At its recent meeting, the Metrolinx Board approved a GO Transit fare increase taking effect February 1, 2015.
A separate, but important topic, and one noticeably absent from the meeting agenda, is the question of regional fare integration. Another related matter is the relative roles of GO as a regional operator and the TTC as a local one to accommodate demand to the core area. The hybrid SmartTrack proposal is a bit of both — a GO Transit corridor running with station spacings more like a subway in spots, but at TTC fares.
The problem has always been that GO simply does not regard itself, or at least not until quite recently, as having a role as part of a unified network. Critically, the fare structure is rigged against short distance trips, and this has been getting progressively worse for a decade.
We hear all about a “fare by distance” system, but in fact, GO fares for short trips have consistently risen at a greater percentage rate than for long ones. Here are the last decade’s worth of fare increase.
| Date | Fare Range | Fare Increase |
|---|---|---|
| 2004 | All | $0.15 |
| 2006 | All | $0.25 |
| 2008 | All | $0.25 (?) |
| 2009 | All | $0.25 |
| 2010 | All | $0.25 |
| 2012 | $4.20 to $5.50 | $0.30 |
| $5.51 to $7.00 | $0.35 | |
| $7.01 up | $0.40 | |
| 2013 | $4.50 to $5.80 | $0.35 |
| $5.81 to $7.35 | $0.45 | |
| $7.36 up | $0.55 | |
| 2014 | $4.85 to $6.15 | $0.35 |
| $6.16 to $7.80 | $0.45 | |
| $7.81 up | $0.55 | |
| 2015 | $0.00 to $5.20 | $0.10 |
| $5.21 to $6.50 | $0.35 | |
| $6.51 to $8.25 | $0.45 | |
| $8.26 up | $0.55 |
Until 2012, fare increases were a fixed amount across all trips regardless of their length and cost. If the formula, as claimed by Metrolinx, is that the fare is made up of a fixed component and a distance one, then a flat increase changes only the fixed component and distance becomes less important. Fares for short trips go up, as a percentage of their value, more than fares for long ones.
Starting in 2012, a tiered increase was adopted so that higher fares would see a larger jump, but the implementation contained a basic flaw. The “top tier” is open ended, and includes fares where the percentage increase is much lower than the claimed system average (which for 2015 is 5%).
Even with “tiered” increases, the effect is that fares for the longest trips are rising much slower than for short ones, and this progressively makes short trips less attractive to riders (never mind the basic problem of just finding space on a train).
The difference in the increases is quite striking depending on which “tier” of fares we look at. (In this table the “2014” fare is the starting point. Equivalent fares for 2011 and 2003 are obtained by working backwards through previous fare changes. The 2015 fare is based on the recently approved change.)
| 2003 Fare | 2011 Fare | 2011:2003 | 2014 Fare | 2014:2003 | 2015 Fare | 2015:2003 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| $2.85 | $4.00 | 40% | $5.00 | 75% | $5.10 | 79% |
| $7.35 | $8.50 | 16% | $10.00 | 36% | $10.50 | 43% |
| $12.35 | $13.50 | 9% | $15.00 | 21% | $15.50 | 26% |
Because the fare increases from 2003 to 2011 were a flat amount, the effect was to raise all fares by $1.15 regardless of the base fare. The result was that short trips (with 2014 fares at the $5 level) went up 40% while long trips (2014 fare of $15) went up only 9% during this period. The situation is even more beneficial for trips with 2014 fares over $15.
With the introduction of tiered increments, the problem was not quite so bad, especially for those in the very bottom tier (represented within Toronto only by Exhibition and Bloor Stations), but there is a long-standing inequity from the many years of low increases for long haul trips. Moreover, the highest increment for 2015, $0.50, is 5% of a $10 fare, but many fares are substantially higher and therefore receive a lower percentage increase.
The cumulative effect is that long distance GO riders have seen much lower increases in fares over past years, and this is showing no sign of stopping if Metrolinx continues its pattern of fare changes. At the same time, the short trip fare has gone up quite substantially. In 2003, the cost of an adult TTC token was $1.90, and today it is $2.70, an increase of 42%. During the same period, the cost of a short-haul GO fare has gone up by almost double this rate. Why are higher TTC fares attacked as a mark of profligate management and runaway labour settlements, while the skew in GO fares is unchallenged?
Any move to “integrate” GO services into the TTC network must address this inbalance. The following chart shows dramatically how the percentage increase in fares has penalized short-haul trips.
2015_GO_FareIncrease_Percentages
The “2015:2010” ratio shows the effect of the introduction of tiered price hikes with the value of the ratio staying in a band between 20-30%. However, once the 2014 fare goes above $9, the curve turns downward.
Turning to the question of “fare by distance”, if the formula really does contain a fixed and a variable component, we should be able to roughly work backward to determine what these were back in 2003 (presuming, of course, that the fares were not already gerrymandered then).
Both Hamilton and Oakville Stations have had GO rail service since the first days of the network, and we can assume that the fare structure for these two have evolved lock step over time. In 2014, the fares are $11.00 and $7.75 respectively, but back in 2003 they would have been $8.35 and $5.35. The difference in distance to the two stations from Union is about 30km, and so we must conclude that this was “worth” $3 back in 2003, or $0.10 per km.
The distance to Hamilton from Union is about 68km, making the distance portion of the 2003 fare $6.80 and leaving $1.55 for the fixed portion. (Note that without access to GO’s internal fare calculation mechanism, that’s the back of a well-informed envelope.)
There are many permutations of fares, and as GO’s network expanded, these became quite complex with a multitude of to-from pairs no longer concentrated at Union Station. GO’s network grew outward making it possible to take very long trips by rail or bus, and some fares are very much above the level where the maximum increase yields 5%. For example, a trip from Kitchener-Waterloo costs $16.10 today, and will go up by only 3.11% in 2015.
Another problem with distances (and I am not even going to attempt to unscramble this one) lies in the question of crow-fly measurements vs distances actually travelled. These could even be different depending on the mode where rail could take a more direct route than a parallel bus service, or the route forced by the network and service structure is longer than a motorist making the same trip would take.
In its review of regional service and fares, Metrolinx really needs to take the covers off of its fare model so that we can understand how it works, or if it even works at all. There is a good chance we will find that whatever calculations existed over a decade ago have simply been frozen in place with all of the fares going up by the prescribed increments. Unknowingly, the Metrolinx Board (and everyone else) has swallowed the claim that GO is a fare-by-distance operation, when in fact it is increasingly subsidizing long-haul riders while jacking up fares for shorter trips.
For example, it is about three times as long from Kitchener-Waterloo to Union as it is from Oakville, but the ratio of 2014 base fares is only 2.07. The political attractiveness of announcing new services distant from Toronto would be considerably reduced without a tariff that benefits long distance riders.
There may be a policy rationale for such an arrangement such as a recognition that longer trips are harder to woo, and if captured by transit, make a bigger contribution to congestion and pollution relief. If that’s the policy, then it must be clearly stated. The implications for short haul fares and any potential benefit for near-416 “relief” would require a fundamental rethink that would almost certainly cause short trip fares to drop. (The alternative, raising long-haul fares substantially, would not be politically acceptable.)
The obvious tradeoff is the benefit of greater GO ridership as an alternative to very expensive capital construction and operation on the subway network. This is not to say more subway capacity could be dropped from plans, but “slicing the top off of the peak” may be quite beneficial.
That is a clear part of the SmartTrack premise with its TTC level fares, well below current GO levels. Today, Milliken (the Stouffville line at Steeles) to Union is $7.10, or $6.39 with Presto. Providing the same trip for $2.70 (or even less to a Metropass holder) will require a huge subsidy that cannot be offset simply by added ridership. This is a challenge for SmartTrack not just in the operating subsidy needed, but that this would be above the very high capital cost now foreseen for this service.
Do Metrolinx and the City of Toronto want to have an open, honest discussion about fares, service and capital projects? Without them, we are doomed to political posturing uninformed by a real examination of how a new, unified network might actually work.
Steve Munro 
As a Physics teacher I am disturbed by the use by some physicists of specialized vocabulary that has terms mean something in “Physics Speak” that it does not mean in normal “English”. True in “Physics” distance is a measure of the path length followed while displacement is a measure of the straight line distance, AND direction, between the start and ending points. When most people ask how far it is to someplace they usually refer to the length of the path they will follow to get there, i.e. the distance. When a pilot wants to know how far away someplace is he wants the displacement so he can figure out the course to steer, after allowing for the effect of winds, and the time and fuel required to get there.
Since the magnitude of the displacements from Union to Hamilton and from Union to Niagara on the Lake are about the same should the GO fare to both be the same even though there is a lot more fuel burned going to the latter? Though for most routes I agree with your thought that fares for equal distance (or displacement if you wish) from the downtown should pay roughly equal fares to get there. However, I do not approve of using language in a nit picking way so as to make its meaning to normal people obscure.
LikeLike
When I read the original post I completely forgot about the use of displacement in vectors. Since I spend more time on boats these days, I imagined passengers having to be immersed in water to determine how much they would pay. That would definitely be a way to match fares to passenger volumes.
LikeLike
Isn’t that ducking the question?
LikeLike
While Archimedes would love you for remembering his Eureka moment I do believe that this displacement refers to the weight of water displaced and not the volume; fortunately there is a direct ratio between the two. (Please, no one get into the difference between mass and weight in the Physics sense. If I want force of gravity, I will use force of gravity.)
Steve: We often speak here about increasing capacity of vehicles, and it is possible that higher acceleration rates could be used to (a) make “move to the back” more of a command than a request, and (b) increase the packing density of passengers. Getting off might be a challenge, but since the bean counters only care about “efficiency” and “load factors”, that doesn’t come into the equation.
LikeLike
Steve, in terms of fare by distance, I think it should realistically be simpler than set rates per km. It needs to be based on something that would also consider the options available to the rider and such. So perhaps something closer to displacement however, it would to net out the lake (Niagara to Toronto being two legs of displacement 1 to Hamilton another to Toronto).
Also if I can make the trip by TTC, then the option available needs to be taken into account. Perhaps a slightly higher than simple TTC fare (as long as it is much faster and very frequent), but one that keeps it very close, and deducts the cost of TTC if I need to use it as well. So in effect a zone fare. Mississauga to Mississauga rider has the option of driving and does not face the cost of parking. Mississauga to core either drives to TTC and rides, or pays 2 fares, or payes for parking etc.
Ideally there should be an arrangement where I can buy a Metropass, and use GO inside Toronto, and have a combo Mi-Way &/or Metropass that would also allow me to use it in that area etc. I suppose the entire thing could be arranged through Presto cards, but I should in effect be able to buy/add transit zones, and that zone should include GO as an option (perhaps at a slight but reasonable premium). Even be able to buy pass that was say MiWay or ZUM plus GO to core only. Long post in summary GO needs to be a low cost added option to local transit passes, and cross district passes need to be easy. Like the GTA weekly pass, but for more areas and including GO.
LikeLike
This gets me really fired up . I always mostly walk to the GO staion which is 25 mins. But Sheridan College charges $10 a day for parking. So why don’t I get $10 off a round trip ticket for not using their multi-floor building parking lot?? Am I cross subsidising drivers for walking??? Also, I see European railways coupling and uncoupling coaches enroute or during layovers. Also GO doesn’t have to reinvent the electric train … it is all over the world. And for “freight train” crash standards, how come the old lighter single deckers passed this test? Also, it’s NOT freight train crash standards, it might be VIA rail 100+ mph standards or public level crossing transport trucks. Blame the freight trains? What’s wrong with GO transit?? I don’t travel GO or TTC much anymore because I can afford a beater but won’t buy a new car … yet. But in principle I would like to use transit.
Steve: Actually the standards are because freights can run mixed with passenger service and, yes, the old single deckers were built for this.
LikeLike
I’m pretty certain that the wacky rules which prohibit level boarding on GO VIA only apply where CN or CP own the track. Where they run freights but the passenger operator owns the track, GO or VIA should be able to simply impose restrictions on the freight trains.
Robert Wightman: you say that the stupid setback platforms are a Transport Canada requirement. Are you sure? In the US, there is *no regulation whatsoever* requiring them — it is strictly a matter of the track owner demanding various things.
LikeLike
If you google Transport Canada and look up clearance requirements you should be able to find them. They are not a regulation from the railways but from Transport Canada and apply to ALL tracks that are federally regulated. This includes ALL the tracks that Metrolinx bought from CN and CP. I find it difficult to believe that there is no FRA regulation in the US governing clearances on rail lines as TC and FRA rules on everything else are in almost total lock step.
I know that at several spots with high platform loading where fast freight run there are gauntlet tracks that move the passenger train over about a foot or so to allow the level loading from high platforms. I believe that if you do not have this then everything has to pass the platform at slow speed. This is OK if you do not run a lot of freight or express trains but would not go over well with the freight carriers.
On the Weston Sub there will be at least three tracks as far as the cut off for the UPX line. As long as there is one track the does not have high platforms for fast trains they would be OK but when you put restrictions on all tracks then you are going to get complaints from the freight lines about their residual rights to operate freights being restricted.
Steve: Dare I mention that the “High Speed Rail” service to London is supposed to operate along this corridor too? Can you imagine it poking its way out of Toronto to avoid hitting platforms enroute?
LikeLike
For Nathanael and others who are interested I have given some of the location for different rules and regulations.
The Transport Canada clearances are found here.
There is a joint US Canada document on industrial track clearance here.
The US Army Corp of Engineers has this site which is supposed to follow FRA standards. See Chapter 13 for rail clearances.
For the uniform code of rail way operating rules see here.
LikeLike