[mdrejhon]

My point is - Call me anal but I would like to see a properly indexed, searchable, and sustained archive of all the projects that GO initiates.

It's a challenging, so here's some Google-Fu suggestion:

<insert your favourite search terms> (site:metrolinx.com OR site:gotransit.com)

Example, to do a Google search for RER-related documents ending in "pdf" on three government sites simultaneously:

"Regional Express Rail" (extension:pdf AND (site:metrolinx.com OR site:gotransit.com OR site:eek:ntario.ca))

But I agree, this all needs to be more centrally indexed. But perhaps UrbanToronto could create a search front-end that does this more easily and quickly? The custom google search for government sites, can actually be a third party site that you or me can set up -- or UrbanToronto.

 

[crs1026]

Is that the train station? It certianly can be relocated several meters northwards; bigger brick buildings than that have been relocated.

Yes, that's the one, and it actually makes sense to do so rather than build out to the south.

One simply wonders where further new study is required, versus where someone has already looked at this and documented the issue.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

It's a challenging, so here's some Google-Fu suggestion:
Example, to do a Google search for RER-related documents ending in "pdf" on three government sites simultaneously:
But I agree, this all needs to be more centrally indexed. But perhaps UrbanToronto could create a search front-end that does this more easily and quickly?

Thank you. This improved on what Google was giving me.

It brought me directly to

http://metrolinxnlb.gotransit.com/e...pansion_Plans_and_Capital_Projects-P_Deck.pdf

Slide #4 alludes to a Georgetown North study, to be completed by 2013

I wonder what happened to that one? Or some of the other things supposedly being worked on?

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

I wonder what happened to that one? Or some of the other things supposedly being worked on?

They activated the Kitchener service, and they built the new GO stations (Kitchener, Acton, Guelph) but passed on Breslau GO. Not sure about track and signal upgrades, I think (compared to Georgetown South megaproject), just a token amount was done, only what was necessary to restart Kitchener service.

The rumors suggest all-day service returns returns in the September 2015 schedule change, at least that's what I've read. But not sure if it's better all-day 2-way, or just a good increase in trains, at least until further completion of the Georgetown South project.

 

[Adjei]

Seems riders are having a hard time finding the UP stations, maybe if they had less confusing signs they might be able to find them.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tra...-be-tough-to-find-survey-of-riders-finds.html

 

[mdrejhon]

3250 riders per day.

Certainly not much yet but:
-- That's about two freeway-lane-hours of people, highway lanes are ~1700-2200cph
-- It translates to roughly 50% farebox recovery today. Not too shabby for a rail startup.

I mathematically calculated, that they need about ~6500 riders per day to break even (plus maybe a little amortization). (2.35 million projection divided by 365). Not where we'd want it yet if we wanted this service to be a keeper. But not exactly shabby considering many train/transit routes aren't even remotely nearly that profitable upon launch.

I mathematically calculated (140 train trips per day, 115-173 people per train, 365 days a year) there are between 7 to 8 million available seats per year. At 3250 riders per day, that's barely above 1 million per year. Double that and we meet the 2.35 million they project by 2018, to meet operating costs. So that's where the 50% farebox recovery number comes from. And their quote of 2.35 million per year to breakeven, is extremely close to the "38% full" quote I mentioned that is needed for the trains to break even.

They already mentioned it is to displace more than 1 million car rides off the freeways per year, and this is true if these were people planning to get a rental or taxi. At current usage rates it seems to be meeting that projection, so I think Metrolinx is being accurate that it is meeting their internal goals -- they were actually expecting the train to be relatively quiet initially (even with the surge moments with the occasional standee train).

100% farebox recovery should be easily achievable within 3 years or even sooner, especially with wayfinding tweaks, increased familiarization, and maybe pricing tweaks. I'd even recommend a slight rebranding to include an airplane icon or the word "Airport" into all UPX signage. In Europe/Asia we don't need it, but in North America where we're not used to the existence of luxury airport expresses, we should have better self-explanatory brand in all wayfinding signage.

Regarding pricing tweaks -- prefer they eventually make it more public-transit-friendly with a much cheaper pass for airport employees (~$150) and just maybe a $19 cash / $15 Presto, might actually increase ridership that more than compensate for the loss of revenue. Or some kind of transit integration where participating agency fare is deducted (e.g. my $10 GOtrain fare becomes free with a UPX ride).

They could have launched it with higher traffic if they did everything even better (better wayfinding, include airplane branding, slightly lower fares to keep highest cash fare under the "$20" psychological barrier).

But that it meets traffic expectations despite those many near-empty train moments during quieter times of day, and already still gets 50% farebox recovery. Not bad.

Not disputing it should have been a subway, but if they can get that much farebox recovery already today, then the service is certainly here to say given the inevitable ridership increases.

 

[Mr_Praline]

Bumped into an interesting UP byproduct a week ago:

My wife and I took a cab from a work function down to Union to catch a GO train back to our home in the burbs about 1045 at night. Upon paying for the cab, a customer service volunteer tried to get the cab to take 2 new tourists arrivals for a quick fare to a downtown Entertainment District hotel. Just a couple of blocks, so not a great deal for the cabbie. The tourists were an older German couple who had just taken UP in from Pearson and really liked it. Cabbie refused the fare on the spot, closed the trunk he had opened in anticipation of the fare (before hearing where they wanted to go) and drove away quickly. They stood by bewildered for a bit, and the customer service girl was pretty shocked, so I volunteered to help them with walking directions to their hotel. Again, not too far, but slightly inconvenient for older transcontinental travellers with big bags.

Now, my guess is this wouldn't have happened pre-UP, because they probably would have taken a flat-rate cab from Pearson to downtown... but now, I'm wondering if there's going to be an issue of cabbies at Union refusing these shorter rides to downtown hotels, leaving the tourists with either an extra walking trip or an attempt to use our fair subway.

 

[ehlow]

A train like this is probably never going to be full all day, but it's important to keep it at 15 min all day frequencies even if the trains are not full so that you know there's an upper bound on your wait time when catching a flight and you don't need to look at schedules. There's a psychological comfort to knowing that it's every 15 min as well.

Looking at the 34 GO bus schedule from York Mills station to Pearson for example, it's only once an hour mid-day (many seem to skip Pearson), which to me is a big disadvantage. What if there's a subway delay getting there, you have to add a buffer zone because missing it means an hour penalty.

I agree with mdrejhon that $19 cash, $15 presto seems like the right price.

I'm pretty sold on this service and will likely take the subway down to Union, then the train the next time I fly from Pearson. I hate traffic, the uncertainty of being in traffic, and from my experience the highways are completely jammed during much of the day, so for me avoiding traffic is a big plus.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Bumped into an interesting UP byproduct a week ago:

My wife and I took a cab from a work function down to Union to catch a GO train back to our home in the burbs about 1045 at night. Upon paying for the cab, a customer service volunteer tried to get the cab to take 2 new tourists arrivals for a quick fare to a downtown Entertainment District hotel. Just a couple of blocks, so not a great deal for the cabbie. The tourists were an older German couple who had just taken UP in from Pearson and really liked it. Cabbie refused the fare on the spot, closed the trunk he had opened in anticipation of the fare (before hearing where they wanted to go) and drove away quickly. They stood by bewildered for a bit, and the customer service girl was pretty shocked, so I volunteered to help them with walking directions to their hotel. Again, not too far, but slightly inconvenient for older transcontinental travellers with big bags.

Should have noted the taxi company, the cab number and post it far and wide. Such rudeness should be punished in the worst possible ways.

AoD

 

[PL1]

Bumped into an interesting UP byproduct a week ago:

My wife and I took a cab from a work function down to Union to catch a GO train back to our home in the burbs about 1045 at night. Upon paying for the cab, a customer service volunteer tried to get the cab to take 2 new tourists arrivals for a quick fare to a downtown Entertainment District hotel. Just a couple of blocks, so not a great deal for the cabbie. The tourists were an older German couple who had just taken UP in from Pearson and really liked it. Cabbie refused the fare on the spot, closed the trunk he had opened in anticipation of the fare (before hearing where they wanted to go) and drove away quickly. They stood by bewildered for a bit, and the customer service girl was pretty shocked, so I volunteered to help them with walking directions to their hotel. Again, not too far, but slightly inconvenient for older transcontinental travellers with big bags.

Now, my guess is this wouldn't have happened pre-UP, because they probably would have taken a flat-rate cab from Pearson to downtown... but now, I'm wondering if there's going to be an issue of cabbies at Union refusing these shorter rides to downtown hotels, leaving the tourists with either an extra walking trip or an attempt to use our fair subway.

I'm surprised the cabbie refused a short trip. They start with a $5.50 (or whatever it is now) on the meter, and would get probably $10 for 5 min of work. Better than a long trip.

 

[Tuscani01]

And the cab cartel wonders why Uber is growing leaps and bounds...

 

[Napoleon]

I'm surprised the cabbie refused a short trip. They start with a $5.50 (or whatever it is now) on the meter, and would get probably $10 for $5 of work. Better than a long trip.

Exactly, they've raised the flag fare more than enough to compensate for even a short trip. It's also $1.75/km, not too hard to get close to a $10 fare.

And the cab cartel wonders why Uber is growing leaps and bounds...

Exactly, I've never had an Uber driver give me attitude about where I was going.

 

[crs1026]

The expectation has to be that cabbies accept the ups and the downs. Who knows, the couple making the short trip could have gotten out, and somebody needing a $100 ride to someplace could have grabbed the cab. By passing up the short fare, the cab lost out on the lucrative one.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

Should have noted the taxi company, the cab number and post it far and wide. Such rudeness should be punished in the worst possible ways.

Cameraphone time! Can't easily memorize all that information quickly enough before the cab drives away.

Taxi drivers do need to earn a living but they need to play by the rules.
They can't refuse rides like that.

If those rides are unprofitable (below minimum wage after costs and cab company's cut), then fix it. They can add baggage charges for short distances if it is necessary to recoup the lost revenue, as long as it's clearly advertised on the taxi and mentioned by the driver in advance ("SIGNAGE: Short trips under $10: Baggage Gratuity $5"). They may hate Uber, but then the market needs to adjust the revenue mechanisms that people who are willing to pay for a taxi, are guaranteed a ride by a taxi driver. People who dislike the baggage surcharge can take public transit or alternatives, but rich old tourists used to tipping won't mind paying the Baggage Gratuity Fee. It's not as captive as airlines charging baggage fees as there's many other ways to reach hotels downtown nowadays.

 

[Hank]

The expectation has to be that cabbies accept the ups and the downs. Who knows, the couple making the short trip could have gotten out, and somebody needing a $100 ride to someplace could have grabbed the cab. By passing up the short fare, the cab lost out on the lucrative one.

- Paul

The Toronto Taxicab Bill of Rights specifies that a cab driver may refuse to provide service if you do various things including not specifying your destination on entering the cab, being abusive, or asking to go to an unsafe place. Although it doesn't say it specifically, this certainly implies that the driver may not refuse to provide service as long as you don't do those things.

Actually, I just looked into the new taxi bylaw, and it specifically states that a driver is guilty of an offence if they refuse to serve someone for a reason other than one of the enumerated ones:

§ 545-147.5. Right to refuse service to certain passengers; indication of being on duty or off duty.

A. Except as provided in Subsection C, a driver who refuses to serve the first person requesting the service of his or her taxicab at any place within the City of Toronto at any time of day or night is guilty of an offence.
B. Notwithstanding any provision in this section, nothing herein permits any owner or driver to contravene the provisions of § 545-147.1A.
C. A driver may refuse to serve the first person requesting the service of his or her taxicab, provided that such owner or driver immediately records his or her reasons for such refusal on his or her taxicab operator log, if such person requiring the service:

(1) Owes such owner or driver for a previous fare or service;
(2) Upon being requested by such owner or driver, refuses to disclose his or her final destination before or immediately after entering the taxicab;
(3) Asks to be driven to a remote place in circumstances which such owner or driver reasonably believes to be unsafe;
(4) Is unduly obnoxious or abusive;
(5) Smokes in the taxicab; or
(6) Fails or refuses to make an advance payment when requested by the driver in accordance with § 545-150S.​

D. A driver may seek police assistance to have removed from his or her taxicab a person to whom he or she has a right to refuse service.
E. An owner who drives his or her taxicab, or a driver, is guilty of an offence who:

(1) Refuses to serve a person requesting the services of his or her taxicab;
(2) Pleads some previous engagement; and
(3) Does not give the name and address of the person to whom he or she is so engaged, together with the time and place of such engagement, to the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division when requested by them to do so.​