News   Jun 25, 2024
10 Storeys Proposed to Float Over Annex Heritage Building
 896     1 
News   Jun 25, 2024
Madison's Alias Ascending with Height Bump into Downtown Skies
 824     0 
News   Jun 25, 2024
How Toronto Is Responding as the Fastest Growing City in North America
 1.4K     3 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

DonValleyRainbow said:
I saw hi-rail vehicles on the Richmond Hill line in the Don Valley, north of Pottery Road today. The one truck had a huge boom and cut logs on it. I couldn't see much through the trees (I was hiking on the other side of the river), but scheduled vegetation clearing I'd assume.
Click to expand...

In the summer I watched from above as they removed and replaced old ties and laid ballast. Unbelievable how fast they do this. It was like a hundred-metre long military operation.
 
doady said:
Stated operating cost of TTC is over $1.5 billion - 10x higher than Missisauga Transit. Higher than STM's approx. $1.3 billion. Do people seriously think $1.5 billion is exceedingly low? It seems to me the real reason for the high cost recovery ratio is not exceedingly low costs, but exceedingly high revenue ($1.1 billion for TTC vs. $0.6 billion for STM).
Click to expand...
The TTC moves 2.7 million people per day, while STM moves 2.1 million people per day so they are moving 29% more riders for 15% higher operating costs. Therefore, the TTC is doing better than STM for this metric. You'd probably find the the TTC is doing better, if you did these calculations for other North American transit systems as well.
 
steveintoronto said:
Of course it does, but that does not affect the simple calculation, as per definition:
[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.]
Farebox recovery ratio - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio.
Click to expand...

Thats a great ratio. None of us are stating that the formula is off. All of us agree what the formula is....now what is it for the transit agencies? They all report it differently.
 
LNahid2000 said:
The TTC moves 2.7 million people per day, while STM moves 2.1 million people per day so they are moving 29% more riders for 15% higher operating costs. Therefore, the TTC is doing better than STM for this metric. You'd probably find the the TTC is doing better, if you did these calculations for other North American transit systems as well.
Click to expand...

Those are boardings per weekday, not per day and non-revenue trips (transfers) are included too. In 2013, TTC had 525 million revenue riders compared to 416 million for STM, so 26% difference.

But that's ridership, but what about the actual amount of service? In 2013, TTC provided 9 million service hours while STM provided 8.4 million. So ~15% higher operating cost seems normal.

But we can see TTC provides 20% less service hours per rider and 25% less service hours per resident compared to STM, and charges 70% more for a monthly pass on top of that.

More overcrowded vehicles. Exorbitant fares. These are the real reasons for the high cost recoveries of TTC and also of GO. They are chronically underfunded systems.

Is TTC doing "better" than other systems? I would say it is doing worse.
 
I noticed this posting on the Metrolinx procurement site.

Request For Proposal # RFP-2016-TPI-009 Metrolinx is accepting Proposals for Supply and Delivery of Low Floor and/or High Floor Mini Bus Transit Vehicles
Click to expand...

The project documents say they are looking for a supplier for low floor and/or high floor diesel and gasoline van based specialized/alternative mini buses for transit (that are specifically designed to serve the elderly or mobility-impaired transit user, typically
door-to-door). It goes on to say that the goals of the procurement are to:
  • reduce the unit costs of Buses by consolidating Bus orders to achieve the volumes required to attain economies of scale;
  • reduce procurement process related costs, improve production and delivery scheduling; and
  • reduce uncertainty for manufacturers through longer production runs, greater predictability and performance-based specifications.
It looks like this order is being coordinated through the Transit Procurement Initiative (TPI) which is a central procurement agency for the joint procurement. So maybe these buses will be used on multiple municipal transit systems.
 
Allandale25 said:
I noticed this posting on the Metrolinx procurement site.



The project documents say they are looking for a supplier for low floor and/or high floor diesel and gasoline van based specialized/alternative mini buses for transit (that are specifically designed to serve the elderly or mobility-impaired transit user, typically
door-to-door). It goes on to say that the goals of the procurement are to:
  • reduce the unit costs of Buses by consolidating Bus orders to achieve the volumes required to attain economies of scale;
  • reduce procurement process related costs, improve production and delivery scheduling; and
  • reduce uncertainty for manufacturers through longer production runs, greater predictability and performance-based specifications.
It looks like this order is being coordinated through the Transit Procurement Initiative (TPI) which is a central procurement agency for the joint procurement. So maybe these buses will be used on multiple municipal transit systems.
Click to expand...
They been doing this for a number of years to help "ALL" systems to get a better price for their fleet replacement or expansion than going out for their own tenders.

Getting into Accessibility Vans market is new.
 
doady said:
Stated operating cost of TTC is over $1.5 billion - 10x higher than Missisauga Transit. Higher than STM's approx. $1.3 billion. Do people seriously think $1.5 billion is exceedingly low? It seems to me the real reason for the high cost recovery ratio is not exceedingly low costs, but exceedingly high revenue ($1.1 billion for TTC vs. $0.6 billion for STM).

Like the ~80% cost recovery for GO doesn't surprise me considering how expensive their fares are. TTC is the same. TTC doesn't offer 2 hour unlimited use like 905 systems. So no return trips within that 2 hours, or no stopovers, meaning a high price to pay for short trips. And 905 systems accept each other's fares, and TTC doesn't accept anyone's fares. TTC weekly and monthly passes are also far more expensive than the 905 systems, and far more expensive than STM as well - $141 for TTC vs. $83 for STM. Yeah, that's right. The TTC monthly pass is almost 2x more expensive than STM's.

So people should stop blaming high recovery on misleading cost numbers. It's just about the fares.

Keep in mind it was 60% before the Mike Harris Era and then rose to 80% due to massive service cuts. Do people find 60% so hard to believe also? Then stated 45% cost recovery right now for the suburban systems (Mississauga, Brampton, York) must be crazy. Maybe they are. If there was more government funding for transit, these cost recoveries would be a lot lower, and be more similar to other systems. Keep in mind, Mississauga's cost recovery was over 60% too. Government funding makes a huge difference.
Click to expand...

It's low. Very low. For example, Sydney Trains alone (which does not include the city's extensive bus, ferry and also light rail service) has an operating cost of over $2 billion/year.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
Question:


If GO transit was to extend all day service to Cambridge via Milton, where would the train station be?
Click to expand...
somewhere in here I would imagine

upload_2016-10-29_14-52-12.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-10-29_14-52-12.png
    upload_2016-10-29_14-52-12.png
    194.1 KB · Views: 765
denfromoakvillemilton said:
Thank you. How much is this going to cost? I mean extra tracks from Toronto to Cambridge plus the new stations?
Click to expand...

The figure that keeps getting thrown around is $110 million (2009 dollars), but that's just a feasibility study estimate for the extension, and does not include downstream costs (expanding existing Milton line/CP inclusion in Freight By-pass). Furthermore, that's subject to additional negotiations between CP and MX, additional study, and any additional commitments that come out of those.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
The figure that keeps getting thrown around is $110 million (2009 dollars), but that's just a feasibility study estimate for the extension, and does not include downstream costs (expanding existing Milton line/CP inclusion in Freight By-pass). Furthermore, that's subject to additional negotiations between CP and MX, additional study, and any additional commitments that come out of those.
Click to expand...
So over 250 million then.


Some years ago I kept hearing it would be 1.9 billion for the entire Milton Line, is this true?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top