[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I guess it's a bit of a chicken-egg thing. It was going up there sooner or later and politics made "sooner" the necessity.

You're right, most of the development is heading more towards Yonge than Davis per se. But it's all linking pieces; it's hardly a big distance from Southlake to Yonge.

This is from the Secondary Plan from the area, FWIW:

Clearly the Davis corridor isn't the primo piece of the pie but all the pieces connect (i.e. it bridges the first and second biggest districts: Yonge/Davis and RHC).

I don't disagree it's probably a few years "ahead of its" time but I don't think its decades ahead. It's frustrating as I'm sure people see the empty buses and wonder where their money is going etc. Ultimately time will tell.

 

[Leo_Chan]

I know this is old news, but I would like to post my idea here for this:

Here's a map to my idea:

What I would like to know, is if it's worth the extra 10-15 to go to Cornell Terminal, or is turning down McCowan Rd better?

 

[amnesiajune]

What I would like to know, is if it's worth the extra 10-15 to go to Cornell Terminal, or is turning down McCowan Rd better?

Looking at the YRT map, I feel like the obvious choice would be something like this:

I say this because out of the major north-south roads, Kennedy is the only one without a bus that goes into Toronto. That route wouldn't feed into the subway but it would go to Scarborough Centre.

 

[innsertnamehere]

.. which would eventually become a subway transfer anyway. Plus RT access.

 

[Northern Light]

I know this is old news, but I would like to post my idea here for this:
View attachment 118103

Here's a map to my idea:
View attachment 118104

What I would like to know, is if it's worth the extra 10-15 to go to Cornell Terminal, or is turning down McCowan Rd better?

Personally, I think the route format needs to ask simple questions, greatest number of people, meets shortest journey time or the route won't be popular)

On that basis, I would argue for Downtown Markham, to McCowan via #7, then down McCowan to Ellesmere (that gives you STC) ; then Ellesmere to UTSC.

Most direct run, reaching the largest # of people, I think.

***

Once the Morning side extension to Steeles is built, one could make an argument for going down a N-S route further east of McCowan, and intercepting Morningside via Steeles.

This would further reduce journey time, though it would have the effect of losing an STC connection.

Its also currently not possible.

 

[Sagaris88]

Hey, back again with moar new fantasy maps. I'll like to see Viva be just naturally extended on Yonge into Bradford and East Gwillimbury. The Highway 7 map is pretty much what has been announced with some changes.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Hey, back again with moar new maps. I'll like to see Viva be just naturally extended on Yonge into Bradford and East Gwillimbury. The Highway 7 map is pretty much what has been announced with some changes.

Markham Stouffville Hospital should be Cornell Terminal, which should actually be the eastern terminus.

 

[Sagaris88]

Markham Stouffville Hospital should be Cornell Terminal, which should actually be the eastern terminus.

Yes, I know that is the official plan, but I extended it a bit further in my map because of the future denser developments further east on Highway 7.

 

[amnesiajune]

The Highway 7 map is pretty much what has been announced with some changes.

I don't think there's been any formal announcement of a Concord Go Station, and some of the station names are off.

http://www.vivanext.com/project_map

 

[Sagaris88]

I don't think there's been any formal announcement of a Concord Go Station, and some of the station names are off.

http://www.vivanext.com/project_map

It's a fantasy map to be clear.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Hopefully they get around to improving local service once this BRT thing is all done.

 

[amnesiajune]

Hopefully they get around to improving local service once this BRT thing is all done.

The problem with local service (again) is that nobody's going to use it. You could have the same level of service as the TTC, and ridership would barely change. Most people in the "local" areas of York Region have practically no interest in using public transit, and wouldn't have any interest even if you paid them to use YRT. York Region wasn't designed to be transit-friendly (which is impossible to change in existing communities), very few people have any trouble owning one or two cars, and there are hardly any traffic congestion problems to encourage transit use.

"This BRT thing" is being done because these few corridors are the only places where potential ridership growth might justify the cost of transit improvements.

 

[Megaton327]

You could have the same level of service as the TTC, and ridership would barely change. Most people in the "local" areas of York Region have practically no interest in using public transit, and wouldn't have any interest even if you paid them to use YRT. York Region wasn't designed to be transit-friendly (which is impossible to change in existing communities), very few people have any trouble owning one or two cars, and there are hardly any traffic congestion problems to encourage transit use.

We've been over this at least once before in this thread, but that is utterly absurd. I absolutely acknowledge the car culture in York, but a huge percentage of people would use YRT for many local trips if there was good service. "Hardly any traffic congestion" - have you been to a GO station in York Region during rush hour before? I would bet a huge percentage, >50%, of GO riders at most suburban stations would use local transit exclusively, if it were frequent, reliable, and reasonably quick (keeping in mind a longer trip offsets time getting into parking/looking for a space/leaving the station in the evening, given a good bus loop location/transit priority to bypass entrance/exit congestion).

 

[amnesiajune]

I absolutely acknowledge the car culture in York, but a huge percentage of people would use YRT for many local trips if there was good service.

Local trips is where people are least interested in taking transit, because (A) it's when there's less traffic, and (B) they're likely to be doing things like sports and shopping where transit is extremely inconvenient (especially for multi-stop shopping trips). The people who plan transit (i.e. actual experts) are saying the opposite of what you're saying: rush hour is the time when there's a decent return on investing in improvements to some of the local routes.

Have you been to a GO station in York Region during rush hour before?

Yes. The fact that you're resorting to this line makes me think you don't have much to back up your views.

I would bet a huge percentage, >50%, of GO riders at most suburban stations would use local transit exclusively, if it were frequent, reliable, and reasonably quick (keeping in mind a longer trip offsets time getting into parking/looking for a space/leaving the station in the evening, given a good bus loop location/transit priority to bypass entrance/exit congestion).

This is exactly the problem - transit is never going to be competitive with driving on speed, convenience, frequency or reliability. Even if there was a bus meeting every train at Go stations (there often is one already), the average wait of 2-3 minutes is more than whatever time it takes to get into/out of the parking lots, and then you lose a lot more time while the bus stops for pickups/dropoffs and winds inefficiently around local roads that were designed to be lightly used and can't be redesigned.

And even if none of what I said is true, all these Go Transit passengers would still be using cars exclusively outside of rush hour.

 

[cplchanb]

Local trips is where people are least interested in taking transit, because (A) it's when there's less traffic, and (B) they're likely to be doing things like sports and shopping where transit is extremely inconvenient (especially for multi-stop shopping trips). The people who plan transit (i.e. actual experts) are saying the opposite of what you're saying: rush hour is the time when there's a decent return on investing in improvements to some of the local routes.



Yes. The fact that you're resorting to this line makes me think you don't have much to back up your views.



This is exactly the problem - transit is never going to be competitive with driving on speed, convenience, frequency or reliability. Even if there was a bus meeting every train at Go stations (there often is one already), the average wait of 2-3 minutes is more than whatever time it takes to get into/out of the parking lots, and then you lose a lot more time while the bus stops for pickups/dropoffs and winds inefficiently around local roads that were designed to be lightly used and can't be redesigned.

And even if none of what I said is true, all these Go Transit passengers would still be using cars exclusively outside of rush hour.

Imo the only real way transit would be preferred over cars is threefold
First there obviously needs to be an established network that connects people to the hubs. Not to mention it needs to be reasonably frequent at most times of the day.
Second the travel time needs to be relatively close to what cars can do. This is where commuter rail and row can make up for its natural shortfalls.
Third and most importantly it needs to be financially detrimental to drive a car vs transit. London does that well with their tolls and congestion taxes to the city center. Hk does this through insane costs of owning cars vs transit. This is the hardest to implement because it involves a high degree of political intrigue to make it work. We have already seen this fail when the libs blocked tory from tolling the Gardiner.

Only if all of these above conditions are met at the minimum will cars play second fiddle. Until then with our car culture continent and oil overlords we won't see anything like london hk tokyo or any large city overseas