News   Jul 19, 2024
 495     0 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 2.1K     4 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 782     1 

New Transit Funding Sources

GO RER will never get off the ground if revenues have to rely 80% on fares. The fares will simply remain too high for the average person to make it a viable option. Even fare integration will cost the TTC and GO big money which neither has to spare so extra revenues have to come from somewhere.

Considering that the TTC is massively overcrowded and GO's rush hour service is also bursting at the seams, I think it's fair to say that high fares are not a major concern. People are willing to pay for service, if it exists!
 
I remember you were against lower fares. Why again? Just curious.

I support zone-based fares, with lower fares for short trips and higher fares for long runs, relative to today's flat fare.

History has shown that political leaders will not fund transit to the level required to provide an adequate level of service. Part of the reason is that non-users don't want to pay for those who do use transit. Given the general aversion to new taxes as a whole, I think that the farebox is actually the path of least resistance to funding the system at a level that it needs.

Generally speaking, transit is a public service that competes with other modes of travel (walking, cycling, driving) and the fare structure needs to reflect the fact that people do have other options, and weigh the various pros and cons of each, including cost.

For most people (I am generalizing) the alternative to commuting on transit is driving to work, and transit (the TTC in particular) is massively underpriced compared to that alternative. Most people would be hard-pressed to find a place to park for less than the cost of two tokens, never mind gas and depreciation.

Basically, transit demand (in Toronto) is very price inelastic, so if we want the system to have more money we should just raise fares.
 
Considering that the TTC is massively overcrowded and GO's rush hour service is also bursting at the seams, I think it's fair to say that high fares are not a major concern. People are willing to pay for service, if it exists!

Yes high fares are a huge concern.

Those riders on GO overwhelmingly come from the 905. GO rail usage in Toronto itself is very low precisely because it is too expensive. Also even including the 905 GO rail's ridership levels are nothing to brag about.

GO rail is actually a fairly large system at 440km and it's one of the few areas where transit in Toronto has not fallen behind other cities. That said for a commuter rail/bus system that serves well over 8 million, it's ridership is still pretty low.
 
Yes high fares are a huge concern.

Those riders on GO overwhelmingly come from the 905. GO rail usage in Toronto itself is very low precisely because it is too expensive. Also even including the 905 GO rail's ridership levels are nothing to brag about.

GO rail is actually a fairly large system at 440km and it's one of the few areas where transit in Toronto has not fallen behind other cities. That said for a commuter rail/bus system that serves well over 8 million, it's ridership is still pretty low.

Does it serve "well over" 8 million? And once we have established how many people it serves, maybe we can compare it to other similar systems to determine if it is "still pretty low"
 
The GO system as it is is entirely inadequate for the region. GO RER, electrification and 15 minute both ways all day frequency is the right direction for regional transit in the region.

Once that is done, we need to look at expanding GO service for the 416, making the service attractive for Toronto's suburbs (Etobicoke, Scarborough) through addition of new stations and a fare integration structure. SmartTrack is hopefully the first step towards achieving this.
 
Yes high fares are a huge concern.

Those riders on GO overwhelmingly come from the 905. GO rail usage in Toronto itself is very low precisely because it is too expensive. Also even including the 905 GO rail's ridership levels are nothing to brag about.

Think of it the other way around - GO usage in Toronto is very low because the TTC fare is too cheap for long distance travel. If a unified fare by distance structure was implemented, GO demand would skyrocket and the TTC would need less of a subsidy because long-distance travellers would be on GO RER like they should be.
 
GO rail usage in Toronto itself is very low precisely because it is too expensive. Also even including the 905 GO rail's ridership levels are nothing to brag about.
Compared to other North American commuter rail services, GO ridership is actually pretty good. Average per-train fullness is fuller than almost any other North American commuter train services, including Chicago and New York City.

The GO system is still overwhelmingly commuter, however, offpeak Lakeshore trains have far more non-work-commuters today than there used to be. Even if the trains are only a quarter-full, 80% of the people on an offpeak lakeshore train (several hundred people) include the mall-shoppers, family-groups, students, family visitors, and clientile that did not exist five years ago (pre-30-min Lakeshore service).

With further upgrades to GO RER, short-distance urban fare reductions (introduced by the SmartTrack GO RER line), the system will still be overwhelmingly commuter during peak much like TTC subway is. But offpeak usage of GO RER will slowly begin to roughly resemble TTC subway users (even if not completely due to the different demographics along a GO RER line, it will look a lot closer to subway clientile (relative to today) than peak commuter clientile.

If you frequently ride offpeak Lakeshore GOtrains nowadays, in addition to peak GOtrains, you'll notice a very distinct different flavour of clientile than the usual GOtrain:
...Offpeak Lakeshore trains nearly empty between Aldershot-Oakville, as it accumulates people towards Union
...Offpeak Lakeshore trains approximately one-quarter-full to slightly-more-than-half-full by Union (except during holiday & events, then full)
...But that's still several hundred people total (from the looks, it looks sufficient to make sense farebox-wise for that traintrip)
...And the demographics of that train is now very different from a peak-period GOtrain.
...I've now occasionally seen offpeak/holiday GOtrains become near-full by Union (80-90%+) with near zero business suits while the day was still bright (so it wasn't a Leafs game or specific event). One of these happened on was Boxing Day.

Demographics include:
- More families / more casually dressed people (fewer business suits)
- More Mall shopping bags (E.g. from Eaton Centre shops, etc)
- More backpack users (suggestive of students)
- Event-times are now heavier than they have in the past -- holiday weekends, hockey, Ex, stadium events, major plays, etc. -- as people nowadays have less fear of "missing the last train". Also, service now shuts down for only approximately 5.5 hours on Lakeshore (from the 12:43am train departing Union followed by the 6:13am train departing Union) and additional trains are often added overnight during major overnight events like Nuit Blanche.

The apparent demographics of an offpeak Lakeshore GOtrain has evolved dramatically, and I think the average Lakeshore commuter ratio fell dramatically from 98% work-commuter to maybe only 80% work-commuter (due to much more frequent offpeak service). That's still many thousands of additional GO users, and the transition to 15-minute GO RER will push GO demographics to look a little more like a TTC subway (maybe slightly higher-end version of TTC subway demographics, but far different from a peak-period GO train).

When going to 15-minute service, I imagine that some GO RER routes will likely be better served by single-decker trains during offpeak. The frequent service means 12-car-bilevels will probably not be efficient for 15-minute-offpeak-frequency routes. But the bilevels can in theory run that frequently, if push came to shove -- Lakeshore West has 6 trains departing Union between 5:00pm and 5:45pm -- and the signalling along Union corridor hasn't yet been upgraded. Likely they'll still use them mixed with offpeak allstop EMU trains, running bilevels with the electric locomotives, especially for the express trains where EMU acceleration matters less.
 
Last edited:
The apparent demographics of an offpeak Lakeshore GOtrain has evolved dramatically, and I think the average Lakeshore commuter ratio fell dramatically from 98% work-commuter to maybe only 80% work-commuter (due to much more frequent offpeak service).
As a primarily off-peak Lakeshore GO user, that surprises me. The half-hourly offpeak trains are well used, but so were the hourly ones. It's clear ridership is up, but I don't think it's up anywhere near up to have shifted the ridership from 98% peak to 80% peak. Lakeshore has been running hourly off-peak service for over 45 years, and it's always been well used.

What's your source for these numbers?
 
As a primarily off-peak Lakeshore GO user, that surprises me. The half-hourly offpeak trains are well used, but so were the hourly ones. It's clear ridership is up, but I don't think it's up anywhere near up to have shifted the ridership from 98% peak to 80% peak. Lakeshore has been running hourly off-peak service for over 45 years, and it's always been well used.
No, no, that's not what I said.

I meant whole day's work:nonwork ratio from ~98% work-commuter to ~80% work-commuter. Peak hour looks mostly unaffected (jump onto a peak hour train, it still seems to be 98% commuter), but the addition of extra offpeak commuters shifts the total day's ridership to less dominantly work-commuter, as the offpeak trains have a completely different looking demographic than the peak trains.

Offpeak trains look primarly non-work-commuter now. Even with allday service, a third of the Lakeshore GO schedule, for a specfic direction, are concentrated during peak period (about 12 Lakeshore West departures during evening peak -- that would be 6 hours if spread during offpeak, like the rest of the evening, or between morning/evening peaks). More people are on those 12 evening peak departures (concentrated over a 2-hour-ish period), than the 12 offpeak gotrains after evening peak (e.g. 6:30pm-12:43am). Likewise for morning peak versus the time between morning/evening. So you see, almost half the traintrips are peak (more like approx one-third, since there's now counter-direction trains during both peaks too). But the peak trains are quite crammed. So the ridership is still likely pretty much probably about ~80% commuter for the whole day's work:nonwork ratio. But what's really notable is that it did shift away from nearly solely commuters, and shows it opened up a new market for Metrolinx, in a build-and-they-came manner. That's the rationale (which you probably now easily more-or-less agree with, now understanding this better). Replace the numbers 98% with any number X, and number 80% with any number Y, but whatever number you choose, Y is definitely a smaller percentage than X -- this is the important point I was trying to say -- that Lakeshore GO's total daily ridership is slowly shifting less work-commuter that it used to be. As a grand total, for the whole day, the percentage of commuters (specifically for work) has been falling, thanks to the large increase of offpeak trains that have now attracted GO riders of other kinds. All Milton trains, unlike offpeak Lakeshore trains, has quite a different ridership clientile (full and overcrowded of mainly work-commuters) -- for obvious reason: Off-peak Milton trains don't exist (yet). Now, if more offpeak trains happened (e.g. 15 minute offpeak, 3-5min peak), better interchanges with station, more infill stations, better fare integration, I predict we'll begin to start resembling subway-ish demographics rather than traditional GO demographics. And even today, Lakeshore offpeak is an early signal of it.

There's quite a bit of variance, like midday weekday, during weekend, events occuring along a GO route, seasonal (summer vs winter), university semesters, school yearend, major shopping seasons, which traincar you board (some stations have lots of people of a specific demographic boarding a specific traincar, because it's nearest the entrance/exit of the GO station). People working odd hours (looks like a student but is actually commuting to overnight janitor work) can confuse the demographic guess, too. So there's a lot of error. But the signal is clear and unmistakable for GO's daily ridership ratio of work:non-work is shifting downwards as ridership numbers increase (which is another way of saying my point).
 
Last edited:
really curious how guestimates from observation lead to such a conclusion....not saying its wrong, generally, but when start attributing actual percentages to x and y based on your observations you are definitely creating an impression that those numbers are more than what they are....ie thumb in the air guesses.
 
No, no, that's not what I said.

I meant whole day's work:nonwork ratio from ~98% work-commuter to ~80% work-commuter.
Given how busy the off-peak trains were carrying non-commuters 5 years ago, I can't believe for a second that they were carrying only 2% of load.

I ask again. What is the source of your rather suspect numbers?
 
They are estimates from visual observations, but that is NOT the point I was trying to say.

Quoting what I earlier said again below:

Replace the numbers 98% with any number X, and number 80% with any number Y, but whatever number you choose, Y is definitely a smaller percentage than X -- this is the important point I was trying to say -- that Lakeshore GO's total daily ridership is slowly shifting less work-commuter that it used to be. As a grand total, for the whole day, the percentage of commuters (specifically for work) has been falling, thanks to the large increase of offpeak trains that have now attracted GO riders of other kinds.

Are you meaning to say you're disagreeing with this?
Which means you are essentially tantamount to saying work:nonwork has stayed fixed on Lakeshore West over the years?
i.e. You're disagreeing that the percentage of work ridership (vs nonwork), out of total daily ridership, has been falling?
i.e. By disagreeing, you're saying there is not a % increase in non-work trips, out of GO's total daily Lakeshore ridership?

I'd be surprised if Metrolinx did not increase the daily non-work ridership ratio on the Lakeshore lines over the years. [that is the point I was trying to say]
 
Last edited:
They are estimates from visual observations, but that is NOT the point I was trying to say.

Quoting what I earlier said again below:



Are you meaning to say you're disagreeing with this?
Which means you are essentially tantamount to saying work:nonwork has stayed fixed on Lakeshore West over the years?
i.e. You're disagreeing that the percentage of work ridership (vs nonwork), out of total daily ridership, has been falling?
i.e. By disagreeing, you're saying there is not a % increase in non-work trips, out of GO's total daily Lakeshore ridership?

I'd be surprised if Metrolinx did not increase the daily non-work ridership ratio on the Lakeshore lines over the years. [that is the point I was trying to say]

my problem with your post is that you leaped from that basic observation (that more trips outside of traditional work hours likely means more leisure type trips) to actually quoting percentages.....only when asked, did you reveal that both numbers (98% before & 80% after) were just numbers you made up and are meaningless.

The Lakeshore lines have had hourly off peak service for 4+ decades...7 days a week....allowing access to big events and sports games that would drive big numbers.....so i seriously doubt that the pre- offpeak expansion split was 98% work travel....but let's say it was.....what we have been told by GO is that after the off peak service doubled it took a year for them to see off peak ridership increase by 25%.......so even if 100% of that off peak increase was non-work (as opposed to some split driven by non traditional work hours) i have a hard time seeing that small shift bringing the overall work share down by 18 percentage points.....but you have been successful in getting people to debate numbers you made up......nothing else
 

Back
Top