GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[MisterF]

It doesn't matter how frequent the trains are if people can't access the stations in the first place. Yes, we need TOD, fare integration and improved feeder bus service, but it's insufferable how this guy keeps banging on about parking garages being the greatest evil, blissfully unaware of the situation on the ground. And yes, we do need to shift away from the park and ride model, but opposing parking garages doesn't help either. At least those people aren't driving all the way downtown.

The problem isn't that the parking garages exist, it's the fact that they're free. Drivers are being subsidized by everyone else, which encourages driving and discourages transit. Free parking can't continue forever, especially once RER is up and running.

 

[Neutrino]

Transit is also subsidized.

 

[ssiguy2]

The problem isn't that the parking garages exist, it's the fact that they're free. Drivers are being subsidized by everyone else, which encourages driving and discourages transit. Free parking can't continue forever, especially once RER is up and running.

I had no idea the parking was free. That`s absurd! People taking transit to the station end up having to pay twice, once for regular fare and another for GO but if you drive you can skip the first fare. I just assumed that when they were building these monster garages they expected to eventually get the money back thru parking fees. If they were going to spend that money they should have done it for thousands of stops throughout the GTA for bus/streetcar/train station to keep the transit users dry and warm and not on mega garages to keep cars bird shit free.

 

[smallspy]

Is this type of circuit timing to accommodate freight movements (which wouldn't be stopping) then the second activation being manual by the GO crew?

That's correct. The crew punches in a code into the radio, which then activates the lights and gates. They are supposed to crawl up to the crossing but not actually proceed until the gates are fully down.

For the record, there are a number of locations on both the Stouffville and Barrie Lines where this process is required. This is because of the proximity of the station platform to the street.

In other locations where the platform is a little bit further from the platform, the signal systems are designed to deal with that. If it detects that a train has stopped in the crossing circuit (but not on the crossing itself), it will time out and turn off the lights and raise the gates. Only when it detects movement again will the lights come on and gates lower. This is why westbound trains at Port Credit have to leave the station slowly - they are waiting for the crossing circuit to detect their train, and for the gates to lower completely before accelerating.

If this was the case in the recent incident, then it would seem that pedestrians/cyclists are being hit by a very slow moving train since it has just started to move.

If the train was heading northbound, perhaps. But considering that photos of the accident show the train stopped fully south of Steeles, it looks to me that the train was proceeding southbound but braking for the Milliken, and therefore the gates would have been operating in their normal mode.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Transit is also subsidized.

Yes, but don't just think of transit is subsidized per se - think of how much it will cost to create a road/highway infrastructure that will allow the movement of the same number of users in its' absence. That's the real cost saving of transit.

AoD

 

[Streety McCarface]

Transit is also subsidized.

True, but GO and the TTC get something like a 15% and 30% subsidy respectively. Compare this to drivers who, although pay gas tax, have their infrastructure built with other funds, notably property taxes.

 

[Neutrino]

Yes, but don't just think of transit is subsidized per se - think of how much it will cost to create a road/highway infrastructure that will allow the movement of the same number of users in its' absence. That's the real cost saving of transit.

AoD

Yes, I would much rather a bus, tram, subway and regional train move people than a highway. But that's not what I was arguing in my original comment.

 

[KevinT]

Well, sidewalks don’t have crossing arms.

Lol, they do in Kitchener-Waterloo at all of the ION crossings. They used the same car-sized signals and gate mechanisms too, its ridiculous but was probably cheaper than getting special smaller ones for the sidewalks.

 

[ShonTron]

That's correct. The crew punches in a code into the radio, which then activates the lights and gates. They are supposed to crawl up to the crossing but not actually proceed until the gates are fully down.

For the record, there are a number of locations on both the Stouffville and Barrie Lines where this process is required. This is because of the proximity of the station platform to the street.

In other locations where the platform is a little bit further from the platform, the signal systems are designed to deal with that. If it detects that a train has stopped in the crossing circuit (but not on the crossing itself), it will time out and turn off the lights and raise the gates. Only when it detects movement again will the lights come on and gates lower. This is why westbound trains at Port Credit have to leave the station slowly - they are waiting for the crossing circuit to detect their train, and for the gates to lower completely before accelerating.



If the train was heading northbound, perhaps. But considering that photos of the accident show the train stopped fully south of Steeles, it looks to me that the train was proceeding southbound but braking for the Milliken, and therefore the gates would have been operating in their normal mode.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

I remember GO crews at Brampton Station on westbound trains having to unlock a panel on the platform and press a button before closing the doors and proceeding to re-activate the crossing signals and gates at Mill Street.

Acton Station as well is very close to the Highway 7 crossing.

 

[TOareaFan]

Compare this to drivers who, although pay gas tax, have their infrastructure built with other funds, notably property taxes.

Drivers pay more than gas tax (annual vehicle registration fees, tire taxes, etc) but you do realize there would be no property taxes without roads? Who would move to NoRoadsVille, Ontario? So while you argue that drivers are subsidized by being able to drive on roads that were paid for with property taxes, an argument could be made that it is the roads that facilitate the collection of the property taxes in the first place.

the whole "who subsidizes who and what" part of the GO parking discussion is silly and boring. I am sure the decision makers at GO are building parking because they realize that adding more service without more parking is just throwing operational money away.....it may not always be that way, but it is that way just now.

 

[hw621]

^HST when purchasing cars too

 

[smallspy]

I remember GO crews at Brampton Station on westbound trains having to unlock a panel on the platform and press a button before closing the doors and proceeding to re-activate the crossing signals and gates at Mill Street.

Acton Station as well is very close to the Highway 7 crossing.

And that same system used to exist on the Stouffville and Barrie Lines. They then upgraded to the "DTMF" system, which is the one in use now.

I'm not sure what is done at Brampton, but now that I think it the crew needs to radio in before continuing at Acton.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Drivers pay more than gas tax (annual vehicle registration fees, tire taxes, etc) but you do realize there would be no property taxes without roads? Who would move to NoRoadsVille, Ontario? So while you argue that drivers are subsidized by being able to drive on roads that were paid for with property taxes, an argument could be made that it is the roads that facilitate the collection of the property taxes in the first place.

the whole "who subsidizes who and what" part of the GO parking discussion is silly and boring. I am sure the decision makers at GO are building parking because they realize that adding more service without more parking is just throwing operational money away.....it may not always be that way, but it is that way just now.

Vehicle registration fees don't actually go to roads, rather, to registration enforcement. Transit users also pay property taxes. While everyone might use those roads, not everyone will use those giant parking lots at GO Stations, or those freeways. Pretty much everyone will use most roads, but the point is that property and provincial taxes pay for other vehicle dominated forms of infrastructure that transit users may never use.

There's no argument that the current GO network, with the way its set up, can work without parking. The point is that drivers should pay some amount towards that parking, just like they do everywhere else. I don't care if it's 1 dollar or 5 dollars a day, but something has to be done. If Metrolinx owns 75,000 parking spaces currently and wants to increase that to something like 100,000, at 15,000$ in capital costs per spot (surface), and running up to 40,000$ for structure spots, we'll assume that the average capital cost per spot is 20,000$. Capital costs for all the parking infrastructure in the GO network are around 1.5B, and all new spots (most being in structures, so we'll increase it to 25,000$) will cost around 625M$. Maintenance costs for for these spaces average around 300$ per space per year, so it costs around 30M annually just to operate these parking spots. Since GO transit operates on about a 200M subsidy for transit operations only (train and bus), then parking accounts for 15% of all GO Transit subsidies, and they are subsidies because there is no revenue that comes from parking. If you want to not disenfranchise drivers, reduce all fares by 6-7%, and charge 1$ for parking per day.

 

[TOareaFan]

Vehicle registration fees don't actually go to roads, rather, to registration enforcement.

Only because someone decided it to be so....that is precisely the point....we all pay various fees/levies/taxes to our government and from those revenues they provide certain services. The whole "this is subsidized" conversation is a sham and waste of time.

Since GO transit operates on about a 200M subsidy for transit operations only (train and bus), then parking accounts for 15% of all GO Transit subsidies, and they are subsidies because there is no revenue that comes from parking.

Okay.......perhaps no direct revenue comes from parking (not really true as GO already charges for reserved spots and those are revenues that increase annually).....but what is clear is that with lots full from the daily commuters GO is concerned that adding all those off peak trains is an operational drain if there is nowhere for potential riders to park.....so, indirectly, most of the off peak revenue is being driven by the availability of parking).

If you want to not disenfranchise drivers, reduce all fares by 6-7%, and charge 1$ for parking per day.

I could care less about disenfranchising drivers.....but if the premise is that you are going to reduce all fares....and not all riders will pay that $1/day parking fee.....you are going to need a bigger subsidy. The people at GO are not idiots....I am sure they have (and continue to) look at parking and the cost/revenue associated with it....and in their view, at the present time, free parking is the best way to go.....may not always be that way...but it is now.

 

[steveintoronto]

Have we heard anything regarding the Mother of All DBFOMS? When is the treasury meeting that was mentioned in the Davenport thread?

The term 'MoADBFOM' I first read from @crs1026 and it stuck with me. Whether it's for a certain project or the entire operation, I don't know, but do know that it's damn quiet and some massive announcement on GO is in the air.

In a better world, I'd like to see Metrolinx continue as a government agency, in terms of the actual operations, infrastructure, etc. But I just can't see that happening, *especially not* with the present thugs in power. I'm actually very much for P3 and perhaps even total privatization of portions of the network, if it's the only way of getting it built (phhh...where to start on that one?), but what really scares me is not more investor driven expansion, but *how* it happens.

The present crowd in QP are hardly the brightest lights when it comes to...errr...pretty much anything. Other nations have done very well with steeper P3 and totally private investment in infrastructure and services. But they have effective and accountable governments and a sense of social inclusion.

We lose on all three of those...

'MoADBFOM' is coming, brace yourself...I just hope it's pension plans behind much of it. They have models and experience to show from other jurisdictions, and if it's Ontario pension plans, at least the profit will be put back in local pockets.

They average plebe is at the point of asking: "What's better, a private consortium making money off of my transit needs, or no transit to serve my needs at all?"