Metrolinx: Other Items (catch all)

[Megaton327]

I've said this probably about 50 times between this and other threads, but I'll repeat myself: if GO charges for parking in a manner that results in a total fare increase, a large percentage of its customers will stop using GO and drive all the way downtown instead, and GO service will be cut drastically due to low ridership.

It's all well and good to say that it's better for people to take GO and pay for parking than to take GO and park for free, but those aren't the two possibilities here. Realistically the two possibilities are people take GO and pay for parking, or people drive downtown, and mark my words, they WILL choose to drive downtown en masse. GO service will be cut back due to ridership dropping by 80% or so, it will be cut to only 2 or 3 trains peak periods only on every corridor (say goodbye to all offpeak service on every line unless parking is at least free offpeak), all expansion and RER and electrification will be cancelled, because it would be stupid to invest that much money into a service with just a small number of riders.

Go to any GO station and look at the parking lot filled with hundreds to thousands of cars parking for free, and honestly tell me those people will sit in lines to pay to park, and pay a higher fare, and feel "targeted" by GO, and still take the train when for many people it's not necessarily much faster and is, already, usually much more expensive than driving even before this hypothetical parking fee.

This is a monumentally stupid idea that has the potential to seriously screw up life in the GTHA for millions of people, with the worst effects by far being concentrated in downtown Toronto. They should focus their efforts on improved public transit connections as an alternative to reduce parking demand.

 

[Northern Light]

I've said this probably about 50 times between this and other threads, but I'll repeat myself: if GO charges for parking in a manner that results in a total fare increase, a large percentage of its customers will stop using GO and drive all the way downtown instead, and GO service will be cut drastically due to low ridership.

It's all well and good to say that it's better for people to take GO and pay for parking than to take GO and park for free, but those aren't the two possibilities here. Realistically the two possibilities are people take GO and pay for parking, or people drive downtown, and mark my words, they WILL choose to drive downtown en masse. GO service will be cut back due to ridership dropping by 80% or so, it will be cut to only 2 or 3 trains peak periods only on every corridor (say goodbye to all offpeak service on every line unless parking is at least free offpeak), all expansion and RER and electrification will be cancelled, because it would be stupid to invest that much money into a service with just a small number of riders.

Go to any GO station and look at the parking lot filled with hundreds to thousands of cars parking for free, and honestly tell me those people will sit in lines to pay to park, and pay a higher fare, and feel "targeted" by GO, and still take the train when for many people it's not necessarily much faster and is, already, usually much more expensive than driving even before this hypothetical parking fee.

This is a monumentally stupid idea that has the potential to seriously screw up life in the GTHA for millions of people, with the worst effects by far being concentrated in downtown Toronto. They should focus their efforts on improved public transit connections as an alternative to reduce parking demand.

Mark my works, there will be no free parking for GO commuters by 2025 at most or all stations.

Now, that said, I completely favour a 'swap' in which fares are reduced by the amount of revenue gained from charging for parking, I think that's only sensible.

There is no question such a move needs to involve drastically better transit service to GO's stations in the burbs.

Further, it really should be accompanied by tolls on every major highway in the GTA, making it a considerably more expensive decision to drive downtown vs GO.

***

All of the above said, GO would never see an 80% reduction in ridership, not if it charged $10 per space, didn't reduce fares, and local services were still between poor and abysmal.

The reasons for this are straight forward.

There is insufficient road capacity for such a shift.

We're not talking about adding 10 minutes to your morning commute, we're talking about adding over an hour, assuming no accidents.

Further, there is insufficient parking supply downtown, there are not 40,000 empty spots.

I doubt there are 5,000 most days.

Needless to say if demand grew faster than spaces, the price would also rise, by at least $10 per space per day.

Its a complete and utter impossibility for 80% of GO's ridership to migrate to car travel.

GO could certainly take a hit. But I would peg the maximum feasible loss of ridership at about 20%.

Megaton, you have posted many sensible things over the years, but I must, as with other posters discourage you from wandering off into complete hyperbole.

It does a real dis-service to an otherwise legitimate point.

Of course there is price elasticity, of course GO must be mindful not to discourage more commuters than it encourages, of course various other things need to be in place in order to facilitated wide-spread paid parking at GO Stations, in a manner that results in a net benefit from a transportation and environmental perspective.

But there is no risk of an 80% drop in ridership, nor anything close, as there simply isn't an alternative in place.

 

[mdrejhon]

This is a monumentally stupid idea that has the potential to seriously screw up life in the GTHA for millions of people, with the worst effects by far being concentrated in downtown Toronto. They should focus their efforts on improved public transit connections as an alternative to reduce parking demand.

I beg to differ, see below.

GO could certainly take a hit. But I would peg the maximum feasible loss of ridership at about 20%.

Managed over a 10-year time period, I think 0% because the gain in new riders will outweigh the loss of riders.

Stage #1: year 2020
-- Increase advertising of Reserved Parking Spaces.
-- Close-off a few more parking spots and add "Park Here Today! Visit: go.transit/park0157 " to allow people to pay for that exact spot online, right away.
Storyboard: "Not sure I'll consider it yet, maybe next month. I know my coworker capitulated to that already."

Stage #2: year 2022
-- Presto pay-on-the-spot Reserved Parking Spaces (readers that instantly print a dayticket on a single tap).
-- Commuters arriving at full parking lots trying to find free parking, can thus park & tap spontaneously rather than dreading drive
Storyboard: "I'm escastic I can immediately find a parking spot. As long as I'm willing to tap my card if the free spots are full"

Stage #3: year ~2025-2035 (gradual)
-- Creative GO discount for those not taking cars (a "WOW" promo like the $3 fares). Maybe the Aldershot ride could become $9 instead of $12. Possibly achieved with Presto reader at entrances to parking lot/garage. Frame it in a way as a GO discount, rather than a parking fee.
-- Removal of free parking at all 15-minute stations
-- Removal of free parking at most other stations except very suburban stations (e.g. Bowmanville extension)
Storyboard: "Hmmm, wow, I think I'll find a way to leave my car at home."

Stage #4: year 2041
- All free parking removed system-wide
- Parking cost raised incrementally

Many drivers will just give up -- but the increase in new transit users (new willing mode-switchers, new generation, non-car-owners, transit users, etc) "in the meanwhile" during a slow Stage 1-2-3 deployment -- will more than compensate for loss of car drivers. Deploy the stages slow enough, and the annual ridership growth could continue uninterrupted despite the end of free parking.

Metrolinx has shown a new flexibility of concessions ($3 GO/UPX rides inside 416!) and this is a very easy concession to make, if spun correctly politically: Total fares unchanged during the parking-cost split-out. It's simply a GO discount if you arrive at GO station without a car.

Obviously you will want to split the cost at first, by discounting all outer suburban GO rides immediately upon implementation of the universal $3 Presto tap at parking entrance. Many drivers are willing to pay $3 per day for a parking spot but many will also decide to mode-switch. And if parking lots still stay full at $3/day, that parking tap can be raised to $4 or $5.

Ultimately, I don't think Megaton has anything as big to worry about, given Metrolinx's new willingness to be creative with fare pricing.

GO needs to simplify this silly byzantine Metrolinx form into one Presto tap, and the masses will happily spontaneously tap $3 for a parking spot to stop panicking for a parking spot. (And then willing to bear slow, incremental parking-spot cost increases afterwards). Yes, $3 is underpricing (for the first few years), but once safely split out, it's a future cost-increase opportunity without increasing train fares.

At the end of the day, parking lots will be near-full (due to intentionally initially-inexpensive parking pricing), but there will be a lot more other modes arriving at GO stations. More ridership for the win!

 

[steveintoronto]

^ https://www.codereadr.com/knowledgebase/scan-parking-permit-barcodes/

 

[Northern Light]

I beg to differ, see below.


Managed over a 10-year time period, I think 0% because the gain in new riders will outweigh the loss of riders.

Stage #1: year 2020
-- Increase advertising of Reserved Parking Spaces.
-- Close-off a few more parking spots and add "Park Here Today! Visit: go.transit/park0157 " to allow people to pay for that exact spot online, right away.
Storyboard: "Not sure I'll consider it yet, maybe next month. I know my coworker capitulated to that already."

Stage #2: year 2022
-- Presto pay-on-the-spot Reserved Parking Spaces (readers that instantly print a dayticket on a single tap).
-- Commuters arriving at full parking lots trying to find free parking, can thus park & tap spontaneously rather than dreading drive
Storyboard: "I'm escastic I can immediately find a parking spot. As long as I'm willing to tap my card if the free spots are full"

Stage #3: year ~2025-2035 (gradual)
-- Creative GO discount for those not taking cars (a "WOW" promo like the $3 fares). Maybe the Aldershot ride could become $9 instead of $12. Possibly achieved with Presto reader at entrances to parking lot/garage. Frame it in a way as a GO discount, rather than a parking fee.
-- Removal of free parking at all 15-minute stations
-- Removal of free parking at most other stations except very suburban stations (e.g. Bowmanville extension)
Storyboard: "Hmmm, wow, I think I'll find a way to leave my car at home."

Stage #4: year 2041
- All free parking removed system-wide
- Parking cost raised incrementally

Many drivers will just give up -- but the increase in new transit users (new willing mode-switchers, new generation, non-car-owners, transit users, etc) "in the meanwhile" during a slow Stage 1-2-3 deployment -- will more than compensate for loss of car drivers. Deploy the stages slow enough, and the annual ridership growth could continue uninterrupted despite the end of free parking.

Metrolinx has shown a new flexibility of concessions ($3 GO/UPX rides inside 416!) and this is a very easy concession to make, if spun correctly politically: Total fares unchanged during the parking-cost split-out. It's simply a GO discount if you arrive at GO station without a car.

Obviously you will want to split the cost at first, by discounting all outer suburban GO rides immediately upon implementation of the universal $3 Presto tap at parking entrance. Many drivers are willing to pay $3 per day for a parking spot but many will also decide to mode-switch. And if parking lots still stay full at $3/day, that parking tap can be raised to $4 or $5.

Ultimately, I don't think Megaton has anything as big to worry about, given Metrolinx's new willingness to be creative with fare pricing.

GO needs to simplify this silly byzantine Metrolinx form into one Presto tap, and the masses will happily spontaneously tap $3 for a parking spot to stop panicking for a parking spot. (And then willing to bear slow, incremental parking-spot cost increases afterwards). Yes, $3 is underpricing (for the first few years), but once safely split out, it's a future cost-increase opportunity without increasing train fares.

At the end of the day, parking lots will be near-full (due to intentionally initially-inexpensive parking pricing), but there will be a lot more other modes arriving at GO stations. More ridership for the win!

I wasn't suggesting that a loss of riders was likely; nor that there would not be, over time, a significant net gain.

I was, in answer to the previous post by Megaton327 suggesting a maximum ridership loss of 20% if they did absolutely everything wrong.

I also think full paid parking can and will arrive much sooner than 2041, as it should.

The issue is in the execution.

Eglinton Station on the LSE, as an example is already fairly well served by transit. So I think the only key there is to clearly survey the existing parking lot users to see where they are coming from (Presto data make make this quite easy), and make sure the appropriate feeder routes are improved, and marketing to riders reaches out to promote uptake of alternatives. In that context Eglinton should be a paid parking site as soon as $3 service kicks in, because you have the overt-trade made (lower fare, higher parking)

For stations further out w/considerably poorer transit, an instant change over isn't likely possible.

As you noted, shifting maybe 10% of the spaces at a station, say Whitby would be a better move, but it must also happen with a vast improvement in DRT service on Brock Rd. Whitby, and on Bayly/Bloor and maybe even one or two other routes so that alternatives are desirable and practical.

As further service improvement and road-grid improvements come on stream, the parking could be and should be full phased over to paid parking as early as 2025, though I would argue for dropping the Whitby to Union fare by the same amount as the base parking charge, initially. (say $3). Once riders are used to that, and the elasticity measure has been documented, additional increases might be brought forward.

 

[Neutrino]

Wouldn't they need to factor the local bus ride fare into the parking cost?

 

[crs1026]

Wouldn't they need to factor the local bus ride fare into the parking cost?

They should, yes. If the cofare is $1.50 each way, the parking cost has to be at least $3 per day to create the correct incentive.

It’s a bit like air fare pricing (not that air fares are without controversy....) If I don’t check a bag, I pay less than if I do. If I don't park at Go, I get a price break. You pay for what you use.

- Paul

 

[innsertnamehere]

I suspect what you could see is at first a very low parking cost, just to let people adjust, tied to decreased fares. For example, $3 a day, with GO's base fares dropped by $1. Driving customer's daily costs increase by $1, or they could save $3 by biking, walking, or being dropped off, or $1.40 by taking local transit with it's co-fare.

If you start with a small incentive like that, you wouldn't see too much uproar, and could start to shift people's habits. Existing customers aren't going to get royally upset - but there will be an incentive now to take alternative ways to a station. Unlike today, where there is no reason to bike or walk or take transit to the station as driving is easier and has no additional cost. It's actually cheaper to drive than to take the bus.

Heck, you could also do it with a 0 cost increase to a driving customer. Just charge $2 a day to park, and drop base fares by $1. This would require a bit more subsidy from the province to make up for the lost revenue from existing non-parking customers.. but it could work.

Then over time, you could increase parking costs faster than fare costs, slowly creating more and more incentive to take alternative modes, especially at stations with high levels of parking demand.

 

[Allandale25]

Another town hall is scheduled for April 30th. Other dates for the rest of the year have also been announced. https://www.metrolinxengage.com/en/engagement-initiatives/ask-metrolinx

 

[aquateam]

Heck, you could also do it with a 0 cost increase to a driving customer. Just charge $2 a day to park, and drop base fares by $1. This would require a bit more subsidy from the province to make up for the lost revenue from existing non-parking customers.. but it could work.

That is how I would start off, and I think it's what GO should do to avoid any blowback.

But at this point, it really is unconscionable that GO doesn't charge for parking. Their last parking structure in Oakville was $ 41.1 million for $1200 spots, which is $34 250 per user (weekday rider). In comparison, the TYSSE (which was built into the middle of nowhere in the most expensive way possible with palatial stations) cost ($2.6 billion/83 500 weekday riders=) $31 000 per weekday rider.

This isn't about sticking-it to drivers. This is about managing parking demand to avoid the huge expense of constructing garage-mahals. This is about providing parking at only a slight subsidy instead of a complete subsidy. This is about not expropriating downtown buildings and demolishing them in order to construct parking lots.

 

[Streety McCarface]

That is how I would start off, and I think it's what GO should do to avoid any blowback.

But at this point, it really is unconscionable that GO doesn't charge for parking. Their last parking structure in Oakville was $ 41.1 million for $1200 spots, which is $34 250 per user (weekday rider). In comparison, the TYSSE (which was built into the middle of nowhere in the most expensive way possible with palatial stations) cost ($2.6 billion/83 500 weekday riders=) $31 000 per weekday rider.

This isn't about sticking-it to drivers. This is about managing parking demand to avoid the huge expense of constructing garage-mahals. This is about providing parking at only a slight subsidy instead of a complete subsidy. This is about not expropriating downtown buildings and demolishing them in order to construct parking lots.

Out of curiosity, what about parking spaces in more rural areas (ie Breslau, Kirby, Bloomington, Gormley, Barrie South, etc)? Should those be paid despite not taking away prime land?

 

[steveintoronto]

Out of curiosity, what about parking spaces in more rural areas (ie Breslau, Kirby, Bloomington, Gormley, Barrie South, etc)? Should those be paid despite not taking away prime land?

I think you're missing an essential piece of logic if you have to ask that.

There's at least two separate discussions: Land use, and cost of providing parking. Passengers are charged at the highest fare box return rate of any public system in North Am for GO. What possible argument could be made that outweighs that same rate of cost recovery from those that drive and park?

You use it, you pay for it. And don't expect those of us who don't drive and park to pay your share. Entitlement travels on four wheels.

 

[Streety McCarface]

I think you're missing an essential piece of logic if you have to ask that.

There's at least two separate discussions: Land use, and cost of providing parking. Passengers are charged at the highest fare box return rate of any public system in North Am for GO. What possible argument could be made that outweighs that same rate of cost recovery from those that drive and park?

You use it, you pay for it. And don't expect those of us who don't drive and park to pay your share. Entitlement travels on four wheels.

I'm not denying that, but if you can build a giant flat parking lot in the middle of nowhere for next to nothing, would it be fair to charge as much there as a downtown parking complex? My point is that in these areas of the GO network, there is no alternative to driving, so should there be a focus at these stations for parking, and if the answer is no, then what should these stations be used for?

Also, GO has the highest farebox recovery ratio because it has an extremely high ridership that justifies the services. Every rush hour train is packed, and it is only a recent phenomenon that recovery ratios have been going down. This is clearly explained by government subsidies and midday expansion. The price for a go train ticket is extremely fair, even for a person walking to a station.

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm not denying that, but if you can build a giant flat parking lot in the middle of nowhere for next to nothing, would it be fair to charge as much there as a downtown parking complex? My point is that in these areas of the GO network, there is no alternative to driving, so should there be a focus at these stations for parking, and if the answer is no, then what should these stations be used for?

"Next to nothing"?

No such thing. We build, they pay. What's so difficult to understand about that? Here's an idea: We don't build, and a private concern does. Good luck getting it for free. If the demand is there, they'll pay.

"Oh, but they'll just drive downtown if it isn't free". Then let them, and pay for road tolls. "No alternative to driving". Sure there is, drop-offs, car-shares, buses. Not as much as in the city? They made the choice to live out there, they can pay the price of doing so. They can insist to their local reps that transit be beafed up.

But of course, most of the folks that live in the burbs do so because they like to drive. So they can pay for parking...or live closer to the stations. How is it possible in so many other nations and not here?

 

[Streety McCarface]

"Next to nothing"?

No such thing. We build, they pay. What's so difficult to understand about that? Here's an idea: We don't build, and a private concern does. Good luck getting it for free.

Compared to large parking structures in downtown Brampton, yes. Building a parking lot in the middle of Breslau farmland is "next to nothing". GO has to support all modes of transportation in order to gain ridership. This includes cars. What shouldn't be done is building giant parking structures in the middle of a city for commuter parking, I'm sure we both agree on that. However, I think it's fair to say that parking can and probably should be provided in areas in which land around the station has little to no development purpose.

If we're going to play this "I don't want my money going to x project" bullshit, then all gas tax money that supports GO transit can be taken away, no parking will be built, and ridership can tank because fares will be so high, no one can really use the service (because no last-mile alternatives exist), and no improvements will be made to the GO system because no money will be available to expand. Capital costs for a station and parking are not paid for by fares, but by taxes (especially the gas tax). I don't like the parking, the vast majority of us don't like the excess parking, but that parking is building ridership that will be able to support RER. Once RER and last mile initiatives are implemented, the land can be repurposed for mixed-use development. Metrolinx knows this: they can't support huge GO expansion without ridership to justify it.