SmartTrack (Proposed)

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well the last mile issue is a problem for regional transit and GO RER in general no? There has to be a way for people to get to and from GO stations. Currently it's parking at the station, but could connecting local transit pick up the slack?

That depends - is the primary goal of the GO RER to facilitate reverse commute, or is it to increase accessibility of the core to those living outside of it? It's not at all clear whether it will facilitate changes in the locational choices of businesses in the 905 (which so far has been to locate along highways at the periphery).

I think there are examples of transit facilitating access, but I am curious as to whether it is time/convenience competitive. Will be interesting to see some pilots.

AoD

 

[44 North]

This is all silly to discuss because by 2024 there will be no such thing as "TTC fare" and "GO fare".

It will all be integrated fare under PRESTO based on fare zones.

So if you stay within zone 1, then yes, taking the subway or Smarttrack will and should be the same fare cost.

But this is part of what my point is regarding the current studies, and how they'll undoubtedly be flawed if they use a flat low TTC fare in their calculations. Ridership will seem way higher with a $3 fare, but not if it's using a zone/distance system where a trip from Agincourt to Union could cost 2x or 3x as much. As well, the ridership modelling could be flawed further if the service is studied as if it were a subway, when in actuality it's more of a costlier premium service (with padded seats, carpeting, and bathrooms).

I think my overall point was more to do with how ST's current studies relate to the ongoing 'relief' studies, and that any numbers given out within the next year or two could be unreliable and further hurt the case for a Relief Line.

 

[wopchop]

That depends - is the primary goal of the GO RER to facilitate reverse commute, or is it to increase accessibility of the core to those living outside of it? It's not at all clear whether it will facilitate changes in the locational choices of businesses in the 905 (which so far has been to locate along highways at the periphery).

I think that the goal should be both, as it would provide the greatest labour mobility, which is of huge concern to the economy. Increasingly, employees are unable to consider or take positions that are outside of a certain range. Increasing the practical range of where employees will look for and be able to work, will help employers attract the right talent, which helps the economy. It's easy to say that people should "work where they live", but that's not reality, especially in this type of real estate market and in an era where people don't work for the same company for their entire career.

Whether it actually encourages location changes, I don't know. I suspect that it might, especially given the recent growth in the downtown office market, which arguably has a lot to do with Union Station's ability to bring in talent from all across the GTHA.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think that the goal should be both, as it would provide the greatest labour mobility, which is of huge concern to the economy. Increasingly, employees are unable to consider or take positions that are outside of a certain range. Increasing the practical range of where employees will look for and be able to work, will help employers attract the right talent, which helps the economy. It's easy to say that people should "work where they live", but that's not reality, especially in this type of real estate market and in an era where people don't work for the same company for their entire career.

Whether it actually encourages location changes, I don't know. I suspect that it might, especially given the recent growth in the downtown office market, which arguably has a lot to do with Union Station's ability to bring in talent from all across the GTHA.

I agree with that end goal, but I am not certain whether the types of businesses located in the 905 is necessarily sensitive to the same types of choices as those in downtown. Just looking at office commercial for example, the talent theory would suggest local centres with high levels of amenities and population density would be the ones drawing commercial development - however the reality is significantly different. Where it did happen, it tend to start with a few development and stop dead in its tracks. I think we need to be very, very careful taking downtown assumptions to the burbs.

AoD

 

[wopchop]

I agree with that end goal, but I am not certain whether the types of businesses located in the 905 is necessarily sensitive to the same types of choices as those in downtown. Just looking at office commercial for example, the talent theory would suggest local centres with high levels of amenities and population density would be the ones drawing commercial development - however the reality is significantly different. Where it did happen, it tend to start with a few development and stop dead in its tracks. I think we need to be very, very careful taking downtown assumptions to the burbs.

Personally, I don't believe areas with high levels of amenities or population density are enough to draw heavy commercial development. In reality, areas with high levels of transit access (whether it be highway for suburbia or GO trains for downtown) tend to be best at attracting talent. Amenities are just the cherry on top.

Growth of suburban office parks accompanied growth of suburban areas. Real estate investors purchased land along corridors that were accessible using the primary means of transit for suburban workers - the car, and developed these into commercial areas (ie. Meadowvale, Airport Corporate Centre, etc) reliant on that mode of transportation This process was also affected by zoning by-laws, minimum property setbacks, minimum parking requirements, and significantly, differences in commercial tax rates between Toronto and the 905. Obviously, it is a complex issue, and any assumptions made will never transfer exactly.

However, we are increasingly in an age when congestion is making commuting by car difficult. If we want to actually serve these business districts outside of downtown with transit (which host a extremely significant number of jobs), then it needs to be transit that has the ability to bring in talent from a very wide area, and not just along a single route that terminates in the business area.

Any business with manufacturing or warehousing needs is not likely to be swayed ... but there are significant numbers of business and jobs in the 905 that are simply office jobs and don't require the huge land footprints that they currently occupy. These types of businesses, many of them small to mid-sized, are the ones that currently have to fight the hardest for talent, may be interested in being able to plug into such a network.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Personally, I don't believe areas with high levels of amenities or population density are enough to draw heavy commercial development. In reality, areas with high levels of transit access (whether it be highway for suburbia or GO trains for downtown) tend to be best at attracting talent. Amenities are just the cherry on top. Growth of suburban office parks accompanied growth of suburban areas. Real estate investors purchased land along corridors that were accessible using the primary means of transit for suburban workers - the car, and developed these into commercial areas (ie. Meadowvale, Airport Corporate Centre, etc) reliant on that mode of transportation This process was also affected by zoning by-laws, minimum property setbacks, minimum parking requirements, and significantly, differences in commercial tax rates between Toronto and the 905. Obviously, it is a complex issue, and any assumptions made will never transfer exactly. However, we are increasingly in an age when congestion is making commuting by car difficult. If we want to actually serve these business districts outside of downtown with transit (which host a extremely significant number of jobs), then it needs to be transit that has the ability to bring in talent from a very wide area, and not just along a single route that terminates in the business area.

Or the alternative is to let these some of these districts decline (which they have a tendency to, after 30 years or so regardless of transit or highway access) and redevelop them in a way that is more conductive to transit, and in the meantime encouraging businesses to locate in areas with planned transit service expansion. It won't work for all types of businesses (e.g. those that requires highway access).

Also it is important to keep in mind that the draw of some of these business areas are probably more "local" in nature - and that pool will be much more diffuse - not necessarily something a line from downtown to the burbs will solve. The 905 belt would be an interesting case to crack.

AoD

 

[wopchop]

Or the alternative is to let these some of these districts decline (which they have a tendency to, after 30 years or so regardless of transit or highway access) and redevelop them in a way that is more conductive to transit, and in the meantime encouraging businesses to locate in areas with planned transit service expansion. It won't work for all types of businesses (e.g. those that requires highway access).

AoD

Yes, I agree with this. I'm not suggesting that we build rapid transit to every business park in existence. We won't ever be able to serve all of these business parks. However, due to the sheer number of jobs in these areas, we should be looking at increasing service to the most important ones (ie. Eglinton&Renforth, Unionville to 7&Woodbine, Meadowvale, etc.) as they could likely be fairly well-served, and it would further concentrate growth into those areas.

Also it is important to keep in mind that the draw of some of these business areas are probably more "local" in nature - and that pool will be much more diffuse - not necessarily something a line from downtown to the burbs will solve. The 905 belt would be an interesting case to crack.

Definitely. The local repair shops, retail warehouses, trade contractors, etc. are not going to move. But these types of business are usually small, probably under 20 employees, which is a blip in the grand total of jobs in the premier business parks.

Take a drive through Airport Corporate Centre, Meadowvale, or Markham (West Beaver Creek to Unionville area), and you'll see large office/head office facilities for major tenants - PepsiCo, Kellogg, The Beer Store, Ornge, Microsoft, Loblaws, Netsuite, Hershey, Ricoh, Accenture, Bell, Blackberry, HP, Intuit, Sobeys, Honeywell, WorleyParsons, AllState etc. Most of these facilities don't have manufacturing or warehousing needs on site. These are the companies that would be the ones possibly swayed, and they represent the lion's share of employment in these areas.

Definitely a tough nut to crack.

 

[nfitz]

He said the same as TTC fare. Not that it really matters what Tory ways. He's in no position to dictate provincial policy.

He said something like that, but he was never clear what it meant.

A TTC express bus from dowtnown to Queen and Woodbine is 100% TTC fare - $5.80 cash.

 

[nfitz]

Even funnier is that after all that, Adam Giambrone, who if memory serves seconded the motion for the Yonge E.A., said during Transit City community meetings that he had no interest in either Yonge or the DRL being built any time soon.

It wasn't built anytime soon; Giambrone wanted to finish the LRT lines first. Giambrone even quantified it, to not starting building until 2018, if I remember correctly. We're still on his schedule, if we are lucky. Except we won't have 8 new LRT lines finished by then ...

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

But it's not even just Tory's credibility that makes me question the cost. To me, it just doesn't make sense that it'd be the same as a TTC fare. This is why I think any studies that are going on right now will be severely flawed if they're basing calculations off a low $3 fare. As much as I support RER, I'm under the impression that it will be a more premium service than TTC.

Why not a simple TTC fare (whatever that means) for stations inside Toronto (ie. SmartTrack) and a GO-fare for stations outside of Toronto?

 

[ssiguy2]

If Toronto and Metrolink wanted to create and truly rapid and accessible transit system for all it would implement total zone fares.

Why in god's name does Metrolink/TTC care how you get to your destination? If you are going from A to B who cares which technology you use..........every service should be the same fare and interchangeable. It's not only fairer and cheaper for the consumer but is a better use of infrastructure and more cost effective. In the City of Toronto itself GO has lousy ridership and small wonder............it's too damn expensive. Not only does that mean the GO infrastructure is not being used in it's most efficient manner but also causes stress on the TTC system. People from Weston can't take the nearest rapid transit {GO} so thousands everyday have to over burden the bus and subway system to get to the exact same place ie Union.

This is why U-Bahn/suburban rail systems are so successful in Europe and not in Toronto despite Toronto having 440km of track................in Europe they couldn't care less what technology you choose for your commute while Metrolinx seems fixated on it.

This is why ST has gained so much traction amongst voters..........it a glorified GO service but unlike GO, they can actually afford to take it. RER and GO will never be of much use in Toronto until the fares are completely interchangeable. They can add 200 more trains everyday if they want but if people can't afford to take them then it doesn't do squat.

 

[DaveFlavanoid]

If Toronto and Metrolink wanted to create and truly rapid and accessible transit system for all it would implement total zone fares.

Why in god's name does Metrolink/TTC care how you get to your destination? If you are going from A to B who cares which technology you use..........every service should be the same fare and interchangeable. It's not only fairer and cheaper for the consumer but is a better use of infrastructure and more cost effective. In the City of Toronto itself GO has lousy ridership and small wonder............it's too damn expensive. Not only does that mean the GO infrastructure is not being used in it's most efficient manner but also causes stress on the TTC system. People from Weston can't take the nearest rapid transit {GO} so thousands everyday have to over burden the bus and subway system to get to the exact same place ie Union.

This is why U-Bahn/suburban rail systems are so successful in Europe and not in Toronto despite Toronto having 440km of track................in Europe they couldn't care less what technology you choose for your commute while Metrolinx seems fixated on it.

This is why ST has gained so much traction amongst voters..........it a glorified GO service but unlike GO, they can actually afford to take it. RER and GO will never be of much use in Toronto until the fares are completely interchangeable. They can add 200 more trains everyday if they want but if people can't afford to take them then it doesn't do squat.

Let's say we did move to a zone system with GO/TTC/Metrolinx/etc integrated into one system, how would the funding/ financial aspect of this work? It seems to me that this would require more provincial oversight. How are these systems run in European cities?

 

[Adjei]

Let's say we did move to a zone system with GO/TTC/Metrolinx/etc integrated into one system, how would the funding/ financial aspect of this work? It seems to me that this would require more provincial oversight. How are these systems run in European cities?

Exactly that's the main issue. Nobody wants to eat the cost for this fare integration.

 

[W. K. Lis]

What kind of vehicles will "SmartTrack" use? It's described as a "surface subway". Do that mean "heavy rail" like the Toronto subway? Does that mean GO Train or UPX vehicles? Does that mean "tram-trains"? Does that mean "light rail vehicles"?

Would be nice if John Tory actually supplied some images or videos to actually see what he means.

I still don't know what "SmartTrack" is, other than its some marketing name.

 

[nfitz]

What kind of vehicles will "SmartTrack" use? It's described as a "surface subway". Do that mean "heavy rail" like the Toronto subway? Does that mean GO Train or UPX vehicles? Does that mean "tram-trains"? Does that mean "light rail vehicles"?

Would be nice if John Tory actually supplied some images or videos to actually see what he means.