News   Mar 28, 2024
 99     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 229     0 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 2.3K     1 

YRT 2011-2012 strike

Having said that, unions are dispicable. Every YRT driver was told their wages before accepting the job, and no doubt made aware that due to the nature of the position, split shifts would be the norm, not the exception. Jealous of TTC drivers that earn more? Here's an idea: apply for a job at the TTC. Don't like split shifts? Change careers.

+1

I think public sector unions should be illegal or highly restricted. Keep private sector unions to make sure the corporation isnt shafting them....but a situation like this would never happen in the first place because the TTC wouldnt be so overpaid!

Also YRT does not have to deal with the volume and stress of TTC drivers, its that idiot Bob Kinnear that thinks that they should recieve the exact same.

VIVA Drivers don't even have to collect fares! They just drive... Why should they earn the same as the TTC bus driver that gets harassed everyday over fare collection?
 
Last edited:
Surely, though, one measure of relevance of transit (outside of the statistics) is the anecdotal evidence we get in our every day lives? So, for example, while I work with a fair number of York Region residents I have yet to hear one of them complain/state "man this transit strike is causing grief"....I have yet to witness a massive outrage through media....I have yet, really, to see any real impact (either first hand or through media/word of mouth/etc).

Compare that to, say, if there was a TTC strike and you have a measure, I think, of the relative relevance of transit systems.

Perhaps that is what Nfitz is expressing?

I think the media has dropped the ball on this. Part of it might be a bit of "oh look, YRT is on strike yet again" fatigue.

Many of the people profiled in the news were reverse commuters, which I think is telling.

Clearly it's not as vital as the TTC, but I live in York Region and know lots of people that use YRT. I just get annoyed because York Region is making a lot of progress, and I don't think it deserves such derision.

York Region Transit is pretty relevant along Yonge St, and Highway 7. Outside of those corridors, I doubt anyone really cares. York Region is a large municipality, the YRT ridership sounds nice, but it's quite trivial compared to Brampton, or Mississauga's ridership numbers.

True, but those two routes go through the heart of where most of York Region lives.

Brampton's weekday ridership is only 57,223. I guess that's slightly more per capita, but it's hardly night and day. I can't find Mississauga numbers, but I'm sure they're higher.
 
Brampton's numbers have historically been lower per capita than YRT or Mississauga for several reasons, particularly becuase unlike the other two systems, it is more isolated from Toronto's transit network; MT and YRT owe a lot to riders connecting to the subway. It's no accident that GO has had, for years, half-hourly local buses to Yorkdale/York Mills that filled some of this void, but the fares and time to get to Yorkdale unappealing (the now proper Union Station service is very well used).

But this is changing as Zum is being introduced along with decent regular service improvements, this makes the system much more appealing to 'choice' riders and is now capturing a lot more of the student market. Weekday ridership is up considerably. The city and the BT ATU local have a new 3 year contract that seemed to go smoothly, though there was a threat of a strike back in September/October.

It will be tough for YRT to gain ridership, even capture back its existing customers, after such a long strike.
 
Part of the reason the YRT strike hasn't gained so much attention is because...YRT is partially in service.

Take woodbridge for example (where transit usage isn't that high). We have buses along Martin Grove, Islington, Pine Valley, Ansley Grove operating as usual.

Weston Road is covered by the TTC contracted 165D

Highway 7 is more than well covered by ZUM 501, and YRT 77

Only Route 85 on Rutherford is out of service but overall...this entire side of the city is business as usual.

So its no surprise that there is little coverage...because many areas in York Region are still well covered by transit.
 
Surely, though, one measure of relevance of transit (outside of the statistics) is the anecdotal evidence we get in our every day lives? So, for example, while I work with a fair number of York Region residents I have yet to hear one of them complain/state "man this transit strike is causing grief"....I have yet to witness a massive outrage through media....I have yet, really, to see any real impact (either first hand or through media/word of mouth/etc).

Compare that to, say, if there was a TTC strike and you have a measure, I think, of the relative relevance of transit systems.

Perhaps that is what Nfitz is expressing?

Try asking them about the strike, and see what they have to say.

Also, I don't know what news programs you are watching, but there has been decent coverage on CP24 and 680 News. Maybe not Earth shattering headline like coverage, but they do mention it as one of their top secondary pieces. At worst, it should get some morning coverage since they are picketing transit terminals causing delays to GO services as well.
 
Try asking them about the strike, and see what they have to say.

Also, I don't know what news programs you are watching, but there has been decent coverage on CP24 and 680 News. Maybe not Earth shattering headline like coverage, but they do mention it as one of their top secondary pieces. At worst, it should get some morning coverage since they are picketing transit terminals causing delays to GO services as well.

It gets coverage on BT but not the kinda stuff that makes you think this strike is causing havoc in York Region (or alternatively that an "essntial service" is being withheld).....I have asked a few people here at work who come in from York Region....they are people who, either, drive to a GO station or the subway or (mostly) people who drive to work. So my question has been along the lines of "how has the YRT strike affected the traffic/your drive". Universally the answer has been "what strike"

Small sample size....but it does speak to how essential the service is overall (ie. not to diminish how essential it is to the ones who are directly affected) and, likely, justifies the level of coverage/anger there is (or isn't) about the strike.
 
I guess that demonstrate just how minor transit is in York Region.

All the north-south routes in Markham are still running because they are operated by the TTC. Instead of taking a bus east-west, people are taking a TTC bus south to Steeles, the TTC Steeles bus over to whichever concession they need, and a TTC bus back north into Markham. It's hugely inconvenient, but it's feasible.
 
Weekday ridership (including contracted TTC) is 107,328. ...
Wow ... I just have trouble realising it is so low. I assumed with the $billions that everyone was dropping on York Region transit, that there would have been some real ridership now, rather than a build it and they will come philosophy. This is very disappointing to hear given that so many routes in Toronto have real ridership now, and are getting squat.

Please stop saying that transit isn't relevant in York Region. It's simply not true.
But it isn't relevant. This is clear from the reaction (or lack of it) from the transit strike. We had more media coverage in Toronto of the Ottawa transit strike than we do of this one! It's clearly not a relevant local issue.

Ridership has been increasing dramatically over the last few years.
The smaller something is, the bigger the ridership increase looks. At the extreme, if a system that had 10 riders, increased to 15, it would have a 50% increase! Using the numbers you gave, ridership on YRT was up less than 12,000 riders a day last year. I'd have hoped it would have been increasing faster. TTC for comparison was up 17,000 riders last year, despite much higher market penetration.

If you want to argue about the numbers, fine, but your posts aren't contributing anything to the discussion.
I disagree. I think people here, myself included, tend to assume that transit in these outlying regions is much more significant than perhaps others do. Imposing our 416 beliefs on 905 perhaps. This strike, and the clear demonstration how irrelevant transit in York Region currently is, is a big reality check.

And at the same time, it does make one wonder why there is huge $ being spent for something that only has a significant future demand, while so many projects in other areas with much higher existing demand go unfunded.
 
The smaller something is, the bigger the ridership increase looks. At the extreme, if a system that had 10 riders, increased to 15, it would have a 50% increase! Using the numbers you gave, ridership on YRT was up less than 12,000 riders a day last year. I'd have hoped it would have been increasing faster. TTC for comparison was up 17,000 riders last year, despite much higher market penetration.

Yes, I understand how percentages work. No need to be so condescending.

Wow ... I just have trouble realising it is so low. I assumed with the $billions that everyone was dropping on York Region transit, that there would have been some real ridership now, rather than a build it and they will come philosophy. This is very disappointing to hear given that so many routes in Toronto have real ridership now, and are getting squat.

The recent billions being pumped into YRT are for the VIVA rapidways, which are under construction. How can you judge the success of this before it's complete? For example, taking a bus in its own dedicated lane on gridlocked Highway 7 certainly strengthens the argument for using local transit. In terms of building for future demand, if you look at York Region's intensification plans, especially in Markham, the density is mostly along these corridors. We're always complaining on this forum that infrastructure should come first, but when it happens all we hear is "the demand isn't there yet."

And at the same time, it does make one wonder why there is huge $ being spent for something that only has a significant future demand, while so many projects in other areas with much higher existing demand go unfunded.

So a region of 1 million shouldn't get its fair shake of transit funding? Do you think York Region should just give up and let gridlock get worse and worse? Using your logic, Ottawa and London shouldn't get funding for transit either, since there are projects in Toronto that would generate ridership more quickly.
 
The recent billions being pumped into YRT are for the VIVA rapidways, which are under construction. How can you judge the success of this before it's complete?
Don't get me wrong. I think it's a good thing. I'm just surprised that given YRT ridership is so low, how this get's prioritized over much busier corridors that have the demand now. Which suggests that it is more of a political decision than anything else.

Using your logic, Ottawa and London shouldn't get funding for transit either, since there are projects in Toronto that would generate ridership more quickly.
I'd be absolutely shocked if there was only 100,000 riders a day in Ottawa.

Funding should be based on per capita usage. Somewhere that has 100,000 riders a day should get much less (say 1/5) the capital funding that somewhere that has significant transit -say 500,000 a day. At such low numbers, you have to think that the primary users are students, and the penetration into the adult, car-owning market is extremely low.
 
Don't get me wrong. I think it's a good thing. I'm just surprised that given YRT ridership is so low, how this get's prioritized over much busier corridors that have the demand now. Which suggests that it is more of a political decision than anything else.

I'd be absolutely shocked if there was only 100,000 riders a day in Ottawa.

Funding should be based on per capita usage. Somewhere that has 100,000 riders a day should get much less (say 1/5) the capital funding that somewhere that has significant transit -say 500,000 a day. At such low numbers, you have to think that the primary users are students, and the penetration into the adult, car-owning market is extremely low.

If funding is based only on per capita usage, you can end up with a paradox where people won't use the system because it's too small, and it won't get funding to expand because people don't use it.

Also, there were many projects that had equal priority to this one, but a certain mayor decided to cancel most of them. This project was also accelerated due to it's simplicity of design. What else is at the ready-to-build-today stage that is unfunded?
 
If funding is based only on per capita usage, you can end up with a paradox where people won't use the system because it's too small, and it won't get funding to expand because people don't use it.

Also, there were many projects that had equal priority to this one, but a certain mayor decided to cancel most of them. This project was also accelerated due to it's simplicity of design. What else is at the ready-to-build-today stage that is unfunded?

Agreed. We need to develop a virtuous cycle of intensification and increased transit usage in York Region.

Plus, per capita is fairer to tax payers than per capita ridership, although admittedly cities like Toronto will (and should) always get a bigger slice of the pie than small towns, etc.
 
Worth pointing out that the TTC also sees riders from other parts of the GTA come in to use their system. Also, the exurban parts of the region have virtually no coverage. So that 100,000 riders in reality reflects a population of 780,000, not a million. These numbers are nearly identical to Miway which has a similar population to readership ratio.
 
In Toronto, everyone takes transit. in YR only the people who have no other way ( the poor people) take transit. That is why it is not in the media. there are thousands upon thousands of people in YR who are loosing jobs or putting themselves in uncomfortable situations to keep their jobs, because of this strike.
. privatization is just so inappropriate for public transit. but it is also just par for the course in the toxic, soul destroying wasteland that is York Region. I am so lucky i got out.
 
In Toronto, everyone takes transit. in YR only the people who have no other way ( the poor people) take transit.

As someone who relied almost entirely on YRT (and TTC) for several years, I can safely say that is not the case. One nice thing about low-frequency low-ridership routes is that you can actually get to know everyone on the bus, since it's the same people every day.

That is why it is not in the media. there are thousands upon thousands of people in YR who are losing jobs or putting themselves in uncomfortable situations to keep their jobs, because of this strike.

Interesting thought, but I don't think it is so. Far more likely is that so few people are being affected by the strike due to low system ridership and the system only partially being shutdown. I know that if I were still doing the same commute as I was last year, I would still be commuting on YRT during the strike, since my route is not affected.

. privatization is just so inappropriate for public transit. but it is also just par for the course in the toxic, soul destroying wasteland that is York Region. I am so lucky i got out.

Privatization doesn't make sense from an economic standpoint, but one thing I do notice with sub-contracted transit services (YRT and GO), is that the employees are much more friendly and helpful than on the TTC. I'm not sure if it's a coincidence or if the competition from other potential transit operators forces a higher customer service standard.

Keep in mind that there's a massive difference between full privatization and subcontracting. Full privatization has very severe consequences while subcontracting doesn't change much.
 

Back
Top