TOareaFan
Superstar
^ignoring all the under 10 minute frequency routes into Brampton?....I guess just like all the GO transit users
You're original statement included "a) picks you up or lets you off at or close to your driveway (quick and weatherproof)".
I don't see how you can run an efficient service and still get deep enough into the curvy side-streets and culdesacs with a fixed route service.
However, in those backstreets, and assuming that with smaller ridership there won't be that many stops to slow things down, one might allow a much closer stop spacing. On any particular run, the vehicle may blow by many stops, but there may be a balance somewhere between "stop at my driveway" and "sorry, I can't stop here, it's not an approved stop" that is close enough to "to the doorstep" - which may be a very different stop spacing than the policy on arterial roads.
Pardon me if I drag this out by coming at it another way - with a case study. Here's a Google Earth view of the catchment area for the Clarkson GO station. I picked Clarkson because I don't have views on the current situation - but it has a nice big parking garage.
I hand-drew (pardon the shaky mouse) the Miway routes that connect to Clarkson GO. You will note that for the most part, the residential areas (green) don't get local services, so one has to walk to the main streets to find a bus.
There are two routes (29- blue, and 14 - red) that arguably already function as local feeder routes....but.....the rush hour headway for these is 25 minutes on one and 35 minutes on the other.
To me, this says - it's a long walk to the bus, but a nice short drive to the GO. No surprise that people avail themselves of that option. The solution has to be to bring transit closer to the doorstep.
- Paul
^ignoring all the under 10 minute frequency routes into Brampton?....I guess just like all the GO transit users
I also wonder whether we should be examining existing subdivisions with an eye to removing two or three properties in the interests of linking streets in a straighter line. Yes, it has an expropriation cost and a density cost....but....it can be done. How bad do we want this change?
- Paul
routes from all 4 directions....from the west the combination of 1 and 561...from the south 502 and 2, from the north 502 and 2 and from the east 1 and 501.....pretty much all other routes in the city intersect one of those routes...the actual catchment area for this station is really not that large...to the North and west, MT Pleasant becomes a more convenient station (especially for drivers) and the south and East Bramalea does the same (since those two have less issues with parking there is actually a bias towards drivers going to those stations which should make it even easier for transit's share, on a percentage basis, to grow).I didn't ignore them.
I'm well aware of Main/Hurontario and Queen East.
However, collectively they miss a big chunk of the catchment area.
I noted that:
Brampton is somewhat better; but route 24 as a feeder is still 30m service even in peak periods; 52 is 20m more or less.
In other words only 2 routes meet a decent standard; and perhaps, btw them, service 1/3 of the potential ridership zone.
We're the other routes feeding that station at the same level; and the one or two mostly likely transfer routes likewise (say Kennedy); then I think the argument is more convincing.
Check out Oakville GO (see link, page 41). 57% Auto Driver Mode Share. And Oakville Transit ain't nothing to write home about. Mind you, that document is from 2013 and ridership stats from before the parking garage opened, so I'd be curious to see how that has affected things.Obviously we disagree....but I think it is one of the best served stations by local transit in the system....and it captures 10% of the users.
First time I have seen that document......and it eases my mind and makes me wonder where those numbers in the wiki document came from? The basis for my concern was that with pretty good transit Brampton was at 10% transit and 80% car....if the car is actually 54% then transit must be significantly higher than 10%.....not what I observe at all but may just show the weakness in anecdotal/observational analysis.Check out Oakville GO (see link, page 41). 57% Auto Driver Mode Share. And Oakville Transit ain't nothing to write home about. Mind you, that document is from 2013 and ridership stats from before the parking garage opened, so I'd be curious to see how that has affected things.
Curiously, this same document says that Auto Driver Mode Share for Brampton is 54%.
(For what it's worth I've questioned the accuracy of this document in the past)
The eye test isn't for everything...First time I have seen that document......and it eases my mind and makes me wonder where those numbers in the wiki document came from? The basis for my concern was that with pretty good transit Brampton was at 10% transit and 80% car....if the car is actually 54% then transit must be significantly higher than 10%.....not what I observe at all but may just show the weakness in anecdotal/observational analysis.
Honestly, I believe that there are a lot of issues with the document and I do question many of the numbers.First time I have seen that document......and it eases my mind and makes me wonder where those numbers in the wiki document came from? The basis for my concern was that with pretty good transit Brampton was at 10% transit and 80% car....if the car is actually 54% then transit must be significantly higher than 10%.....not what I observe at all but may just show the weakness in anecdotal/observational analysis.
no but it would be interesting to know why the wiki page (yeah, I know it's wiki but the numbers came from somewhere) and that GO report differ so much. Is the transit share at Brampton 54% or 10%? Those are wildly different numbers.The eye test isn't for everything...
Agreed. I wonder if the different number come from Brampton Transit or the City of Brampton. Could you also show me where it says 10% percent on wiki, I cannot find it for some reason.no but it would be interesting to know why the wiki page (yeah, I know it's wiki but the numbers came from somewhere) and that GO report differ so much. Is the transit share at Brampton 54% or 10%? Those are wildly different numbers.