VIVA + York Region Transit

[innsertnamehere]

The vast majority of TTC users have access to a car. So car ownership and a suburban built form aren't necessarily a deterrent to high transit use. Viva/YRT's problem is the poor level of service in terms of frequency and signal priority.

I wouldn't say this at all. A large percentage of Toronto households are car-free, and many many more are 1-car households compared to York Region.

York Region also has far higher incomes, higher income households are much less likely to take transit, especially since they are far more likely to have 2-3 cars in the household than in Toronto.

There are a lot of people with cars taking the TTC, yes. But less than you think, and many are from 1-car households where another family member needs the car, effectively making them "car free". York Region generally has mostly 2-car households which have higher rates of car availability.

 

[Undead]

That probably makes a difference at the margins, but I would still maintain that the biggest issue for YRT is their poor level of serivce.

 

[6ixGod]

I would probably pin this more on the demographics. Most people in the 905 would prefer either subways or their suv.

YRT VIVA suffers from forty minute headways and a poor feeder system and yet somehow that is called choice. Meanwhile, Finch West residents endure Line 6’s chronic delays and service gaps with far fewer alternatives. The difference is not preference it is access. York residents can choose to drive when transit fails….many on Finch West do not have that luxury.

This Americanised way of looking at public transport in Canada is the reason we are in this predicament.

 

[chrisw]

I haven't been here for awhile, but it's interesting at Richmond Hill Centre, they converted the automatic sliding doors to two single doors.

 

[A.Malik.77]

I haven't been here for awhile, but it's interesting at Richmond Hill Centre, they converted the automatic sliding doors to two single doors.

View attachment 711744

I assume people complained that cold air kept blowing in everytime someone triggered the sensor or the repair costs were too much for YRT.

 

[cplchanb]

I assume people complained that cold air kept blowing in everytime someone triggered the sensor or the repair costs were too much for YRT.

Yea it was changed a while back. Makes sense though the door placement is quite awkward.

 

[Northern Light]

I haven't been here for awhile, but it's interesting at Richmond Hill Centre, they converted the automatic sliding doors to two single doors.

View attachment 711744

The first thing that jumps out to me in this photo is the bench covered in snow.

Aside from the fact that staff should have used a broom to clear it off..........

It made me look at the canopy design, and along the glass walls.

I observe that the canopy, where said bench is located is unusually shallow even for this building, that seems to have been ill-considered, even 1 more meter might make a substantial difference. This can be modeled.

I also note the extended section of straight glass with out any wind mitigation barrier. That's not uncommon in bus terminals, given that there is an indoor waiting area if high wind is an issue. Still, particularly with a shallow canopy, it seems ill-thought out. Barrier may (or may not) have reduced blowing snow as an issue for the benches.

 

[cplchanb]

The first thing that jumps out to me in this photo is the bench covered in snow.

Aside from the fact that staff should have used a broom to clear it off..........

It made me look at the canopy design, and along the glass walls.

I observe that the canopy, where said bench is located is unusually shallow even for this building, that seems to have been ill-considered, even 1 more meter might make a substantial difference. This can be modeled.

I also note the extended section of straight glass with out any wind mitigation barrier. That's not uncommon in bus terminals, given that there is an indoor waiting area if high wind is an issue. Still, particularly with a shallow canopy, it seems ill-thought out. Barrier may (or may not) have reduced blowing snow as an issue for the benches.

the bench was added recently. even the heated indoor area was not part of the original building from 20 years ago. i wouldnt imagine back then the canopy was designed they had envisaged a bench being placed there 20 years later.

 

[doady]

I wouldn't say this at all. A large percentage of Toronto households are car-free, and many many more are 1-car households compared to York Region.

York Region also has far higher incomes, higher income households are much less likely to take transit, especially since they are far more likely to have 2-3 cars in the household than in Toronto.

There are a lot of people with cars taking the TTC, yes. But less than you think, and many are from 1-car households where another family member needs the car, effectively making them "car free". York Region generally has mostly 2-car households which have higher rates of car availability.

YRT VIVA suffers from forty minute headways and a poor feeder system and yet somehow that is called choice. Meanwhile, Finch West residents endure Line 6’s chronic delays and service gaps with far fewer alternatives. The difference is not preference it is access. York residents can choose to drive when transit fails….many on Finch West do not have that luxury.

This Americanised way of looking at public transport in Canada is the reason we are in this predicament.

It's funny how we are supposed to build transit to allow for a car-free lifestyle, but then we criticize transit systems that don't serve people who own cars, or we characterize high car ownership as the cause rather than as the symptom.

The building of expensive transit projects to appeal to car owners failed across the US, and not surprisingly it failed in York Region as well. This whole idea that people who live car-free lifestyles are not "choice riders" is the problem.

VIVA when it was introduced had 7.5 minute service all day. Better than anything in Brampton and Mississauga. Problem is, the 7.5 minute service did not reflect the current riders' needs. They built a system for hypothetical riders instead of the actual riders. Still making the same mistake today. A successful system is built for transit riders, not for car drivers.

 

[Northern Light]

It's funny how we are supposed to build transit to allow for a car-free lifestyle, but then we criticize transit systems that don't serve people who own cars, or we characterize high car ownership as the cause rather than as the symptom.

The building of expensive transit projects to appeal to car owners failed across the US, and not surprisingly it failed in York Region as well. This whole idea that people who live car-free lifestyles are not "choice riders" is the problem.

VIVA when it was introduced had 7.5 minute service all day. Better than anything in Brampton and Mississauga. Problem is, the 7.5 minute service did not reflect the current riders' needs. They built a system for hypothetical riders instead of the actual riders. Still making the same mistake today. A successful system is built for transit riders, not for car drivers.

@6ixGod was on point. 7.5 minute service on VIVA was fine, provided that the rider lived walking distance from the stop, and worked walking distance from the stop.

The failing was that most riders did not live on 7, and you needed good feeder services to make the service desirable.

YRT did waste money overbuilding VIVA relative to demand, existing or reasonably foreseeable. But that is not the failing in terms of ridership, its usable service or lack thereof.

That means median wait time, + trip time (inclusive of any transfers and their waits, en route).

You don't need to beat the car in timing, though that's certainly ideal; but you do need a travel time that is both reasonable in an absolute sense and is ideally no worse that the same trip by car + 25%.

The more you climb above that.....the more you need other carrots and sticks to motivate people to choose transit.

****

The idea that that a service that appeals to people who currently own a car and commute in said fashion would not appeal to those who take transit is just odd.

A non-choice rider will ride because they lack any alternative whether that's money or age/infirmity or other inability to drive.

A choice rider, by definition has multiple options to make their commute and they will weigh the attractiveness of both and the cost in deciding what works for them. An unattractive service will fail irrespective of price.

 

[stevensontransit]

Viva Rapidways needs transit priority signals to ensure buses are much faster than cars.

 

[doady]

@6ixGod was on point. 7.5 minute service on VIVA was fine, provided that the rider lived walking distance from the stop, and worked walking distance from the stop.

The failing was that most riders did not live on 7, and you needed good feeder services to make the service desirable.

YRT did waste money overbuilding VIVA relative to demand, existing or reasonably foreseeable. But that is not the failing in terms of ridership, its usable service or lack thereof.

That means median wait time, + trip time (inclusive of any transfers and their waits, en route).

You don't need to beat the car in timing, though that's certainly ideal; but you do need a travel time that is both reasonable in an absolute sense and is ideally no worse that the same trip by car + 25%.

The more you climb above that.....the more you need other carrots and sticks to motivate people to choose transit.

****

The idea that that a service that appeals to people who currently own a car and commute in said fashion would not appeal to those who take transit is just odd.

A non-choice rider will ride because they lack any alternative whether that's money or age/infirmity or other inability to drive.

A choice rider, by definition has multiple options to make their commute and they will way the attractiveness of both and the cost in deciding what works for them. An unattractive service will fail irrespective of price.

I never said transit built for car owner can't appeal to current transit riders. Just saying the current transit riders should be priority. An agency should try to retain their current customers before trying to appeal to new customers. If people use transit for 4 years instead of 2 years, that's doubling the transit ridership. If you can't satisfy your current riders, how can you lure people who have already abandoned transit? Young people, students, new immigrants, that's the low hanging fruit.

It's easier to reinforce the existing habits of transit riders instead of trying to change the habits of car owners. I think people underestimate how many transit riders a system can lose. For example, despite serving a wealthy suburb, Oakville Transit has higher ridership than the entire metropolitan area of Memphis, Tennessee. Despite the extreme poverty, people in Memphis still abandoned transit. If you lose all those riders, good luck getting them back.

Of course, that is a good point about transit not having to beat or match cars in travel time. I think that is one of the misconceptions about "rapid transit". Empty bus is very fast. It's only when the bus system is already successful, the buses are full, that transit becomes too slow. So rapid transit is about building upon success rather than about correcting failure.

In York Region, where ridership is low, speed is not as big a problem as it is in Brampton and Mississauga, let alone Toronto. So I think that is where York Region made their mistake with VIVA. Good feeder service is still important as you point out.

There's fare integration along Steeles now, but there's still lack of all day service along Bur Oak, 14 Avenue, Dufferin between Rutherford and Major Mac. Of course Langstaff Road broken up cannot be fixed. Those are all glaring weakness in the feeder routes, all increasing walking distance.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

It's funny how we are supposed to build transit to allow for a car-free lifestyle, but then we criticize transit systems that don't serve people who own cars, or we characterize high car ownership as the cause rather than as the symptom.

The building of expensive transit projects to appeal to car owners failed across the US, and not surprisingly it failed in York Region as well. This whole idea that people who live car-free lifestyles are not "choice riders" is the problem.

VIVA when it was introduced had 7.5 minute service all day. Better than anything in Brampton and Mississauga. Problem is, the 7.5 minute service did not reflect the current riders' needs. They built a system for hypothetical riders instead of the actual riders. Still making the same mistake today. A successful system is built for transit riders, not for car drivers.

Let us proclaim the great mystery of the urbanist's faith. We need to get people out of cars. We need transit to get people out of cars. Our urban built form is catered to car ownership. What comes first? Transit sucks so every suburban household owns 2+ cars, or every suburban household owns 2+ cars so suburban cities de focus transit in favour of cars.

I think a balance can be struck between transit that focuses on walkable car-free (or at least car optional) developments and transit that caters to drivers. The thing is, however, that catering to drivers will always be a losing situation when it comes to transit. Sit outside any major GO station when an afternoon train has just dropped off a bunch of downtown commuters and watch as hundreds of people do the mad dash to their cars and clog the parking lot and surrounding streets trying to get out and get home. Compare that with being a short walking distance from the station, or even a short connecting bus ride to get to home. Catering to cars will always require massive parking structures, and road networks built to deal with the flood of vehicles leaving the station every time a train arrives.

The car-free choice is about more that just what kind of transit you are providing. It's about built forms, density, even road layouts, and how other amenities are distributed. Car ownership is higher in the suburbs mostly because it's a choice (no one is forced to live in the suburbs, as the suburbs are quite expensive in comparison). The built form of our suburbs is very use segregated, residential goes here, commercial goes there, industrial goes somewhere else, and retail gets dumped more often than not into car focused mega plazas. Everything you need to go to requires owning a car, nothing is within a walking distance. Road layouts with round abouts and dead ends makes walking impractical. This drives people to own a car, and once you've made the financial outlay you're going to favour car use (the sunk cost fallicy). This puts transit at a significant disadvantage, people are already predisposed to car use and the spaghetti street network makes transit inefficient.

VIVA failed because the entire goal (at least my recollection) was to have corridors of rapid transit (the viva rapidways) that were fed by community feeder routes. Instead VIVA sucked funding away from community routes, hollowed out the network and, since there's little residential development along the VIVA corridors (outside of a few newish high density developments) and that the VIVA don't really go anywhere other than to the nearest subway/go station there's no real incentive to not take your car.

 

[Undead]

as the suburbs are quite expensive in comparison)

No, prices vary and often it is cheaper the further you go from the City.

 

[chrisw]

Is VIVA still sucking funding from feeder routes? All the VIVA routes are all performing well above average subsidy wise.