to be swinging over to just building parking garages.

Well, I'm making an unproven assumption that many of the subdivisions where those GO-parking drivers originate are bus-unfriendly and it's a walk out to the bus stop where that 7.5 minute service runs.

I take your point that the same dynamics may apply to transit takers to other destinations. In many of these neighbourhoods, transit trips to any destination are the minority and driving is the more prevalent mode of transport.... my theory would be, for the same reasons. If that ridership is greater than the GO ridership, then sure, route the backstreet-penetrating minibus to wherever garners the best ridership. Or maybe there is enough ridership to justify more than one mini-route. Either way, breaking into those backstreets may be mission critical both to deter GO parking and to build ridership for the core bus grid.

What does differentiate is, nobody is building a fairly expensive parking garage for the other crosstown riders. I do think that a GO-focussed dedicated feeder network might well be money better spent than more garages at GO stations, even if that creates a unique solution that stands apart from the general transit network.

EDIT - and a second differentiator may be, many GO headways are still back at 20-25 minutes even at rush hour. That compares to crosstown bus connections which are likely 15 minutes or less at rush hour. So yes, the GO rider is just a a bit more antsy about missing their train.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Well, I'm making an unproven assumption that many of the subdivisions where those GO-parking drivers originate are bus-unfriendly and it's a walk out to the bus stop where that 7.5 minute service runs.

I take your point that the same dynamics may apply to transit takers to other destinations.

A very good discussion and excellent reader comments here:

What American Commuter Rail Can Learn From Paris
By Alon Levy Feb 13, 2017

For years, transit advocates in New York and other U.S. cities with legacy rail systems have advocated for modernizing commuter rail to run more like a subway, often using Paris as an example. For good reason: Data suggests Parisian regional rail lines are well-used throughout the day, meaning the system helps people forgo driving for all types of trips, not just the trip to work.

Starting in the 1970s, Paris connected its suburban rail lines to form the RER network. Instead of ending in stubs in the central city, the RER runs as an express subway through the city proper. Using time-of-day trip data*, we can compare the RER to its American counterparts.

While the largest share of boardings in the Paris suburbs is in the morning peak, there is also substantial ridership in the afternoon and evening. In contrast, commuter rail in the U.S. is tilted much more heavily to peak hour ridership. [...continues at length...]

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/02/13/what-american-commuter-rail-can-learn-from-paris/

Edit to Add: Subsidiary to the points this article makes, Toronto/Queen's Park would be wise to consider the DRL as being part of the GO RER and run under Queen St and then north connected both ends to the extant and future (Crosstown) GO lines as run-through. London is now realizing the huge benefit of doing this in Crossrail, and has vowed, other than short extensions, to not build any more subways (tubes). They are now working on Crossrail 2 to go north-south to complement the present east-west Crossrail 1.

As to Minibuses, I always thought this far too exotic for the GTA, at least driverless ones, but perhaps it's time for Metrolinx to pioneer this, as they did with North York minibuses, http://transit.toronto.on.ca/regional/2112.shtml but brought up to date, even at a loss until it achieves critical inertia:

The French capital's transport authority will on Saturday carry out its first test of a driverless minibus, in the hope that regular routes for the hi-tech vehicles will be up and running within two years.

The electric-powered driverless EZ10 minibus, able to carry up to 12 passengers, has already been tested on closed circuits in Japan, Singapore and California and in a road test in Helsinki.

One of the self-driving shuttle buses, made by French hi-tech firm Easymile, will on Saturday run along a special circuit in Paris on a pedestrianised street near the River Seine.

The bus will travel at 25 kilometres (15 miles) an hour and for RATP, the transport authority for the Paris region, it is the start of a series of tests.

The second test, to be held in the French capital before the end of the year, will see the EZ10 running between two major transport hubs, the Lyon and Austerlitz train stations.

"The autonomous vehicle presents an opportunity for new services notably in less densely populated areas," RATP president Elisabeth Borne said in a statement.

The east-central French town of Lyon carried out its own test on a driverless minibus this month.

Explore further: 'World first' as driverless buses take passengers in France

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-09-driverless-minibus-paris-saturday.html#jCp