M II A II R II K
Senior Member
A good place to start is to float the idea of a DRL out there for the public with conceptual routes of it on a map. Instead of like how it is now where the DRL is a little known secret known only be transit geeks.
|
|
|
- Thread starter jozl
- Start date
Dan416
Senior Member
rbt
Senior Member
This line of questioning was in response to your "If Byford can't fix the TTC, then I suggest we merge it with Metrolinx" statement.
And it's obvious from that statement that you would expect TTC staff to fall-in-line with Metrolinx management orders.
Dan416
Senior Member
When the TTC consistently demonstrates its incompetence, hell yes. GO Transit might not be perfect, but I think it's a far better run organization.
TTC could learn something from GO about customer service. Although neither TTC nor GO have experience running an S-bahn system. Neither subway nor our GO trains are really comparable (in their current form).
BobBob
Senior Member
Just to point out that GO is subsidized at around 50%, as opposed to 20% for the TTC.
CDL.TO
Moderator
Pulling numbers out of thin air?
GO has 12% of its costs covered by subsidies, TTC has 33% of its costs covered by subsides.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
That's Sad. I would prefer to be in Make Believe land with bobbob.
BobBob
Senior Member
My bad, I got my numbers from a bad source.
Rainforest
Senior Member
The operating environments of GO and TTC are substantially different.
GO: 1) Operates on a fare-by-distance system, and would be clearly unsustainable on the flat-fare system. Therefore, nobody proposes or demands flat GO fare. 2) Because of that, GO is able to charge fares that keep it close to cost recovery. 3) The majority of GO customers are choice riders, who would drive instead of taking GO if they are not happy with the customer service; hence, GO is forced to maintain its customer service at a decent level.
TTC: 1) Operates on a flat-fare system, and although it had 2 zones a while ago, it would be difficult to revert to fare-by-distance these days. 2) Has a strong social role in providing mobility to those who cannot afford a car, or cannot drive for other reasons; that constrains the TTC's ability to raise the fares. 3) Has tons of captive or nearly-captive riders (the latter are those who can drive, but find it way too unpleasant to drive downtown); unfortunately, that inevitably weakens the commitment to customer service quality.
What would happen if the TTC and GO merge? I expect that the customer service on the TTC routes will not improve as the captive-riders condition will not disappear. At the same time, the customer service on GO routes might deteriorate, as the much larger TTC operations would shield the commuter train subdivision from the financial impact of any ridership declines.
GO: 1) Operates on a fare-by-distance system, and would be clearly unsustainable on the flat-fare system. Therefore, nobody proposes or demands flat GO fare. 2) Because of that, GO is able to charge fares that keep it close to cost recovery. 3) The majority of GO customers are choice riders, who would drive instead of taking GO if they are not happy with the customer service; hence, GO is forced to maintain its customer service at a decent level.
TTC: 1) Operates on a flat-fare system, and although it had 2 zones a while ago, it would be difficult to revert to fare-by-distance these days. 2) Has a strong social role in providing mobility to those who cannot afford a car, or cannot drive for other reasons; that constrains the TTC's ability to raise the fares. 3) Has tons of captive or nearly-captive riders (the latter are those who can drive, but find it way too unpleasant to drive downtown); unfortunately, that inevitably weakens the commitment to customer service quality.
What would happen if the TTC and GO merge? I expect that the customer service on the TTC routes will not improve as the captive-riders condition will not disappear. At the same time, the customer service on GO routes might deteriorate, as the much larger TTC operations would shield the commuter train subdivision from the financial impact of any ridership declines.
Last edited:
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Or they can merge but just have everyone pay 3x as much, even for short trips.
MisterF
Senior Member
Why would any of that happen? Other cities manage to operate local and regional transit with a single agency, including cities in Canada. There's no reason it couldn't work in Toronto.
rbt
Senior Member
Certainly, but regardless of what title you give that agency, it's current TTC staff that would be doing it.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Then regional GO services within the 416 borders can be offered at the same fare as the rest of the TTC, only as long as there's an assurance that it would attract more riders to pay for the service.
Palma
Senior Member
There is no difference with Go and TTC. If GO can be fare based on distance so can TTC like air flights and taxi rides
Rainforest
Senior Member
I personally don't mind. But you will get a flood of complains from low-income long-range riders, that they cannot afford the increased long-range fares.
Air flights and taxi rides are not live essentials; whereas TTC rides are for quite a few people.