News   Jun 21, 2024
 3.8K     6 
News   Jun 21, 2024
 1.5K     2 
News   Jun 21, 2024
 1.6K     1 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

I'd like to hear anyone suggest a serious alternative.

The argument I most often hear is "Park and ride commuters should take local transit, bike, or walk instead! Let's charge a high parking fee so that fewer people drive to the GO station!" No, that's not what's going to happen; if you disincentivize parking at GO stations, most of those people will probably stop taking GO altogether and just drive downtown, which our roads simply don't have the capacity to support. I often then hear the rebuttal "who cares, let them get stuck in traffic!", but there are buses and streetcars that use the roads too, so disincentivizing GO parking will have serious negative effects on the whole region--plus, with less ridership and less fare revenue, there won't be much reason to expand and improve GO service.

Personally, for going downtown, I prefer to drive to my GO station and park there. Local transit comes very close to my home, but the bus takes a little over 10 minutes midday and about 20 minutes at peak vs 5 minutes either midday or peak by car to get to or from the station. Midday the bus comes hourly, there's no evening service and I believe no weekend service either, it doesn't connect with the GO bus schedule, and coming home in the evenings from the train I've waited anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes for the bus to even leave the GO station, which is absurd, so YRT is a rare thing for me. Cycling isn't feasible for me due to the extremely hilly terrain in the area, and the station is about a half hour walk, similarly not something I'm inclined towards 11.5/12 months of the year.

Also, I drive an Electric Vehicle, and there is at least one place downtown that offers completely free EV parking and charging in their otherwise paid parking garage, and many buildings right in the core have free charging with paid parking, so the case for me to drive downtown (plus one-person use of HOV lanes with my green plates) is much stronger than most. If they were to start charging even $1 for parking I'd most likely just drive--even now I drive a good percentage of the time since the Barrie line trains have such a limited schedule.

This argument made much more sense in the 1960s and 1970s when GO Transit was meant to attract drivers off the highways and when transit systems in most suburbs were non-existent. We've moved past the idea of building new highways in the City of Toronto or widening the existing ones, GO is now very successful at what it does and the free parking motivator is much less important.

Commuter systems in New York and Chicago and Philadelphia and Boston charge for parking. The TTC Finch and Kipling lots are usually full. Why should non-drivers to GO stations subsidize those who park for free? Why should Metrolinx be tearing down a block of Downtown Brampton to build more "free parking?"
 
I'd be curious to see what the lifecycle costs to run a network of frequent peak feeder buses to these stations, vs say the cost of building, operating, and maintaining an expensive parking garage.
This is the problem of "the last mile" and your suggestion is gaining a lot of ground fast. Something not mentioned in the article linked by Momin discussing Denver, is that Colorado is a deeply conservative state (leaning Libertarian rather than Bible thumping).

If conservative Americans see the logic in this, and participate, how far behind the rest of the world is Canada? Considerably actually. We also use a higher level of fuel per-capita than the US, but I digress...

The answer might be in Uber style bus vans being on-call like taxis, but using a larger shared vehicle to do runs to the GO stations. It would also be a hell of a lot cheaper than the (from memory) "$20,000 for each parking space" touted in the article linked.

Edit to Add: From the linked UT story (from memory): "GO now runs the largest parking operation in North Am". That's obscene!

And second, IIRC? Toronto Parking Authority. Trot out the lame excuses....
 
This is the problem of "the last mile" and your suggestion is gaining a lot of ground fast. Something not mentioned in the article linked by Momin discussing Denver, is that Colorado is a deeply conservative state (leaning Libertarian rather than Bible thumping).

If conservative Americans see the logic in this, and participate, how far behind the rest of the world is Canada? Considerably actually. We also use a higher level of fuel per-capita than the US, but I digress...

The answer might be in Uber style bus vans being on-call like taxis, but using a larger shared vehicle to do runs to the GO stations. It would also be a hell of a lot cheaper than the (from memory) "$20,000 for each parking space" touted in the article linked.

Edit to Add: From the linked UT story (from memory): "GO now runs the largest parking operation in North Am". That's obscene!

And second, IIRC? Toronto Parking Authority. Trot out the lame excuses....
Nitpick, but It always irks me a little bit when Uber or one of the other contemporary ride-share types is brought up in transit discussion. It's like no one remembers Dial-a-Bus which we've had on and off since 1970.
 
Nitpick, but It always irks me a little bit when Uber or one of the other contemporary ride-share types is brought up in transit discussion. It's like no one remembers Dial-a-Bus which we've had on and off since 1970.
Indeed, same concept, different business model. You've nailed it, please post more, the concept was realized long ago, as you state, but being realized now by pressing necessity: (NJ Transit is roughly the size of GO, albeit in poor straights lately due to the Christie regime)
Uber took 300K N.J. commuters to the bus or train last month
More commuters are turning to ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft to cover that difficult "last mile," the distance between train stations or bus stops and their homes or jobs.

Last month, 300,000 of the 1.3 million rides provided by Uber in New Jersey were to transit or PATH stations, according to company statistics. Company officials looked for trips that begin or ended about one-eighth of a mile from a station in making the determination. Of those trips, more than 65,000 were at or near a PATH Station.

"We've seen increased demand to and from transit stations during commuting hours," said Ana Mahony, general manager for New Jersey. "We're seeing Uber become an extension of public transit, people are using Uber to get to and from the station."

Uber and Lyft use a smart phone application to connect riders with a ride, usually provided by a private driver using their personal vehicle. Drivers use a similar app to indicate they are available to provide a ride.

Nationally, 25 percent of the rides provided by Lyft were to and from transit. New Jersey numbers weren't available for the company.

"There are a large number of commuters who are using Lyft to connect to public transportation. Many are individuals who would have driven alone," said Emily Castor, Lyft Director of Transportation Policy.

Typically, those commuters don't live close enough to a train station to walk or the closest station has a parking shortage, which prompts them to drive to work, she said.

Transportation experts said such rideshare services could help fill that gap.

"The last mile has been a challenge for transit. Historically, it's been a struggle all across transit systems," said David Behrend, North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority spokesman. "(Rideshare services) are a factor that will have to be considered in transportation planning going forward."

Six months ago, Lyft started a team to work with transit agencies to solve issues, including the first or last mile of a rider's trip, Castor said.

"It depends on the location and the context, in suburban communities that are less densely populated, that last mile is a challenge," said Jon A, Carnegie, executive director of the Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers University. "In urban communities, it is more hospitable to bike or walk."

RELATED: Port Authority votes to replace aging bus terminal

Past efforts to provide shuttles or connecting bus service with rail has fallen short for a variety of reasons, including commuter confidence that the bus will arrive in time to catch the train, Carnegie said.

Rideshare services could encourage new commuters to use transit, if they can guarantee transportation, he said.

"It could make sense, as long, as it is reliable and people are confident they'll get a ride when they need it," Carnegie said. "The model relies on the availability of drivers, unlike a taxi service, where they schedule drivers to work in shifts."
Taxi owners sought tighter regulation of ridersharing services and bills to do that has been discussed in the state legislature.

Uber has 12,000 drivers in New Jersey and has kept up with commuter demand, Mahony said. Driver figures weren't available for Lyft.

Larry Higgs may be reached at lhiggs@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @commutinglarry. Find NJ.com on Facebook.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf...commuters_to_the_bus_or_train_last_month.html
 
Continuing on APTA's point: (and this is alive and well in the UK and other nations as well as the US and Canada, using what they term "mini-buses") (maps deleted due to text character limit)
GO Transit's Dial-a-Bus Experiment (1973-1976)
(Last Modified on June 25, 2015 9:32 PM)
Compiled by Pete Coulman
With commentary by James BowMaps taken from Alan Gryfe's website.
October 29, 1973
Service launched on a "new concept in transportation", as the province of Ontario established an experimental on-demand public transit service in a test neighbourhood in North York. Operated by the TTC under GO colours, the province leased "Club Car" type minibuses to provide door-to-door service to residents northeast of York Mills station.

The idea was to provide public transit service that was comparable to the private automobile in terms of speed, and less costly, so as to better serve the low density suburbs where fixed route systems were uneconomical. Passengers would call a number to be picked up, and drivers would alter their route on the fly to show up at the passengers' front door.

The first phase of this service was provided in "Area C", an area of North York with a boundary running from Yonge and York Mills via north on Yonge, east on Highway 401, south on Leslie, west on Lawrence, northwest through the Bridal Path neighbourhood and west on York Mills to Yonge Street. Area C was further subdivided into area zones (1, 2 and 3) within the superblocks divided by York Mills Road and Bayview Avenue (see map above right).

During rush hours, two minibuses are assigned to each zone (six buses in total), on call to ferry passengers from their home to York Mills subway station, and back again. Outside of peak hours, including Saturdays, one bus is assigned to each zone, providing service either to and from York Mills station and major shopping centres in the area. At York Mills station, buses board at the southern station entrance, on Old York Mills Road.



[...large amounts including maps cut due to character limit, please access link below]

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/regional/2112.shtml

 
This is the problem of "the last mile" and your suggestion is gaining a lot of ground fast. Something not mentioned in the article linked by Momin discussing Denver, is that Colorado is a deeply conservative state (leaning Libertarian rather than Bible thumping).

If conservative Americans see the logic in this, and participate, how far behind the rest of the world is Canada? Considerably actually. We also use a higher level of fuel per-capita than the US, but I digress...

The answer might be in Uber style bus vans being on-call like taxis, but using a larger shared vehicle to do runs to the GO stations. It would also be a hell of a lot cheaper than the (from memory) "$20,000 for each parking space" touted in the article linked.

Edit to Add: From the linked UT story (from memory): "GO now runs the largest parking operation in North Am". That's obscene!

And second, IIRC? Toronto Parking Authority. Trot out the lame excuses....

What would really tip the balance isn't Uber - but self-driving mini-buses given the cost of labour.

AoD
 
There is no question in my mind that GO must move in the direction of paid parking.

Further, that pending implementation of more attractive alternative ways to get to GO stations, parking expansion, should be frozen.

If, decent alternative transit is in place, and parking is paid; and still there is more demand that supply, I'd be open to contemplating more parking structures.

Some will suggest that this isn't workable in the near term; but I don't see why not.

At the very least, GO should implement 3-4 test cases.

One in Toronto, where transit is already more frequent; and one in each of three regions (Halton/Peel/Durham) along the Lakeshore line.

My reasoning being that the more frequent off-peak service allows/justifies a more robust investment in feeder services.

So pick your stations and see what you can do.

What happens at Whitby if you take the Brock Rd. bus and double peak service to 10 min and take mid-day and early evening to 15 from the current 30?

You do that, apply a light charge to parking, say $5 per day; but off-set that by lowering the ticket from Whitby to Union by $2 each way.

If you can even cut lot use by 10% while holding ridership, you're onto something.

The cost of the enhanced service for the 'pilot year' can be funded from the parking ($1 per day, per space should be in the ball park)
 
Hey, I'd be happy if local transit users stopped subsidizing parking for those who drive. I don't see the need for punitive parking fees, but right now I, as someone who's never parked at a GO station in my life, have to pay the cost of building and maintaining massive amounts of parking for people who do drive. Let the drivers pay for parking on a cost-recovery basis. Nothing in life is free -- some things are just paid for by other people.

This is the mistake I keep hearing people make--most GO riders will not pay for parking, they will abandon GO entirely and just drive downtown. We need to incentivize people to take transit rather than drive, as much as possible, not incentivize them to get off transit and clog up the roads even more. As a local transit user, you will be hurt by this. As a GO rider, you will be hurt by this loss in ridership/revenue/incentive for expansion.
 
This is the mistake I keep hearing people make--most GO riders will not pay for parking, they will abandon GO entirely and just drive downtown.

Yes, they will.....for maybe a month. Until they find out just how crowded the DVP and Gardiner and 400 are. Or until their tires wear out from the extra mileage and they realise that maintaining a car to drive downtown, and using more gas, is much more expensive than owning a beater that only has to drive to the GO station, even if GO charges for parking.

Then they will return to the GO, angry as heck perhaps, and likely writing their MP. And the GO parking lot will be just as crowded. The GO parking charge will be seen as a cash grab, and won't work as a lever to reduce parking demand.

The answer has to be a cheap, flexible, efficient 'last mile' dropoff service. Needs some very creative exploration. Just putting more Novas or Flyers on the road won't fix this.... it has to be creative and comfy. Maybe it shouldn't be run by the transit properties at all.

- Paul
 
What would really tip the balance isn't Uber - but self-driving mini-buses given the cost of labour.
Accept your point on Uber, that's already happening in (The Bay Area? I'll Google and qualify later), but for now, on a comparative basis, the labour of paying for a driver would still be a much cheaper option than the status-quo here in the GTA. As to who owns/runs the operation is open to discussion. Suffice to say it's a model being copied and deemed very successful in the US, in even *conservative* jurisdictions. This isn't a 'socialist plot'...it's just good civic management.

The answer has to be a cheap, flexible, efficient 'last mile' dropoff service. Needs some very creative exploration. Just putting more Novas or Flyers on the road won't fix this.... it has to be creative and comfy. Maybe it shouldn't be run by the transit properties at all.
Agreed on all points, albeit we're going to have to expand these with further discussion and examples, a lot of which is on-line already. APTA nailed it with "Dial-a-Bus". Why it failed is probably down to Megaton's retort still being viable thirty years ago. It's what created much of the mess, and will push it to complete gridlock. It's time to stop subsidizing cars and those driving them. How ironic to have to make that statement when most car addicts talk of other modes being "subsidized". Canada is *really* out of step with the world on this. Even Australia, the only advanced nation to use more hydrocarbons per capita than Canada is *way ahead* on rail transit, as is the US now.

Megaton327 said:
This is the mistake I keep hearing people make--most GO riders will not pay for parking, they will abandon GO entirely and just drive downtown.
lol...and the only way to get there will be in toll lanes. So be it, but at least you'll be paying your way. Somewhat...just because you get free electricity and free parking for your car doesn't mean that you deserve special treatment for all the other costs associated with driving.

This is a bold claim. Can you provide some evidence to back it up?
Certainly evidence in other nations clearly indicates the opposite of his claim. The term "dinosaur" shakes underfoot.

Edit to Add:

RE: Alvin's point. This is incidental to it, not pro or con:
Ticket to deride: Sacramento labor group, RT clash over new ride-sharing partnership
Station Link Program offers discounted ride-sharing fares on Golden 1 Center event days

By Matt Kramer

This article was published on 10.13.16.
A program meant to bolster light-rail usage in the suburbs has drawn criticism from labor interests who say it will benefit ride-sharing companies at the expense of low-income transit riders and industry workers.

The new Station Link Program launched with the opening of the Golden 1 Center on October 5. A partnership between Sacramento Regional Transit, Uber, Lyft and Yellow Cab, Station Link offers $5 off fares to or from select light-rail stations on event dates, up to 10 trips per rider, when riders use promo code “SACRT” through the Uber, Lyft or Curb apps.

While lauded by RT as efficient transportation consolidation in an already heavily congested area, the Sacramento Central Labor Council claimed the ride-hailing services engaged in exploitative practices.

“When a public agency is contracting with companies that have a notorious reputation of not just exploiting the workforce, but also not even recognizing that these folks are their employees, that’s an issue for us,” said SCLC Executive Director Fabrizio Sasso.

Sasso was referring to partly ongoing litigation brought against both Uber and Lyft by drivers who claim they have been unfairly misclassified as independent contractors, and want compensation for fuel and auto maintenance. In June, U.S. Northern District of California Judge Vince Chhabria approved a $27 million settlement on behalf of Lyft drivers who sued to be classified as employees. The settlement had been increased from $12.5 million after Chhabria rejected the original amount as too low. In August, Judge Edward Chen, of the same court in San Francisco, denied a $100 million settlement offer from Uber following a similar three-year lawsuit, also on the grounds that it was too low.

Additionally, Sasso contended the program would incentivize car use and questioned its environmental benefits.

RT spokeswoman Susan Bitar denied the lawsuits posed an issue for the ride-incentive program and dismissed claims that it wasn’t environmentally friendly, saying it will reduce the overall number of vehicles on the road.

“Certainly the idea is to take cars off the road; and oftentimes when you take a ride sharing-ride-hailing company, you’re not alone,” Bitar explained. “So that in and of itself will tempt people away from having one person in a car driving solo.”

The program is funded through a $50,000 grant from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District—part of a federally-funded $2.2 million Fleet Modernization Program—with administrative assistance from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

Bitar called the program a unique partnership of public and private entities. It will run until the budget is used up after 10,000 redemptions or until March 21, 2017, whichever comes first.

Because they require the use of smartphone apps, Sasso argued those redemptions would cater to people in higher socioeconomic brackets, rather than the people who use RT most.
https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/ticket-to-deride-sacramento-labor/content?oid=22461909

Not "The Bay Area" as I'd alluded, but inland from there. I left article in full as it touches on some other issues likely to come up on this debate in this forum.

Again, I have to make the point that the US press is far more onto this subject than the Cdn press. Toronto is lagging! And one of the ways we're lagging, besides financing better ways of doing things, is to still put emphasis on highways to get around Toronto.

A valid point for drivers is the poor state of alternatives if they leave the car parked. That has to be addressed, but where drivers *still* don't get it, and even Americans, with much cheaper gas do (at least in the progressive conurbations) is that driving is expensive when the true costs are factored in.

Of course, New York City especially has known this for generations. And they're much better off for it!
 
Last edited:
This is a bold claim. Can you provide some evidence to back it up?

Wait and see.

lol...and the only way to get there will be in toll lanes. So be it, but at least you'll be paying your way. Somewhat...just because you get free electricity and free parking for your car doesn't mean that you deserve special treatment for all the other costs associated with driving.

HOT lanes are free for green plates too. And your 'special treatment' argument is one I always love hearing repeated by climate change deniers/oil industry shills...
 
The ttc began charging for its parking, what, 10 years ago now? When that happened everyone screamed doom and how everyone would just drive downtown still. Yet today the 5,000 or so spots at Finch fill up every AM, and ttc ridership has continued to increase. The ttc has been able to redevelop excess lots, and now has several million in additional annual revenue.

If GO even "unbundled" the cost of parking from the fare, it would be a good first step. Drop the cost of the base fare by a buck but charge $2-3 to park every day. The increased cost for drivers would be minimal, but it would create incentives to take alternatives since the base fare would be even lower. I know I would minimize my parking, but it also wouldn't "kill the deal" if I had to park.
 

Back
Top