News   Mar 28, 2024
 1K     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 567     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 866     0 

GO needs off-peak pricing

Instead of lower off-peak fares, another way to fill those trains is to simply reduce the amount of trains in service. Cut the service in half, and the trains will be twice as full.

Or just close the upper decks on all the bi-level coaches... just like the Toronto Argonauts closing the 500 level at SkyDome to make their stadium look more "full".
 
Instead of lower off-peak fares, another way to fill those trains is to simply reduce the amount of trains in service. Cut the service in half, and the trains will be twice as full.

Shit!! you mean I now have to wait 2 hrs for a train doing this?? Who going to pay me the extra 2 hrs for travel??

Students would have to take an early train to get to school and have no after school job.

A real ""DUMB"" idea as to kill transit. Must work for the car folks.

Not sure what GO use as an hour rate for a train, but lets say $1,000/hr.

Not every rider is going to/from Toronto from my travels in the west.

I would say there would be about 300-500 riders on the train between Union and Aldershot at some point.

Using an average current fare of $8/rider, GO is taking in $2,400 to $4,000 or $1,200 to $3,000 profit.

At $4 per rider, GO is making a profit off those riders between $200 to $1,000. Now if you add in the unused seats 1,200-1,000, that an extra $4,800 to $4,000. Using all the seats at a lower cost, GO is making a higher profit rate as well helping to move cars off the road.

Even if you did this, there will still be empty seats late at night.
 
I think GO should be free on the Lakeshore lines (e/w) within toronto during the week (say between 10a and 3) for tourists etc. This is done in many other cities. Heck I think the Queens Quay Streetcar should do the same.
 
You're kidding right? That's a great way to lose most of the riders.

As one of the GO customers who does not have off peak service it ammuses me to think that the way to make those Oakville trains with 60 people fuller is to cut the cost!

In the past when I have asked GO why there is less service on other lines they give two reasons 1. track availibility 2. fiscal feasibility on "lower demand" lines.....

....if there are GO trains running on other lines with 60 people, my fare is paying for part of that and I think we should definitely be willing to consider that there is too much service for the current demand and, perhaps, those excess trains should be running on other lines.

How long has the lakeshore line had full two way service 7 days a week? If after that length of time there really are trains running with 60 passengers....you have to, at least, consider the possibility that that is all the ridership there is and that you cannot run a service based on that level of ridership.
 
Last edited:
I think GO should be free on the Lakeshore lines (e/w) within toronto during the week (say between 10a and 3) for tourists etc. This is done in many other cities. Heck I think the Queens Quay Streetcar should do the same.

So would tourists be issued tourist cards? Or would you just not check anyone's tickets between those hours? Making the service free for all?
 
As one of the GO customers who does not have off peak service it ammuses me to think that the way to make those Oakville trains with 60 people fuller is to cut the cost!

In the past when I have asked GO why there is less service on other lines they give two reasons 1. track availibility 2. fiscal feasibility on "lower demand" lines.....

....if there are GO trains running on other lines with 60 people, my fare is paying for part of that and I think we should definitely be willing to consider that there is too much service for the current demand and, perhaps, those excess trains should be running on other lines.

How long has the lakeshore line had full two way service 7 days a week? If after that length of time there really are trains running with 60 passengers....you have to, at least, consider the possibility that that is all the ridership there is and that you cannot run a service based on that level of ridership.

I can tell you more than 60 people use the Lakeshore for off peak as I am one of them. I know 10 or more get on at Port Credit going west with 20 0r more going east. I had to move to another car after getting on as it was full on both levels. Watching riders getting on and off all the way to Aldershot is over a few 100's riders.

Maybe we should talk about buses that running around near empty that we are paying for. The Sq One to RHC/Airport are 2 routes. I have seen Sq One to Union or the other way around as another one. I have been on all of them.

Then there is the trips to York U where I was the only one on it.
 
Can you imagine if all transit fares were scaled to how full the buses and trains are? I would be able to ride transit for free basically. But not for long I suppose if other people start taking advantage as well. But then that would mean the fares would have to go back up wouldn't it? And so the ridership will drop back to what it was originally. It would be an endless cycle I think.

I don't think we should be too worried about somewhat empty trains and buses. Sometimes it is nice to walk onto a train and actually be able to sit down. I have flat feet, I don't want to stand up all the time.

Maybe we should talk about buses that running around near empty that we are paying for. The Sq One to RHC/Airport are 2 routes. I have seen Sq One to Union or the other way around as another one. I have been on all of them.

Then there is the trips to York U where I was the only one on it.

Are you suggesting that the York U bus is a poorly performing route? Or that new routes sohudl be expected to have high ridership right away? C'mon...
 
Can you imagine if all transit fares were scaled to how full the buses and trains are? I would be able to ride transit for free basically. But not for long I suppose if other people start taking advantage as well. But then that would mean the fares would have to go back up wouldn't it? And so the ridership will drop back to what it was originally. It would be an endless cycle I think.

There's an equilibrium.
 
Can you imagine if all transit fares were scaled to how full the buses and trains are? I would be able to ride transit for free basically. But not for long I suppose if other people start taking advantage as well. But then that would mean the fares would have to go back up wouldn't it? And so the ridership will drop back to what it was originally. It would be an endless cycle I think.

No, you can lower the fare on an hourly or half hourly basis based on ridership. For example, the target could be a range like 50-80% of seats full so that GO isn't loosing too much revenue due to reduced fares and having the occasional train with no seats available at the same time. A minimum fare, perhaps equal to a TTC fare would be set because a free ride would make no sense nor would a fare cheaper than local transit. During some hours that might mean a significant reduction in fares, if average ridership during a period dropped below 50% of seats full then ticket prices could go down and if ridership went above 80% during a period then ticket prices could go up. The fares would need to be more flexible than now... with published fares being the full fares but the reduced time based fares varying monthly or quarterly based on ridership statistics.
 
I can tell you more than 60 people use the Lakeshore for off peak as I am one of them. I know 10 or more get on at Port Credit going west with 20 0r more going east. I had to move to another car after getting on as it was full on both levels. Watching riders getting on and off all the way to Aldershot is over a few 100's riders.

I was refrencing an earlier poster who said some trains run with as few as 60 people.......that is why I put "if" before each time I re-used the number.

All I am saying is that all services should be reviewable and if, after a reasonable time frame, they do not generate ridership we at least have to consider the possibility of ending a service. GO, recovers what, 85% - 90% of its operating costs from the fare box? So another way to look at it is if we assume that all of those full trains (on all of the lines) during the peak times (morning and evening rush) are profitable (or, at least, break even) then the leakage (the 10 - 15%) has to be coming elsewhere......so every time fares go up on all lines to keep that ratio in line......it is those services that are losing money (off-peak trains?) that are necessitating the increase....until GO, then, can provide all of those lines that same level of service, the lines without the off peak service are subsidizing the line that has it........there may well be other reasons to keep that service but the simple fact is, they are not economic reasons.
 
It's simple economics. Every empty seat in a train is a waste. Ticket prices should reflect a desire to have off-peak trains at least half full.

I disagree with the premise of this thread that the objective should be to reduce the number of empty seats.

Ticket prices should be set at a level that maximizes revenue and reduces the amount of subsidy that the service receives. This can be balanced by consideration of offsetting benefits to the community (less traffic, etc.), but the number of empty seats is immaterial except with respect to how much those empty seats cost the system.

Does a train with 5 cars cost significantly more to run than a train with 3 cars? Does GO transit pay CN/CP for the use of their rails by passenger, by number of cars, or is it a set rate per train?

Reducing the price of GO train travel to zero will maximize the number of filled seats, but will not do very much to cover the costs of running the train.
 
GO doesn't need time based pricing. It needs better distance based pricing. The discrimination against short-distance travelers in favour of subsidizing those who sprawl out across the fringes of the 905 is ridiculous.
 
Toronto residents in general is discriminated against by GO.

PRICING
The pricing from Union to Exhibition is 3.95, Mimico 4.05, Long Branch 4.05, Port Credit 4.80. The distances from Union compared to Exhibition are Mimico 3.5x, Long Branch 5x, Port Credit 6.5x. If we are to assume no administration fee and the Port Credit fare to be the target then Exhibition would cost 0.73, Mimico 2.58, Long Branch 3.69. Even with a 2.00 administration fee per fare and a Port Credit target rate the fares would be Exhibition 2.43, Mimico 3.51, and Long Branch 4.15 (higher than the current fare). Therefore there is no reasonable math formula to arrive at the fares that exist today.

SERVICE
At one point the Stouffville trains stopped at Danforth. This was stopped to move Danforth passengers onto the Lakeshore Line. While all regular GO rail stations outside the city have bus replacement service off-peak the same luxury is not provided to GO stations inside the city which do not have off-peak rail service.

TRANSFERS
This is largely the fault of the TTC but while other transit agencies offer reduced fares for connecting passengers there is no such option within Toronto.
 
Toronto residents in general is discriminated against by GO.
TRANSFERS
This is largely the fault of the TTC but while other transit agencies offer reduced fares for connecting passengers there is no such option within Toronto.

Those agencies are able to do so because GO offers a subsidy for each passenger that takes local transit, because it's cheaper than building more parking. GO does not offer such a subsidy to the TTC, presumably to remind 416ers that they're not particularly welcome on GO.
 
Those agencies are able to do so because GO offers a subsidy for each passenger that takes local transit, presumably because it's cheaper than building more parking. GO does not offer such a subsidy to the TTC, presumably to remind 416ers that they're not particularly welcome on GO.
Really? It's more like the TTC is never going to be willing to give reduced fare transfers to passengers from other transit providers.

EnviroTO said:
Toronto residents in general is discriminated against by GO.
It's more like "short range trips in general are discriminated against by GO. GO's flat fare is pretty much just as expensive as that of other transit agencies, and it has fare zones/distance fare put on top of that. You'll see the same inconvenience if you want get from Unionville to Markham or Miliken, or from Dixie to Cooksville. There is absolutely no discrimination against 416ers.
 

Back
Top