Thursday, January 11, 2018

So it's a "No", then?

Remember that Townhall Metrolinx had with their new CEO in December, 2017? Welp, they just got around to emailing back answers posed by Metrolinx's customers that weren't addressed during the session. A Crazy Train reader sent in a response she got to her question.

It reads like her question hadn't even been read.

It reads like someone just cut and pasted the questions into Word, penned out a list of "hot" keywords, used good ol' Paper Clip to do a find of said keywords and then replied with pre-written boilerplate responses.

I mean, it's just, well, sad. And, personally, as a GO Transit customer, I feel somewhat dismissed by this response.

Submitted on Tuesday, December 12, 2017 - 19:36
Submitted by anonymous user:
Submitted values are:

Your name: Withheld by Request
Your e-mail address:
Subject: Bylaw/rule enforcement
Message: Could the transit safety officers or the fare inspectors enforce the bylaws of the GO Transit system on the trains? Revenue could be generated by enforcing such rules/bylaws (specifically: feet on seats, smoking in non-smoking areas at GO Stations, drinking on trains). Thank you.

The results of this submission may be viewed at:

From: Xxxxx Xxxxx
Sent: January 10, 2018 10:08 AM
Subject: RE: Form submission from: Contact

Hi Withheld by Request,

Thanks for your question and sorry for the delayed response.

GO’s Transit Safety Officers are primarily responsible for ensuring your personal safety. They are also responsible for friendly customer assistance, fare inspections, regular prevention and deterrence patrols, support for local police, fire and ambulance, parking, by-law, provincial law and Criminal Code enforcement, locating missing persons and protecting vulnerable passengers, and promoting railway safety.

Officers are authorized to enforce GO Transit By-laws, which govern passenger conduct, fare inspection and use of our facilities. To find out more about our Safety and Security division, click here:


Unknown said...

I had to read this twice. The second time confirmed the first reading and left me more than a little insulted. And it wasn't even directed at me! So I am sorry Name Withheld, that they couldn't even dignify you with an answer.

The question is perfectly valid and I know it has been raised on this site more than once. The fact that someone couldn't even answer it (let alone properly) just confirms that the powers-that-be don't care.

Essentially, it is just easier to raise fares to get money than to enforce the current by-laws. Which begs the question: why even have by-laws to start with? May as well make it a free-for-all.

C.J. Smith said...

Right?! I am very insulted by this response, too.
And I can tell you that it now way actually reflects the Transit Safety's team. They most certainly do care but I think they are told not to fine so as to not lose passengers.
It's absurd.

Iona Pintó said...

What appeared to be a good idea initially has proven to be yet another Metrolinx “incomplete success”. It looks like Customer Relations again spun the Wheel of Perfunctory Responses and churned out serving after serving of their usual triteness.

Rory said...

That is a terrible non answer from Go customer service, they don't even attempt to address the question. It is like someone saw the subject was about Go Safety and just sent the generic Go safety cut and paste answer without even bothering to read the question.

Rory said...

As for why Go doesn't use bylaw enforcement to raise revenue the answer is simple. Go transit doesn't get to keep the fine revenue from bylaw offences, those fines are all payable to the Provincial Offences Court in the jurisdiction where the ticket was issued. In fact it costs Go money to issue those fines as they have to use their administrative resources to file them, plus if the matter goes to court they have to pay a GO Safety Officer over time to schlep out to which ever town the trial is being held in to testify. The only fines that Go Transit gets to keep are fines from fare evasion penalty notices and parking tickets.

Unknown said...

I asked a very similar question, so I suspect it's been answered the same way.

Nora1968 said...

Wait - what are "regular prevention and deterrence patrols" for (never seen one happen, BTW, other than fare collection) if not to do things like prevent or deter people from doing things that, you know, break the bylaws? I'm convinced that if there WERE such patrols, bikes would NOT appear on rush-hour trains, people would be at least slightly less inclined to put feet on seats, etc.

As it is, everyone knows that the harshest thing that happens is that the poor CS Ambassador MIGHT make an announcement ONCE on a trip about feet on seats or bikes not being allowed during certain trips - not much of a deterrent or a preventative, that.

Anonymous said...

Keyboards within Metrolinx have been streamlined to 3 keys.

CRTL, C & V.

Ed said...

The same person who writes crap for Trudeau answers apparently moonlights for Metrolinx.
What a stupid, codescending and utterly vacuous response. Pure pablum the answers nothing.

deepfish said...

Boiler Plate Responses.
I have a shitload of them.
Metrolinks and GO are in the business of saving money by doing the bare minimum in customer service. They are NOT in the business of meeting commitments. Point Final.
Their commitment to customer care and safety is worth MAYBE the paper they print it on. It is NOT worth providing adequate enforcement. It is NOT worth providing proactive empowerment (for example, visible and detailed signs warning of consequences and listing numbers to call).
You can see the priorities plainly. In the taxi line at Oakville the signs quite clearly spell out what is and is not allowed and details the fines for transgression should someone park the wrong way with the wrong permit etc.
Smoking signs? Notsomuch.
Signs in so-called Quiet Zones? Notsomuch.
An old bus driver I used to talk to actually told me that his Health and Safety Rep TOLD him that Enforcement was actively dissuaded from actually going out and rousting and fining buttsuckers because doing so might make smokers stop taking the trains...
So much for "commitment to customer comfort and safety".
I've seen 10-12 smokers and more per five minute period at just one station. At $45 a pop, pro rated over a one hour period, fines would bring in $5000 or more.
Send a squad of a few officers to a different station every day. Call in the local Regional Police for assistance. A revenue generator.
Why not do it?
Because, as mentioned, silly, Metrolinks is NOT in the business of carrying out promises.