[TheTigerMaster]

I don't see the point of buying new DMUs when the line is going to be electrified in the next few years.

As for the 3% rise in GO ridership over the last year, that is nothing to be proud of and should be ringing alarm bells at Metrolinx. The GTA grew by 2% last year alone and when you consider the huge increase in off-peak/weekend service, they results are pretty bad. This backs up what I have been saying for years.............all the service and frequency improvements mean little if people can't afford to ride them in the first place.

Wynne's announcement of a TTC/GO subsidy of $1.50 per trip will help and now we will start to see real ridership increases but it's just a start. It will prove that there is massive latent demand for GO/RER services but it's the prices that are holding riders back. Funny how a small $18 million per year to increase ridership will do as much as billions in infrastructure that people can't afford to take.

I wish fixing GO's affordability problems were as easy as lowering fares. Unfortunately the affordability problem originates out of the GTA's sprawling build form and GO Transit's car dependancy, both which cannot be easily corrected.

More than 80% of GO Transit commuters arrive at GO Transit stations by car. 62% of GO Transit Commuters park their single-occupancy vehicles at GO stations over the day, while they take the train into Toronto. These commuters are not only paying GO Transit's exorbitant fares, they're also paying for the various car-related costs, such as gas, insurance, maintenance and parking. On top of that, the lack of fare integration in the region can add another $6+ onto the cost of round trips. As is, GO Transit is essentially a service for relatively wealthy Toronto-bound commuters to bypass highway congestion. The poor and lower middle class working in the outer suburbs cannot afford to use this service to commute into Toronto.

If we want to make GO Transit affordable, we need to make it possible for lower income riders to get to GO stations without a car. Intensification around GO Stations is an important policy goal, but it's also very slow to implement, and the government's track record of intensification around GO Station has been less than impressive. To supplement intensification, we must also bolster local transit options in the outer suburbs, such that lower income riders will be able to more effectively travel to GO Stations. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has placed a big emphasis on regional travel, without acknolowding that robust local transit enables a well-used regional transit network. Outside of the 416, the government has supported a handful of LRT and low-ridership BRT routes. These projects, while admirable, won't be sufficient to significantly reduce GO Transit's car dependancy. The most effective way to reduce GO's car dependancy, and to make the service more affordable, will be to simply invest in local transit operations. Provide funding to boost local bus frequencies to provide all-day 10-minute or better service, and perhaps paint some bus lanes on roads to allow for smoother bus passage. Toronto's suburban bus network has extraordinarily high ridership, and that's partly because the TTC has done an exceptional job ensuring there is frequent and reliable bus service throughout the suburbs (of course, the density of Toronto's inner suburbs help as well). The 905 would be smart to emulate what the TTC has done with bus service in Toronto's inner suburbs.

If we continue down our current path, much of our RER investments are going to be squandered. RER will just end up subsidizing more car-dependancy and more sprawling suburbs, while remaining inaccessible to lower-income riders. We mustn't be satisfied with this.

 

[Disparishun]

The most effective way to reduce GO's car dependancy, and to make the service more affordable, will be to simply invest in local transit operations. Provide funding to boost local bus frequencies to provide all-day 10-minute or better service, and perhaps paint some bus lanes on roads to allow for smoother bus passage. Toronto's suburban bus network has extraordinarily high ridership, and that's partly because the TTC has done an exceptional job ensuring there is frequent and reliable bus service throughout the suburbs (of course, the density of Toronto's inner suburbs help as well). The 905 would be smart to emulate what the TTC has done with bus service in Toronto's inner suburbs.

I mean, I want to agree, but having lived for many years in the 905 and commuted by TTC and GO for much of it -- we've since been able to afford the city core -- it's hard for me to believe that that's very do-able. The density just isn't there, and in a way that goes beyond the older inner suburbs. Tripling down on subsidies for mostly-empty buses seems like a recipe for eroding what support for public transit has been mounting. But, at least in my view:

• Transit-only lanes (buses, taxis, three-and-more cars) does seem like it helps. Hate to say it, but I really think UberPool has a ton of potential here -- or at least something similar with a trustable provider -- and would be curious to learn more about experiments with that. (Maybe in combination with short buses?)
  
  
• Ditto an off-road bicycle network, or simply converting underused sidewalks to asphalt bike-and-pedestrian ways with painted lines separating them -- because bicycling to most 905 GO stations on a major thoroughfare is taking your life in your hands.

Oh, and how about this for an off-the-wall idea. Instead of paying to expand GO parking, take that money and create for-pay parking -- and charge exactly what a round trip to Union costs, or maybe 25 cents more symbolically. At the same time: make the GO train itself free.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I mean, I want to agree, but having lived for many years in the 905 and commuted by TTC and GO for much of it -- we've since been able to afford the city core -- it's hard for me to believe that that's very do-able. The density just isn't there, and in a way that goes beyond the older inner suburbs. Tripling down on subsidies for mostly-empty buses seems like a recipe for eroding what support for public transit has been mounting.

What you say might be completely true. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Maybe the province could implement a pilot project where they pay to boost bus frequencies to every 10 minutes in one of the suburbs in the GTA. Try it out for a few years and see if it makes a material difference in transit ridership and transit culture in that particular area.

We're currently in a logjam. We can't increase transit service, because of low suburban densities and lack of a transit culture. But on the other hand, we don't increase suburban densities, because of a lack of transit service. It's going to take deliberate action to break out of that logjam.

Finally, I'll point out that not all of the outer suburbs are low density and sprawling. I'm frequently in Durham Region, and the density of the detached homes there (at least in large parts of the city) are quite similar to what we see in Scarbrough and Etobicoke. What separates Oshawa from the latter two is that Oshawa doesn't really have any high density apartment blocks. Similar can be said of Hamilton. So I believe there is significant room to increase transit ridership through providing better transit services (at least in those two regions).

 

[TOareaFan]

What you say might be completely true. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Maybe the province could implement a pilot project where they pay to boost bus frequencies to every 10 minutes in one of the suburbs in the GTA. Try it out for a few years and see if it makes a material difference in transit ridership and transit culture in that particular area.

Hasn’t Brampton already conducted that experiment for you.

On several of our routes you would have to cut rush hour service to get up to 10 minute frequencies (we do better than that already) and the result of investing in frequencies rather than huge technology or infrastructure is the fastest growing transit system in the country......at a growth rate exceeding the population growth rate.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Hasn’t Brampton already conducted that experiment for you.

On several of our routes you would have to cut rush hour service to get up to 10 minute frequencies (we do better than that already) and the result of investing in frequencies rather than huge technology or infrastructure is the fastest growing transit system in the country......at a growth rate exceeding the population growth rate.

I don't really follow Brampton news closely. But, yes, the results have been impressive. An 18% ridership increase in 2011. In the subsequent years:

Ridership vs service hours on route 23:

In this graph, we see that Brampton's fare recovery ratio has hardly changed since they boosted services. So while a greater taxpayer subsidy is required to operate the boosted service, it hasn't resulted in runaway costs.

Brampton is commonly derided as being the less dense, least walkable and most suburban outer city in the GTA, yet boosting transit services seems to have had a fantastic return there. It'll be interesting to see if Brampton's GO stations now have a higher percentage of commuters arriving at GO by transit than before (I haven't been able to find any data on this). I don't see why it wouldn't.

Investments in local transit operations seems to be having a much better (and quicker) return on investment than the investments in BRT. York Region's Highway 7 BRT will cost $350 Million, and York Regions YoY ridership increases remain anemic despite other BRT lines now operating. In comparison, Brampton is budgeting $32 Million for transit services in 2018, increasing to $41.5 Million by 202o. Queen's Park would be wise to pay for at least a portion of the incremental costs of running more frequent local transit services in the GTHA. It appears that just a $20 Million QP investment in Brampton Transit services would've netted the government a better return than $350 Million in York Region BRTs. Unfortunately, paying for transit services is not as sexy to taxpayers as paying for infrastructure, so we're unlikely to see a change in strategy, imo.

 

[TOareaFan]

^That 21.18MM number from 2015 is expected to be ~27MM in 2017.....so up another combined 27% in last 2 years.

https://www.inbrampton.com/brampton-transit-fare-set-to-increase-very-soon

 

[ssiguy2]

Curious...........what has happened to MiWay ridership since 2015? Seeing Miss is a very slow growing suburb it would be a safe bet that any increase in ridership between 2015 and now could be, at least in significant part, due to the Transitway.

 

[drum118]

Curious...........what has happened to MiWay ridership since 2015? Seeing Miss is a very slow growing suburb it would be a safe bet that any increase in ridership between 2015 and now could be, at least in significant part, due to the Transitway.

MT model split hasn't really change since 2000 and has been around 2-3% yearly on growth. You would be lucky to see 12% split for transit today.

Even the Transitway is not going to give MT a greater increase of riders, since some riders will move to it off other routes.

Quality of service will help to increase ridership, but MT is far from doing that 7 days a week. This applies to other systems as well.

 

[W. K. Lis]

With the tunnel between Dundas West and Bloor supposed to be done in two years and a lot of advertising I am actually seriously strating to question again whether UP can crry all the passengers. Every time I take it during rush hour it's standing room only and while RER will relieve it from what I'm seeing we may not have Kitchener Line RER for another 7 years.

Two (2) cars in the train, or three (3) cars in the train? I can see standing room only on a two car train.

 

[TransitBart]

Actually have been on a three car with the issue before, do we have enough cars to make all consists three car?

No.

 

[Megaton327]

At this point with electrification coming so soon I think it makes more sense to wait and get EMUs at that time.

I think fares desperately need to be increased. The initial $19 Presto fare to the airport was excessive but $9.25 is way too low, and there shouldn't be monthly pass-esque discounts a la GO. There should definitely be a sort of transfer or co-fare, but this should not be treated as a commuter service equal in cost to GO for heavy duty daily commuting use.

I think $15 Presto and $20 cash would have been a very fair value for Union-to-Pearson rides, with Bloor and Weston costing a prorated portion of that based on distance.

 

[micheal_can]

With the tunnel between Dundas West and Bloor supposed to be done in two years and a lot of advertising I am actually seriously strating to question again whether UP can crry all the passengers. Every time I take it during rush hour it's standing room only and while RER will relieve it from what I'm seeing we may not have Kitchener Line RER for another 7 years.

They run at a 15 minute frequency. If we could get more train sets, we could have more frequent service.

 

[TransitBart]

Ok. I’ll ask. I have been thinking of this for two years. Why is there a (relatively)big honkin’ station with two centre platforms at YYZ and one tiny, lonely platform which feels like it’s the penalty box at Union. Reason I ask this now is that since the previous post suggested more frequent service than every 15 minutes, there is a limit to how frequently you can run service from a single track.

 

[Megaton327]

To be honest the UP respresnts the new age of Toronto Transit and not capitalizing on the newly upgraded corridor by making trains longer seems like a bad decision IMO, as does raising the prices which will stifle a service with nicely growing ridership. With repspect to electrification don't we still expect it to take around a minimum of 4 or 5 years until thats done? The most recent Metrolinx board meeting seemed to suggest the RER DBFOM wasn't going to be done til late 2019.

Trains can't be made longer than 3 cars due to the small size of the station at Pearson. Site constraints prevented making that station any larger than it is, and it can only support 3 cars.

My understanding is that we actually do have enough cars to run it as a 3-car service, but that would require using most if not all cars for service at any given time; cars need to be held back as spares, and some are in service at any given time.

For the couple of trains that can't be run as 3 car currently, how long would it take to procure 2 or 3 more Sharyo DMUs at this point, or an entirely new fleet of 2-3 DEMUs? The Sharyos have had serious reliability issues so I doubt we'd want more of them. By the time you can procure more cars at this point it might be 1 year until electrification, if not after.

Stifling the service is exactly the point of raising prices. The trains are frequently at a crush load as it stands. This is Toronto's only rail link to the airport. Despite what Metrolinx says about giving priority to airport passengers, I have been on UPX a good dozen times since the fare drop and seen people with multiple large suitcases standing right up against other people, unable to get a seat or get to a place to stow their luggage, as local commuters were taking all of the seats. The problem is most noticeable during rush hour, which is absurd because GO trains run frequently during rush hour already, so there's no need to have people on the airport train. During midday it's not as bad but it is still often standing room only. Fares should be higher to reflect the purpose and uniqueness of the service.

Ok. I’ll ask. I have been thinking of this for two years. Why is there a (relatively)big honkin’ station with two centre platforms at YYZ and one tiny, lonely platform which feels like it’s the penalty box at Union. Reason I ask this now is that since the previous post suggested more frequent service than every 15 minutes, there is a limit to how frequently you can run service from a single track.

I have not heard of any plans to ever run service more frequently than every 15 minutes on the UPX or on any GO line for that matter. IMO 15 minutes is plenty frequent for an airport-to-downtown link. The only issue now is passenger loads on the trains preventing airport travellers from getting seats or stowing luggage, this can be resolved with a moderate fare increase to lower the number of local commuters, much more cost effective than running more service even if Union did have a dual-platform station.

Union is very space constrained and any platforms used by UPX, even with tiny 3-car single-level trains, are platforms that can't be used by GO or Via on the west side of the station. My understanding is that GO was even somewhat reluctant to run the Richmond Hill line on platform 3 with the UPX right there.

 

[Megaton327]

The point about the length of time to procure more trains is a good one.

Trains could definetly be longer though as they sit fro quite some time at Union/Pearson. Simply add another car and have it sit off the end of the platform and have passengers walk through the end door into the next car to exit. It's not sexy but it's practical.

I think theres also a point to be made that eventually we will need to expand UP's capacity. Perhaps the current configuration of every 15 minutes is sufficient but if Pearson grows as much is planned than UP probably needs to also gain significantly more capacity. Look at the size of Crossrail trains operating to Heathrow (which also has Tube connections).

Not a bad point about having people filter through the train, but in my experience the car closer to the entrance at Pearson is sometimes standing room only while there are seats in the farther car...and that's not even a matter of moving car to car, just walking farther within the station before entering the train. Also not sure if there might be some sort of crowd control/fire safety concern with that, but might be worthwhile. Still needs more cars.

As for Pearson's growth, that's definitely true, but with the transit hub plan for the airport keep in mind we will go from 1 higher-order transit connection to what, 3? 4? 5? There's the UPX, the Eglinton West LRT is quite likely to connect there regardless of anything else that happens, then there might be service from the Finch West LRT, and I believe under the transit hub plan the Kitchener Line GO RER trains may stop there (which may kind of render the UPX obsolete, not to mention take care of the train size issue), plus Via's proposed High-Speed Rail line from Toronto to London via Kitchener-Waterloo would have a Pearson stop, and provide a faster trip being high-speed rail.

I think in terms of rail service to pearson, the most logical thing is to raise fares to reduce crowding on UPX by local commuters to retain space for airport passengers, electrify it which will also increase service speed a bit, then Pearson's transit hub redevelopment with the LRT and heavy rail lines will take care of the rest. Keep in mind UPX opened June 2015, less than 3 years ago...awful quick to be lamenting its shortcomings when 3 years ago we didn't even have an airport train. In that timeframe, it's not so bad to have it running as-is for 6 years until electrification then by 2030 at the latest there should be multiple train lines servicing the airport.