TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Once Tory is out of office, I wouldn't be surprised if SmartTrack disappears. I can't imagine Toronto consistently paying money to subsidize something moving so few people
|
|
|
- Thread starter aquateam
- Start date
robmausser
Senior Member
Almost as low as the Scarborough subway extension!
Oh wait, not even close.
By the way, does anyone know if this ridership number is in relation to having TTC fare or paying regular GO level fares?
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I think that is a ridiculously low figure. It will of course depend on the fares.
If this is just another standard GO fare with no or little fare integration then I think that number is probably reasonable.
If however it's a standard TTC fare run by the TTC then I could see the line carrying 10x that number especially if it is extended to Woodbine.
If this is just another standard GO fare with no or little fare integration then I think that number is probably reasonable.
If however it's a standard TTC fare run by the TTC then I could see the line carrying 10x that number especially if it is extended to Woodbine.
pman
Senior Member
Hey, we subsidize the Scarborough RT and the Sheppard line. This is Toronto - economics has nothing to do with our transit decisions.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I think the numbers show that ridership on the SmartTrack corridor could be very high. It is for that reason that Metrolinx does not want to give up any track space and share the credit with Tory.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
If the fares are at GO rates and they estimate only 27,000 a day then that ST isn't worth it. That said if it's only 27,000 when serving the city itself then RER is going to be a dismal failure and a hell of a lot more expensive one.
Steve X
Senior Member
The only way this will work is if taking the subway from Kennedy to downtown cost the same as ST. Otherwise the price difference shouldn't be over 50 cents. This could be jacking up the subway fares to match GO fares.
Tory believes in ST as a new line to relief riders. Metrolinx wants a tier system with RER being on top. Metrolinx's model is financially more sustainable.
Tory believes in ST as a new line to relief riders. Metrolinx wants a tier system with RER being on top. Metrolinx's model is financially more sustainable.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
The whole appeal of ST during the election which helped Tory win was that ST was to have TTC fares...........a subway with a different name. This is why it appealed to so many voters and why GO/RER in the city itself is received with a collective yawn.
GO is a 905 system and if RER has the same fares then it too will be transit for the 905 crowd but do little for Toronto itself.
GO fares are obscenely biased towards 905 trips than Toronto city ones. Someone going to Burlington from Union pays one-fifth the fare a Torontonian does going to Bloor West on a km basis. The longer the journey the more GO makes financial sense but for shorter journeys like in Toronto itself it is far too high a fare for the relatively shorter trips.
If ST has TTC fares as Tory promises then it will be very heavily used.
GO is a 905 system and if RER has the same fares then it too will be transit for the 905 crowd but do little for Toronto itself.
GO fares are obscenely biased towards 905 trips than Toronto city ones. Someone going to Burlington from Union pays one-fifth the fare a Torontonian does going to Bloor West on a km basis. The longer the journey the more GO makes financial sense but for shorter journeys like in Toronto itself it is far too high a fare for the relatively shorter trips.
If ST has TTC fares as Tory promises then it will be very heavily used.
Euphoria
Active Member
ST can cost slightly more than TTC, as long as there is a substantial transfer discount to or from TTC. Also, ST shouldn't have a distance-based fee. Otherwise it's just GO, a rip off for everyone, especially when there's no discount transferring between systems. What I'm proposing makes ST an express at grade subway that integrates with other networks in an affordable way. I really believe in the transfer discount as a universal discount amount when transferring between any two systems in the GTA. Implementing it is one important role Metrolinx can play. This is really the missing link in fare integration.
crs1026
Superstar
From this morning's PIC in Weston, it seemed pretty clear that ST is pretty much a purchased GO service where the City contracts for added GO trains, which make added stops at stations the City has paid for, and subsidises the fare to "align" (I'm avoiding the I-word) it to TTC expectations.
Narrowing to Options C and D appears to be the City's way of declining to invest in added track capacity beyond what RER has left over once it has 15-minute 2-way service installed. It isn't clear what the upper limit on train frequency can be, the assumption for the moment seems to be a combined 7.5 minute headway. I wonder how they intend to split the headway when ridership builds and GO needs more slots than every 15 minutes.
My sense was, the planners from the City, TTC, and ML have a pretty good mutual understanding of how to make this work, and they are working within the terms of reference that Council has already blessed. If there are areas of dispute or "harder" negotiations eg around who pays for what, they are keeping this in the back room. I would predict that no one in authority will stand up and say "This isn't what I asked for". So, as someone wisely suggested in another thread - while we all have our fantasy plans, this is the one that's on paper.
One issue that was raised by several people appeared to be whether the GO based service should terminate at Mount Dennis versus serving further west as well. The gist of the response: since Council didn't ask for this, it hasn't been explored.....but is technically feasible. That puts the ball back on the political side - if there was pressure from Council, it might happen. (Considering the usual platform of some Council members from the Northwest, I'm not placing bets)
Key dates promised are a draft report back to Council, to be posted publicly by June 14, and a further Public Meeting at City Hall on June 21, followed by tabling at Executive Committee and Council. It's starting to feel like a real thing, even if it's just a GO train.
- Paul
Narrowing to Options C and D appears to be the City's way of declining to invest in added track capacity beyond what RER has left over once it has 15-minute 2-way service installed. It isn't clear what the upper limit on train frequency can be, the assumption for the moment seems to be a combined 7.5 minute headway. I wonder how they intend to split the headway when ridership builds and GO needs more slots than every 15 minutes.
My sense was, the planners from the City, TTC, and ML have a pretty good mutual understanding of how to make this work, and they are working within the terms of reference that Council has already blessed. If there are areas of dispute or "harder" negotiations eg around who pays for what, they are keeping this in the back room. I would predict that no one in authority will stand up and say "This isn't what I asked for". So, as someone wisely suggested in another thread - while we all have our fantasy plans, this is the one that's on paper.
One issue that was raised by several people appeared to be whether the GO based service should terminate at Mount Dennis versus serving further west as well. The gist of the response: since Council didn't ask for this, it hasn't been explored.....but is technically feasible. That puts the ball back on the political side - if there was pressure from Council, it might happen. (Considering the usual platform of some Council members from the Northwest, I'm not placing bets)
Key dates promised are a draft report back to Council, to be posted publicly by June 14, and a further Public Meeting at City Hall on June 21, followed by tabling at Executive Committee and Council. It's starting to feel like a real thing, even if it's just a GO train.
- Paul
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Why bother calling it SmartTrack when it's just enhanced GO service which was being planned before Tory ever came onto the scene.
Forgotten
Active Member
I'm loving how Tory's phantom SmartTrack has managed to screw up designs for both Scarborough subway and downtown subway.
robmausser
Senior Member
You keep repeating this statement, yet have failed to provide a single piece of evidence that Metrolinx was planning to build stations at St.Clair, Liberty Village, Unilever, Gerrard, Ellesmere, Lawerence, Finch.
Oh and the Eglinton West LRT extension.
The 50 station investigation came AFTER Smarttrack, and was actually a response to that so do not reference that.
There is no denying the influence, for the better, that Smarttrack has had in developing GO-RER.
nfitz
Superstar
I'll give you the Scarborough subway - but I don't see how it's screwed up the downtown subway design, with stations included at both Gerrard Square and Eastern/Broadview. Some might argue that the DRL should go through Union, but they were never going to get enough relief of Yonge-Bloor if they went that far south, so that was never going to happen.
Burnt creek
New Member
When i first heard of ST, i thought that this was one of (if not ) the best policy idea that i had seen from this city in the 25 years that i have been living here. It got my vote. What i envisioned was a surface subway system that would use mostly existing infrastructure and thus requiring far far less capital expenditures than building something from scratch. And, i saw this eliminating the need for a downtown relief line. I also liked that: 1) frequencies were somewhat close (though not quite) to subway-like, 2) i thought and liked that it would be integrated in all facets (routes, transfers, fares) to the Existing TTC service, 3) that it connected the three major work hubs in toronto and Canada (ie: the airport area is the second largest work hub in Canada) and would open access to work for many in the City and thus massively reduce rush hour pressures and nightmares.
It was about getting people to their workplace quickly which is the most important thing about public transit. So I still think it is a great idea. But its starting to look like all these good things are being chipped away at. Of greater concern to is the that i never envisioned that two years in there wouldnt be a shovel in the ground. Yes, i get that you need stakeholder buy in, secure the financing, create a business case, develop and document a plan and issue RFP's. But still, the first three points were pretty much there from the start.
It was about getting people to their workplace quickly which is the most important thing about public transit. So I still think it is a great idea. But its starting to look like all these good things are being chipped away at. Of greater concern to is the that i never envisioned that two years in there wouldnt be a shovel in the ground. Yes, i get that you need stakeholder buy in, secure the financing, create a business case, develop and document a plan and issue RFP's. But still, the first three points were pretty much there from the start.
Last edited: