[amnesiajune]

Would you make the same change in other municpalities? Should a GO trip with a municipality...one that does not leave the boundaries of that municipality cost the same fare that the local transit agency sets?

Definitely. They have the same inefficiencies where Go Transit and the local transit agency run the same routes. In fact, this used to be Go Transit's policy in York Region before YRT was created - you could take their buses on Yonge and Bayview with the local transit agencies' tickets.

 

[OneCity]

I appreciate your perfectly reasonable response, which also didn't contain any unnecessary swipes at the media.

Just because we agree on Tory's business dealings dont get it twisted. The Sun, Star/Metroland, Globe and Post all have Political ties, motives & slant blended in with actual reporting Certain ones are very vocal in this debate. Not even sure how this is not that obvious? What I do find it interesting to see the Suns recent perking up & shot of support for the SSE. That's a good indicator where the Conservative candidates will sit on this topic with elections coming up.

Not sure Tory is all that well received by either side of the media universe even with the support of the SSE which just might help is this polarized climate as it did last time. But he will win or lose support based on what is funded this time around, and he's used his magic napkin plan so thats no longer an option, not sure people will care too much with his business connections as long as his plan is supportable to his base of people who want comprimise and fear a poalrizing Mayor again. That is part clearly in question

 

[TOareaFan]

Definitely. They have the same inefficiencies where Go Transit and the local transit agency run the same routes. In fact, this used to be Go Transit's policy in York Region before YRT was created - you could take their buses on Yonge and Bayview with the local transit agencies' tickets.

but it has never been their policy on rails. Someone living near clarkson and working in Port Credit has never been able to ride the train for a local transit price (just as they don't in Toronto)...they pay $4.71 on GO (assuming they use a presto card)....someone living near Mt. Pleasant and working at, say, Canadian Tire's distribution centre across the street from Bramalea GO pays $5.78 (again, Presto). In Toronto, the GO fare from, say, Bloor to Union is $4.71 (Presto).

There may be a perceived greater need for GO to charge TTC fares within Toronto....but the notion that Toronto users are somehow being treated unfairly without that is just false....and everytime I see the issue raised it is phrased as only a Toronto issue.

 

[rbt]

There may be a perceived greater need for GO to charge TTC fares within Toronto...

Based on the initial fare integration reports I think Metrolinx was hoping to take that the other way around and have TTC charge GO fares, or meet somewhere in the upper-middle.

 

[kEiThZ]

kEiThZ was factually incorrect. GO does not charge more per km than the TTC.

How about you read what I wrote before saying I'm wrong. I never mentioned any comparison to the TTC.

I said the GO charges Toronto riders more per km. And that is factually correct. The fares do not scale linearly. Getting on Guildwood has a substantially higher kilometric charge than if I got on in Oshawa.

 

[kEiThZ]

The TTC also charges people a ton more per km for short trips for long trips... so what? Go Transit never claimed to use a FBD scheme - they use a system of base fare + zone fares. The base fare is going to be a larger percentage of short trips than long ones.

If Toronto was serious about improving transit options, they wouldn't resist every single proposal for better integration and regional transit planning.

Have you not seen me be critical of the TTC before. Heck, I'm one of the few people here that would even support uploading parts of the TTC (like the subway network) to Metrolinx, so that we can have better regional integration.

WRT GO I always thought the intention of their policy was clear. Keep 416 riders from clogging up their trains.

While I agree that fares don't have to scale linearly, GO's charges inside the 416 are ridiculous. And regardless of blame, all we have are more people riding the subway 25 stops to get downtown.... The same people now demanding a $3 billion subway extension.

 

[amnesiajune]

While I agree that fares don't have to scale linearly, GO's charges inside the 416 are ridiculous.

They're not really any different than the rest of the system: $5.30 + ~10 cents/km. Union - Agincourt (about 18 km apart) is $6.85. Union - Newmarket (about 47 km apart) is $9.90. Union - Hamilton (around 60 km) is $12.10. Union - Kitchener (around 92 km) is $17.20.

There's no conspiracy to keep the latte-sipping Toronto elites off of Go Trains. It just a fare system that's very punitive for short trips - no different than the punitive $3.25 TTC fare for someone who wants to travel from Union Station to the Eaton Centre. It works fine for long trips, which was the original goal, but it needs to be revisited now that Go Transit is going to form a vital part of the transit system rather than just commuter trains for white-collar downtown workers.

 

[M II A II R II K]

A cheaper plan would be to have GO RER on the Stoufville Line and retain the section of the RT that goes from Ellesmere to STC to act as a spur and shuttle service to connect the STC with the Stoufville Line. With integrated fares and regular enough frequencies of course.

 

[steveintoronto]

Read this today:

[...]
Scarborough Centre Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker was one of 33 councillors who unanimously voted in favour of the bylaw.
[...]
“It’s my opinion that if you can’t control a large animal you shouldn’t buy a large animal,” said De Baeremaeker.[...]

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...n-barks-up-the-wrong-tree-dog-lovers-say.html

Allow me to paraphrase that:
"If you can't afford a large subway, you shouldn't buy a large subway".

Motion passed, now get the doggy bag to clean it up.

 

[salsa]

The Star has a report on a U of T study that shows how transit construction can cause greenhouse gas emissions that take decades to offset. It doesn't mention Scarborough, instead focuses mostly on the Sheppard subway. The study concludes that it may take up to 33 years after its completion for its environmental benefits to offset the emissions generated to construct it. Producing the construction materials and generated significant pollution, as did the subway construction sites and the movement of people and materials to and from those locations. The author argues that cities won’t fully realize the environmental benefits of transit unless policy-makers pay closer attention to how it’s built.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...s-that-take-decades-to-offset-study-says.html


The study’s recommendations include cutting back on construction materials by designing smaller stations laying track above ground instead of in tunnels. Which needless to say, is not happening in Scarborough. What was originally a light rail line that would have mostly reused existing infrastructure, has turned into a lengthy tunnel with a single subway station attached to it that won't attract a substantial number of new transit users. Literally any way you look at it, this subway plan is appalling. We need to do better.

 

[Cobra]

The Star has a report on a U of T study that shows how transit construction can cause greenhouse gas emissions that take decades to offset.

I doubt we'll see the Star rerunning this kind of article for the DRL as it didn't for the buried portion of Eglinton...
We get it Star, you hate Sheppard and SSE

 

[steveintoronto]

The Star has a report on a U of T study that shows how transit construction can cause greenhouse gas emissions that take decades to offset.

One of a number of articles in the UK press of late along similar lines:

Public Transport Users Suck up the Diesel Fumes of the Rich
By Gary Cutlack on 14 Feb 2017 at 8:00AM
A sad truth of the air quality wars has emerged from researchers at the University of Surrey, who are warning that travelling by public transport through urban areas is extremely bad for everyone's health thanks to the way buses and trains basically vacuum up all the dirty air from the cars surrounding them and... there you go. Breathe that in while you fruitlessly attempt to connect to the Wi-Fi.

The researchers claim that public transport users might end up being exposed to eight times the level of the most dangerous particulate matter in this way, which is quite the ironic insult as it's the fumes generated by the cars of the often wealthier individual driver commuters that generates the bulk of the poor air in the first place.

The study looked at travellers in London, using cars, buses and the Underground. Exposure to the tiny PM10 particulate matter was as high as 68 micrograms for travellers on some Underground lines, which you'd think would escape the worst of it, compared with an average of just eight micrograms for car drivers up above in the sky, with windows that work and the occasional refreshing, cleansing breeze.

Study lead Dr Prashant Kumar said: "We found that there is definitely an element of environmental injustice among those commuting in London, with those who create the most pollution having the least exposure to it." [PA]

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/02/public-transport-users-suck-up-the-diesel-fumes-of-the-rich/

 

[TOareaFan]

I doubt we'll see the Star rerunning this kind of article for the DRL as it didn't for the buried portion of Eglinton...
We get it Star, you hate Sheppard and SSE

Blaming the Star because they reported on a UofT professor's paper? I don't think they have any control over what examples he used/gave to support his theory...do they? I don't think they commissioned his paper....they just reported on it. I would suggest that the paper highlighted Sheppard because it has the extreme conditions (ie. long, tunneled, construction and low ridership results...along with no decrease in car traffic on Sheppard) that highlight his theory....but I don't think the Star has any control over that.

 

[Cobra]

Blaming the Star because they reported on a UofT professor's paper? I don't think they have any control over what examples he used/gave to support his theory...do they? I don't think they commissioned his paper....they just reported on it. I would suggest that the paper highlighted Sheppard because it has the extreme conditions (ie. long, tunneled, construction and low ridership results...along with no decrease in car traffic on Sheppard) that highlight his theory....but I don't think the Star has any control over that.

The line is incomplete, what do you expect would happen?

 

[salsa]

I doubt we'll see the Star rerunning this kind of article for the DRL as it didn't for the buried portion of Eglinton...
We get it Star, you hate Sheppard and SSE

If you have nothing to say other than to bash the media for reporting a study, then find something better to do. Since you brought up Eglinton and DRL - I'll just point out that one of them is above ground as much as possible and removes a lot of bus traffic, the other adds significant transit capacity in the core that will fill up with tons of new riders. Now tell me how SSE is anything even close to doing any of that.

The line is incomplete, what do you expect would happen?

It's also grossly overbuilt for the amount of ridership it will ever get in the foreseeable future. That's the problem.