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 
Clear statements are not required when they are so obvious it is taken as a given. Looking at fare increases isn’t required either – any year’s tariff sheet with track mileage since GO’s inception will do.
Steve: My point here is that a cheaper fares for long trips, as a policy, will directly conflict with cheaper fares for TTC offloading.
No. In Toronto, such questions can only be rhetorical.
LikeLike
Yes, the annual GO fare increase is a farce. Who knows why they can’t implement straight percentage-based fare increases? Presto should have made fare changes much easier, or I am just being naive?
The other important point is how much of the GO fare goes to building and maintaining parking lots and garages. No matter whether you drive to a GO Station or not, you pay for the “free” parking provided at every suburban stop. Only Union, Danforth, Bloor, York University, Guelph, Kitchener, and Hamilton GO Centre don’t offer this perk to motorists. Long-distance train riders are probably the most likely to use the expensive-to-operate parking lots.
Steve: At one point, Metrolinx claimed that parking lots were the only way that they could get federal stimulus funding, but this was proven false when, at the recent Board meeting, CEO Bruce McCuaig talked about how the park-and-ride model is such a successful part of GO’s business. This attitude belies that the “old” way of looking at GO has an uphill battle in the conversion to a “Regional Rail” network, not just a beefed up commuter service.
LikeLike
Has anyone done a regression analysis to see what formula fits, or is closest?
From GO’s point of view, the trains have to travel the entire distance of the line the farthest out point to Union, and the reverse at the end of the day, regardless of passenger load. It is in their best interest to have the trains filled with passengers paying the highest fares from the farthest out stations rather than have those seats empty for most of the trip and only filled for the part of the trip closest to Union at a lower fare.
And short trips would likely need to be priced higher than a TTC fare.
Steve: One could argue that since the cost of the train is independent of the riders, the cost of a space is constant regardless of the trip length. Conversely, those at the outer end of the line should pay the marginal cost of pushing service out further (e.g. Kitchener-Waterloo), but this would likely produce astronomical, unacceptable fares.
A regression analysis will run into problems with the granularity of GO’s fare zones. See page B-5 of the 2014 Tariff for the zone layout in Toronto (no equivalent map is provided for the rest of the service area) showing a few gerrymanders such as Zone 2 (Bloor and CNE stations), and special zones for specific destinations. It would likely work better (a) using the pre-2011 fares, if one can find the tariff, and (b) omitting the inside-Toronto stations. Recalculating the Toronto fares once the “outside TO” formula is established would prove interesting.
It would also be interesting to do this separately for each corridor where fares were established in different eras, and for non-corridor trips served by the bus network.
LikeLike
Why are you assuming only a linear relationship between distance and base fare? Why can’t the distance portion of the fare be logarithmic? Fair doesn’t have to mean linear and it rarely is in practice.
Steve: Because that’s the formula Metrolinx claims to be using. Again, if the distance portion is non-linear (no matter what the flavour), this implies a different underlying policy regime for what the fares are intended to achieve.
LikeLike
GO trains can be very long. The eastbound trains I see passing at Parliament typically are made up of eleven passenger vehicles, towed by a big diesel locomotive.
What would be required for a calculation to be made, at Malton, Georgetown, or Guelph, as to how many vehicles would be needed to carry the remaining passengers to their destination?
How much delay and inconvenience would it add to the westbound Kitchener and Guelph passenger experience if they knew that only the N lead cars were going all the way to the end of the line? How much fuel would be saved if eastbound Georgetown passengers boarded vehicles left behind by the last westbound train? How much delay would attaching those vehicles to the train require?
On a related note, I would be interested in reading a genuine rider’s account of taking the Union-Pearson Express. It is supposed to take 25 minutes to Pearson. If it uses the same tracks as the Georgetown-Kitchener GO train, for some reason, the first few kilometers take a wildly disproportionate amount of the transit time. Both westbound and eastbound the couple of kilometers near Union Station trains don’t seem to go any faster than one could ride a bicycle.
On a barely related note, I got a good laugh from that Chinese engineer’s suggestion China should build a 200 kph train from China, across Siberia to the Bering Strait, 100 kilometers under the Bering Strait, across Alaska, Canada, to the CONUS. He doesn’t seem to understand density any better than Rob Ford.
Steve: Adding and dropping cars on a GO train is very time consuming because (a) brake tests are needed after the switch and (b) those cars have to go somewhere out of the way requiring another loco plus crew. The cost of towing them to the end of the line and back is lower than the overhead of all the hostling involved to manage this.
LikeLike
I used to live in Brampton, and I remember the price difference between travelling from Brampton to Union and from Bramalea to Union was enough that I simply traveled to Bramalea GO. GO is taking everyone for fools by claiming the fare system is distance based. It’s always been zone based, and it was a confusing system.
I’m not sure if the zones changed, but I remember west of the 410 it was zone 33, and east of the 410 it was zone 32.
I’d just walk across the 410 and hop on the GO bus at West Drive and save myself some money. And it was quite a bit of savings.
LikeLike
The issue of course Steve, that the short trips displace long ones in terms of capacity and the total train is still required for whole route. Hopefully running RER trains on the inner portion only will improve the cost model and there will be some flex around costing to support 416 load. This is an issue with GO focus and policy around cost recovery.
Steve: However, there is also a problem that the demand will probably outstrip the supply on some routes, and inner parts of the RER network will suffer the same problem as the Yonge subway (just at a different scale). This is a challenge for Tory’s SmartTrack scheme especially if it only runs short trains on a 15 minute headway.
LikeLike
Most of GO services exist to give people an alternative to driving for their regular commutes and special trips.
If GO had a true fare by distance system more people would likely drive. Remember the loud complaints that occurred when people started musing about GO charging for parking? Invariably people said they would drive instead.
The fact that they don’t understand the true costs of driving may be a source of that frustration but it is reflective of the issues that GO must face.
It seems to me that GO needs to GO ahead and implement a local service for the 416 and inner 905 with lower fares and more frequent trains. While it will cost them more money it will move more people during the day time as well as the peak hours … absolutely crucial for our congested region. They can even call it “Smart Track” and introduce Phase 1 (Union-Bramalea) next year if they like.
The alternative is more wrangling and spending more billions to build more subway lines over long distances. Yonge line to Major Mac, anyone?
It’s similar for me. I live 3.6km from Erindale GO but travel to Toronto most of the time via Port Credit GO (if I’m heading anywhere south of Dundas) because I prefer the train to the bus and it is cheaper. I have occasionally taken outbound GO trains on the Milton Line but stop at Cooksville (5.6km from home) rather than Erindale because it is cheaper and faster (frequent direct uses via Dundas) even though I have to walk a but.
In 15 years I have used Erindale GO station exactly 3 times, Cooksville station 10 times and the rest is Port Credit, Port Credit, Port Credit.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Regarding Smarttrack Steve I dare say capacity will possibly be an issue at 15 minute headways even with long trains.
Steve: Yes, I suspect so provided that it runs with TTC fares. However, if it runs with GO fares, the trains will be uncrowded and the effect on TTC demand negligible.
LikeLike
The other side of these calculations is how much the fares actually changed in real terms after accounting for inflation. I did a similar exercise for TTC fares several years ago using the Bank of Canada inflation calculator. (This was about 10 years ago, so it’s overdue for an update.)
The inflation calculator indicates that a $10 fare in 2003 should be $12.16 in 2014 if accounting for inflation, or a 21.6% fare increase. The longest distance fares have thus kept more or less in line with inflation, but the closer you get to Toronto, they’ve increased at a greater rate than inflation.
Another way of looking at it: if that minimum $2.85 fare in 2003 kept up with inflation, it would be (rounded to) $3.50 in 2014.
LikeLike
The gross cost of running a train a specific #kilometres is independent of the #riders on the train, even though it’s determined by the distance travelled (gross cost = km x {fuel$/km. + labour$/km. + depreciation$/km. + etc.}).
The net cost of running a train (i.e. the needed operating subsidy) is dependent on both the cost & revenue in GO’s fare-by-distance/zone model (net cost = km. x {rev$/km – cost$/km} = operating subsidy$). So, I don’t think the cost of the space is truly constant on a net cost basis.
Steve: I refer to the gross cost. There is almost nothing to be saved by running shorter trains versus the cost (and time) of dropping and adding cars to the consists. A seat costs the same no matter how far it travels because it is the train itself that generates the cost unless you can somehow save on crews which are not very big to start with. The cost of the seat is, therefore, proportionate to the length of the route regardless of how long someone actually sits in it.
Net cost relates to actual utilization and how much revenue the space can generate, but taking away an empty seat has no effect on revenue. Moreover, one cannot simply run fewer seats more often because more trains mean more locomotives and crew, and so the cost per seat-trip goes up. If this is not balanced by improved ridership then the net cost of operation is now higher. GO’s Lake Shore services have higher off peak ridership than before, but I very much doubt they are raking in fares at anywhere near GO’s typical cost recovery level.
LikeLike
I agree that the longer distance trips should pay more. But on the other hand, my observations from the Lakeshore line is that most passengers are taking shorter trips. For example, more people seem to board an eastbound GO Train starting at Oakville and stops east. So, Aldershot and Burlington passengers have a better choice over where to sit as there are fewer passengers when they get on. This may not be as true during the rush hour, but it does outside of rush hour. As such, GO has to run longer trains to Aldershot and Oshawa to accommodate those passengers who are not making long trips.
Since the implementation of PRESTO on GO Transit, the zone system seems to have stopped. For example, I have a default trip on my PRESTO card, but if I board at Exhibition Station, I have to tap off when I get to my home station. Yet, pre-PRESTO, Exhibition and Union were the same zones, and thus the same price. So, if the zone system was still in effect then I should be able to only tap my PRESTO card when I board.
Steve: The zones are still there, but Presto operates on a station basis, not a zone basis.
LikeLike
GO Transit is the LEAST subsidized transit agency in North America, followed by the TTC. In 2013, GO had a 78.2% farebox recovery ratio, while the TTC had a 73%. Subsidies covered the rest.
Generally, I find that the shorter whatever the route is, the greater the revenue comes from the farebox. The longer the route distance, the less revenue can be expected. Hence the higher fare for the longer distance.
Steve: That’s self-evident, but the inconsistency in how Metrolinx has been increasing fares is shifting more of the revenue burden to the short distance rider, and this works directly contrary to plans to shift some trips off of TTC to GO. I just wish that Metrolinx had a consistent, clear policy about how its fares are determined and a recognition that the fare structure and relative attractiveness of a service are linked.
This is the reason SmartTrack gets such traction with voters — give people better service at a cheaper fare — and why York Region so lusts after subway extensions to Vaughan and Richmond Hill. They will get one-fare rides to downtown with frequent service, almost certainly at the expense of Toronto taxpayers given the sweetheart deal Toronto signed re the Vaughan subway. The “city above Toronto” is ripping us off, and nobody is talking about how to fix this.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, Steve on some routes Steve (UPX, Richmond Hill, likely Stouffville corridor) I suspect that near 905 and 416 ridership would be near the high end of GO capacity (12k) were it at a TTC fare.
If there were room in the corridor for both a set of rapid transit rails might be required.
Steve: Unfortunately the “planning” behind SmartTrack presumed a much, much more frequent level of service than SmartTrack/RER will actually operate. When John Tory pontificates about unreasonable claims for projects, he should start by looking in his own back yard.
LikeLike
And why do you want distance based pricing? It should be displacement based. Please ask Robert Wightman what the difference between distance and displacement is as he can explain it better him being a physicist.
Steve: You keep showing up under different guises, but with a consistent misinterpretation of what I write. I don’t “want” distance-based pricing, but wish that Metrolinx would be consistent in its implementation. This becomes very important in any discussion of “regional” fares, and GO’s love for fare-by-distance. If they can’t even get it right on their own system, who knows what a mess they would make of things on the TTC.
LikeLike
Steve: This has been edited together from four separate comments by the same author.
The fare increases are annoying, but the light is at the end of the tunnel. Here’s why.
I predict Metrolinx will bring us some kind of GO fare drop once GO RER arrives. The operating cost of electric trains are much lower, and if SmartTrack gets a good farebox recovery ratio, which Metrolinx apparently suggests it could, they would likely use TTC fares on all the central 416 sections of GO RER (e.g. Long Branch to Union on Lakeshore West).
I see lots of evidence that we will get some kind of deeper fare integration (near-unification), since SmartTrack is a GO RER running at TTC fare. Direct quote:
The province knows capacity limitations at Union already, and law of physics will automatically cause them to make sure SmartTrack use high-capacity high-frequency electric trains, rather than stubby UPX-sized trains. (You can safely bet your mortgage, if SmartTrack happens — it’ll make sure it meets projected capacity.
Steve: I will jump in here as this is a very long comment to observe that (a) I don’t think the savings from electrification will be “much lower”. Somewhat, but how much would be available to cut fares is another question. SmartTrack’s background study shows very high ridership, but this is based on very much more intensive service (at least 20 trains/hour) rather than the 4/hour proposed in both the RER and SmartTrack plans. The obvious problem for GO is whether there is actually enough money on the table to allow a reduction of 50% or more on inside-416 fares.
The Eglinton spur is essentially a 8th GO line, which you will see in the map has excellent vertical spacing between GO Kitchener and GO Milton, GO Lakeshore West. Doing a distance draw, it is only a short extension to make it to Mississauga Square One via an extension that’s actually shorter than the Eglington distance between Airport Corporate and Weston GO station (near where SmartTrack spurs away from the Georgetown corridor). Whether we hate or love Tory (who has 74% approval rating), it appears that if John Tory makes 3rd term, he is likely to promise a SmartTrack extension to Mississauga Square One.
Steve: Frankly, the Eglinton spur does not make sense as part of GO’s network for technical reasons that have been discussed at great length elsewhere. It would make much more sense to extend the Eglinton LRT further west.
If [you’re] still not believing Metrolinx will redo the fares (e.g. TTC-GO fare unification if taking rail-based services inside the “416 zone”)
– SmartTrack (GO RER #1) has same fare as TTC! That’s a start.
– Presto makes fare unification technologically easier, and an easier promise for future politicians.
– SmartTrack is highly likely to share some GO stations, according to the Metrolinx SmartTrack map
– TTC CEO now wants Presto full rollout by 2016 on TTC, which makes it easier to eliminate fare discrepancies (e.g. eliminate Metropasses/tokens).
– TTC in August, agreed in principle to make their transfers equivalent of 2-hour timed passes (in any direction, even return trips) by September 2015.
– From what I am reading, it appears there would be no faregates if you hop off a SmartTrack & hop onto a GOTrain (station reuse). Same for Crosstown interchanges with SmartTrack. So there appears to be gateless paths between SmartTrack/Crosstown/GO, and Kitchener/Stouffville trains will still run (and also be RER-ified like SmartTrack trains).
– TTC replied to a tweet suggesting they are switching to Presto readers at the top, permitting high speed Presto tapout (like London Underground’s great tap-out system, better than Vancouver). London Underground and Presto uses the same chip in their Presto card, and no server uplink needed. You to run while tapping!
– TTC fare rises will probably happen before SmartTrack complete. RER short-distance pricedrop + TTC farerise = same fare price in 2020
– Metrolinx also said GO RER will have lower operating costs. Technically, that means they can lower short-distance fares when there’s capacity.
– GO RER, adds new infill stations and approximately triples the number of inside-416 stations. Extra stations increase demand for transfer convenience (e.g. flat cost 416 zone for TTC/GO).
– You can bet your bank that if SmartTrack gets built (GO RER on TTC fare), when they RER-ify the other lines, there’s a low resistance for future governments to mandate TTC fares in the interior sections.
Metrolinx can still charge higher fares for outside 416 zone, but when there’s triple the number of GO RER stations (including SmartTrack) inside the 416 zone, the fare will likely become unified in the 416 zone between GO/TTC, with free transfers, because of the above bullet list.
Steve: This is a very rosy outlook that I fear will run headlong into the chronic problem hereabouts — the resistance to spending money on operations and especially on fare subsidies. It is not enough to have a “TTC fare” but to embrace what this really means including transfers to and from connecting routes and monthly/weekly price caps (equivalent to passes). That would be a lot for GO to swallow.
Track capacity and train throughput are big issues at Union, but consider the revitalization (some tracks are shut down) and also the $200M upgrade of the Union corridor signalling system. After that, there will be enough capacity for triple the number of trains passing through Union, versus today. From my looking at European systems, that’s quite very realistic. Thanks to SmartTrack, consider the Stoufville line theoretically merged with Kitchener line, so those trains become passthrough. Two dedicated track for that. Two dedicated track for Lakeshore. So with careful train scheduling, and a new signal system, they can run very frequent GO RER on four tracks. Also they will introduce double-berthing at a few of tracks (GO trains will also use VIA tracks at times: with changeable message signs on all entries, and signal system replacement, both VIA/GO can reroute to each other tracks much more easily on the fly), this is convenient for GO lines that terminate from opposite ends. Beyond a certain point, Metrolinx has proposals to build 4 underground tracks under Union for the 2030s (google “Metrolinx 2031” for the info) to swallow extra capacity.
Steve: The four extra tracks in that proposal are actually intended for the Lake Shore corridor. This would be a complex construction job, and the more likely scenario is the satellite station where Bathurst Yard is today. That, however, would break up your proposed through Stouffville/Weston corridor hookup, not to mention SmartTrack as proposed.
One thing I disagree with Metrolinx not liking a specific idea — is that the Crosstown line (North Toronto Subdivision, north of Bloor, south of Eglinton) is quite useful (in conjunction with a future DRL) and can still actually be shared between GO/CN without relocating CN service with some modifications (2 track GO, 2 track CN) though they will need to shift that bike path southwards to add a fourth track in many places, shift track slightly to add a 4th track without expropriation, solve some thorny overpass rebuild issues, and tunnel under the train yard in the The Junction/Stockyards area, to prevent interference with CN services. It would theoretically still be doable on budgets far less than building the Scarborough subway extension, while serving far more of Toronto. CN would need to be thrown a few bones, like improved track and signalling, to live with just two tracks in the majority of the crosstown corridor to permit subway-style crosstown service to happen on this line. With lots of interchange stations with subways & other GO tracks at the end points, that would “grid out” the GO system a lot (with lots of loops) and possibly allow inventing new GOTrain routes that relieve Union, depending on how future GO RER passenger traffic growth ends up being.
Steve: It’s a lot more complicated than you make it appear on a few counts. First, the North Toronto line is CP not CN, and it is their main link through Toronto. Not only is there Lambton Yard, but also Toronto Yard in Scarborough. Taking space on this corridor is a really tough “ask” of CPR, and proposals for service here have run aground many times in the past. Electrification would add yet another issue for CPR.
Although my political spectrum is not aligned with Tory, I see a lot of merit in SmartTrack. I think the plan should proceed, with the proviso that Ontario forces it to use full sized electric GO RER trains (single, with provision for future double decker, 5-min peak, 15-min offpeak).
Also the 8 GO lines (including Eglinton spur) could become fewer lines by becoming through lines with 4 or 5 different color coded routes on tomorrow’s GO map. It would be a Union capacity maximizing move; they would theoretically no longer need to originate trains at Union in a new future service plan. And this now allows it to fit within Union revitalized capacity after resignalling, some train-routing tweaks, dynamic routing of VIA/GO), and certain cases of double berthing. I looked at several Euro systems carefully, and this looks doable, while running all lines simultaneously at 15-min service, with selected lines at 5-min peak service. It would be extremely challenging of course, but with a new Train Traffic Control (thanks to the $200M resignalling), it should be more doable especially if there’s a few modifications to some of the crossovers to prevent crossover interference. There’s also the possibility that full GO RER (15-min on all routes) will be delayed until the 4-track underground tunnel, but they could still certainly do 30-min on all routes, with 15-min on most of the more frequent. Milton line is hard to make frequent due to non-Metrolinx ownership, so they could delay that off to the 2030s, especially if a SmartTrack extension occurs (as Milton relief).
Steve: Some of this has already been discussed in the GO Electrification Study.
Also, there is a lot of potential to loop-out and de-star the GO system:
– Consider SmartTrack as a defacto 8th GO RER line which is only one or two extensions away from connecting with GO Milton (something Tory/Metrolinx has probably privately discussed by now as a “future prospect”) after passing through Mississauga downtown/Square One. The Eglington spur actually brings it between 1/3 to 1/2 way already.
– Consider GO Midtown line, could also theoretically be made to interchange with multiple GO lines at opposite ends, gridding out the system within 25 years, de-starring the Union dependency.
With more rail rapid-transit loops when TTC/GO is much more heavily gridded in the next 25 years, than currently, this provides plenty of opportunities to bypass Union, in a faintly New York / London style. It would not be that density, but GO RER + future TTC DRL + SmartTrack + SmartTrack extension (to Milton line) + theoretical future activation of GO Midtown + major interchange stations, more heavily de-stars the GO system. This will start to make Toronto finally approach a world class “subway-convenience” rail system at less cost (compared to Ford’s subway plan which would be insanely much more expensive).
LikeLike
A number of commuter rail systems that I have ridden a multiple zone system where the inner zone or inner two zones are covered by a flat fare that is relatively high because that is where the riding is heaviest. The outer zones are at a lot lower rate per km because the ridership is lower and there are more seats available. Riding from an outer zone to zone 2 is a lot less than riding into zone 1 because there is more capacity in zone 2. Also the number of trains which go beyond zone 2 is less thus reducing the cost of operating to the end of the line.
Georgetown is about half way between Kitchener and Union but there are a lot more empty seats, albeit on fewer trains, between Kitchener and Georgetown than between Georgetown and Union so perhaps the cost should be lower per mile on the outer ends of a line. To use one of Benny’s airplane analogies you charge more were the demand is higher.
In order to reduce the number of empty seats being hauled all the way to the ends of the lines GO needs to operate the longer distance trains express on the inner zones during the rush period and use shorter turn locals to provide the inner service. This would provide people on the inner zones a better chance of getting a seat while reducing the costs of running all those empty seat km. GO does this on the Lakeshore lines but does not do it much on the other lines. If you live 60 miles from Union (the railways still use miles) you shouldn’t expect the same service as someone who only lives 30 miles or less away but you should also not pay the same rate per mile (or km.) If GO were to provide a 10 minute or better service on the inner zones versus a 20 to 30 minute service on the outer ones then it could justify its skewed pricing policy.
LikeLike
I haven’t tried to actually buy these in person, but GO does have fares e.g. Long Branch to Etobicoke North, which are less expensive than only the Long Branch to Union station leg (how one would be able to make this trip without going to Union eludes me). Maybe they won’t actually sell me the fare, but the web site certainly quotes it.
(I would save ten cents on a cash fare, or nine cents on Presto.)
As someone living close to Long Branch GO station, I am always displeased by having to walk through the parking lot. Pedestrian access from the south, i.e. Lake Shore Boulevard is poor and can involve some fences, as well as walking through the lot where you’re at risk of being run over by a car or SUV. At the same time, the cars get free parking. So the lesson is that if you walk in, you’re a second-class citizen. GO/Metrolinx can’t even be bothered to provide good pedestrian access, even though they are happy to spend money on huge parking structures.
Anyway, those flat-rate increases has priced the Long Branch-Union trip too high for me. A Metropass is much greater value, even if it leaves me grumbling at the Queen car. In addition, I have just discovered that my Presto card seems to have died. Okay, I lost the value on there, but it wasn’t much. By not registering, that’s the risk I took. But in any case I apparently have to pay for a new Presto card. Ain’t happening, so I guess I’m not riding GO.
LikeLike
I think that some of you have suggested that if Scarborough were to have it’s own subway, then TTC should adopt distance-based fare. I would be very happy to pay distance based fares starting from the day that the Scarborough subway opens. Let’s start building Scarborough subway today and I will be more than happy to pay distance based fares starting from the day that the subway enters service.
Steve: I trust that you are ready to pay at least twice what you do today to ride to downtown.
LikeLike
Absolutely provided that the subway comes deep into Scarborough (say to McCowan and Sheppard or Markham and Sheppard) but only once it BEGINS OPERATIONS. Let’s start building the Scarborough subway NOW and make sure that the TTC wide distance based fare policy is announced as a pre-condition for the subway to Scarborough, Mississauga, or Thornhill/Richmond Hill.
LikeLike
I think my favourite GO Transit rate structure is the cost of travelling from Hamilton GO Centre to Union.
Same origin, same destination, primarily the same mode, same cash fare, 40 cent differences on PRESTO. Makes no sense.
LikeLike
Metrolinx came in for some criticism a few months back when they ponied up $1.2M to help build a bike trail along a railway spur leading to the Kitchener GO/Via station:
Metrolinx is now in the Bike Trail business.. in Kitchener
In my opinion they are doing the right thing to get people on the train regardless of how they arrive. In the case of Kitchener the station is in the middle of town and is unlikely to ever have a parking structure. Also, if the promised two-way all-day service ever arrives, the expectation is that there will be some reverse flow commuters coming this way, and a trail system helps some of those folks get to their destination if they don’t want to transfer to the local transit.
LikeLike
Moaz: Ah, evidence. Someone should quickly get that in front of the CEO for Metrolinx, the President of GO Transit, and the Minister of Transport … Ideally at the same meeting if possible.
Moaz: This reinforces the idea of a new branded local “GO-REX” (think of how popular dinosaurs were years ago and how popular the Toronto Raptors are now) service for the inner GTA with a fare system that is more appropriate to inflation but not exactly the same as the TTC Fare. $4 plus a TTC/905 Agency concession fare. I would definitely take advantage of such a fare system.
By the way the idea of Smart Track on the Stoufville corridor combined with the idea of local and express trains raises an interesting question … GO trains run to Lincolnville now and the new yard is located there. According to the plan Smart Track is to go to “Markham.” Will Smart Track trains stop at Unionville while GO trains travel 2 stops more to Lincolnville? Will we soon hear that GO must extend their trains to Uxbridge to compensate for lost revenue from SmartTrack? I think (having been there exactly twice in my life) that Uxbridge *deserves* a GO rail connection. GO buses aren’t good enough. The people of Uxbridge must accept nothing less than GO trains, GO trains, GO trains.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Steve I have 2 issues with fare for distance inside TTC. One it punishes those that must live in the outer 416, two, it will let those who think even twice the fare covers all the extra costs of service of running a 1/4 full subway, or 1/2 bus more than twice as far.
LikeLike
When was the last time you were at Long Branch station, Ed? Most of the parking spots are reserved, paid, spots. There are only a handful of free parking spaces during the week.
Some stations are not bad for pedestrian access. Port Credit is an example. But with stations like Long Branch, where would you place the parking so you do not have to walk through the parking lot? Remember, the Canadian Legion and Long Branch Loop have been in their current locations for decades, and the north side of the station has been housing for decades as well. In other words, GO Transit did not have much ability to make it easier for pedestrians.
LikeLike
I assume that SmartTrack really means electrification of the Kitchener and Stouffville GO lines. Obviously the weird Eglinton spur is not possible, and it also isn’t possible to use a separate pair of tracks with a technology incompatible with mainline rail (like GO ALRT) due to lack of room.
The “Strategic Regional Research Alliance” group that came up with the SmartTrack proposal has no clue of how to fix the major technical flaws in its proposal, I don’t understand why city council is wasting money hiring them for more studies. I expect that Tory will replace SmartTrack with Metrolinx’s much better “Regional Express Rail” plans shortly.
So let’s assume we are talking about electrifying the whole Stouffville line + Kitchener line as far as Bramalea + the UP Express spur + Lakeshore West line as far as Willowbrook Yard as part of phase 1. It would be reasonable for GO to charge TTC fares within Toronto city limits but significantly more outside, so going to Unionville station would cost more. Presumably this would require lowering the fares from Union to inner 905 somewhat, so that Union-Unionville doesn’t cost far more than Union-Milliken, but Union-Hamilton would not change.
However the far higher ridership caused by the electrification, frequent service and lower fares ought to offset the cost of lowering fares, so the additional operating subsidy should be minimal, the main cost is the cost of electrification, double tracking, level crossing elimination and more trains. The $8 billion cost estimate seems high if you eliminate the Eglinton spur and don’t increase the capacity of Union Station, the electrification and double tracking of the lines I described ought to cost a lot less than that.
Steve: Council approved spending money on the same consultants Tory sourced “SmartTrack” from during his campaign likely because (a) that’s what the Mayor wanted, (b) he has a working majority that was not going to defeat his signature issue days into his term, and (c) because it is rarely worth trying to block a study when the argument is “we need to get the facts”. I certainly want to see more details behind SRRA’s ridership claims and financial projections given that the service level proposed in their paper is not attainable nor is the infrastructure to support it proposed in either RER or SmartTrack.
LikeLike
This is more of a ramble than an argument as I don’t think I know enough to really form an opinion. But, my two cents on fare systems/system integration.
Having used the D.C., NY, Toronto, and Vancouver transit systems well enough to know them better than a tourist, it struck me that all are quite different (other than NY and Toronto, which are sort of similar-ish).
In D.C., the subway is on a station to station based system. At every station in the system, the fare to your destination (from your current location, of course) is displayed. You can also look it up online. Entry is with a metropass-esque card, or with most other methods for a flat increase (I think $1 when I was there). There is also Amtrak, which serves a similar if not even longer distance role as GO, but also as VIA – no experience on this, but from the trains I’ve seen I imagine they run two distinctly different services – one commuter rail on GO fare structure, and one long distance rail on a VIA fare structure. The subway and Amtrak both serve areas outside of DC – I’d estimate half the subway stops are outside city limits. This means there are multiple feeder bus services – most of which take the same presto like fare card, but flat rate fare (which varies). The subway system, while a great network, is atrociously run. The trains regularly stop mid tunnel, sometimes for 30 minutes, during rush hour. Single tracking seems to happen more often than not. They have accidents, lethal ones, relatively regularly. Fares range significantly – it was $2.10 for close subwaying, $6.35 in subway + 80 cents in bus fare for my commute.
Vancouver is teeny tiny, relative to the rest of these cities. But the entire lower mainland (Greater Vancouver Area) is served by one, and only one, transit company – Translink! This means that if you go from the US border, to the far reaches of Langley, and all the way north to Horseshoe Bay, you only need to pay one fare. This fare is determined by how many of the 3 zones you pass through, with the zones being Vancouver, the “touching” suburbs, and the “not touching” suburbs. Other than the shiny new Canada line, which is like 2 smaller TR cars, their “subway” aka the Skytrain, is the SRT. They have some newer units we never seemed to order that come about 60% of the time relative to the old ones, and all trains are automated. This is normally great, but horrifying when your train screeches to a halt, announces a stop, and opens the doors 150 ft above the ground. Like Washington, Skytrain connects more than just Vancouver – but not all areas are covered (with the majority of stops in Burnaby or Vancouver). They also have one single tiny regional rail line, the West Coast Express. As far as I know, it runs like 3 trips a day, and costs double what GO would for shorter distances. Service is generally fantastic other than the aforementioned autonomous faults – trains aren’t quite as frequent as Toronto, but not far off. Buses come like *clockwork*, though they have far worse headways in my experiance – “frequent service” is every 15 minutes. Again, Vancouver and even the lower mainland is *tiny*, so SRT trains on 5 minute headways serving the entire rail transit needs of the region isn’t nearly as scary as you think. Fares are $2.75 for one zone, $4 for two, and $5.50 for three. I’ve always found this system slightly stupid as you can spend $4 to go literally two stops, or only $2.75 to take a two hour journey.
Steve: Note that after 6:30pm weekdays and on weekends, the system is one big zone, and a single zone fare takes you anywhere. There are also special provisions for certain boundary areas.
New York is awesome. It’s just beautiful. I don’t actually know much about the bus service, other than I see it very frequently and can’t imagine it’s anything less than spectacular. I say this because I’ve never needed to take the bus, the subway is *that* good. How good you say? Express trains good. 24 hour service good. Same level transfers good (Think of St George station. In New York, eastbound and south bound (downtown) would arrive at the same level, and northbound and westbound (away from downtown) at the same level. This fits the commuting patterns far better, and saves the dreaded stair rush. It’s beautiful). It is just wickedly awesome! Fares are cheap, no zones, no charge for express trains. They have Amtrak too, same comments as in DC. The thing to note about New York though is that unlike Vancouver, between ridership and subsidy, they can actually afford to run their entire world class subway network 24/7. They have the density and existing infrastructure to support it. No other city on this list does, sadly.
Last but not least Toronto. I won’t say anything about Toronto other than we have a subway that leaves something to be desired network wise but is fantastic service wise, an awesome regional rail system, an absurd number of buses, and my personal favorite, the streetcar network! Everything is the same fare, unless you want to cross city boundaries. GO is completely disconnected and is zone based. This is effectively an even stupider version of Vancouver’s zoning system, as it can cost twice as much to cross Steeles in a bus as it does to ride from Finch to Union in a train, as well as the aforementioned GO oddities mentioned earlier in this thread (like saving ten cents on the trip to Union 😉 ).
Which system is best? I have no idea. I’d argue New York, but it’s density gives it a completely unfair advantage. I don’t like the zoning in place in Vancouver or the GTA either, it doesn’t make sense that there aren’t even discounted transfers like in D.C.’s greater area. That being said, it really pissed me off that my commute in DC was 8 dollars for the same distance as, say, Union to Main St. I’m dreaming, but what if we get an express line down Yonge as the “downtown relief” line, and it opens up transit integration, expansion, and usage, and by 2030 we’ve got 5 minute headway with express and local service on every rail line in the GTA.
LikeLike
Lower cost round trips within 2.5 hours is something that Presto has given us, though this situation is not common on GO.
With paper tickets, a return trip was a full fare. With Presto, a new boarding within 2.5 hours of the first tap-on is treated as a continuation of the same trip. This is necessary in order to properly charge a longer trip. For instance, GO’s fare from the University of Waterloo to York University is $14.31 using Presto. This trip must be done with two buses, connecting at Square One, and each has its own fare: $12.65 and $6.26 respectively. Since the first leg of this trip will have taken $12.65 from the card balance, the second leg will only take $1.66 instead of $6.26. (Note that one’s Presto card will need to have at least $5 on it for the second leg since Presto takes a minimum charge with tapping on, and charges or refunds the difference when tapping off).
This discount for a multi-leg trip works when making a return trip within the time allowance. On several occasions this past year, I had to travel from Richmond Hill to downtown and used GO as its fare is less costly than YRT plus TTC, not to mention it is faster. As a one-way trip with Presto, this costs $5.81, but the return trip was something like $1.70 when taken within 2.5 hours.
LikeLike
Two more stops?!? There are FIVE stops after Unionville: Centenial, Markham, Mount Joy, Stouffville, and Lincolnville.
LikeLike
Dennon, an express underground parallel subway under Yonge as a downtown relief?
That is an interesting idea, and might be needed sometime this century. Probably the latter half. I think the crosstown DRL will be more important first, but I like the idea of four subway tunnels under Yonge, with express subway trains running in the other pair, so you would only need to build interchanges in some of the Yonge subway stations. That said, it can only be built when the cost is warranted (further GTA densification), and after highly frequent service on all GO lines (5-min peak, 15-min offpeak), plus all the current proposed lines actually built. I think it would be extremely costly, but once Yonge subway is at crisis levels (Yonge subway isn’t crowded compared to Beijing’s subway… shoulder to shoulder….there’s even lineups outside the station)
Steve: Please note that this discussion has gone miles off track from GO Transit fare pricing. The thread is not about fantasy rail networks of future decades.
LikeLike
Very valid concern. However, once they push trains far more frequently through a specific corridor, such as 15-min, they may not be able to increase peak hour capacity by the standards Tory says, but there’s a lot of seats on GOtrains during offpeak, typically often 80% of a Lakeshore train is empty during certain offpeak moments like a quiet 1pm train on Monday morning. This isn’t too shabby considering that’s still a few hundred people on the train (another reason I believe in Metrolinx diversifying their fleet to include single-level MMU electric trains, as a balance). They will only be able to get a little more peak throughput, but a LOT more offpeak throughput. I see this as quite realistic. Even the Metrolinx 2031 documents seemed to acknowledge that peak throughput is a bottleneck, even though they can run more offpeak throughput (e.g. 3x as many trains daily, but only 2x as many trains peak, after Union revitalization).
Assuming SmartTrack is GO RER #1 and replaces a lot of GOtrains (except express to past Pearson), track capacity limits might force them to eventually migrate it slowly to the point where Kitchener incoming goes express to Union past Pearson or Eglinton, with SmartTrack being the allstop, meaning they have to get off and transfer if not going all the way to Union. I think they can do lots of improvement to Union throughput once they go electric: GOTrains often loiter for 5-8 minutes at Union. They often keep the doors open for several minutes. Once trains are very frequent (5-min peak on certain routes, like Lakeshore & SmartTrack), there will be no reason for a train to stick to its timetable, and go for a subway-interchange-style loiter (1 minute door open) and then move on. This will seriously challenge track capacity so they cannot do 5-min on all lines (today, they barely manage to succeed roughly 15min frequency during ~430pm-630pm peak on Lakeshore with diesels). To push it more frequent during electricification, during Union peak for the 10-min-and-more-frequent, the service plan of Union probably will change: Briefer loiter times and certain early/late trains loiter briefly and goes, assuming the next train is on its way to the same platform within a known brief time period. Tracks will be assigned in such a way that trains will need to crossover fewer tracks during peak, even if more popular GO routes have to be bumped to the boonie tracks (which will now be more convenient to access from the new GO concourses) and the VIA tracks activated for GO for routes where throughput favors these. Two routes that need to share ultrafrequent peak (near 5-min) service probably would hit to 6-min and 8-min, by interspersing trains on some tracks (e.g. SmartTrack & all-stop Barrie RER trains), with semi-express GO RER trains (doesn’t stop at all smarttrack stations) sharing the UPX tracks at same average speed, in scheduling creativities similar to what goes on in London and Paris. A few extra track will eventually be needed (the Lakeshore underground lines as I mentioned earlier) to free up throughput to Union for frequent service of all other lines. But scheduling creativities can keep most routes reasonably frequent and the huge offpeak capacity attract transit riders who wouldn’t normally take GO. I can see why it is not a perfect solution, but my feeling is they should be able to pull off the throughput increase with a new service plan and continued corridor tweaks. Just not all at peak.
Steve: A lot of your discussion of options for Union is covered by some of the background studies done on Union Station Capacity a few years ago.
LikeLike
(missing paragraph, was supposed to be part of text. May have gotten lost in my editing)
When they run trains more frequently, they will need to fill them up. Lower fare on fuller frequent offpeak trains, can have better farebox recovery, than higher fare on empty frequent offpeak trains. So to permit them to find it more econimically feasible, they have to push a lot of people to make up for it, and they would need the throughput. a new offpeak fare equilibrium (even if not TTC fare) will be forced by the extra frequency and infill stations.
LikeLike
@Mark Rejhon, what about putting on platform doors and automated control in station for train placement, to allow faster in station speed. In station speeds seem painfully slow watching a train pull through, but low speed is required with narrow crowded open platforms.
Steve: Platform doors are a big challenge without automatic train control. Moreover, they force all equipment using the station to have common door layouts, at least on the tracks through which they operate. This could limit both GO/VIA co-existence as well as future options for GO car designs.
LikeLike
Steve granted automation is required in station with platform doors. Also, absolutely, door layout on trains needs be consistent, or multiple door configurations required (expensive, as many more platform doors would be required, and control logic to open only the correct ones would be required), but watching a train pull through at near walking speeds and knowing that a speed much greater would be unsafe, limits the service that can be offered in the corridor. Substantial expense to get more out of Union. Although, ultimately I strongly suspect that pedestrian traffic through the concourse will be a real limit.
I had to walk through the station multiple times yesterday, and knowing that this was a slow day, and yet it was still crowded. While, once all the construction is complete it will be better, it is clear there are real limits in the walkways and concourse.
LikeLike
I recall Steve mentioning that the plan has changed to electrify the Weston sub and the Lakeshore East line to Whitby.
Steve: This plan gets changed every time somebody has a brainwave that affects the rollout sequence. It does not make sense to do Stouffville + KW first because there would be no access to the new shops in Whitby or the old ones in Mimico. However, details like this don’t trouble the minds of politicians or their consultants.
Gosh … thanks for the clarification. I suppose that complicates things even more for the Smart Track and GO pricing. Nevertheless the good people of Uxbridge must not be denied their rights to GO train service.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
One major challenge over the long term is the platform height of the GO network is extremely low. This is really challenging for accessibility. The stations have a raised center platform but it requires staffing to put out the small catwalk. Reducing staffing overhead per GO Train is pretty challenging with this, as it affects loiter times greatly. Automating/eliminating this bottleneck will be needed in the decades to come, for GO RER.
I am very interested: are there precedents of any city changing platform heights for their entire network when switching services? I can imagine that this does not sound economical or practical for Toronto, and probably not worth it (at least this generation) for the diesel trains they still plan to keep using for a long time to come.
Steve: This tends to be done where old and new platform heights can co-exist either because trains are shorter than the platforms, or because new platforms don’t introduce conflicts for co-existence with old equipment during the changeover period. GO is extremely unlikely to do a “big bang” cutover and if anything we are likely to see a mix of equipment types sharing lines. You mention that GO’s platforms are extremely low. This is a direct result of the bilevel car design with its low centre section. Those cars are not disappearing any time soon. If anything, it is the high platform cars like UPX that pose the greater problem. There is also VIA where it shares stations.
Comes the new electric trainsets, they have to make tough trainset decisions because they might keep those future electric trainsets for several decades, and they may need to keep their options open. A new choice of platform height when getting new electric trains, is something that could happen. It would be hugely disruptive to execute the platform height changes at existing stations. However, for brand new routes (those that don’t have stations built yet), this could be practical. One consideration is SmartTrack, of which half are new infill stations. This presents the potential opportunity to use a different platform height, and add separate platforms adjacent to GO stations that SmartTrack shares. But, that makes me feel more mixed about SmartTrack, because that will be a large temptation towards lower-capacity trains as they’re not going to build large 300 meter platforms from scratch for the new network.
In theory, if forced to do so later this century, presumably GO could do a long systemwide transition starting with the position of the 12th car (turn that into an accessible platform, with a staff in each plot), and raise the platform 1 car (at same car) at a time at all stations. Next, do it with the 11th car, then the 10th, and then so on. One extra staff per car would be required at all times during the whole transition (unless they wanted to raise 2 traincars worth of platforms at a time at all stations).
Steve: Don’t hold your breath. Any scheme that cannot even begin for decades to come is simply not going to enter into discussions today.
I need to study the relevant Metrolinx documents more closely on the platform height ideas they’ve discussed, as I have not studied Metrolinxs’ platform height discussions much.
Steve, are you familiar of any worldwide precedents of platform height transitions? I know of this one, Caltrain, but this is not applicable to the GOTrain network. The Caltrain system is going to be going through the platform-height-change nightmare, due to ADA regulations and their upcoming HSR.
I eagerly anticipate the SmartTrack study report.
LikeLike
The last time we were in London (England), we bought the all-zone (6 zones) pass.
When we went for a tour in Windsor, we were told to buy a ticket from “boundary zone 6” to Windsor. This took us on the suburban train from Waterloo. The pass would work on other trains if your journey was within the LT zones.
The one restriction, apparently, was that your train had to stop at the boundary; it wouldn’t help with the Flying Scotsman.
I think the pass was also good on the assorted bus companies that were starting to run into London.
LikeLike
I think ultimately the decision on fare pricing comes down to what type of service is offered, and a lot of conversation (not just here) has revolved around making GO some type of subway equivalent service … which I’m not sure is the right thing to do.
Politically, SmartTrack is a new subway line, run on existing infrastructure. When you dig into the details as only us transit fans do, you find that it’s a lot closer to GO service with the improvements Metrolinx is largely already covering.
I think GO service should still act and behave as it’s own separate, high speed, spoke and hub, regional heavy rail system. Implementing standardized fares within just the city, or providing split service (i.e. short turn trains), isn’t what regional rail is supposed to do. In the cities that “do it best”, there is a great mix of proper regional rail and extensive subway service (as well as bus and other auxiliary services). To try and turn GO into an expanded subway network just doesn’t seem practical; even though an expanded subway network is sorely needed, so is a great regional network (which IMO GO does a pretty job at). This means flat fares on the local transit systems, and distance based or at least explained & transparent fares on GO.
It upsets me a little bit whenever I hear that Toronto can’t support things like other cities can. It’s true, don’t get me wrong — a Yonge express line is a pipe dream at best, the DRL in any other form is decades away from service, and there are no other new lines being spoken of. History and infrastructure/development issues play a huge part, for sure … but the TTC is the third most used transit system in North America, behind only NYC and Mexico. The Yonge line is the second busiest subway in North America, behind only NYCs 4/5/6/6express line. That’s right, it takes 3 lines and an express train interlined to beat the Yonge Subway.
How is it possible that we can’t afford or get the political will to build better transit if we have the most heavily used pair of tracks in North America?
If distance based fares for even the TTC will expand our network to compete with other world class cities, then I’m all for them. But ultimately I think the best fare structure is flat rate within a proper city, distance based RER fares, and heavily discounted transfers between the various systems (very similar to what D.C. does). The separation of municipality rates means each area served can grow and expand its own feeder network to the RER as its populace demands; the flat rates locally encourage transit use; the distance based RER fare makes sense to most people and encourages more local use relative to the current system; heavily discounted transfers makes transit a viable and attractive option no matter where you’re going, short distance or long.
Apologies if I’ve brought things off topic slightly, but I feel to talk about fare systems you need to have a discussion of what the system is. A flat fare for the entire GTA just doesn’t make sense — the density isn’t there in most places and most transit agencies would go broke. But a distance based fare for everything doesn’t really work either, as it discourages intra city travel in a few subtle ways that ultimately make a large difference. So I think balancing the two and providing metro passes and discounted transfers at all levels makes the most sense.
LikeLike
@Dennon, I would generally agree, however, one of the major components that most of the cities that do it well have is lighter than subway rapid transit as a component of their system.
Sheppard does not justify subway, but something not in traffic is required. GO RER with 416 fare structures that are reasonable, along with a much more complete faster transit grid would go along way. I believe GO needs to spend some time building service levels and ridership, and be allowed to have less focus on fare box cost recovery. However to make this work the trains must be much more frequent on a couple of routes and I am not sure you can have all those trains to Union.
Steve had previously mentioned Kipling LRT plan that was never built, the intended Finch West LRT etc really tie to more RER. DRL is, however, really required to support this structure in the long term. A little help from a high capacity &frequency service in Richmond Hill might buy some time by relieving outer 416 with better network integration, but would need here to have fully integrated single TTC fare.
LikeLike
GO’s platforms are about 20 cm higher than VIA’s so GO does not need to use that stupid portable step VIA does. The reason that they are higher, like the height of the handicap platform, is the Transport Canada requirement that platform be set back just over a foot from the edge of the car so that oscillating freight trains won’t hit it. If the Platform goes out to the edge of the car as the subway does then the speed limit through the station is 10 mph IIRC. CN and CP would love this. It will be interesting to see what happens on the UPX track because if there isn’t a set back with a gauntlet track then all trains through the station are limited to 10 mph. This would do wonders for express service from the outer hinterlands.
LikeLike