Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

If it works for Scarbrough, then it'll work for York Region as well. The transit ridership in Scarborough is much better than in York Region and it has more transfers.

Your logic is so flawed I figure that after this I'll just let the thread flounder for a while.
Yes, Scarborough has transfers but that's not WHY it has better ridership than York Region. Scarborough has more riders because the population there is more established. The system would obviously function better if those transfers could be reduced. (Rob Ford aside, obviously the ideal would be to integrate the SRT with the subway and extens Sheppard.)

The fact remains, no matter what ridership numbers you produce, that every time you ask riders to transfer you are negatively affecting both potential ridership and the efficiency of your overall system. The ONLY reason to advocate that someone who lives at Yonge/16 should take subway to an LRT to a BRT from Finch is because you pay taxes in Toronto. That's the ONLY reason. If you want to build a real transit system and get suburbanites out of their cars you have to try to reduce transfers, period.

The TTC Steeles buses have an average weekday ridership of around 25,000 each, while the YRT buses also have a combined weekday ridership of around 25,000 riders. So Steeles should be the terminus for the Yonge subway.

There is no logical correlation between your two statements. How does moving the subway from Finch to Steeles affect that at all?

Even if it did make sense, you're ignoring the point myself and others have been making here: If there was no double fare those numbers would be totally different because people who live just north of Steeles wouldn't have to transfer between two systems. As just one example, how many people are now driving from York Region to park at Finch Station who could leave their cars at home if the subway was extended?

I'm not going to lay it all out for you, just advise you to stand at the corner of Yonge and Steeles for a while.

If you think there's no benefits to getting all those buses off the road, on both sides of Steeles, more power to you.
If you think you're going to curb urban sprawl and traffic by denying the suburbs high-order tranist out of spite, same deal.
If you think it's sensible that people should wait at a TTC stop, watching a full bus pass them by, while a half-full YRT bus blows by going to the exact same destination (ie Finch), again, good for you. I see it as obvious evidence of a regional system in which the puzzle pieces don't fit together.

(For the record, if anyone cares, I've spent basically my entire life living within 2km of Steeles, on either side, and the problems are obvious, as is the solution.)

 

[Markster]

Fare integration doesn't necessarily mean a single fare zone.

I don't see how fare integration without movement towards sensible fare zones or fare-by-distance could reasonably be called fare integration.

I will give you the technicality that a single organization collecting fares could theoretically maintain the status quo, but the status quo only exists because it is much easier for the existing organizations to control their own boundaries.

 

[nfitz]

I don't see how fare integration without movement towards sensible fare zones or fare-by-distance could reasonably be called fare integration.

I will give you the technicality that a single organization collecting fares could theoretically maintain the status quo, but the status quo only exists because it is much easier for the existing organizations to control their own boundaries.

Agreed. But it could just as easily mean more fare zones, not less. What could well happen, is people that take average trips of 5-6 km or so, pay about what they are paying now, those that take really short trips pay less (it's quite normal to see people jump on a bus or streetcar for trips of less than 1 km), and those that travel great distances, more.

 

[Dan416]

Agreed. But it could just as easily mean more fare zones, not less. What could well happen, is people that take average trips of 5-6 km or so, pay about what they are paying now, those that take really short trips pay less (it's quite normal to see people jump on a bus or streetcar for trips of less than 1 km), and those that travel great distances, more.

I think we need to move more toward a system that charges the same amount for the same trip, e.g. if you go from MCC to Union by GO it should be the same as a trip from MCC to Union by Mississauga Transit and TTC. That would encourage more people to use GO because it's faster.

 

[nfitz]

I think we need to move more toward a system that charges the same amount for the same trip, e.g. if you go from MCC to Union by GO it should be the same as a trip from MCC to Union by Mississauga Transit and TTC. That would encourage more people to use GO because it's faster.

I agree!

The easiest way to do this would be to simply overlay GO's existing fare structure on the other agencies.

 

[rbt]

First, it's reasonable to assume there will be a change in the fare structure at some point. Whether it's distance-based or zones...either way, Markster's point is the key. Even if that $6 trip becomes $4.50, the double fare is a killer right now and it distorts travel patterns (ie I live at Clark but would rather drive to Finch than take the bus right outside my house.)

Frankly, downtown should have a premium fare.

Charge $1 for suburb to suburb trips on an overbuilt corridor (like where Sheppard or Spadina subway) and force $4 for the same distance downtown where transit is over capacity.

Remove TTC operating funding (100% from the farebox). Create a new organization, funded to $200M/year for the sole purpose of handing out reduced price transit tokens and passes to people who need them.


Now, adjust all Business Cost Analysis (BCAs) to account for anticipated revenue and build out strictly based on ROI. Observe as capacity is enhaced in areas requiring it.

 

[jaycola]

The following was from a 2006 study into the benefits of Curb Busway vs Median Busway for the Finch to Steeles section of Yonge Street.
Not surprised to see the wheels of progress have ground to a halt on transit for this part of Toronto and York region on the edge of this location.

A number of transit routes are operated by the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), GO
Transit, York Region Transit (YRT), and Brampton Transit (BT) within the Yonge Street
corridor. The TTC operates a number of regular transit routes on Yonge Street, Bathurst
Street, Finch Avenue, Steeles Avenue, Cummer Avenue, Moore Park Avenue and Hilda
Avenue. Many of these bus routes connect with the northern terminus of the Yonge
Subway line at the Finch station. This terminal acts as a major transfer point, particularly
for north-south commuters, providing a connection between bus and subway operations.
Two commuter parking lots are located within the adjacent Hydro Electric Power
Corridor (HEPC) providing a total of 2,900 parking spaces as well as a passenger pickup/drop-off facility.
GO Transit and York Region Transit also operate buses on Yonge Street. These buses
originate in York Region and travel north-south via Bathurst Street, Yonge Street, and
Bayview Avenue to Steeles Avenue. South of Steeles Avenue, all GO Transit and YRT
buses operate on Yonge Street. The GO Finch Bus Terminal is located on the east side of
Yonge Street, north of Bishop Avenue adjacent to the TTC Finch Subway station.
In total, 117 buses are operated southbound during the AM peak hour on Yonge Street
carrying approximately 3,000 passengers to the TTC Finch Subway station, and 1,500
passengers to the GO Finch Bus Terminal. During the AM peak hour, 57% of the
approximately 7,900 southbound person trips use transit. Future residential and
commercial development forecasts indicate that the demand in the corridor from the north
will reach levels of approximately 17,200 in the AM peak hour, to be shared between
Bathurst Street, Yonge Street, and Bayview Avenue and the intermediate collector/local
roadways. The existing roadway network provides a capacity of approximately 9,600
person-trips per hour, per direction. If transit mode-share remains as is today, the
resulting roadway capacity deficiency of 1,100 person-trips per hour, per direction is
expected.

I was surprised to see that half as many of the passengers travelling transit through this section of Yonge headed for the Go Train rather than the subway.

If someone has more up to date passenger counts, I'd like to see the growth in 6 years but it suffices to say that passengers in this area are already suffering from an unnecessarily inefficient system.

 

[Voltz]

The following was from a 2006 study into the benefits of Curb Busway vs Median Busway for the Finch to Steeles section of Yonge Street.
Not surprised to see the wheels of progress have ground to a halt on transit for this part of Toronto and York region on the edge of this location.

Another example of how focusing on just subways results in little or nothing getting built, York Region was more than happy to build BRT up to highway 7, and was just about to start construction, but then a subway appears on a map and then..... likely nothing for a good 15 to 20 years.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I think we need to move more toward a system that charges the same amount for the same trip, e.g. if you go from MCC to Union by GO it should be the same as a trip from MCC to Union by Mississauga Transit and TTC. That would encourage more people to use GO because it's faster.

+1 With the addendum that cost for a "more efficient" mode of transportation be discounted vs a less efficient. I.e. the trip from MCC to Union via GO should be cheaper than the same trip on MT+TTC because having a passenger board at Kipling and ride nearly half of the B/D line into the Core is not really an efficient mode, or usage, of public transit.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Another example of how focusing on just subways results in little or nothing getting built, York Region was more than happy to build BRT up to highway 7, and was just about to start construction, but then a subway appears on a map and then..... likely nothing for a good 15 to 20 years.

That's a fair point but you do have to look at the context .
They were indeed all set to go with BRT but then McGuinty announced Move2020 and he thought (wrongly) the feds would chip in another $6B, making his $12B plan and $18B plan. If that had happened, Yonge would be under construction.

You have to give York credit for busting their asses, doing the EA etc. The problem, it seems obvious to me, is the entire transit funding scheme and lack of federal involvement. If there was steady federal funding that extension would be underway and who knows what else - probably all the first-wave Big Move projects. Then we had a provincial election looming and the Metrolinx funding strategy got pushed to 2013. Riddiculous - leaves everyone in limbo.

It comes back a little bit to the current tranist debate as there is both a question of what you NEED and what you can AFFORD. I don't think Toronto NEEDS everything Rob Ford wants to build but it would be nice to at least have a serious discussion about what transit is justified for any given corridor and then build it rather than always making do.

That BRT plan was always a bit hinky (I don't think TTC and York had fully worked out how to integrate Viva with the TTC busway, for one) but it obviously would have been better than the nothing we have now and for the forseeable future. If the subway gets funding in the next couple of years, however, it will make having gone forward with BRT wasteful ... all symptoms of the same mess that comes from a lack of reliable transit funding.

 

[xtremesniper]

Subway expansion beyond municipal borders and fare integration are two basically independent things. A subway beyond Steeles does not necessitate fare integration nor does fare integration make the subway expansion beyond Steeles more viable.

Absent fare integration riders will still be paying a double fare when boarding the subway, they'll just be paying the extra fare earlier, if fares are integrated I feel that the system will move to a fare by distance method a la GO

Just look to the Spadina extension to see an example of how to do it wrong.

Last I checked (which was a long time ago, to be honest), the subway north of Steeles will still be TTC fare zone. It's not going to look like the buses do (because it's hard to manage without a smart card solution *cough*).

This means that you'll be riding the Viva Purple to Vaughan Corporate Centre (having already paid the YRT fare) and you simply want to get to York University (which currently is not a separate fare despite being south of Steeles). When the new subway is built, you'll have to pay the TTC fare when you enter the subway, even though you may even be exiting north of or at Steeles.

They've basically removed a method of getting to your destination easily, and extended the double fare strategy up north even into York Region territory.

If they attempt to do the same thing for the Yonge extension, it would devastate the current ridership levels that Viva Blue currently enjoys. People who hop on and off the Viva on Yonge now would suddenly have to pay a TTC fare. Why?

Fare integration is inevitable and must happen sooner rather than later. That, and the TTC needs to stop dragging it's feet and just get on with Presto.

 

[rbt]

Fare integration is inevitable and must happen sooner rather than later. That, and the TTC needs to stop dragging it's feet and just get on with Presto.

What does Presto have to do with fare integration?

Unless Metrolinx or the suburban regions suddenly give the TTC operating funds a Presto based TTC will not be any more friendly to ridership crossing the border than today.

Fare integration could easily occur without a smart card. Numerous transit agencies, including GO Tranist managed for years.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

You're right about the TTC fare zone on Spadina. YRT still hasn't done a post-subway service plan but I presume they'll have some kind of shuttle that easily gets people from Hwy 7 to York U without having to pay a second fare. Obviously the scenario you describe (paying a second fare to go that short distance to a major terminal) is riddiculous but if Presto is online they could have a different fare structure in place by 2015.

As for Yonge, Viva wouldn't need to run south of Hwy. 7 once the subway is there. I suspect it would terminate at Richmond Hill Centre and the 99 bus would continue to offer local service. But that's speculation. As you point out, this really hilights the need to get Presto up and running and get Metrolinx to devise a more sensible fare system.

 

[rbt]

Fare integration is inevitable and must happen sooner rather than later. That, and the TTC needs to stop dragging it's feet and just get on with Presto.

TTC isn't really dragging with Presto anymore. They issued an RFP and Presto said they could do the required features. Presto now has to implement and test those industry standard features.

The RFP included open payment related items which I suppose they could have done without but it also included things like required transaction rates. Processing 2 to 3 million taps (entry + exit + transfer) in morning rush is nearly 2 orders of magnitude higher than they handle with GO.

Very few GO riders transfer. Most TTC riders transfer at least once, many twice; and they're not necessarily doing it at subway stations.

A trip involving 3 bus routes may be 6 taps versus GOs single tap without considering the higher ridership.

Scaling software can be very hard. Particularly if it wasn't considered early on.

I've worked with Accenture on a telco billing project before. They did the absolute minimum amount of work required to meet the contract written by someone non-technical.

Given that they weren't expecting to still be on the Presto project at this point I wouldn't be surprised if a major overhaul was required to meet the TTCs transaction requirements.


So, TTC isn't dragging with Presto. Presto is not yet ready for the TTC. Evidence is that Presto isn't expecting to give TTC software for a few more years (not even a demo system).

 

[xtremesniper]

You're right about the TTC fare zone on Spadina. YRT still hasn't done a post-subway service plan but I presume they'll have some kind of shuttle that easily gets people from Hwy 7 to York U without having to pay a second fare. Obviously the scenario you describe (paying a second fare to go that short distance to a major terminal) is riddiculous but if Presto is online they could have a different fare structure in place by 2015.

As for Yonge, Viva wouldn't need to run south of Hwy. 7 once the subway is there. I suspect it would terminate at Richmond Hill Centre and the 99 bus would continue to offer local service. But that's speculation. As you point out, this really hilights the need to get Presto up and running and get Metrolinx to devise a more sensible fare system.

I don't think a shuttle would exist for York U students because I remember them touting that York students would be able to utilize the subway from the re-routed Viva along Highway 7. They have to come up with a better solution.

TTC isn't really dragging with Presto. They issued an RFP and Presto said they could do the required features. Presto now has to implement and test those industry standard features.

The RFP included open payment related items which I suppose they could have done without but it also included things like required transaction rates. Processing 2 to 3 million taps (entry + exit + transfer) in morning rush is nearly 2 orders of magnitude higher than they handle with GO.

Very few GO riders transfer. Most TTC riders transfer at least once, many twice; and they're not necessarily doing it at subway stations.

A trip involving 3 bus routes may be 6 taps versus GOs single tap without considering the higher ridership.

Scaling software can be very hard. Particularly if it wasn't considered early on.

I've worked with Accenture on a telco billing project before. They did the absolute minimum amount of work required to meet the contract written by someone non-technical.

Given that they weren't expecting to still be on the Presto project at this point I wouldn't be surprised if a major overhaul was required to meet the TTCs transaction requirements.

So, TTC isn't dragging with Presto. Presto is not yet ready for the TTC. Evidence is that Presto isn't expecting to give TTC software for a few more years (not even a demo system).

Good to know, I didn't know that, but it was no more than a few months ago where the TTC was still flip-flopping on whether it would implement its own system or start seriously considering Presto. In addition to that, just a few weeks ago Ford (or one of his cronies) mentioned that because of the LRT vote, it would put Presto's implementation in peril. I have no idea how he would justify how those two things would affect one another, but it was on the news.

This is why I'm tired of the TTC and I just want the province to take over so that we can have some decisive decision making. Enough of this flip-flop bull. It's been over three decades since reasonable transit progression has taken place, and now the GTA is totally different than where we were back then. The entire thing needs to be rethought.