GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[smallspy]

The real problem is that this pilot project is a half-baked idea. Even people who live within walking distance of Danforth GO aren't switching, because the time savings isn't enough to justify another $60 a month and having to adhere to the irregular GO schedule. If Metrolinx is serious, they need to include all Scarborough stops and offer more frequent, consistent service.

A friend of mine is an engineer currently allocated to the Lincolnville line, and he's been averaging 30 ons and offs each way on his train. Now, granted that is simply one pair of trains, but that is far higher than I had anticipated.

If the other trains are seeing similar numbers, that bodes well for the future of the pilot project, and its potential expansion elsewhere.

Co-fare agreements would be much easier to implement with Presto, which is why I suspect GO and the TTC are waiting. Implementing a new co-fare system without full Presto adoption on the TTC would make things extremely confusing for the average user. The current pilot project is just a stop-gap measure using existing payment infrastructure, because it wouldn't be worth launching an expansive new co-fare system when that system is likely to be replaced by Presto within a couple of years.

At the very least, I think we'll see a co-fare agreement once Presto is fully adopted, although ideally I'd like to see a completely integrated fare system across the GTHA, not just co-fare agreements between agencies.

There is and was absolutely no issue with offering a co-fare arrangement prior to Presto being introduced. It'd been in place for many years.

The issue has more to do with the way that the agreements operate (GO subsidizes the difference between the "regular" fare and the co-fare on each agency), and that GO simply didn't want to run such an arrangement with the TTC. It was felt that the jump in ridership would overwhelm GO, and with very little benefit.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[nfitz]

A friend of mine is an engineer currently allocated to the Lincolnville line, and he's been averaging 30 ons and offs each way on his train. Now, granted that is simply one pair of trains, but that is far higher than I had anticipated.

If the other trains are seeing similar numbers, that bodes well for the future of the pilot project, and its potential expansion elsewhere.

It does indeed.

Is that 30 on and 30 off, or 30 total?

Either way, it's pretty significant. The most recent station data I've been able to find, only reports about 50 boardings a day at Kennedy and 140 at Linconville. So with 6 trains a day from Lincolnville and 7 from Kennedy those stations only average 23 and 9 boardings a trip.

If ridership at Danforth similar to Lincolnville, there's certainly more bang for your buck simply stopping the train there than running the extra distance to Lincolnville. I'd be curious how many are boarding at Danforth in PM to head north. It's now a convenient spot to change trains for those coming from the Oshawa direction, who want to head north.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Lincolnville from personal experience has about 50 people use a single train, the 4:48 and 5:20 Union station departures are usually the busiest, with the other 4 trains being almost empty, something between 5 and 10 people getting off.

Kennedy actually does not add loads to the train, in the morning more people get off at Kennedy than get on, and More people get on in the evening at Kennedy than get off.

 

[nfitz]

Kennedy actually does not add loads to the train, in the morning more people get off at Kennedy than get on, and More people get on in the evening at Kennedy than get off.

I wouldn't be surprised if GOs numbers are only AM peak boardings, completely missing those travelling south to Kennedy.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Of course, Main subway station has approximately 25,000 daily boardings/alightings so all of these GO numbers are basically a rounding error relative to the TTC no matter how you slice it.

I don't think GO's standard incremental approach will be particularly effective in Toronto - they need a "big bang" to both provide an incentive to get riders to switch over, and have enough capacity to handle them when that does happen. As has been mentioned already, current trains are already quite full even though overall capacity is low relative to the TTC.

It is a little bizarre that GO garners so much attention (and capital funding, and photo ops) considering how low the ridership is relative to the TTC.

 

[Jonny5]

It is a little bizarre that GO garners so much attention (and capital funding, and photo ops) considering how low the ridership is relative to the TTC.

Because it provides much needed capacity at the exact times of day it's needed the most. The net value add per rider is extremely high.

 

[gweed123]

It is a little bizarre that GO garners so much attention (and capital funding, and photo ops) considering how low the ridership is relative to the TTC.

I think it's partially because the return on investment on GO infrastructure is so high. The potential is enormous. When you look at systems like the S-Bahn or the RER, and the effect that they have on their respective metro areas, it's pretty easy to see how a decent investment into building that kind of system could generate enormous returns. The $ spent per potential rider served is one of the best ratios for any transit project in the GTHA, certainly way more than projects like the Eglinton Crosstown or the Sheppard East LRT, which will carry relatively few riders for their price tag.

 

[aquateam]

It is a little bizarre that GO garners so much attention (and capital funding, and photo ops) considering how low the ridership is relative to the TTC.

Given that the political attractiveness of a public transit project is proportional to how many ridings it goes through, not its ridership or utility, I think it makes complete sense that the GO network gets so much attention. GO will reach Barrie, the DRL will not.

 

[mdrejhon]

I don't think GO's standard incremental approach will be particularly effective in Toronto - they need a "big bang" to both provide an incentive to get riders to switch over, and have enough capacity to handle them when that does happen. As has been mentioned already, current trains are already quite full even though overall capacity is low relative to the TTC.

During peak hour, yes. Offpeak Lakeshore trains are usually only approximately a third-full, sometimes less, sometimes more, depending on events.

The Lakeshore line has had the most immense service improvements over the last couple decades, currently at a more transit-friendly all-week all-day bidirectional 30-minute service. The upgrade to 30-minute allday was a mini-bang that provided an immediate 30% increase in ridership. The peak hour trains get extremely crowded. One stat I read, is Lakeshore GOtrains now captures about ~26% of lakeshore commuters to downtown (who would otherwise take the 403/QEW or TTC to get downtown), which is rather good and actually big enough to affect freeway planning (including potential viaduct demolition). To reproduce this statistic on other GO lines will be far more difficult because the other lines have much more infrequent "commuter-style" schedules rather than bidirectional all-day subwayish-style "forget the timetable" service that Lakeshore GO lines now have.

For the other GO routes (other than Lakeshore), there is amazingly few traintrips per route per day, compared to TTC. No wonder the trains are extremely overflowing at crisis levels. To permit all-day service, corridors need to be purchased (80% done!) and double/triple/quadruple tracked (ongoing projects, e.g. Georgetown corridor) with many overpasses/underpasses built in places of level crossings. Then service can be really dramatically increased, with the surge of riders.

The first GO RER lines (including the one called "SmartTrack") will be one of those "big bang" moments, with 15-minute all-day bidirectional service, and by 2030s, may be moving more Torontoians than all the TTC subways / dedicated rapid transit lines. The electricification and the true blending between commuter/interregional and urban/rapid transit (turning the whole GO network into a frequent "surface subway" network by the 2030s), bringing even one frequent electricified route online is literally a big bang itself.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Because it provides much needed capacity at the exact times of day it's needed the most. The net value add per rider is extremely high.

Are there any stats that compare capital funding costs on a per rider basis? I know that GO riders get a larger dollar subsidy per ride than TTC riders, but capital costs are a whole other issue and I haven't seen a lot of data on it. My perception is that GO receives a disproportionate amount of capital funding, but I have no facts to back that up.

From what I've read on Steve Munro's site, GO's fare structure subsidizes the longest trips which are also the most expensive to serve, from both a capital and operating perspective.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

The first GO RER lines (including the one called "SmartTrack") will be one of those "big bang" moments, with 15-minute all-day bidirectional service, and by 2030s, may be moving more Torontoians than all the TTC subways / dedicated rapid transit lines. The electricification and the true blending between commuter/interregional and urban/rapid transit (turning the whole GO network into a frequent "surface subway" network by the 2030s), bringing even one frequent electricified route online is literally a big bang itself.

Yes indeed, and that's why I question the intent behind the pilot project - the results are not going to be indicative as to whether SmartTrack/RER will be successful, so why are they bothering at all? To me it comes off like somebody is trying to pour water on the whole idea by dreaming up a pilot project that is likely to result in no material change in ridership patterns.

 

[innsertnamehere]

on a per ride basis GO tends to be subsidized a bit more than the TTC, though a single GO trip is considered more valuable than a single TTC trip in terms of GDP, which means it returns a greater cost - benefit. GO trips are longer distance, and GO is never used to go get groceries, etc. Its a commuter service, and the GDP produced by that one trip is on average higher than a TTC trip.

GO RER is supposed to boost ridership by roughly 150% according to early estimates, which means that GO should jump to the 200 million trips a year range. Mind you by that time the TTC will likely be in the 700 million annually type of range.

 

[mdrejhon]

Mind you by that time the TTC will likely be in the 700 million annually type of range.

Breaking this down, how many by bus/streetcar/subway?

If strictly breaking down to just the subway network, if grown at the current growth rates, the GO RER network (including SmartTrack) will likely overtake TTC subway network, in terms of people moved per year. The growth rate of GO rides is far outstripping the growth rate of TTC subway rides.

GO is never used to go get groceries, etc.

Although not strictly groceries, I've now more frequently seen mall shoppers use GO now on Lakeshore carrying things like Forever21 and Mexx shopping bags -- In the transition to GO RER, it becomes a feasible public transit option where made convenient -- 30minute on Sundays is actually as frequent as a TTC bus on some routes! Increasingly on Lakeshore, a fraction of people are simply wanting to go to the big shopping mall near one of the GO stations. This is a consequence of the now-more-frequent offpeak bidirectional service; people are now using GO for purposes it wasn't originally conceived for. Usage patterns evolved, from strictly-commuters, and down to event-goers like Leafs games, to friends/family visitors along Lakeshore, down to doctor/appointment visits (already used GO for that), now mall goers today, and big shopping trips by a small minority, and then tomorrow: the occasional grocery shop at a strip mall down the GO route -- yes, one or two person a day may even begin to use GO to go grocery shopping when the trains are 15 minute frequency (at least at the supermarket-poor GO stations, and there's a nice stripmall one stop down the line) -- If you live walking to a GO station / you love that favourite supermarket or strip mall one or two GO stop down the line / don't mind paying the fare / no good supermarket within walking distance to home / even students where somebody else is paying for your Presto card / etc. I bet this already occasionally happens on Lakeshore, like one or few persons a day, and will increasingly be moreso with 15 minute frequency (or better).

It is something that originally would never be conceived of in 1967's GO beginnings of only two peak-direction trains from Oakville and Pickering. But today with the introduction of Lakeshore 30minute offpeak bidirectional service even on Sundays, people are increasingly using GO for non-commuter reasons -- and grocery shopping will even be one of the niche effects of all the GO RER upgrades (frequency, infills, interchanges, pedestrian friendliness, etc).

Commuters are still overwhelmingly dominant, and will still be, very especially near peak periods, but I've now seen certain half-full offpeak Lakeshore GO trains where 80%+ seemed non-work-related (families, kids, students, tourists, mall/downtown shoppers) and it wasn't the surge after a Leafs game. Get more and more offpeak trains like that, and it adds up all day long. From that, non-work-commuters probably now exceeds 10% of GO users along Lakeshore, while it's probably less than 1% on all the other GO lines combined: No trains on non-Lakeshore GO lines look anything remotely like the clientile of an offpeak Lakeshore train!

The percentage of GO users that are strictly work commuters has been slowly falling for years along the Lakeshore line. Even if it's a fall from 99%-95%-90%.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

on a per ride basis GO tends to be subsidized a bit more than the TTC, though a single GO trip is considered more valuable than a single TTC trip in terms of GDP, which means it returns a greater cost - benefit. GO trips are longer distance, and GO is never used to go get groceries, etc. Its a commuter service, and the GDP produced by that one trip is on average higher than a TTC trip.

GDP is a flawed statistic in that it assumes that expensive things have more inherent economic value. Even though it's more expensive to have someone commute in from the 905 (or 705), the commute itself has no value. In reality, it is the opposite because a longer commute takes time away from more productive activities and the extra cost is simply spent on shuttling people from point A to point B. All it does is allow people to exploit the lower cost of land as you get further from downtown, but that ends up being subsidized by taxpayers who have to pay for upgrades to the GO system.

If anything, the government should be encouraging people to live closer to work so as to avoid the need to rely on expensive, long-distance commutes.

 

[mdrejhon]

GDP is a flawed statistic in that it assumes that expensive things have more inherent economic value. Even though it's more expensive to have someone commute in from the 905 (or 705), the commute itself has no value. In reality, it is the opposite because a longer commute takes time away from more productive activities and the extra cost is simply spent on shuttling people from point A to point B. All it does is allow people to exploit the lower cost of land as you get further from downtown, but that ends up being subsidized by taxpayers who have to pay for upgrades to the GO system.

If anything, the government should be encouraging people to live closer to work so as to avoid the need to rely on expensive, long-distance commutes.

I am an example of a taxpayer who benefits the governments more by a longer commute.
It's not ideal, but it is the way it is. Statistics are flawed, but the basis is sound.

GO made it possible for me to become a property taxpayer, for the first time, with better house prices down a commuter line. I would not have become a property taxpayer (more tax) with a higher salary (more income tax), with more shopping done (more sales taxes).

In some cases, a city is so structurally constrained (e.g. existing freeways, urban sprawl, high house prices) that a longer commute produces a real GDP gain for population who would otherwise not be able to succeed well living near work (Toronto is unfortunately one of these cases, imagine being presented a choice between poverty+convenience versus middle class+commute). Salaries where I live is 30-50% lower than salaries downtown Toronto, where I can commute by GO. While cost of living where I am is lower. If I lived in the same place as work (whether it be Toronto or Hamilton) the government would benefit less from me. The case is the same for many thousands of commuters. So, thusly, Metrolinx's subsidy becomes minor compared to the GDP gain of GO commuters.

An argument could be made that the government could instead work my area (Hamilton) to make it far more attractive for me to work locally; raise salaries instead of improving GO, which would be a fine thing to do over the long term (years or decades), but expanding the GO network is a good first step that is a faster solution that actually still brings some economic change locally (Hamilton gains a new property taxpayer and weekend shopper). More infrastructure, more condos, more businesses, more things get built locally, more revenues for government -- and perhaps it can improve to the point where I end up eventually work locally or my employer relocates me to another head office, or whatnot -- but salary parity and city improvement can take years or decades (e.g. Hamilton steel downturn versus Toronto high-tech boom) and sometimes better commuter services is an easy-GDP-win that still helps the city tax base lift itself and eventually improves the business base (e.g. bigger population that eventually attracts business).

...Of course, the commuter improvements must be done in concurrently with other local taxpayer base improvements (e.g. better handling of the aerotropolis issue, buying employment lands from bankrupt steel manufacturers, waterfront rail yard relocation to allow residential growth, etc.).
TL;DR: GO produces good taxpayer return. I pay more income/property/sales taxes because of GO.