Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Why not York Region directly?

As I explained above, we should be looking more at how to fund lines that cross borders.
A one-time deal (or even 2, if you throw in Spadina) addresses a single inequity but not the larger issue.
How are RER and SmartTrack going to be funded? Another one-time deal?
Nah - we need to rethink the whole thing and the timeframe of getting RER and Yonge subway online should be sufficient to do that and create a system that:
a) makes it seamless and easy for riders to transition between systems and cross borders
b) funds operations adequately so neither Toronto nor any other municipality is on the hook

It's not reinventing the wheel - this happens in World Class (TM) cities around the world through revenue tools and properly funded transit authorities.

 

[Cobra]

As I explained above, we should be looking more at how to fund lines that cross borders.
A one-time deal (or even 2, if you throw in Spadina) addresses a single inequity but not the larger issue.
How are RER and SmartTrack going to be funded? Another one-time deal?
Nah - we need to rethink the whole thing and the timeframe of getting RER and Yonge subway online should be sufficient to do that and create a system that:
a) makes it seamless and easy for riders to transition between systems and cross borders
b) funds operations adequately so neither Toronto nor any other municipality is on the hook

It's not reinventing the wheel - this happens in World Class (TM) cities around the world through revenue tools and properly funded transit authorities.

Yes I know all that and you're in the hypothetical realm.

My question is simple.
As of now, with the current system which will likely stay the same in the foreseeable future, do you agree that York Region should be paying for their share of the O&M on both extension indefinitely, just like Laval and Longueuil are paying to Montreal STM Metro?

 

[narduch]

We really should be merging TTC will all the similar level transit systems in the GTA.

Its insane that we haven't done that yet.

 

[Cobra]

We really should be merging TTC will all the similar level transit systems in the GTA.

Its insane that we haven't done that yet.

That what Hudak wanted to do to some degree in his platform. He wanted to partially copy Transport for London model by uploading all of Toronto's rapid Transit lines into Metrolinx, which I assume would have freed the city from having to massively subsidize the TTC since they'd be left with buses and streetcars

 

[narduch]

That what Hudak wanted to do to some degree in his platform. He wanted to partially copy Transport for London model by uploading all of Toronto's rapid Transit lines into Metrolinx, which I assume would have freed the city from having to massively subsidize the TTC since they'd be left with buses and streetcars

That's really not the same thing.

They should be merging the TTC with YRT and all similar transit.

 

[drum118]

We really should be merging TTC will all the similar level transit systems in the GTA.

Its insane that we haven't done that yet.

That has been the goal of Metrolinx since it was form.

The problem both for Metrolinx and the Province is 113 and other unions, as how do you union bust them legally?

Even if you try merging union, who gets what seniority as well who will represent them?

The London model is what Metrolinx showcase in 2007 that would be a mixture of union and non union companies operating X routes all wearing the same uniform. York Region does this some what today where they buy the buses and supply the uniforms with contracts for X area coming up for rebidding every X years.

 

[Cobra]

I remember when Montreal cities merged on the Island, the city had to take the best collective bargain and apply it across the board. As for which union would represent the workers of the new entity, wouldn't that mean it's up to them to compete to get those workers to sign their cards?

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

That what Hudak wanted to do to some degree in his platform. He wanted to partially copy Transport for London model by uploading all of Toronto's rapid Transit lines into Metrolinx,

Was that before or after he said he wanted to scrap Metrolinx entirely and replace it with....something unclear?

Yes I know all that and you're in the hypothetical realm.
My question is simple.
As of now, with the current system which will likely stay the same in the foreseeable future, do you agree that York Region should be paying for their share of the O&M on both extension indefinitely, just like Laval and Longueuil are paying to Montreal STM Metro?

So, the foreseeable future in which Metrolinx is considering how to execute fare integration? That hypothetical realm, you mean?

Why would I give an answer for as of now when the line isn't being built for years? Isn't the actual question what funding could and should look like by then?

But, OK, ignoring that this is the actual reality in which we are operating - and discussing a line that's a decade away, by which time the Maple Leafs may have won 5 consecutive Stanley Cups - Yes, I agree there should be some kind of agreement that ensures Toronto isn't left holding the bag, if there is one.

 

[Cobra]

Was that before or after he said he wanted to scrap Metrolinx entirely and replace it with....something unclear?

Well he lost.

So, the forseeable future in which Metrolinx is considering how to execute fare integration? That hypothetical scneario, you mean?.

That has nothing to do with the O&M of the line.

Why would I give an answer for as of now when the line isn't being built for years?.

Because there's a strong possibility nothing changes in term of structure in the next few decades. That possibility should be discussed as well

But, OK, ignoring that this is the actual reality in which we are operating - and discussing a line that's a decade away, by which time the Maple Leafs may have one 5 consecutive Stanley Cups - Yes, I agree there should be some kind of agreement that ensures Toronto isn't left holding a bag,

Thank you but it shouldn't be some kind of agreement. Why so vague? Why is it so hard to take a stance and say "Yes, York Region should pay for their share of O&M costs"

if there is one.

Yes there is one, it's call over $2.6 billions of backlog of Capital repair work. Surely you can agree that the TTC could use the money saved from York paying their share of the O&M to address that backlog

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Well he lost.

Small miracles!

That has nothing to do with the O&M of the line.

Fares have nothing to do with operations and maintenance. Gotcha! Let's proceed from that logic!

Why should we debate a line that's decades away then, might as well close this thread.

no, the question is why we should assume a future line will operate within our present reality. By your logic, we should stop building condos because GIs who are coming home from the war and having 2.5 kids don't want to buy them.

Some people on this board, I think, don't understand the basic principles under which the PLANNING profession operates.

Thank you but it shouldn't be some kind of agreement. Why so vague? Why is it so hard to take a stance and say "Yes, York Region should pay for their share of O&M costs"

I did. Twice. I just said in a broader context that is disarming you in some regard.

Yes there is one, it's call billions of state of repair backlog

So, fares don't contribute to O&M but York Region should be giving Toronto $ to pay for their unrelated, per-existing state of repair backlog. Tell me - are you actually the TTC chairperson?

 

[Cobra]

Fares have nothing to do with operations and maintenance. Gotcha! Let's proceed from that logic!

You were making the assumption that fare integration would address the O&M cost of that line... Well no it doesn't. The Montreal region (CMM) has fare integration through the OPUS card (Like Presto), and yet all the CMM municipalities have to pay their share of the Metro O&M.

no, the question is why we should assume a future line will operate within our present reality. By your logic, we should stop building condos because GIs who are coming home from the war and having 2.5 kids don't want to buy them.

Because there's no official indications to the contrary, so my question is valid to assume the line will be operated just like the Vaughan extension

Some people on this board, I think, don't understand the basic principles under which the PLANNING profession operates.

What's your principle?Build it and they'll come?

No sir...I know much better that. It's called "build it where the demand is already there and where there are no other viable alternatives "

I did. Twice. I just said in a broader context that is disarming you in some regard.

No, you're being vague and hesitant about it.

So, fares don't contribute to O&M but York Region should be giving Toronto $ to pay for their unrelated, per-existing state of repair backlog. Tell me - are you actually the TTC chairperson?

I think you're acting like you don't understand on purpose. The reality is that under the current model, Torontonians will be subsidizing a subway service outside of their city. (Through the city having to subsidized 50% of the TTC budget so they can operate the network and yes O&M falls there)

It's not enough, just like Montreal demonstrated to the Province of Quebec when they claimed the extra fares from Laval and Longueuil wasn't even close to compensate the STM additional O&M costs...and that coming from a provincially subsidized entity, while the TTC gets nothing from Ontario.

 

[Cobra]

Look, I don't want this to go back and forth. I'm not against the principle of a subway to Richmond Hill, just

• The math on the O&M cost
• Lack of a proper study taking into account LRT and GO RER being operational.

I always said that the day I see a study that

• Shows that the ridership is there
• LRT + GO RER would not be enough and subway is the only way
• A better O&M cost sharing model being implemented
• The line opening at the same time or after Relief Long opens

I would support it 100% but such study evaluating the subways vs LRT and GO RER doesn't exist and that's a fact

Otherwise, it give the impression that York Region (Not necessarily you TJ, but York politicians) wants the subway to fast track their development and attractiveness while wanting no part of the O&M which would most likely force tax increases. This is the exact argument Montreal used on the rest of Montreal Island's municipalities and outside suburbs.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Look, I don't want this to go back and forth. I'm not against the principle of a subway to Richmond Hill, just

• The math on the O&M cost
• Lack of a proper study taking into account LRT and GO RER being operational.

I always said that the day I see a study that

• Shows that the ridership is there
• LRT + GO RER would not be enough and subway is the only way
• A better O&M cost sharing model being implemented
• The line opening at the same time or after Relief Long opens

I would support it 100% but such study evaluating the subways vs LRT and GO RER doesn't exist and that's a fact

Otherwise, it give the impression that York Region (Not necessarily you TJ, but York politicians) wants the subway to fast track their development and attractiveness while wanting no part of the O&M which would most likely force tax increases. This is the exact argument Montreal used on the rest of Montreal Island's municipalities and outside suburbs.

How's this: If there is an operating subsidy required for the line and if regional transit funding has not otherwise been addressed, yes, York Region should contribute.

As discussed other places on this board, the planning for the growth centre (not the ridership projections - which are separate) assume the existence and ridership capacity of both RER and the subway. Probably neither of us wants to dig into that nest of snakes, but it's fact that they were reverse engineered from the assumption of both modes in operation at the hub.

I think BMO's data, a page or two ago, adequately addresses the fallacy that RER will cannibalize the subway or otherwise negate the need for it. They are 2 different markets being addressed.

I'm good with at the same time or after Relief Line opens, though I think it could open shortly before, as long as RER is close behind, with no ill effects. If you're concered the ridership won't be there, you shouldn't ALSO be concerned the DRL has to open first, after all.

 

[Cobra]

How's this: If there is an operating subsidy required for the line and if regional transit funding has not otherwise been addressed, yes, York Region should contribute.

As discussed other places on this board, the planning for the growth centre (not the ridership projections - which are separate) assume the existence and ridership capacity of both RER and the subway. Probably neither of us wants to dig into that nest of snakes, but it's fact that they were reverse engineered from the assumption of both modes in operation at the hub.

I think BMO's data, a page or two ago, adequately addresses the fallacy that RER will cannibalize the subway or otherwise negate the need for it. They are 2 different markets being addressed.

Good reply (although LRT hasn't been evaluated but anyways...)

Until you wrote this:

I'm good with at the same time or after Relief Line opens, though I think it could open shortly before, as long as RER is close behind, with no ill effects. If you're concered the ridership won't be there, you shouldn't ALSO be concerned the DRL has to open first, after all.

All the data out there states that you're wrong on this. Cannot be open before Relief Line Long.

Also the question is not about the ridership being there or not, it's about evaluating the LRT capacity to achieve the same goals at a fraction of the price. For the same price, York could get an extensive network of LRT. That's just my opinion. If a study (that still doesn't exist) claims the ridership is too much for LRT, then so be it.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I think it's clear - for political reasons - there won't be a study at this point. but, as I've said to 44North, I welcome it nonetheless. I have no doubt it would show an LRT would be operating right in the red zone for capacity at best, by the time it opens. I think that would have been true in 2020 and it will be all the moreso by 2030.

That's speculation, not a fact, but I see the cars and I see the buses and I see the condos (both north and south of Steeles) and I see the plans and I see the real estate market - and I see it as a no-brainer.