GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[steveintoronto]

There may be some Cdn v American differences at play, or perhaps it's city specific...

The Last Mile Problem
Helping Solve the Problem of the Last Mile in Regional Transit Networks
Updated June 04, 2016.
The fact that many residences and businesses are situated farther than an easy walking distance to a transit station is known as the last mile problem. Rapid transit solutions such as trains (light rail, heavy rail and commuter rail) and buses are often used together to increase a region's public transit coverage, but because they stop only every mile on average, geographically most locations in an urban area are beyond an easy walking distance to a station. This problem is a barrier to better utilization of a rapid transit network.

The Problem of Walking the Last Mile
People are often surprised by how long rapid transit riders are willing to walk to a station. The generally accepted rule of thumb has been that people will walk 1/4 mile to a local bus stop. But the truth is, people are usually willing to walk up to a mile to a rapid transit station. Note, however, that you can't just draw a circle with a mile radius around a station and conclude that all locations within that circle are within walking distance.

Noncontiguous street networks and cul-de-sacs can mean that even though you might be within one mile of a station as the crow flies, you are more than a mile in walking distance from that station.

Transit planners face the task of facilitating pedestrian access to transit stations. They typically see two challenges. The first is making sure that the access points are pedestrian-friendly. Nobody wants to walk along a desolate highway with a speed limit of 45 mph. One solution is building segregated bicycle/pedestrian paths. Second, pedestrians need good wayfinding along the access points. Notable in this regard is central Washington, D.C., which features many road signs that advise people of the direction and distance of the nearest Metro station.

One aspect of pedestrian access that is often overlooked is the actual entrance to the station. In an attempt to value-engineer to save money, many recent rapid transit projects in North America, particularly projects with underground stations, have built stations with only one entrance. Having only one entrance means that over half the passengers using that station are likely to have to cross at least one and possibly two major streets to enter it. If the traffic light cycle is long, they might wait five minutes just to get from one side of the intersection to the station on the opposite side. Certainly, having at least two entrances to any station is key to pedestrian access.

Solutions for Bike Riders
Using a bicycle is an excellent way to traverse the last mile from the station, but given space constraints, bringing bikes on the trains themselves is not feasible. Providing secure bike parking at the station is imperative, and providing easy bike rental for cyclists to use at their destinations is also important. While bike parking has long been present at many rapid transit stations, bike rental has increased in recent years, with several cities installing bike-rental stations near popular destinations, including rail stations.

Making Local Bus Routes Better
One way in which the last mile problem is overcome is via local bus. In fact, in Toronto, the success of its subway system is due to the large number of connections the subway makes with local bus routes. To provide a viable solution to the last mile problem, local bus services must meet three conditions:

1. Local buses serving the station must be frequent. For distances of under five miles, transit is only a viable option if the average waiting time for a bus is very short, preferably 10 minutes or less. Even so, if local buses are to be used to carry rapid transit passengers that last mile, then they should operate at a minimum of every 20 minutes.
2. Connecting fares should be low. Toronto, for example, gives free transfers between the bus and the subway, and most passengers use both. In the East San Francisco Bay region, transferring between local buses operated by AC Transit and trains operated by BART is expensive (although less costly than paying two separate fares). Not surprisingly, not many passengers use both.
3. The connection between the bus and the train must be easy, both spatially and time-wise . A given is to avoid the situation like in Melbourne, in which buses would leave the train station two minutes before the train arrived. Spatially, an attached off-street bus bay is much better than having the buses stop on nearby streets.

Discourage Driving
The least desirable way to bridge the last mile is via automobile, either via "kiss and ride" drop-off locations or park-and-ride lots. Any area dedicated to car infrastructure leaves less room for transit-oriented development and the construction of buildings that act as trip generators. However, in low-density suburban areas, the only realistic option may be to arrive at a station by car, so park-and-ride lots will continue to be necessary.

Related

• The Importance of Bus - Rail Connections
• Subway Stations Should Be Between 1/2 Mile and 1 Mile Apart
• Which Is Better - Bus Rapid Transit or Light Rail?
• Bus Rapid Transit Defined

http://publictransport.about.com/od...ortance-Of-Successful-Bus-Rail-Interfaces.htm

Lots of other excellent transit topics covered at same addy above.

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm sorry I missed this event, but I'm sure the subject has just started:
Ryerson City Building Institute, Advancing Urban Transformation
CBI BLOG - Conquering the Last Mile

September 13, 2016

Urban planners and transportation experts are generally cool, buttoned-down, earnest folk. So if you ever want to see them wring their hands with worry, just ask them about the “last mile.”

The last mile is that trip commuters take to get from their homes to transportation hubs, or from their hubs to workplaces. Sometimes inconvenient and usually time-consuming, studies show the last mile afflicts thousands of commuters in the GTHA. And it isn’t going away. Especially since the GTHA is expected to grow by 3 million people in 15 years.

So how can we change this?

On September 20, the Ryerson City Building Institute will host a #LastMile Meet-Up at the Ryerson University campus to discuss potential solutions for overcoming the last mile. More than 200 planners, policy-makers, and practitioners have registered the sold-out free public event.

Official trailer of the Ryerson CBI #LastMile Meet-Up

In addition to commuters, the last mile haunts transit planners and policy-makers who want to get people out of their cars and using other methods to get to their GO station, such as as transit, bikes, or car-sharing services.

These two examples of GO station mode split below illustrate a well connected GO station and one another of the tumbleweed variety

(click to zoom)

(click to zoom)
In the morning, 64 per cent of commuters drive to the Yonge-Sheppard station, while as much as 97 per cent drive to the Bramalea GO station. Photos courtesy of Metrolinx Mobility view originals click here

Who can blame them? Cars are bad news for our rapidly growing cities. They are expensive to operate and maintain, they generate air pollution, and when they are not stuck in congestion, most vehicles spend their lives quietly depreciating in parking lots while their owners are at work.

Getting Connected
But there are some exciting innovations from around the world that could be adopted to help current and future GTHA commuters get to and from their GO stations.

High-tech Singapore is currently testing a system that allows commuters to summon autonomous pods using their smartphones to get to their destinations in air-conditioned comfort. India is going low tech. It plans to make up to 10,000 bicycles available to commuters at 300 bike stations to address the last mile problem.

Some jurisdictions in the U.S. are experimenting with so-called “micro-transit”, limited route vans and mini-buses that take commuters to a transportation hub.

Closer to home, we’re seeing some small steps in the GTHA. Like other North American cities, Toronto now has UberPool, which matches different passengers travelling on a similar route with a driver headed in the same direction. And Toronto’s Bike Share plans to expand its fleet of bicycles to various TTC subway stops and GO stations. There are also plans to develop housing close to GO stations that would make it possible for residents to walk to their transportation hub.

But are these approaches enough to help Toronto commuters, who spend an average time of 82 minutes commuting each day?

After all, every year GO carries about 61 million passengers, and parking facilities at GO stations are currently at capacity or nearing capacity. By operating 69,000 parking spaces for its customers, GO Transit is North America’s largest parking provider. But here’s an interesting fact: while almost 60 per cent of commuters drive to their local GO station, 75 per cent of them live a short bike ride away.

Getting Growth on Track
Clearly, things need to change. The Province of Ontario is currently investing $32 billion in new transit throughout the GTHA over the next 15 years. This means we get a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make transit more accessible and convenient to thousands more people - and provide more affordable housing options - by intensifying around transit hubs.

In fact, the city building institute’s latest report Suburbs on Track describes how the province’s proposed improvements to its Growth Plan can help solve the last mile.

And this transit evolution can start by bringing together city builders and the public to discuss potential solutions that will address the last mile.

http://www.ryerson.ca/citybuilding/blog/last_mile/

 

[gweed123]

In 10, 20 or 30 years, we may see GO (and other govt funded transit agencies) run Uber equivalents by running a driver or driverless minibus hail -- as connecting/first/last mile to major transit hubs - in locations where it is economically unviable to run a full sized GO bus. Rideshare is actually mentioned by Metrolinx in the Big Move refresh as being one of the more viable options for low-density low-ridership areas.

My ideal vision for this type of setup would be driverless electric vehicles that dock at GO stations, and could be requested using just a GO app. You could choose either a minibus (shared ride) for a base fee, or request a solo ride for a higher fee. Like you mentioned, routing could be done on the fly using algorithms, and since it's driverless that removes the need to communicate changes to the driver, who could potentially misinterpret them.

You could even build in an auto-request feature, where you could say "pick me up at 8AM every weekday at this location", and the car would be there waiting for you at the end of your driveway.

 

[TOareaFan]

My ideal vision for this type of setup would be driverless electric vehicles that dock at GO stations, and could be requested using just a GO app. You could choose either a minibus (shared ride) for a base fee, or request a solo ride for a higher fee. Like you mentioned, routing could be done on the fly using algorithms, and since it's driverless that removes the need to communicate changes to the driver, who could potentially misinterpret them.

You could even build in an auto-request feature, where you could say "pick me up at 8AM every weekday at this location", and the car would be there waiting for you at the end of your driveway.

my issue is not with the technology it is with the user acceptance of not knowing how long it will take to get home (or to the station) because they have no knowledge/control over how many stops get squeezed in between the station and their home.

Obviously this is solved if everyone opts for the private vehicle option.....but I would imagine that providing everyone with an individual ride home might be more expensive than building a garage so they can handle it themselves

 

[steveintoronto]

Obviously this is solved if everyone opts for the private vehicle option.....but I would imagine that providing everyone with an individual ride home might be more expensive than building a garage so they can handle it themselves

This is actually a known quantity, and not in favour of your argument.

If even just taxis were to take everyone where they needed to go in lieu of private autos, from memory, the demand on roads would be a small fraction of what it would be otherwise.

I see an ingrained reluctance by some to hang on to their dear auto no matter what. That is clearly your right...if you pay for it.

Yet again, the answer for that is toll roads, and the distance is computed by the same technology that some use to illustrate why last-mile transport on demand can't work.

I'm a Luddite on apps and hand-held computers, but I'd be an idiot not to see where things are not only headed, but by logic alone, have to head. And it's not more cars on the roads, quite the opposite.

 

[muller877]

Which all points to the need for making motorists pay their fair share of the cost of roads (and gasoline tax is a pittance towards it):

Tolls! For all of those talking market solutions, the bottom line isn't so much subsidizing those who don't drive as much as making those that do pay for the privilege. Roads are incredibly expensive items. And it compounds geometrically in cost when all facets of life are counted.

You want to drive? Then you pay your way...how socialistic is that? That alone will reflect much more as to the efficiency and lower cost of transit.

Does the same theory apply to transit? Make transit users pay for the opex and capex costs? But how many would want to pay $8 for a TTC ride ($4 for the operating costs and $4 for the capital costs)?
Or a future when a stamp costs $2?
Or $1000 if you need a MRI?

The point i'm making is that we subsidize a lot of things. Including TRANSIT and ROADS. In fact we subsidize transit more than roads. Not a pittance like you suggest.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...-of-road-costs-study-reveals/article14901607/

 

[steveintoronto]

Does the same theory apply to transit? Make transit users pay for the opex and capex costs? But how many would want to pay $8 for a TTC ride ($4 for the operating costs and $4 for the capital costs)?
Or a future when a stamp costs $2?
Or $1000 if you need a MRI?

The point i'm making is that we subsidize a lot of things. Including TRANSIT and ROADS. In fact we subsidize transit more than roads. Not a pittance like you suggest.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...-of-road-costs-study-reveals/article14901607/

As it stands, GO Transit has the highest fare box return of any transit org in North Am. Second highest? The TTC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio

Transit capital costs are an absolute fraction of that for highway and arterial road to carry the same number of passengers.

[...]
And raising the stakes of these big-budget decisions, an increasing number of experts are saying that in the near future transportation will look very different than it does today. For example, Ontario Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca noted recently that self-driving cars – already being tested on public roads in the United States – could bring major changes.

“It’s got to become, quickly, a fairly fundamental aspect of how we plan [transportation],” he said. “You’re going to see, potentially, the opportunity to figure out how to get from here to there and see a dramatic drop in the number of cars and vehicles generally on our roads.”
[...]
A group of prominent Torontonians – including two former mayors, business leaders and public officials – added their voices to the debate Tuesday. In an open letter, they argue that the undecided councillors “hold the future of the city” in their hands.

“While we understand the concern about traffic congestion, rebuilding this elevated highway will not ‘relieve’ it; it will only postpone finding real solutions to the serious problem of mobility in our rapidly growing city,” the letter reads. It adds that most residents rely on transit to get to work downtown. “Their real need,” it says, “is investment in improving that experience.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/paving-the-way-forward-or-not/article24882439/

I'll provide more direct reference later, as I'm sure other posters will also.

Edit to Add:
RE: Muller's link:

[...]
GTHA
When restricting the analysis to the GTHA, the study finds that drivers contribute more than the cost to build and maintain GTHA roads.

This reflects the fact that the higher population density in the GTHA makes for more efficient use of public infrastructure.

What it means, as RTH reader arienc points out in this comment, is that urban drivers are heavily subsidizing rural drivers, not that drivers as a whole are subsidizing non-drivers.

That said, the study seems not to take into account the fact that GTHA drivers also uses freeways, highways and roads outside the region (think of all those Torontonians driving to Muskoka, Kawartha, Ottawa and so on).

The provincial highway network benefits all drivers, and Toronto drivers should reasonably be expected to bear some of that cost.

External Costs
Further, the study takes a strange view of the social cost of collisions and injuries and makes a convoluted argument that these costs are largely internalized by road users. This is pretty weak:

As demonstrated above, the most significant of these costs for motorists are vehicle ownership and operating costs. Less obvious is the fact that accident costs are, to a large extent, internal as well. Aside from the obvious individual harm that they cause, road accidents also reduce economic output due to eroded human capital, so there is an obvious and important policy interest in increasing safety and minimizing these costs. But, individual motorists knowingly take the risks associated with travelling in a passenger vehicle. And, they do so only if the risks are outweighed by the benefits of travel. If there are travel alternatives that offer lower risk, individuals will prefer the alternatives, all things being equal. Moreover, motorists are required to purchase insurance policies that explicitly price the risk of the motorist causing damage to other people or property. This ensures that they meet the financial costs that they may impose on non-motorists as well.

There are many things wrong with the argument, most notably that the health care system is mostly funded from general taxes! Also, emergency services (except policing) are not included, and insurance certainly does not cover the full cost of injuries and death to society.

The idea that drivers accurately assess risks and benefits of driving and so if they drive it must be worth it is clearly not true! It is well-known that people underestimate the risks of driving (and overestimate other risks, like flying).

The study also assumes that congestion costs are not an externality because the cost is only to the drivers themselves (tell that to the trucking industry). So, we can see clearly that they exclude many external costs on very shaky grounds.

At least it acknowledges that pollution is an external cost not covered by drivers. It suggests that policy could add a pollution/carbon cost to drivers that would be "used to compensate society as a whole".

Pricing for Efficiency
Another issue the study doesn't address (it indicates the authors will address this in a subsequent report) is the question of whether pricing should just cover costs or can also be used to encourage more efficient use of finite resources via market mechanisms.

Since the road infrastructure is in short supply in the GTHA, it make sense to regard pricing not just as a matter of cost-recovery but also to encourage the finite resource to be used more efficiently.

Businesses don't price to simply recover costs; they charge what the market will bear, and the free market argument is that this leads to optimal use of resources.

Not Disinterested
One final note: although the report claims to be the independent work of the Conference Board of Canada, in the preface, "The authors thank Teresa Di Felice and Christine Allum of the Canadian Automobile Association South Central Ontario (CAASCO) for initiating and defining the research and research questions."

Strangely, the following paragraph is contradicted by the first: "The Conference Board also acknowledges the CAASCO for financially supporting this research. In keeping with Conference Board guidelines for financed research, the design and method of research, as well as the content of this report, were determined solely by the Conference Board." [...]

https://raisethehammer.org/article/...drivers_do_not_pay_full_cost_of_ontario_roads

 

[Jonny5]

As it stands, GO Transit has the highest fare box return of any transit org in North Am. Second highest? The TTC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio

Transit capital costs are an absolute fraction of that for highway and arterial road.

Do those numbers account for payments of interest on capital debt projects? The MTA pays out more in interest per year from its operating budget than the entire TTC operating budget. The TTC pays zero interest on debt becuase it is not allowed to borrow money itself. If that is the difference this factoid is rather meaningless.

 

[steveintoronto]

Do those numbers account for payments of interest on capital debt projects? The MTA pays out more in interest per year from its operating budget than the entire TTC operating budget. The TTC pays zero interest on debt becuase it is not allowed to borrow money itself. If that is the difference this factoid is rather meaningless.

Errr...sorry? Are you stating that the Province and City aren't indebted? I think you'd best take a closer look at your claims.

The stats quoted stand. As for "bonds" (is that what you mean?) Toronto has to the power to issue them under the Toronto Act.

I think they should seriously look at allowing the TTC to do same, an idea that Bob Kiley took from NYC to London UK when he moved from MTA to TfL (London Underground).

Although deeply ingrained in prior UK approaches to financing London's transit infrastructure, the idea was scorned, and London went for the utterly failed PPP and PFI models, and got royally screwed. I'll itemize that in detail if you wish, complete with pictures...

 

[Jonny5]

Errr...sorry? Are you stating that the Province and City aren't indebted? I think you'd best take a closer look at your claims.

The stats quoted stand.

That is the point. The city and the province borrow money for the TTC and gift it to them. The city and the province pay the interest. The TTC pays none.
In New York the MTA itself borrows money, issues bonds and pays the interest on them. New York State and NYC don't pay interest on it. The last time I checked the MTA owed well over $30 billion, and that debt is isolated only in their own financial statements. It's not considered New York City debt.
In Ontario, money borrowed for the TTC capital projects doesn't ever appear on the books TTC books as a payable.

 

[steveintoronto]

money borrowed for the TTC doesn't ever appear on their books

Really? Have you been making love to von Munchausen lately?

Where does the money come from?
The 10-Year Capital Plan requires new debt funding of $2.002 billion, which is $124 million over the debt affordability guideline over the 10-year planning period.

• Debt funding of $2.002 billion comprises 31.7% of the TTC's 10-year capital funding.
• Additional capital financing of $1.129 billion or 17.9% will be provided from the Capital Financing Reserve, funded from proceeds from the use of surplus operating funds in accordance with the City's surplus management policy, Build Toronto and one-time Toronto Parking Authority (TPA) dividends and anticipated contributions from the Federal/Provincial government.
• Other sources of funding include Provincial ($1.023 billion or 16.2%), Federal ($1.547 billion or 24.5%), Development Charges ($357.220 million or 5.6%), which have been significantly increased from the previous 10-Year Capital Plan, and Other Revenue ($266.424 million or 4.2%).

• http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=f3905f4ee0d52410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

 

[Jonny5]

Really? Have you been making love to von Munchausen lately?

• http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=f3905f4ee0d52410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

Yes. Exactly. The City of Toronto will issue bonds to pay for the TTC capital projects. It becomes City of Toronto debt and the City of Toronto pays the interest from it's operating budget. No interest payment lines appear for the debt on the TTC financial statements. The interest is not paid by the TTC.

In New York City the MTA itself issues bonds in its own name. They are not New York City bonds. The MTA itself pays the debt out of it's operating funds. The interest on the $30billion debt is an expense for the MTA. They pay the multi-billion dollar interest expense just like it's labour costs, or electricity.

So I am asking, do these "farebox recovery ratios" make and adjustment for these apples and oranges of interest being so different.

 

[steveintoronto]

Yes. Exactly. The City of Toronto will issue bonds to pay for the TTC capital projects. It becomes City of Toronto debt and the City of Toronto pays the interest from it's operating budget. No interest payment lines appear for the debt on the TTC financial statements. The interest is not paid by the TTC.

In New York City the MTA itself issues bonds in its own name. They are not New York City bonds. The MTA itself pays the debt out of it's operating funds. The interest on the $30billion debt is an expense for the MTA. They pay the multi-billion dollar interest expense just like it's labour costs, or electricity.

So I am asking, do these "farebox recovery ratios" make and adjustment for these apples and oranges of interest being so different.

Farebox recovery is return on *operating budget*...not capital!

The farebox recovery ratio (also called fare recovery ratio) of a passenger transportation system is the fraction of operating expenses which are met by the fares paid by passengers. It is computed by dividing the system's total fare revenue by its total operating expenses.

link provided above

 

[Jonny5]

Farebox recovery is return on *operating budget*...not capital!

link provided above

The MTA pays interest on its debt from the operating budget!

The TTC does not!

 

[Jonny5]

This goes for school boards too, by the way.

I believe the LA Unified school district owes something like $10 billion in debt. Ontario school boards are banned from ever borrowing money.