GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[TOareaFan]

Okay, fair enough.

A text went out at around 3:20 saying the stop was in service and the entire scope of the disruption for the evening peak service is that passengers at Etobicoke North are being asked to "be careful" on the platforms.

 

[micheal_can]

Driving around the GTA, I am noticing a lot of the GO stations have massive parking lots. Has this caused local transit to suffer?

 

[Megaton327]

Driving around the GTA, I am noticing a lot of the GO stations have massive parking lots. Has this caused local transit to suffer?

The GO stations have massive parking lots because at most GTA stations the overwhelming majority of GO passengers park at the stations. If they didn't have any parking there would be very little GO ridership at all, and the network would likely be cut down to little if anything--people would just drive downtown instead; if they had small lots, then most people would drive and few would take trains--even now, here at Aurora GO, the trains have room on them heading southbound (they fill up quickly afterwards) but the parking is full by the third out of 5 southbound trains, so there are definitely people who don't bother with GO and just drive because they have nowhere to park. Several members of my own family vastly prefer taking GO downtown but simply can't because of the lack of parking and poor local transit.

I'm not sure how parking lots existing would cause local transit to suffer in general. Do you mean specifically regarding connections to GO stations? Even then, I don't see why having a big parking lot would make transit suffer--these stations usually have pretty large bus loops, often with a separate driveway to enter/exit vs the large parking lots. The two are not mutually exclusive. I suppose that the buses might operate faster if there weren't any traffic congestion from drivers accessing/leaving the station at the same time, but heading home in the evenings YRT buses (can't speak for other systems) usually arrive with or shortly after the train, sit idling in the loop or at the stops for quite a while after the train has departed, then leave for their destinations 10-15 minutes after the train has come and gone, so most of the cars are usually gone anyways.

 

[micheal_can]

The GO stations have massive parking lots because at most GTA stations the overwhelming majority of GO passengers park at the stations. If they didn't have any parking there would be very little GO ridership at all, and the network would likely be cut down to little if anything--people would just drive downtown instead; if they had small lots, then most people would drive and few would take trains--even now, here at Aurora GO, the trains have room on them heading southbound (they fill up quickly afterwards) but the parking is full by the third out of 5 southbound trains, so there are definitely people who don't bother with GO and just drive because they have nowhere to park. Several members of my own family vastly prefer taking GO downtown but simply can't because of the lack of parking and poor local transit.

I'm not sure how parking lots existing would cause local transit to suffer in general. Do you mean specifically regarding connections to GO stations? Even then, I don't see why having a big parking lot would make transit suffer--these stations usually have pretty large bus loops, often with a separate driveway to enter/exit vs the large parking lots. The two are not mutually exclusive. I suppose that the buses might operate faster if there weren't any traffic congestion from drivers accessing/leaving the station at the same time, but heading home in the evenings YRT buses (can't speak for other systems) usually arrive with or shortly after the train, sit idling in the loop or at the stops for quite a while after the train has departed, then leave for their destinations 10-15 minutes after the train has come and gone, so most of the cars are usually gone anyways.

That means the local transit is not properly integrated with GO. If local transit was convenient enough, then people would take local transit to the station, and then take the train into town.

 

[Megaton327]

That means the local transit is not properly integrated with GO. If local transit was convenient enough, then people would take local transit to the station, and then take the train into town.

I absolutely agree, I really wish my local YRT service was good enough that I could reliably and conveniently use it and never drive to GO again. However, it's nowhere near that point, leading me to park at the station when possible and drive downtown when there's no parking.

To clarify, I wasn't sure what that had to do with having large parking lots. It's definitely an issue but I don't think it's tied in to the lots in any way.

 

[crs1026]

Certain local transit operators have data that shows connecting ridership fell significantly when each parking garage opened. This is definitely an area where GO and municipal transit are not aligned.

- Paul

 

[ShonTron]

Certain local transit operators have data that shows connecting ridership fell significantly when each parking garage opened. This is definitely an area where GO and municipal transit are not aligned.

- Paul

Oakville Transit, whose route structure and schedules are designed to connect at three GO stations, has seen ridership drop in recent years. I would not be surprised if the new GO parking garages at Oakville and Clarkson is the reason.

 

[smallspy]

Oakville Transit, whose route structure and schedules are designed to connect at three GO stations, has seen ridership drop in recent years. I would not be surprised if the new GO parking garages at Oakville and Clarkson is the reason.

I've got a request in to some friends at Oakville Transit to see if they have data which explains the drop.

In the meantime, one thing to remember - GO is the one who subsidizes the co-fare arrangement with all of the suburban operators. They do this as they found it was cheaper than continually expanding their parking lots - which they have done anyways.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[muller877]

I've got a request in to some friends at Oakville Transit to see if they have data which explains the drop.

In the meantime, one thing to remember - GO is the one who subsidizes the co-fare arrangement with all of the suburban operators. They do this as they found it was cheaper than continually expanding their parking lots - which they have done anyways.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

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.

 

[steveintoronto]

Muller's post puts a context to the following, since Muller posts a very believable claim of increase of GO numbers, while ShonTron posts decrease of Oakville Transit figures. I tried Googling to confirm both claims, but it's elusive.

My concern is what occurs when building more highways: they just continue to fill. Ditto parking lots, and that might be borne out in Canada's case by the large resurgence of Canadians (at least up until very recently) of buying cars, contrary to the claims of wishing to be 'green'.

Where have all the transit riders gone?
Canada’s major transit authorities are reporting stagnating ridership numbers and they can’t quite figure out why. As Bill Curry reports, lower numbers means less revenue, which may saddle some systems with budget shortfalls
Bill Curry
Ottawa The Globe and Mail Last updated: Friday, May 27, 2016 9:32AM EDT

Cities across Canada are reporting stagnation and even declines in public transit ridership and officials candidly admit they aren’t exactly sure what’s going on.

Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Saskatoon, Calgary and Vancouver are among the cities to report a levelling-off of ridership. The Toronto Transit Commission – which, like many other transit systems, had been on a steady ridership climb for years – recently reported that 2015 numbers fell short of expectations and 2016 may show a year-over-year decline.

The commission is warning of a potential $30-million budget shortfall.

The challenging ridership numbers come at an unprecedented moment for public transit in Canada. Cities are trying to cover the operating costs of existing transit systems at the same time as they rush to prepare ambitious expansion plans to capture the billions now on offer from federal and provincial infrastructure programs.

The federal government has said it will take a hands-off approach to doling out its infrastructure cash, transferring it to cities based on ridership and largely leaving it up to cities and provinces to decide on priority projects.

While the federal government is now willing to cover up to 50 per cent of the cost to build new transit lines and extensions, it will ultimately be up to municipalities to produce reasonable ridership forecasts or risk having to cover the operating shortfall for years to come.

“The overall trend we’re seeing in Canada and in the U.S. is ridership is stagnating or [showing] modest growth. That’s the trend,” said Patrick Leclerc, president and CEO of the Canadian Urban Transit Association, which is made up of transit operators from across the country. The association recently held its annual general meeting in Halifax, where ridership issues were discussed.

“The growth is not as strong as it was about five or six years ago. The last decade was major growth. Now it’s slowing down. We are doing the analysis to understand what is happening in each region,” he said.

Limited data on the reasons for the shift mean transit officials are left to speculate as to potential causes. The TTC’s analysis concluded that the slowing economy and employment were the main factors, as well as a recent fare increase.

Other potential factors raised by Canadian municipalities include lower gas prices, the rise of Uber and other ride-sharing services, more people walking and cycling to work and the possibility that more riders aren’t paying as streetcars and buses allow passengers to board rear doors with the expectation that they will tap their transit cards.[...continues with more reference and qualified opinion...]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ficials-across-canadastumped/article30178600/

And yet, ostensibly, ridership is up on GO, something I can fully believe.

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

And ShonTron's page on it:
https://seanmarshall.ca/2015/11/12/go-transit-and-the-high-cost-of-free-parking/

 

[TOareaFan]

^it would not shock me at all to find there is some relationship between time of day and likelihood of someone riding transit to the station.

For one, the occasional user that needs/wants to get downtown from some suburb on a one off (or less regular basis) is less likely to be a regular transit commuter....so as you expand mid-day/off peak transit service the percentage of people inclined to use local transit declines and the percentage of people who expect that you can just drive and park increases. If people aiming at that 11:30 a.m. train to Toronto to have lunch with someone know there is no parking they will find GO less attractive...so you need to build parking to support the off peak service.

Also, even in suburbs where local transit frequencies are "pretty good" during the morning and evening rush, they decline in off peak times. Personal example, when I use GO for my commute I take Brampton #7 bus to Queen then either the 501 or 1 bus to the GO.....both legs of the journey have good frequencies (#7 is about 7 minutes in peak....combo of the two queen routes brings it down to around 5 minutes there, I think).....but if I was someone aiming at one of those mid day trains......the frequency of the 7 increases to 15 minutes ....I think Queen routes get close to 10 and, of course, the trains are only hourly (as opposed to being much more frequent in the morning peak).....so when you count back from the train departure time and build in buffers to make sure you don't miss it......the total "time from door to door" gets quite large and you end up saying...."geez, I can drive to the GO in 10 minutes and be downtown 45 minutes later....why turn that into a >1.5 hour trip by transit"......so, again, even the transit inclined would be much more likely to drive and park.

So, ironcially (and perhaps counter intuitively) off peak GO service needs parking expansion to support it......still, I would argue, better than having those folks in any suburb drive the whole way downtown.

 

[ShonTron]

^it would not shock me at all to find there is some relationship between time of day and likelihood of someone riding transit to the station.

For one, the occasional user that needs/wants to get downtown from some suburb on a one off (or less regular basis) is less likely to be a regular transit commuter....so as you expand mid-day/off peak transit service the percentage of people inclined to use local transit declines and the percentage of people who expect that you can just drive and park increases. If people aiming at that 11:30 a.m. train to Toronto to have lunch with someone know there is no parking they will find GO less attractive...so you need to build parking to support the off peak service.

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.

 

[TOareaFan]

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.

 

[steveintoronto]

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.

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.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Oakville Transit, whose route structure and schedules are designed to connect at three GO stations, has seen ridership drop in recent years. I would not be surprised if the new GO parking garages at Oakville and Clarkson is the reason.

Arterials like Trafalgar and Cornwall are still very drivable in terms of traffic, even in rush hour. New garages + not great Oakville Transit schedule are the reasons I always drive to the Oakville GO station, simply because it is vastly easier and faster.