News   Nov 04, 2024
UrbanToronto Launches New Map Experience – Explore New Features Today!
 401     4 
News   Nov 04, 2024
13 Storeys Proposed on The Queensway East of Kipling
 548     0 
News   Nov 04, 2024
News Roundup for November 4, 2024
 484     0 

York Region Transit: Viva service thread

44 North said:
By all means argue about the political need for the extension. But what you're saying here about Langstaffville, again, doesn't make sense. You're talking about a single inline station, of a peripheral extension, in an outer suburb. .... In other words a system with the capacity would not lead to "a lowering of the densities and population/job targets".
Click to expand...

Argh! Look, I know what I'm talking about and I've explained it as best I can to him and to you. If you don't get it or disagree with my "analysis," I don't know what to tell you. I've told you that you can personally phone up Markham planning and ask someone "does removing a subway mean lower densities/population in LG?" and post their quote here to discredit me. I'd have to offer the quite the mea culpa to you after your prolonged assertions I'm wrong, wouldn't I? Wouldn't you enjoy such a grovelling?

Until then, I stand by my description of how the planning was done and how the subway is intrinsic to the development and, in answer to the original question, why THIS growth centre needs it while other growth centres don't. I say again:
PROVE
ME
WRONG

You know you want to!

And it's 2 stations serving the UGC (getting people in the east half to RHC is why Calthorpe suggested the PODS you so love mentioning - PODS! PODS! PODS! ); Richmond Hill Centre and Langstaff/Longbridge.

And Highway 7, the very very south end of Richmond Hill, is not remotely an "outer suburb," in 2017. Not in terms of density, not in terms of land use, not in terms of the designations in Places to Grow, nor the relevant Official Plans and Secondary Plans, nor in terms of the Inner/Outer definitions in the Growth Plan.

So, those are two factual errors. I've offered my honest answer and readers may take that into account in judging whether my answer/analysis is accurate.

EDIT: TO ADD "EVIDENCE"

*Toronto Star interview with Peter Calthorpe that talks about density in UGC being 5x higher than provincial minimums and why this UGC needs infrastructure others don't.
*Metrolinx report that talks about the "back-casting" approach I described.
*One of many reports that talk about how "Critical" the subway is and why. Here's another.

And here is one I apparently have to post every few months. See if you can see the difference between what 44North says...
"a system with the capacity would not lead to "a lowering of the densities and population/job targets"

And what York Region says on p.99 of this report on the Secondary Plan:
  • Proposed phasing plan protects for the longer term buildout of the plan at densities appropriate for a unique centre serviced by a subway, provincial transitway, Viva, GO and Highway 407
  • If any of these key infrastructure components are removed, the plan will need to be comprehensively reviewed and the necessary adjustments made by amendment
You tell me what the plain English interpretation of this is.

44North may try to engage in pointless semantics about other hypothetical modes that could match subway capacity. A big enough chain of Unicorns would do it too. You plan based on assumptions, not hypotheticals and there is no document anywhere that suggests an alternative and if there was, it would be a different "key infrastructure component" requiring a comprehensive review, like I said.

(Hypothetically, if there was a "new" mode that had higher capacity than a subway, there would still be a comprehensive review and it could lead to an INCREASE in density but what's key is understanding that changing the mode from a subway will lead to the review and adjustments.)

people are probably bored of this "debate." I hope this clarifies there actually isn't one.
 
Last edited:
ShonTron said:
The parking lot was about half full, and I took the first train up that arrived there (the 16:30 from Union). It's not unused, and it's convenient, I'm sure for some northern York Region commuters, being right off the 404. There were about 10 cars in the Kiss and Ride.

Though I think either Gormley or Bloomington should have been built, partially because GO really could have used the new yard to reduce deadheads, but maybe not both stations. Bloomington looks like a palace, which won't support any provincial land use goals. It's on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Click to expand...
Leo_Chan said:
Do you know if the parking spaces get mostly used? How many people did you see use the kiss and ride?
Click to expand...

To be fair, that place is kind of rural, but it encapsulates the point. Even at Gormley, not everyone is going to their cars. Bus service, especially in Canada, needs to be better than this.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
Then there's something wrong with they was their system works. They have higher fares than the TTC, and for less service.
Click to expand...

Because they have garbage ridership, and they always will. You could have TTC-like service in York Region and, aside from a few routes, most buses would be empty.

Everyone in this thread needs to understand that most people in York Region have zero interest in public transit, and the few that want to take public transit only do it so they can get to the subway without dealing with parking at Finch. York Region residents are paying higher house prices so they can live in a place where everything is a short, traffic-free drive from their home. The only parts of York Region where people rely on transit are along Steeles, Highway 7, Yonge and Centre Street in Thornhill. Everywhere else, YRT exists as either a commuters' service or a bare-basics option for a handful of people who, usually temporarily, need to take transit.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
Then there's something wrong with they was their system works. They have higher fares than the TTC, and for less service.
Click to expand...

That's pretty simplistic.
"Must be something wrong with the TTC since New York City has lower fares and way more service (and fare cards for over a decade!)"

We just have to be fair in our comparisons. The transit service is a function of the built form and governance which is a function of the history and geography. There are many obvious historical and systemic reasons why even outlying areas of Toronto have more service, the most obvious being how Metro was created to ensure the suburbs were linked to the urban centre.

I differ with amnesiajune in saying they'll always have "garbage ridership." I wonder what kind of ridership someone in 1970 would have projected for Yonge between Steeles and Sheppard. Garbage, I'm guessing. Things change - and the built form is obviously changing. But it'll take a long time.

It's plateauing now but YRT's ridership spiked hugely in its first decade. We'll see what happens over the next few years with the subway (s) and intensification in Viva zones. Yeah, Georgina's never going to be downtown Toronto, and maybe never even Etobicoke but a reasonable projection is that YRT will be a very different service, and serve a very different population, in the next 20-30 years.

I'm not resigned to this notion of "Hey, it was built as an auto-oriented suburb so just accept transit service ain't gonna fly."

We haven't seen the kind of paradigm shift in urban development we're seeing now since the post-WWII era so I wouldn't make any projections that are too out there or generalize too much about what "most people" want or feel. "Most people" in Markham are pretty different from the "Most People" who were there in the 1980s, to state the obvious.
 
amnesiajune said:
Because they have garbage ridership, and they always will. You could have TTC-like service in York Region and, aside from a few routes, most buses would be empty.

Everyone in this thread needs to understand that most people in York Region have zero interest in public transit, and the few that want to take public transit only do it so they can get to the subway without dealing with parking at Finch. York Region residents are paying higher house prices so they can live in a place where everything is a short, traffic-free drive from their home. The only parts of York Region where people rely on transit are along Steeles, Highway 7, Yonge and Centre Street in Thornhill. Everywhere else, YRT exists as either a commuters' service or a bare-basics option for a handful of people who, usually temporarily, need to take transit.
Click to expand...
But the same thing applies to other suburbs. It's not asking too much to up the local transit, especially if the plan is to not have most people arrriving to the subway by car.
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
That's pretty simplistic.
"Must be something wrong with the TTC since New York City has lower fares and way more service (and fare cards for over a decade!)"

We just have to be fair in our comparisons. The transit service is a function of the built form and governance which is a function of the history and geography. There are many obvious historical and systemic reasons why even outlying areas of Toronto have more service, the most obvious being how Metro was created to ensure the suburbs were linked to the urban centre.

I differ with amnesiajune in saying they'll always have "garbage ridership." I wonder what kind of ridership someone in 1970 would have projected for Yonge between Steeles and Sheppard. Garbage, I'm guessing. Things change - and the built form is obviously changing. But it'll take a long time.

It's plateauing now but YRT's ridership spiked hugely in its first decade. We'll see what happens over the next few years with the subway (s) and intensification in Viva zones. Yeah, Georgina's never going to be downtown Toronto, and maybe never even Etobicoke but a reasonable projection is that YRT will be a very different service, and serve a very different population, in the next 20-30 years.

I'm not resigned to this notion of "Hey, it was built as an auto-oriented suburb so just accept transit service ain't gonna fly."

We haven't seen the kind of paradigm shift in urban development we're seeing now since the post-WWII era so I wouldn't make any projections that are too out there or generalize too much about what "most people" want or feel. "Most people" in Markham are pretty different from the "Most People" who were there in the 1980s, to state the obvious.
Click to expand...
That's the thing: It's growing, and if you don't live close to Viva they you might be stranded. It's right things are different now, so things have to change with the times. The over reliance on Viva is a problem imo.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
That's the thing: It's growing, and if you don't live close to Viva they you might be stranded.
Click to expand...

Again, this is York Region - if you don't want to be stranded by relying on transit, go live somewhere close to Viva. Or live somewhere in Toronto. Unlike Oakville, Mississauga, Brampton and Durham, it's more expensive to buy a home in York Region than in Toronto. People pay more to be in a car-friendly suburb than to be in a transit-friendly area. And rental housing is practically inexistant outside of those corridors where YRT provides pretty good service, at least by 905 standards - Yonge, Highway 7, Bayview, Steeles, Bathurst.
 
amnesiajune said:
more expensive to buy a home in York Region than in Toronto
Click to expand...

No it's not. It's far, far more expensive in Toronto--it's not even close! The further out you go, the less you pay, in general. People live out in York Region because they want to be close enough to the city to work downtown or to visit the city for events/recreation, but can't afford comparably sized property downtown.
 
amnesiajune said:
Again, this is York Region - if you don't want to be stranded by relying on transit, go live somewhere close to Viva. Or live somewhere in Toronto. Unlike Oakville, Mississauga, Brampton and Durham, it's more expensive to buy a home in York Region than in Toronto. People pay more to be in a car-friendly suburb than to be in a transit-friendly area. And rental housing is practically inexistant outside of those corridors where YRT provides pretty good service, at least by 905 standards - Yonge, Highway 7, Bayview, Steeles, Bathurst.
Click to expand...
Oakville is more expensive then any of those areas. These excuses are weak imo. This is like when I used to say live in Toronto if you want the subway. Under places to grow, they have to densify and not just bring the subway and have the parking lot.
Megaton327 said:
No it's not. It's far, far more expensive in Toronto--it's not even close! The further out you go, the less you pay, in general. People live out in York Region because they want to be close enough to the city to work downtown or to visit the city for events/recreation, but can't afford comparably sized property downtown.
Click to expand...
This is true. And Newmarket, Holland Landing, etc are not that expensive compared to down south.
 
amnesiajune said:
Or live somewhere in Toronto. Unlike Oakville, Mississauga, Brampton and Durham, it's more expensive to buy a home in York Region than in Toronto.
Click to expand...

Megaton327 said:
No it's not. It's far, far more expensive in Toronto--it's not even close! The further out you go, the less you pay, in general. People live out in York Region because they want to be close enough to the city to work downtown or to visit the city for events/recreation, but can't afford comparably sized property downtown.
Click to expand...

This thread is about to go down a hole of uneven comparisons. Someone will produce stats that shows the average home price in York region is near/over the average in Toronto to justify that statement then others will introduce the concept of housing stock age and size and type.....and it's all meaningless (the only new knoweldge seems to be the presentation of Oakville as an affordable place to live ;) ).
 
Omg, people. This is easy research.I'm gonna be that guy.
Average home price last month, according to TREB :

Toronto - $944k
York Region - $1.2m

End of story. Megaton is wrong.
Last month, Georgina was the only YR municipality with cheaper real estate than Toronto.

You can have opinions about where you think it's more expensive, but objective data exists nonetheless.

Other munis:
RH - $1.4m
Vaughan - $1.25m
Oakville - $1.24m

So, partly wrong there too. Yeah, there's median housing prices too and variations in stock and higher property tax rates on 905 etc. We can quibble but clearly the assertion nowhere is "even close" to Toronto is absurd.

Let's just agree it's expensive everywhere now and even more so closer to transit and highways.

Some people want to live in suburbs and some don't. Some choose where to live and some people go out until they can afford to. And so on. Blanket statements about "most people" don't accomplish much.
 
Last edited:
I think the main takeaway is don't make blanket comments or assumptions.

There are people who pay a lot to live in Richmond Hill who don't care the transit sucks. And there are people in Newmarket who wish the transit was better,even though they're in Newmarket

There are lots of factors that go into choosing a house and, as a general rule, most people don't take transportation costs into account.

But the market has also been so crazy lately that people grab what they can get. Either way, I find a statement like this very simplistic and even patronizing:

Megaton327 said:
People live out in York Region because they want to be close enough to the city to work downtown or to visit the city for events/recreation, but can't afford comparably sized property downtown.
Click to expand...

Shockingly, some people like living in Vaughan or Aurora. Some people don't care about downtown or work downtown or go to the opera downtown. There are 1.3M people in YR and I bet this statement isn't true for a substantial percentage. it's a personal projection, not a fact.

I think YR is sincere about trying to foster a "transit culture" but you have to pick your battles, geographically, and not undermine local service to make the key areas happen and it's several decades of work they're trying to undo.
 
Last edited:
Maybe homes cost more in York Region because they're much bigger? I think cost per square foot would be a better metric than just average home price.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top