GO Train Fares To Increase

[ShonTron]

Cabbageheads!

The ghost of Gordon "Transit is not a social service" Chong lives on.

My moratorium on the use of the term "cabbageheads" when referring to GO has been lifted - between this and all the parking lot capacity they're obsessed with.

 

[rbt]

The ghost of Gordon "Transit is not a social service" Chong lives on.

I tend to agree with him. Transit operations are easiest to plan when you can predict funding. It takes a number of years to ramp up, or ramp down spending and a reasonably efficient manner. Social services, by their very nature, have funding that can change significantly over a 20 year period.

I DO agree in housing and job assistance programs providing transit cards.

Anyway, if the TTC operations (NOT CAPITAL) subsidies were rolled into an independent organization who then subsidized transportation costs for select applicants, I would be perfectly happy.



Government run public transit can either have long term planning OR be a funded as a social service.

While we're doing that, I would also like the Works/Highways department to fund their portion of the police, hospital, fire, environmental impact, etc out of their budget instead of externalizing those costs.

 

[waterloowarrior]

I find it incredible how much higher the cost recovery is for TTC and GO versus US systems

 

[rbt]

I find it incredible how much higher the cost recovery is for TTC and GO versus US systems

Check out cost recovery for CDN versus US airports.

Not too sure about roads. CDN fuel taxes are higher but US has more tolls. Probably varies from city to city across the continent.

 

[lordmandeep]

I would imagine GO transit did a stealth move because people are angry at them and really you can pass many things by people if you do it right, if you know what I mean.


If someone starts beating a drum, they can make the smallest and trivial of things into a major issue...

Like the Island Airport Bridge...

 

[doady]

Althought I think the the TTC should have raised fares, I think was GO's fare hike are ridiculous.

I also think GO's fare structure needs to be overhauled since it not only penalizes people who make short trips, it also penalizes people who use local transit. It is not fair that local transit riders are subsidizing parking for motorists. IMO, local transit ridership in the 905 would be much higher now if GO did not exist.

 

[lordmandeep]

prehaps...

or everyone would be sitting on the DVP

 

[Disparishun]

I also think GO's fare structure needs to be overhauled since it not only penalizes people who make short trips, it also penalizes people who use local transit. It is not fair that local transit riders are subsidizing parking for motorists. IMO, local transit ridership in the 905 would be much higher now if GO did not exist.

I don't understand this. Why? And why particularly in the 905? Would local transit ridership in the suburban 416 be much higher now if GO did not exist, too?

 

[SunriseChampion]

GO not existing = higher transit ridership in 905?

What?

Because all the people who take GO transit would take other forms of transit but somehow, more people would take transit as well?

I see......



Forget subsidising long-haul passenger trips...the real problem is them subsidising parking at their stations! Are you kidding me? The grandest wastes of space, those are. And FREE. Those spots need to be stacked, buried, charged for, and excess space sold and developed.

 

[canarob]

Fuel costs have gone down sharply, there have been no service increases on my line (Stouffville), I presume that labour costs haven't increased dramatically since the last price increase (last year...?), so where is my extra $10/month going? GO's share of the parking expansion? Service improvements on other lines (glares at Barrie)? I wouldn't mind the extra $10/month so much if they didn't keep promising all-day service while the only train that's been added in recent years is at 5 in the morning. Pretty much every train is jammed with people standing these days (our line has among the highest ridership growth), so if we are going to spend more a month can we at least get proper service?

 

[Chuck]

It's important to realize that the type of transit rider that uses GO generally exists on an entirely different plane than those who use local transit.

Firstly, consider distance. For many GO riders, the distance just from their house to the nearest GO station is twice as long as the entire distance to work for a resident of Toronto. This has enormous implications on how people can get to the station. It is impossible to provide local transit to the GO station for the majority of GO riders.

Secondly, consider the alternatives. Recognizing that GO's primary function is to take people either downtown or across the 407, local transit is impractical and non existent for this type of trip. If GO ceased to exist, there are only two outcomes. The first is that many of the 150,000 daily riders would start driving. The second is that those who decide not to drive will quickly start looking for work outside of downtown Toronto. Local transit will not pick up the slack, except on the insignificant Richmond Hill line, where in 10 years the average station will only be 1.5 km from a subway station.

Thirdly, most GO stations are located within industrial railway lands. Those that aren't are often so far from the city that there'd be no hope of building any form of mixed use or high density development on top of the parking lot in the first place. Parking is the best possible, if not only viable use of land for probably at least 50% of GO stations.

Bottom line is that GO does not compete in any way whatsoever with local transit, except for the Richmond Hill line. In a best case scenario, the typical GO rider would carpool to their station, thereby reducing the number of parking spots by maybe 50%. Yes, distance based fare increases would be better, and yes, it would be ideal to offer non drivers a credit to their fare prices. And yes, there are a few stations that could be redeveloped. However, the best way of improving GO ridership is still to offer as many free parking spots as possible, while at the same time improving train frequencies.

 

[doady]

Secondly, consider the alternatives. Recognizing that GO's primary function is to take people either downtown or across the 407, local transit is impractical and non existent for this type of trip. If GO ceased to exist, there are only two outcomes. The first is that many of the 150,000 daily riders would start driving.

They already drive.

Thirdly, most GO stations are located within industrial railway lands. Those that aren't are often so far from the city that there'd be no hope of building any form of mixed use or high density development on top of the parking lot in the first place. Parking is the best possible, if not only viable use of land for probably at least 50% of GO stations.

Nobody put guns to the heads of GO to force them to locate stations in the middle of nowhere. That is GO's own decision because they want as much space for parking as possible.

I don't understand this. Why? And why particularly in the 905? Would local transit ridership in the suburban 416 be much higher now if GO did not exist, too?

Exactly. The suburban 416 has very high transit ridership. Why? Because very few suburban 416ers use GO. Just look at Montreal. Why do Montreal's suburbs have much higher ridership per capita than the 905? Why does the Montreal area overall have 30% higher transit ridership per capita than the GTA? Because they have smaller commuter rail system that doesn't go out of its way to inconvenience local transit and pedestrians. Just look at where the AMT put its new station in St-Jerome compared to where GO put its new station in Barrie. It is like night and day.

 

[Chuck]

Nobody put guns to the heads of GO to force them to locate stations in the middle of nowhere. That is GO's own decision because they want as much space for parking as possible.

The rail lines that are used by GO are generally lined with industry and manufacturing type land uses, especially in Toronto. These lands are often contaminated and hostile toward urban development. There's nothing that GO can do about this.

Exactly. The suburban 416 has very high transit ridership. Why? Because very few suburban 416ers use GO. Just look at Montreal. Why do Montreal's suburbs have much higher ridership per capita than the 905? Why does the Montreal area overall have 30% higher transit ridership per capita than the GTA? Because they have smaller commuter rail system that doesn't go out of its way to inconvenience local transit and pedestrians.

Firstly, I think that you took Disparishun's quote out of context. Secondly, Scarborough is served by 30 GO trains per day. All of York Region is served by only 13 GO trains per day. By your logic, Scarborough should have a less developed, less used local transit system than York Region. This is obviously not the case. Why?

Also, don't forget that Toronto covers a larger geographical area than Montreal. If local transit is only practical up to a maximum trip length of maybe 25 km, there are millions more people in Toronto than Montreal for whom local transit is useless for getting to work, and for whom commuter rail is the only feasible form transit. I just don't see how the hypothetical removal of GO from let's say Newmarket would quadruple the number of local transit users who would now have to spend 120 minutes on the bus and subway each way to get to work.

Commuter rail serves a different market than local transit. The two do not eat into each other's market share. Local transit requires density, mixed land use, non work trips, and short distances. Commuter rail only requires long distance trips and people willing to spend more per ticket. Please consider these factors before arguing that GO is actually detrimental to transit use in the GTA.

 

[adma]

Also, don't forget that Toronto covers a larger geographical area than Montreal. If local transit is only practical up to a maximum trip length of maybe 25 km, there are millions more people in Toronto than Montreal for whom local transit is useless for getting to work, and for whom commuter rail is the only feasible form transit.

Hard to tell--it depends on what you deem to be "Montreal" vs "Toronto". And remember that Montreal proper also has the geographic factor of being insular (as does Laval)...

 

[waterloowarrior]

I looked up some statistics out of interests... they come from a metrolinx paper and amt report for 2006