GO needs off-peak pricing

[DavidH]

Politics is what delayed the Pearson rebirth......not lack of competition.

And what got it going was the decision to push airport management down to local nonprofit authorities.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Markham, Unionville, Dixie, and Cooksville have off-peak bus replacements when the train isn't running. Weston, Bloor, Danforth, Kipling, Kennedy, Agincourt, Oriole, Old Cummer, Milliken, and Etobicoke North do not.

Do you think that taking a bus to Kennedy, Bloor or Kipling station would really be faster than the subway? I mean, if you think people would take it, then call Go up and demand those busses that Toronto is entitled to.

I'd say Agincourt and Old Cummer are getting slightly closer, but Milliken affects Markham as well, almost equal with Toronto. Etobicoke North really should have some Go bus service, but with the Georgetown line winding up for a true regional service, I don't think it'll matter soon.

Most trips from Markham, Unionville, Dixie, and Cooksville are going to Union station and the rates are fairly reasonable considering distance travelled. There are not many trips from Markham to Unionville nor Dixie to Cooksville. Trips from the areas around Exhibition, Bloor, and Danforth have large numbers of people travelling to Union as well but have fares that are unreasonable considering the distance travelled.

No, I didn't say Markham or Unionville to Union, I said Markham to Unionville. As in get on at Markham and get off at Unionville. You'll see that the short-distance fares for a trip from Markham to Unionville to be just as ludicrously high as Exhibition-Union.

It's because Go fares have a flat price of $3 or something, and a low distance/zone cost on top of that. That means that the further you travel, the more you'll get your money's worth for what you paid.

Markham and Unionville have bus connections for only 50 cents. Dixie and Cooksville have bus connections for 60 cents. Weston, Bloor, Danforth, Kipling, Kennedy, Agincourt, Oriole, Old Cummer, Milliken, and Etobicoke North have bus connections for $2.75.

As I (and several other people said) it's the TTC's fault! Not in a million years would the TTC be willing to allow other riders to use their system for a discount. Go is absolutely not the one to blame for this.

Service should be equal inside and outside the border, the fare formula should be flat fee + (distance fee * distance) = cost, and if a subsidy is offered to one transit agency it should be offered to the TTC as well.

Gah, service is equal inside and outside the border! The fare formula is flat fee + (distance fee * distance) = cost. Actually, what did you think it was? Flat fee ^ How Torontonian the customer seems = cost?! As I said, Go's fare system is unreasonable to all short-distance trips. I'll put up a bunch of examples where Go is "discriminating against" people from other cities (and towns.)

Erindale to Cooksville. Why does it cost so much more to take the Go train than a MT bus? GO is totally discriminating against Mississaugans!

Maple-York University. I mean, it's a kinda long trip, but $4 is just a ludicrous amount of money to spend on going to school! GO is discriminating against hard working University students arg!!

Markham-Unionville. Seriously, in 2 years, I'll be able to take a nice Viva bus in it's own ROW straight to MTC for less than a stupid Go train!

Mount Pleasent-Brampton. So what if I work in Brampton? That's no reason for Go to be so unfair to me! I demand action over this injustice!

 

[Voltz]

As I (and several other people said) it's the TTC's fault! Not in a million years would the TTC be willing to allow other riders to use their system for a discount. Go is absolutely not the one to blame for this.

Why is it the TTC fault? The other transit systems do not give riders heading for a GO station a discount out of their own pockets, GO Transit pays for that discount.

If GO was willing to provide the same subsidy for TTC riders heading to a GO station then why would the TTC not accept it?

 

[threnody]

Exactly. I think it's pretty clear that GO isn't willing to shell out for the very large subsidy that would be required to cover all the TTC fares. I'm sure the TTC would be very pleased at the additional ridership they'd get if GO offered the subsidy.

 

[Disparishun]

Look at it another way. GO subsidizes co-fare pricing in other municipalities as a way to reduce driving to their stations and therefore reduce demand for onsite parking. Is this as necessary at the Toronto stations?

Not sure I follow.

First, I can't know what GO's motivations are. But, clearly, co-fare pricing does more than replace cars on a 1:1 basis. It also captures riders who would otherwise be deterred by a higher combined fare. This is desireable in all GTA municipalities -- irrespective of the different POV of any particular transit agency that chooses, for undoubtedly rational reasons, to concern itself only with its individual ridership and not with the overall goal of efficient non-private-car transportation.

Second, why would there be less demand for on-site parking at the Toronto stations? Generally the outer-416 are no less suburban or walkable than those in the inner 905. In many cases, they are more so.

 

[Disparishun]

Why is it the TTC fault? The other transit systems do not give riders heading for a GO station a discount out of their own pockets, GO Transit pays for that discount.

If GO was willing to provide the same subsidy for TTC riders heading to a GO station then why would the TTC not accept it?

Can someone clarify? Is it, in fact, the case that the 50-cent GO transfers are the result of GO saying to local transit agencies: hey, tell you what, we'll pay some of our riders' fares on your system, you don't have to do anything, and it won't cost you anything?

If so then, I agree, we have a problem here. I can imagine why GO would be wary of incorporating the TTC: they'd be subsidizing just about every rider who connects the TTC after arriving via GO, which would make for a lot of dollars. Still, there's got to be a way to work it.

First, though, is it really the case that there is no subsidy, route change, or any other obligation on the local transit systems except to accept GO's money?

 

[DavidH]

Not sure I follow.

First, I can't know what GO's motivations are. But, clearly, co-fare pricing does more than replace cars on a 1:1 basis. It also captures riders who would otherwise be deterred by a higher combined fare. This is desireable in all GTA municipalities -- irrespective of the different POV of any particular transit agency that chooses, for undoubtedly rational reasons, to concern itself only with its individual ridership and not with the overall goal of efficient non-private-car transportation.

Second, why would there be less demand for on-site parking at the Toronto stations? Generally the outer-416 are no less suburban or walkable than those in the inner 905. In many cases, they are more so.

To respond to your first, point, I don't disagree, but it's been quite clear in the past that GO's policy has been directly aimed at reducing their parking lot costs. I'd certainly agree that a broader policy should now be implemented.

As for the second point, just take a look at the relative size of 416 parking lots compared to 905. Some of this is because even outer 416 TTC service is vastly better than 905 service (I get half hourly service to my local GO station in rush hour, hourly service on Sunday and evenings provided that I'm willing to accept a circuitous route that is poorly timed to actually meet trains, and no service at all on Saturday). The result is that transit has to work harder to attract attention.

Ultimately, we need to look at this as part of regional fare integration, which is theoretically on Metrolinx's plate.

 

[Disparishun]

Some of this is because even outer 416 TTC service is vastly better than 905 service (I get half hourly service to my local GO station in rush hour, hourly service on Sunday and evenings provided that I'm willing to accept a circuitous route that is poorly timed to actually meet trains, and no service at all on Saturday). The result is that transit has to work harder to attract attention.

That would, I think, depend on which station pairs you are comparing. If the outer 416 bus service to your GO stop only runs every half hour in rush hour, then it is far poorer than the inner 905 bus service to mine.

EDIT: just realized that you are probably talking about a 905 service. In which case, sure, transit certainly has to work harder -- more so than in other parts of the 905, for instance.

 

[doady]

I think the discounted fares in the 905 should be abolished. Why? Because they are not necessary. It would be much simpler and more convenient for local transit riders and pedestrians if GO started charging for parking at stations separately and stopped including the parking fees in their fares. Local transit users and pedestrians are essentially paying for parking they don't use now. Abolishing this would reduce all fares by an equal amount, and so people travelling short distances would see the highest percentage decrease. Of course, this might mean that 416 stations would have go out-of-service since GO would be violating provincial law if it continued to serve them with these reduced fares, but I don't live in the 416 so I don't mind that.

 

[Disparishun]

I think the discounted fares in the 905 should be abolished. Why? Because they are not necessary.

Wouldn't fare integration be a better solution?

 

[nfitz]

How about if your travelling only within the City of Toronto during off-peak, then a TTC pass, or transfer, get's you on and off GO. That would be off-peak pricing!

 

[doady]

Wouldn't fare integration be a better solution?

I was just talking about GO in particular, the flaws of its own fare policy and what it could do by itself very easily to solve it. Of course, I have stated many times in this forum my support for the merging of all transit in the GTA to form one agency providing all transit and abolishing the TTC, GO, MT, etc. altogether.

 

[EnviroTO]

Do you think that taking a bus to Kennedy, Bloor or Kipling station would really be faster than the subway? I mean, if you think people would take it, then call Go up and demand those busses that Toronto is entitled to.

Of course a non-stop GO bus is significantly faster than local transit.

No, I didn't say Markham or Unionville to Union, I said Markham to Unionville. As in get on at Markham and get off at Unionville. You'll see that the short-distance fares for a trip from Markham to Unionville to be just as ludicrously high as Exhibition-Union.

But nobody would make that trip so it isn't very relevant.

As I (and several other people said) it's the TTC's fault! Not in a million years would the TTC be willing to allow other riders to use their system for a discount. Go is absolutely not the one to blame for this.

As mentioned before GO pays the subsidy to allow transfers to local transit authorities. It even says so on their website.

The fare formula is flat fee + (distance fee * distance) = cost. Actually, what did you think it was? Flat fee ^ How Torontonian the customer seems = cost?! As I said, Go's fare system is unreasonable to all short-distance trips. I'll put up a bunch of examples where Go is "discriminating against" people from other cities (and towns.)

You can't do math if you think the formula is "flat fee + (distance fee * distance) = cost".

Distances: Union 0, Exhibition 2 (+2), Mimico 6.7 (+4.7), Long Branch 9.6 (+2.9), Port Credit 12.8 (+3.2), Clarkson 16.7 (+3.9), Oakville 21.4 (+3.7).

Prices from Union: Union 0, Exhibition $3.95 (+$3.95), Mimico $4.05 (+10c), Long Branch $4.05 (+0c), Port Credit $4.80 (+75c), Clarkson $5.50 (+70c), Oakville $6.25 (+75c).

Per mile: Union -> Exhibition $1.98, Exhibition -> Mimico 2 cents, Mimico -> Long Branch FREE, Long Branch -> Port Credit 23 cents, Port Credit -> Clarkson 18 cents, Clarkson -> Oakville 20 cents.

IF the fare was base fare plus a distance based fare equals the total fare then the fare per mile along the route would be constant or close to it. As you can see above the fares per mile are near constant outside the city (approximately 20 cents per mile) but inside they are not. If the fare was truly a base fare plus a distance fare of 20 cents then the prices using Oakville as the target would be:

Exhibition $2.57, Mimico $3.51, Long Branch $4.09, Port Credit $4.73, Clarkson $5.51, Oakville $6.25 and the base fare would work out to $2.17.

Obviously while outside the city the fares match the formula closely, inside the city they do not. Why do you think the fare matches the formula closely upon reaching Long Branch... co-incidence??