Toronto Spadina Subway Extension Emergency Exits | ?m | 1s | TTC | IBI Group

TheTigerMaster said:
If that's true, why doesn't the Commision just increase fares north of Steeles like they always do. $4 - $4.75 should be more than enough.
Click to expand...
I believe the deal that they signed with York and Ontario says that they charge the same fare as elsewhere on the system.

But didn't we discuss all this somewhere in the last 50 to 100 pages?
 
Yes, it was already discussed. Toronto paid nothing for the infrastructure north of Steeles and the original plan is that the TTC would collect full fare at the stations. I'm not sure if there is a state of good repair allowance built in or not. There may be an operating loss at opening but with the infrastructure being new, York transit dumping passengers at the stations, the TTC not having any surface route costs tied to the passengers it receives at those stations, and with the ability to have some trains turn back before that point, that loss would not be significant. At most suburban stations the TTC needs to cover the cost of busing the majority of riders to the station which is significant. Wherever these riders are going in Toronto there is a person or business paying tax on that property who want these people to get there and with York Region picking up the surface costs in York I'm not sure there is any reason why this expense of the TTC would make less sense than another.
 
Last edited:
EnviroTO said:
Yes, it was already discussed. Toronto paid nothing for the infrastructure north of Steeles and the original plan is that the TTC would collect full fare at the stations. I'm not sure if there is a state of good repair allowance built in or not. There may be an operating loss at opening but with the infrastructure being new, York transit dumping passengers at the stations, the TTC not having any surface route costs tied to the passengers it receives at those stations, and with the ability to have some trains turn back before that point, that loss would not be significant. At most suburban stations the TTC needs to cover the cost of busing the majority of riders to the station which is significant. Wherever these riders are going in Toronto there is a person or business paying tax on that property who want these people to get there and with York Region picking up the surface costs in York I'm not sure there is any reason why this expense of the TTC would make less sense than another.
Click to expand...

The only way the subway gets built is with the implementation of revenue tools. And it's reasonable to think that Metrolinx starts doing that, a fare overhaul of some kind will get implemented. In the long term, I suspect that means these quaint border quibbles will be obsolete and there will be some sort of pool for regional transit operations. Anyway, this extension is more likely to pay for itself than Scarborough is, IMHO, hilighting how useless is the point that one is within Toronto and the other isn't.

As for Forgotten, LOL all you want. Obviously they want fewer buses out there because buses are NOT the appropriate mode of transit for the Yonge corridor. It's still absurd to suggest that's the main reason they want the subway as if all 4 municipalities (YR, RH, Vaughan and Markham) haven't passed new zoning regulations to encourage intensification based largely on transit. It's rather the bigger factor, seems to me. Everyone (including Steve Munro) tend to get all hung up on capacity, headways and other transit issues instead of looking at the bigger planning picture.
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
This has nothing (or not much) to do with bus operating costs in York Region. it has to do with development plans.

In a few decades, we'll know (to stay on thread) if Vaughan Metropolitan Centre and all of Places to Grow was a total bust. In the meantime, the hope is that extending the subway (barely!) into the suburbs will facilitate a different, more sustainable kind of development. It's provincially legislated and York's official plan etc. etc. so even if it saves them a few bucks on buses, that's a really insulting way to portray what's going on here. (And that's not even getting into how many HUNDREDS of those buses clog up Yonge street for motorists, spewing CO2 into the air, damaging the roads etc., all because the current terminal isn't near where its riders are coming from.)

Anyway, i agree with all the other analyses above. It's about obsolete borders. If, back in the dreamy days of the Harris era, Thornhill had been amalgamated into Toronto, no one would be complaining about a subway up to Steeles. but it's the idea of why "we" should help "them" that's driving the antagonism, just as it has in Scarborough. When everyone realizes we're all in the same boat, maybe things can move forward.
Click to expand...

Thought this was the Spadina thread but anyway...

Even with the Yonge extension, barring the RHC development, the terminal would still be no where near the ridership base. VIVA blue is packed well before it reaches RHC.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
Thought this was the Spadina thread but anyway...

Even with the Yonge extension, barring the RHC development, the terminal would still be no where near the ridership base. VIVA blue is packed well before it reaches RHC.
Click to expand...

I think "nowhere near" is an exaggeration but the general point is that people who now drive or bus to Finch are coming from north of Steeles. Plus the idea (as at VMC) is to provide a built-in ridership base by building high-density all around it. They're already starting work on the BRT north of 7 and while one could try to argue there is reason to bring the subway even further north, it's a very hard sell. Highway 7 is the big mobility hub and even if it's "nowhere" from the perspective of 416ers, it can easily be justified once you look at the planning.
 
Metrolinx is already looking at fare integration across the region. They mentioned this in their last meeting. When it actually gets implemented, nobody knows.
 
Having just ridden subways in Hong Kong and Taipei, I think fare by distance could work here too.
 
One of the issues with that is that it heavily penalizes people who live in the suburbs. And people in the suburbs tend to have a lower income than those in urban environments.
 
Depends where in the Suburbs.. Thornhill?? not really. Some parts of Brampton, or many parts of Toronto suburbs? absolutely. there are still plenty of poor in the city, but they mostly live in subsidized housing because of real estate prices. If you can't get subsidized housing, you live in a crumbling apartment tower in the suburbs, such as Jane & Finch or Dixon road.
 
Ramako said:
They do? I've always thought the opposite was true.
Click to expand...

That hasn't been true for a long time. Take a look at a income map for the city ( http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/gtuo/ss_employment_income06.hunk). The areas with the highest income are the ones with the highest population density; downtown and all the way up the Yonge Street corridor into North York Centre.

The suburbs (Etobickoe and Scarb) have lower population density and a much lower average income.

This "slumification" of the suburbs is something we're seeing across North America. Generally speaking, the suburbs are not very desirable to the higher income anymore. Mainly because of thier inaccessability and lack of ammenities. Thankfully, this isn't as bad in Toronto as it is in other cities (our suburbs are higher density and better planned than most), but the income disparity is definitely there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top