leopetr
Active Member
You're assuming that YRT/Viva wouldn't be pitching in for the operating costs of the subway.
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
You're assuming that YRT/Viva wouldn't be pitching in for the operating costs of the subway.
ShonTron
Moderator
Thanks for the links to the 2013 service plan boards. Looks like most proposals are for cuts to the YRT base system. I could just see York Region not reallocating any buses or drivers as a cost saving measure.
xtremesniper
Active Member
For more of those boards: http://yrt.ca/en/aboutus/serviceplanning.asp
But definitely, they seem to be making a lot of cuts. Base frequencies are increasing from 20 mins at rush hour and 30 mins off peak, to 30 mins at peak hour and 45 mins off peak.
It's sad because I know that no one will look at those frequencies and intentionally leave their car at home if they have the choice.
And to me it barely makes sense. They had a 10%+ ridership increase from 2010 to 2011 and they raised the fares in 2012 to bump the cost recovery back from 38% to 40%... and yet they cut frequencies. It's silly.
When you're talking about 12,000 pphpd during peak, subway is still way less expensive to operate compared to the buses that it would be replacing.
Off-peak may be a different story, but I still think that the operating costs for the subway would be in the same ballpark as the VIVA/YRT services that it's replacing.
RealEstateRahim
Real Estate Sales Representative
@TJ O'Pootertoot: Interesting article... thanks for sharing!
Electrify
Senior Member
You know, seeing as Toronto's LRT lines are to have stops every 400-500 metres, I wonder if YRT should consider adding Viva stops to a similar pattern, then re-routing the 98 and 99 buses to other arterial routes to improve their frequency. I wanted to bring this up at the service plan meeting they held at Richmond Hill Centre, but I booked the wrong day off work...
Anyways, I wanted to ask, does anyone know when the Yonge bus lanes through Thornhill were supposed to be finished before the NIMBYs derailed the project in hopes for a subway line that will never come? Fortunately I don't have to deal with that hellish stretch for my commutes, but it would have been great if there was rapid transit lite being showcased along the corridor.
Anyways, I wanted to ask, does anyone know when the Yonge bus lanes through Thornhill were supposed to be finished before the NIMBYs derailed the project in hopes for a subway line that will never come? Fortunately I don't have to deal with that hellish stretch for my commutes, but it would have been great if there was rapid transit lite being showcased along the corridor.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
I believe they were about a year ahead of the lanes going in now on Hwy 7 so....2014?
An amusing slice of history - here is the regional report (PDF) with the expropriations set for the Yonge Corridor. Note, it was approved June 14, 2007 and then sent to council for its June 21 meeting.
And what day was Move 2020 announced? June 15, 2007. You have to bear that timing in mind before blaming anyone for slamming on the brakes. Perhaps the province should have given them more of a heads-up but on June 15 it made sense to hold off on the Viva lanes. It's not their fault the well dried up soon after.
Just adding: Found this local article about the announcement. They thought the could have a subway by 2013, poor souls!
http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/577849--yonge-subway-to-be-expanded-to-hwy-7
An amusing slice of history - here is the regional report (PDF) with the expropriations set for the Yonge Corridor. Note, it was approved June 14, 2007 and then sent to council for its June 21 meeting.
And what day was Move 2020 announced? June 15, 2007. You have to bear that timing in mind before blaming anyone for slamming on the brakes. Perhaps the province should have given them more of a heads-up but on June 15 it made sense to hold off on the Viva lanes. It's not their fault the well dried up soon after.
Just adding: Found this local article about the announcement. They thought the could have a subway by 2013, poor souls!
http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/577849--yonge-subway-to-be-expanded-to-hwy-7
Last edited:
planning2plan
New Member
Don't know if this has been posted yet or not; if not it is really worth looking at. Set to be received by Markham council tomorrow.
http://www2.markham.ca/markham/ccbs...rvices/pl120515/Yonge Subway Presentation.pdf
http://www2.markham.ca/markham/ccbs...rvices/pl120515/Yonge Subway Presentation.pdf
nfitz
Superstar
Quite interesting ... I hadn't seen layouts for 16th Avenue station before, or the 12-train pre-build north of Richmond Hill Centre station. Perhaps it was in one of the reports, and I didn't read through it.
It looks like all the partners on this are approving the same thing. TTC approved this on May 1st - but without the graphics - http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Com...s/2012/May_1/Reports/Yonge_Subway_Extenti.pdf
drum118
Superstar
If I remember correctly, there was no plan for 16th Ave or the yard in any report, other than talk.
TTC has always talk about extra studies and cost as add on to the original EA for the yard and 16th Ave, which is wrong in the first place. It needs to be a total package and by doing so changes the whole picture if it is a go or no go. A no go would be the out come.
TTC/YRT, mostly TTC wanted to skew the real cost for this extension by only giving a large section of the pie, to take eyes away from the real cost or think about it.
YRT/York Region always talked about a yard north of 16th Ave and having it underground, which is fine, depending what get built above it. The 16th and Major Mac station were to be in the next phase down the road to the point the line would stop north of Richmond Hill, since there was no room in the centre for either a BRT or LRT to run though it.
With the removal of Orchard Park station reinforced my view of the area for ridership in the first place, as well the line.
TTC has always talk about extra studies and cost as add on to the original EA for the yard and 16th Ave, which is wrong in the first place. It needs to be a total package and by doing so changes the whole picture if it is a go or no go. A no go would be the out come.
TTC/YRT, mostly TTC wanted to skew the real cost for this extension by only giving a large section of the pie, to take eyes away from the real cost or think about it.
YRT/York Region always talked about a yard north of 16th Ave and having it underground, which is fine, depending what get built above it. The 16th and Major Mac station were to be in the next phase down the road to the point the line would stop north of Richmond Hill, since there was no room in the centre for either a BRT or LRT to run though it.
With the removal of Orchard Park station reinforced my view of the area for ridership in the first place, as well the line.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
To be clear: the yard is south of 16th. They drew in an alignment for a future 16th Ave station north of the yard but that's not part of the project on the table.
The need for the yard came up while they were doing the EA and then TTC did a study to see where the best place to put a yard was and the conclusion was north of the terminal. So that isn't really news. But where the region is at now is the concept design and moving forward with the EA for it.
The yard is directly beside the CN track so nothing's going to get built above it (aside from the surface component) though there are some nearby condos. If the line actually went up to 16th, I'd say at least 3 of those 4 corners are prime for redevelopment - and some applications have already come, in actually.
I agree ditching Royal Orchard was the right move. Looks like they did their due dilligence there and hopefully some people who labour under the illusion there's no ridership potential north of Finch (or Steeles) will see that YRT can tell the difference between a Royal Orchard and a Langstaff.
(Oh, and they're about ready to move forward with the BRT from Hwy. 7 up to Major Mac after which, as Drum118 says, the Viva buses will be in mixed traffic. I think it will be a few years before you can justify taking the subway up to there but 7 still seems like an absolute no-brainer.
The need for the yard came up while they were doing the EA and then TTC did a study to see where the best place to put a yard was and the conclusion was north of the terminal. So that isn't really news. But where the region is at now is the concept design and moving forward with the EA for it.
The yard is directly beside the CN track so nothing's going to get built above it (aside from the surface component) though there are some nearby condos. If the line actually went up to 16th, I'd say at least 3 of those 4 corners are prime for redevelopment - and some applications have already come, in actually.
I agree ditching Royal Orchard was the right move. Looks like they did their due dilligence there and hopefully some people who labour under the illusion there's no ridership potential north of Finch (or Steeles) will see that YRT can tell the difference between a Royal Orchard and a Langstaff.
(Oh, and they're about ready to move forward with the BRT from Hwy. 7 up to Major Mac after which, as Drum118 says, the Viva buses will be in mixed traffic. I think it will be a few years before you can justify taking the subway up to there but 7 still seems like an absolute no-brainer.
andrewpmk
Senior Member
If there is talk of putting a station at 16th Avenue, then inevitably there will be talk of continuing up to Major MacKenzie. This will have the effect of making the Richmond Hill GO line useless, and drastically lowering its ridership.
If a subway along Don Mills Road were built as well, then I suspect it would make sense to just shut down the Richmond Hill line. Unlike the other GO lines (like Lakeshore, Milton, Georgetown), the Richmond Hill line is not all that useful for passenger service. The Richmond Hill line takes such a roundabout winding route through the Don Valley, managing to miss almost every major trip generator there, that the combination of Yonge line extension + Don Mills subway would be vastly superior to the Richmond Hill line despite high cost, and the Richmond Hill line cannot be expanded north of Steeles due to heavy freight traffic.
Also, if Yonge North is getting a subway then Sheppard should get a subway too. The densities are pretty similar, I suspect that the ridership on both would be similar.
If a subway along Don Mills Road were built as well, then I suspect it would make sense to just shut down the Richmond Hill line. Unlike the other GO lines (like Lakeshore, Milton, Georgetown), the Richmond Hill line is not all that useful for passenger service. The Richmond Hill line takes such a roundabout winding route through the Don Valley, managing to miss almost every major trip generator there, that the combination of Yonge line extension + Don Mills subway would be vastly superior to the Richmond Hill line despite high cost, and the Richmond Hill line cannot be expanded north of Steeles due to heavy freight traffic.
Also, if Yonge North is getting a subway then Sheppard should get a subway too. The densities are pretty similar, I suspect that the ridership on both would be similar.
car4041
Active Member
What? Yonge is the main street of the entire GTA and is already a very important transit corridor, while Sheppard is a suburban arterial that is little different from any other. The projected 2031 ridership on an extended Sheppard subway at its busiest point in the peak hour is 7,800, and east of Consumers it's just 4,200 (page 17). The projected 2031 ridership at Richmond Hill Centre station alone is 14,000 in the peak hour. I don't see how this is in any way similar!
vz64
Active Member
Sheppard had projected ridership at 14K back in 80s... It overestimated growth of employment in NYCC and SCC, but it also failed to account for the demographic factors. Low ridership on Sheppard Line has to do with wealthy, suburban-type car-oriented population living in the corridor. Thornhill-Richmond Hill corridor is even worse in that respect--too suburban with close to zero pedestrian presence. There will be commuters coming from other areas of York, but I think the projected ridership will fail miserably... Considering that Sheppard becoming less wealthy and more transit-oriented east of Don Mills, I think the SCC extension would be more successful than to unbuilt yet Richmond Hill Centre.
andrewpmk
Senior Member
Sheppard, east of Don Mills and Yonge, north of Steeles aren't really all that different in density. Both could, of course, potentially see large increases in density in the future. (How many high rise buildings were there on Yonge north of Eglinton when the Yonge line extension to Finch was first built? Not very many.) The main difference is that Scarborough Centre has a lot of density, while Yonge/Highway 7 is basically big box stores.
I find it hard to believe that the Yonge subway at Highway 7 would have a ridership of 14,000 per hour, if the Sheppard subway is projected to have half that ridership. These ridership estimates have a tendency to be horribly inaccurate. I think that the Yonge extension ridership is being severely overestimated (although redevelopment could change this) while the Sheppard line ridership is being severely underestimated.