News   Jun 27, 2024
 430     0 
News   Jun 27, 2024
 466     0 
News   Jun 27, 2024
 474     0 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

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 why GO subsidizes the fares of most of the suburban transit systems with it's Co-Fare program. In the long run, it's cost them less to pay for customers to use the buses that are there (and as an added side-effect, hopefully building up ridership at those systems) than it is to have built the parking garages earlier.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
$80M is a crap ton of money, not sure how I feel about this. Yes it's catering to auto users under the guise of transit-building, but the costs are more alarming IMO. Is there a report on parking (as well as free-parking/levies) and their effect on ridership? Has it been concluded by Mlinx that improving/increasing surface routes is a better overall investment, or is this more of a gamble and opportunity to improve re-election? YRT is already the costliest system in the GTHA (or county), and is seeing yoy ridership declines in spite of hundreds of $Millions in public investments coming online. Is ample (and poss free?) parking the alternative in light of that reality?
 
I think the other thing you have to factor into the parking "discussion" is the move that they are piloting soon to have highway signs directing people to nearby GO stations to, quite literally, get those drivers off the roads.

A sign saying "get off the road...a GO train leaves in 5 minutes taking you where you want to go" will have zero value if there is no where for that driver to put the car he has now taken off the road.

:)
 
I think the other thing you have to factor into the parking "discussion" is the move that they are piloting soon to have highway signs directing people to nearby GO stations to, quite literally, get those drivers off the roads.

A sign saying "get off the road...a GO train leaves in 5 minutes taking you where you want to go" will have zero value if there is no where for that driver to put the car he has now taken off the road.

:)

I really like dynamic highway signs, and I think putting an ETA of the next train's departure on those signs is actually pretty brilliant. Was that particular component part of any plan?
 
I really like dynamic highway signs, and I think putting an ETA of the next train's departure on those signs is actually pretty brilliant. Was that particular component part of any plan?
I first recall then MoT Murray talking about it just before the last election as part of his "new transit announcement per day" lead up to the vote.....of all of the ad hoc announcements that one appealed to me in its simplicity (i like small incrememental improvements to things while we wait for mega solutions)....it was a bit comical at the time that he used the Gardiner as an example since the two stations closest to the Gardiner (Long Branch and Mimico) would likely not have any parking spots to offer......I thought the idea had "gone away" once the votes were counted and was pleasantly surprised to see the current MoT re-announce it (with more detail) last week.

But, as I noted above, if there is no where to put the cars you are trying to lure off the rod with those signs....you won't have much success with it.
 
But, as I noted above, if there is no where to put the cars you are trying to lure off the rod with those signs....you won't have much success with it.

There's definitely a bonus to ample/free parking. But at what cost to the public and general service? And where do we draw the line? There are also extraneous costs. The cars aren't really leaving the road, there will be localized traffic issues and necessary capital expansions/maintenance to accommodate this driver increase around stations. E.g the sign may say a train is leaving in 5mins, but there could be a caveat that it will take 25mins just to reach a parking spot.

Maybe we can get 50% more cars off the road...so long as we divert twenty billion to the cause. And by throwing more money at it, and perhaps offering luxuries like valets or attendants who will wash and wax people's ride, we can get that up to 55%. But I guess this has been laid out in a plan somewhere, just curious if there's a report on it.
 
There are already thousands of people paying for GO station parking. There are hundreds of reserved spots at each of Oakville, Clarkson, and Port Credit. Even Long Branch has about 150 reserved spots, more than non-reserved spots even. People will pay.
 
There are already thousands of people paying for GO station parking. There are hundreds of reserved spots at each of Oakville, Clarkson, and Port Credit. Even Long Branch has about 150 reserved spots, more than non-reserved spots even. People will pay.
Not sure if you listed those just because they are the ones you are familiar with....but yes, at every station there is a growing number of people who pay for parking. Long Branch is a perfect example of "market" conditions driving revenue....there is such a shortage of parking there that most of the spots have been reserved by people willing to pay ~$100 a month for a guaranteed spot when they need one......in some ways, building the garages will reduce that revenue.......at stations where there is ample parking there are people who will cease to feel the need to reserve a spot....so you add the cost of the building the garage and you may actually decrease the parking revenue.

While we are talking about reserved parking......it does serve to sort of set a market price in some way. I see people tossing around figures like $5 a day for general parking......that is more than people pay now for a fully reserved spot....so not sure where the $5/day comes from or how viable it is.
 
How many Don Valleys, Gardners and Allan Expressways will be needed if 90% of GO users give up on GO, and drive instead?

I don't think this is a problem. As long as the parking fee is reasonable enough that the parking lots are still close to full, people will still take GO Transit. Improved bus service should make up any loss of ridership from fewer people driving to GO stations. Also if traffic on DVP, Gardiner and Lake Shore gets even worse then wouldn't that make more people take GO?

What really hurts GO ridership is the huge disruption to bus service caused by marathon/triathlon/bike ride/car racing/parade/construction etc. shutting down Gardiner, Lake Shore & DVP for no reason on weekends. There were a lot fewer people using GO bus than usual because of "Waterfront Marathon" and the hour long delays on Gardiner it caused.
 
The great myth that people keep believing is that improving local transit in suburban cities/towns will reduce the number of people driving to GO stations. I offer as an example the downtown Brampton station.....it is served by not one but two very frequent bus routes (by suburban standards) the combination of regular and Zum buses along, both, Queen Street and Main street means that on both routes there is no need to consult service schedules...there is a bus, of some variety, coming every few minutes during peak times.....it is how I get to the GO when I use the GO.......but do not kid yourself, I am (by far) in the minority of people getting on (or off) the GO at Brampton and heading to/from a bus. My observations are, obviously, anecdotal, but I am pretty sure the numbers are supportive of my observations because GO has purchased and is about to demolish an office building to provide more parking.....they know their audience and know their users...and they are people who want to drive and park before getting on a train.

Add in that, I imagine, the off peak user is probably even less likely to use transit (partly because they are likely less regular users and, therefore less familiar with it and partly because frequencies of local busses drop in off peak hours) and I bet the move to build garages is because they are investing billions to provide off peak service on the other rail lines and their only way to get any riders on those trains is to have somewhere for those off peak users to park their vehicle.
 
The great myth that people keep believing is that improving local transit in suburban cities/towns will reduce the number of people driving to GO stations. I offer as an example the downtown Brampton station.....it is served by not one but two very frequent bus routes (by suburban standards) the combination of regular and Zum buses along, both, Queen Street and Main street means that on both routes there is no need to consult service schedules...there is a bus, of some variety, coming every few minutes during peak times.....it is how I get to the GO when I use the GO.......but do not kid yourself, I am (by far) in the minority of people getting on (or off) the GO at Brampton and heading to/from a bus. My observations are, obviously, anecdotal, but I am pretty sure the numbers are supportive of my observations because GO has purchased and is about to demolish an office building to provide more parking.....they know their audience and know their users...and they are people who want to drive and park before getting on a train.

Add in that, I imagine, the off peak user is probably even less likely to use transit (partly because they are likely less regular users and, therefore less familiar with it and partly because frequencies of local busses drop in off peak hours) and I bet the move to build garages is because they are investing billions to provide off peak service on the other rail lines and their only way to get any riders on those trains is to have somewhere for those off peak users to park their vehicle.

The question is why we are continuing land use decisions that favour said group instead of redeveloping the land around stations for residents who'd like to live near the station and commute by GO. They may know their current audience - but they certainly don't know how to create new ones beyond that. Also additional parking won't do much to support weakdays daytime off peak use - it'd be taken up by commuters.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Its because parking is free. If you began charging, you obviously would not see entirely empty garages, but what you likely would see is an uptick in active transportation use and local transit to get to the stations.

Some GO stations do see somewhat significant local transit transfers. I know stations like Pickering have fairly strong bus service to and from them and probably 15-20% of GO train users transfer to a local bus.

Today there is no economic incentive to take the bus. If anything, it is actually cheaper to drive to the station if you own a car, as you are likely to burn less than 75 cents in gas getting there. Putting a $3 parking fee would make people think twice about driving, and actually consider taking local transit. Plus it would have the bonus of helping finance these $40,000 parking spots and reduce the need for garages in the first place. Building less garages and more TOD like you are seeing at Burlington and Maple stations is the way to go.
 
The question is why we are continuing land use decisions that favour said group instead of redeveloping the land around stations for residents who'd like to live near the station and commute by GO. They may know their current audience - but they certainly don't know how to create new ones beyond that.

AoD
Off the top of my head I think I can count 4 failed condo projects around that station....that is projects that the city approved, the builder started to market and found there is no market for them....so, I guess, they probably know that too (now this may be the part that is unique to downtown Brampton but the other part that frequent buses will alleviate parking...is a warning sign for all suburban stations).
 

Back
Top