reaperexpress
Senior Member
I think this is a good summary of the issues. The question is indeed whether the government should be heavily subsidizing the specific business model of bringing bikes back and forth to downtown every day, by charging people with bikes on trains (who take up twice as much space) the same as people without bikes. The problem with this model is that it's an incredibly inefficient use of public funds. If it continues scaling up, we could be doubling the required size of our trains for a given amount of ticket revenue.^Getting back on track to GO and bike couriers....
I don'tlook at door delivery as an element of social design. There is clearly a public demand for it, and I'm not in favour of a government that would outlaw it. (I am however very much in favour of a government that imposes strict rules to ensure people earn a living wage for whatever their job is)
The better question is who should pay for it.
I'm baffled at the economics and carbon implications of the courier economy....I regularly order obscure items on Amazon....eg a $6 cable adapter....... track it online as it travels all the way from China, and then have it brought to my door by a delivery truck.... But....The old method would be for me to drive out to an obscure computer parts store in the 905 and hunt through their badly-organized shelves..... the part would likely still have come from China and cost $6, but my expenditure of gas and road capacity might have been greater, and using an online catalog is a lot faster and more reliable than that personal effort. So there is certainly value added, and possibly better carbon efficiency and economic value in terms of inventory control, etc. in the door delivery economy.
Food delivery is just one niche in that market driven system, and I am actually happier getting my food from a bicycle courier than someone in a loud, clapped out car that is racing aggressively all over my neighbourhood delivering pizza. (And I'm happier seeing my suburban neighbourhood evolve to something denser with local commercial space closer to every doorstep, so that we have bike couriers who don't have to make a 3km trip to deliver my food).
In my perfect theoretical world, the cost of that delivery would be bundled into the price charged and passed to the consumer. That includes the cost of the road that the Fedex van is using, and the cost of whatever GO capacity is necessary to accommodate bike couriers. And the customer can decide if the price is acceptable, relative to their other options. And demand would follow accordingly.
But in the real world.....pricing and users charges don't flow that precisely. So I would say, as a matter of policy and managing public infrastructure, GO simply can't afford to haul that many bicycles on a train of fixed capacity and growing demand.... and should require the bike couriers to figure out some other option. Without it becoming a matter of social policy.
- Paul
If we charged (for example) $2 to bring a bike on a train, the consequence would not necessarily be that couriers need to pay an extra $4/day that they work downtown, it would in many cases be that they find a more cost-effective way of getting downtown, such as by storing their e-bike downtown at Union and using a cheap bike to get from their home to their local GO station.