Jump to content

York Region Transit \ Viva


Recommended Posts

Looking over the website, looks like they specialize in auctioning vehicles written-off in accidents, so it was likely written off with that sideswipe to the right side.

Nonetheless, wouldn't be surprised to see the 82**s start retiring early next year in line with the 72**s earlier this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, newflyerinvero said:

Is there a tender or an RFP for the replacement for the VIVA AG300's ( or is it AG330's never get them right), eventually given they're getting up there in age?

Fortunately VIVA is using the 40 foots on Orange given there's no Green running right now.

The Van Hool articulated buses are AG300; the 40 foot buses are A330.

YRT awarded multi-year contracts for articulated buses for both conventional and Viva service back in 2018-2019. The conventional order was awarded to New Flyer, while the Viva order was awarded to Nova.

Currently Viva has plenty of buses to spare, since Viva is still operating on a reduced frequency on all lines, plus the continued suspension of Green and Pink service. They could write off the remaining 82xx artics without issue, at least until service needs to ramp back up to pre-pandemic levels sometime next year. It wouldn't surprise me if they do that shortly before their replacements arrive, and I suspect this is why 8203 was retired after getting relatively fixable collision damage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2020 at 10:55 PM, Articulated said:

The Van Hool articulated buses are AG300; the 40 foot buses are A330.

YRT awarded multi-year contracts for articulated buses for both conventional and Viva service back in 2018-2019. The conventional order was awarded to New Flyer, while the Viva order was awarded to Nova.

Currently Viva has plenty of buses to spare, since Viva is still operating on a reduced frequency on all lines, plus the continued suspension of Green and Pink service. They could write off the remaining 82xx artics without issue, at least until service needs to ramp back up to pre-pandemic levels sometime next year. It wouldn't surprise me if they do that shortly before their replacements arrive, and I suspect this is why 8203 was retired after getting relatively fixable collision damage.

Sourcing parts for those vanhool buses had been a issue as well...its why they salvage usable parts from other buses. For example usable parts from 5224-5225 were used on the other buses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gamer Studios said:

Sourcing parts for those vanhool buses had been a issue as well...its why they salvage usable parts from other buses. For example usable parts from 5224-5225 were used on the other buses.

Yes, getting parts has been an issue with the Van Hool buses since day 1. This is why they switched to Nova for Viva buses as soon as the guaranteed pricing contract expired.

8203 looked relatively intact, so I don't think parts was necessarily an issue in accelerating its retirement. Otherwise they could have picked it clean with body panels to use for the other 10 buses. (Not sure what the level of interchangability is between the A330 and AG300, but there are still 60 A330s in service that aren't going anywhere yet)

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Articulated said:

Yes, getting parts has been an issue with the Van Hool buses since day 1. This is why they switched to Nova for Viva buses as soon as the guaranteed pricing contract expired.

8203 looked relatively intact, so I don't think parts was necessarily an issue in accelerating its retirement. Otherwise they could have picked it clean with body panels to use for the other 10 buses. (Not sure what the level of interchangability is between the A330 and AG300, but there are still 60 A330s in service that aren't going anywhere yet)

I doubt it was feasible to repair it since its going to be retired anyways sooner or later in 1 or 2 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

York Region Transit conducting a fare review which one item they are looking at is fare integration with TTC. Survey available until February 18th.

Having to pay two full fares (TTC and York Region Transit) seeing the complaints/issues. Noting that select TTC routes go beyond Steeles Avenue Presto deducting the YRT fare. This is along with the high cost with York Region Transit charging $4.25 cash fare or $3.88 with a Presto card. Then TTC fare at $3.25 cash or $3.20 with Presto.

This is along with the adjustment that very few routes in York Region such as Blue, Purple (if you include both branches) and 20 Jane running frequent enough to be workable 7 days/week including weekends and holidays. Peak period is a different story since more routes are on the frequent service network along with the express routes (300 series) operating. 

Will be interesting how the fare integration will be approached. Especially with the revenue complications and the cost of operating services to accommodate. 

https://www.yrt.ca/en/about-us/ttc-and-yrt-fare-policy-review.aspx?fbclid=IwAR3XAXyqT5EwZ26LqGxXs6il1F7rmi5-P7sm__5i8qx7zLnt-DF2c7c7WY8

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, GTAmissions1 said:

York Region Transit conducting a fare review which one item they are looking at is fare integration with TTC. Survey available until February 18th.

Having to pay two full fares (TTC and York Region Transit) seeing the complaints/issues. Noting that select TTC routes go beyond Steeles Avenue Presto deducting the YRT fare. This is along with the high cost with York Region Transit charging $4.25 cash fare or $3.88 with a Presto card. Then TTC fare at $3.25 cash or $3.20 with Presto.

This is along with the adjustment that very few routes in York Region such as Blue, Purple (if you include both branches) and 20 Jane running frequent enough to be workable 7 days/week including weekends and holidays. Peak period is a different story since more routes are on the frequent service network along with the express routes (300 series) operating. 

Will be interesting how the fare integration will be approached. Especially with the revenue complications and the cost of operating services to accommodate. 

https://www.yrt.ca/en/about-us/ttc-and-yrt-fare-policy-review.aspx?fbclid=IwAR3XAXyqT5EwZ26LqGxXs6il1F7rmi5-P7sm__5i8qx7zLnt-DF2c7c7WY8

Yeah it's a bit confusing for people to pay with Presto Card and cash fare depends much people are using the Presto so then when using cash, also depends some routes that cross the border between Toronto and York region may explain to it to depending how much ridership is based on that route.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering something to ask. When YRT planned to ordered 24 D40LFs (#701-#724) in 2007, Windsor had planned to get six buses but withdrew and their buses became #725-#730, but “Windsor rejects”. Why did Transit Windsor dropped out of the consortium? I can’t find a document somewhere about YRT buying 24 buses back in 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Was just reading about how utility works is being undertaken on Yonge Street between Davis Drive to Green Lane along with the Ontario government pumping $16 million dollars to help maintain current service levels. 

https://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/10346019-moving-york-region-forward-ontario-pumps-16m-into-future-of-york-regional-transit/

Road expansion for the stretch expected to be completed in 2025. Link is york.ca/yongestreet

The approach is similar to Highway 7 in Markham between Town Centre to Scibberas with Viva Purple via Highway 7 routing. With curbside stops and an HOV lane which there have been plans to expand Blue from Newmarket bus terminal to East Gwillimbury Go Station for years via a rapidway. Cost when the assessment was done would include 3 stations (London, Green Lane and East Gwillimbury Go Station) at around $184 million dollars.

Since there isn't any funding provision to build it the same time as the road expansion, the HOV lanes are temporary until such funding is provided to build the rapidway infrastructure. Blue terminates at Newmarket bus terminal where as the 98 or 98/99 during late evenings continues beyond along Yonge Street to Green Lane at all time periods. 

I think it is long overdue since there is a lot of retail north of Davis Drive. At the same time, have to make sure the demand is really there before committing to expanding service. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/22/2020 at 10:55 PM, Articulated said:

The Van Hool articulated buses are AG300; the 40 foot buses are A330.

YRT awarded multi-year contracts for articulated buses for both conventional and Viva service back in 2018-2019. The conventional order was awarded to New Flyer, while the Viva order was awarded to Nova.

Currently Viva has plenty of buses to spare, since Viva is still operating on a reduced frequency on all lines, plus the continued suspension of Green and Pink service. They could write off the remaining 82xx artics without issue, at least until service needs to ramp back up to pre-pandemic levels sometime next year. It wouldn't surprise me if they do that shortly before their replacements arrive, and I suspect this is why 8203 was retired after getting relatively fixable collision damage.

With the multi-year deal for XD60s,  would be all expansion or replacements? 

Seems like other than the 20 and the 90, what other routes could benefit from articulated buses in service? 

Plus, any other information regarding on any additional electric bus purchases, based in other divisions, pending if those other divisions would have the infrastructure in place. 

Any discussions of hybrids at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Metrolinx does go ahead with building the Yonge North Subway Extension without the Clark and Royal Orchard stations on opening day I presume they will still keep running VIVA BLUE (and PINK) running to at least Steeles.  I don't know how many passengers are going to a destination at Finch and not the subway.  Would truncating YRT service to Steeles run into the last mile problem of an additional fare to get to Finch?

They've tweaked the design for the bus terminal at Steeles, presuming YRT would vacate Finch.  I don't know if GO would also consider the move (or if they were included in the revision assuming they were) or if they'll stay at Finch or consider some other options.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2021 at 7:56 AM, Kelvin3157 said:

So it looks like TOK will be taking over Southwest now, Transdev lost the contract bid

TOK already runs the north and rapid transit divisions, so I guess it is easier to have one contractor manage services than trying to get multiple for different areas. Assuming they are meeting the qualifications to retain the contract. 

22 hours ago, newflyerinvero said:

With the multi-year deal for XD60s,  would be all expansion or replacements? 

Seems like other than the 20 and the 90, what other routes could benefit from articulated buses in service? 

Plus, any other information regarding on any additional electric bus purchases, based in other divisions, pending if those other divisions would have the infrastructure in place. 

Any discussions of hybrids at all?

The Route 20 and 90 are running articulated buses to build up the ridership/demand since they were planned to be converted to rapid transit routes. Viva Silver along Jane and Green along Leslie. No date currently planned due to COVID-19 on when rapid transit will start on those corridors. The original plan was 2022 for Silver and 2023 for Green restructuring.

There was a list somewhere where the articulated buses could be utilized (forgot which document, but I think one of the service improvement plans). Bathurst, Bayview and the express routes (300 series) were considered when Leslie and Jane corridors are converted to rapid transit service and the articulated buses reallocated elsewhere on the conventional route network. 

13 hours ago, Gil said:

If Metrolinx does go ahead with building the Yonge North Subway Extension without the Clark and Royal Orchard stations on opening day I presume they will still keep running VIVA BLUE (and PINK) running to at least Steeles.  I don't know how many passengers are going to a destination at Finch and not the subway.  Would truncating YRT service to Steeles run into the last mile problem of an additional fare to get to Finch?

They've tweaked the design for the bus terminal at Steeles, presuming YRT would vacate Finch.  I don't know if GO would also consider the move (or if they were included in the revision assuming they were) or if they'll stay at Finch or consider some other options.

Drawing from Viva Purple which ran to York University from when the subway extension opened in December 2017 until September 2018, I would imagine they would run buses to Finch on a transition basis until they truncate service to the subway station (Richmond Hill Centre). Most likely they will run local service to cover local stops between Richmond Hill Centre to Steeles between the gaps versus extending rapid transit service.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Today (April 6th) marks one year since select conventional routes along with rapid transit routes Blue A, Green and Pink were suspended due to low ridership. This is along with frequency reductions to better allocate existing resources.

Purple and Orange operated with articulated buses instead of regular buses to assist with physical distancing between passengers. Articulated buses providing capacity of 15 people seated versus 10 on a regular bus (based on 25 percent seating capacity due to COVID-19). Purple retained operating articulated buses permanently 7 days/week where as Orange converted back to regular bus operation in June once the barriers were installed.

Regarding Blue A and Pink, I think they will be restored once COVID-19 slows down. Both servicing different needs that aren't easy to replicate. Blue A to bypass Richmond Hill Centre if not needing to transfer to another bus. Pink providing continuous service to Enterprise to Unionville Go Station during peak periods. 

Green on the other hand, not sure since it has been in the works for years that it would be restructured to operate along Leslie between Major MacKenzie to Don Mills. From Leslie/Major MacKenzie to Harding. To better utilize resources where the 90 Leslie operates with articulated buses to build and maintain the current ridership demand. 

The challenge of restoring service currently is the risk of reducing it back or suspending it again should COVID-19 cases flare up. Never forget the beginning of COVID-19 that ridership dropped between 80 to 90 percent depending on the transit agency. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2021 at 9:28 PM, Gil said:

If Metrolinx does go ahead with building the Yonge North Subway Extension without the Clark and Royal Orchard stations on opening day I presume they will still keep running VIVA BLUE (and PINK) running to at least Steeles.  I don't know how many passengers are going to a destination at Finch and not the subway.  Would truncating YRT service to Steeles run into the last mile problem of an additional fare to get to Finch?

They've tweaked the design for the bus terminal at Steeles, presuming YRT would vacate Finch.  I don't know if GO would also consider the move (or if they were included in the revision assuming they were) or if they'll stay at Finch or consider some other options.

I think the main issue is that a terminal for YRT/GO already exists at Finch and it can't really be redeveloped into anything other than a parking lot because it is below power lines.  I would expect the following restructuring of routes

TTC 53/60 to Steeles Station, 42/125 stay at Finch if no station or looping facility is built at Cummer.  97 can maintain current routing but through Steeles station on its way South.  98 can be extended on both ends to go to Steeles Station.  7 could be potentially extended to terminate at Steeles Station.

YRT - given the terminal at Finch I would not expect a new facility for YRT to be constructed at Steeles.  Routes 2/5/23/77/88/91/98/99 can continue going to Finch Terminal.  300 express routes, 760 and VIVA blue cut back to Richmond Hill Terminal.   If looping facilities are built at Clark or Royal Orchard, I could see 2/5/77 be routed there instead of Finch, with 23/88/91/98/99 continuing to Finch.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike said:

I think the main issue is that a terminal for YRT/GO already exists at Finch and it can't really be redeveloped into anything other than a parking lot because it is below power lines.  I would expect the following restructuring of routes

TTC 53/60 to Steeles Station, 42/125 stay at Finch if no station or looping facility is built at Cummer.  97 can maintain current routing but through Steeles station on its way South.  98 can be extended on both ends to go to Steeles Station.  7 could be potentially extended to terminate at Steeles Station.

YRT - given the terminal at Finch I would not expect a new facility for YRT to be constructed at Steeles.  Routes 2/5/23/77/88/91/98/99 can continue going to Finch Terminal.  300 express routes, 760 and VIVA blue cut back to Richmond Hill Terminal.   If looping facilities are built at Clark or Royal Orchard, I could see 2/5/77 be routed there instead of Finch, with 23/88/91/98/99 continuing to Finch.

The intention with the original design for the Steeles terminal is that it would serve both YRT and TTC buses. TTC really only needs 6 platforms at Steeles (53, 60, 98, 953, 960, unloading), but the original plans had somewhere closer to 15 platforms.

It's 2km from Steeles to Finch - that's a long way to be duplicating service. That stretch of Yonge Street is also pretty notorious for congestion, and the left turn from Yonge to Steeles can hold buses up for 5+ minutes easily. There's a lot of operational money that can be saved from not running all those buses down and up Yonge Street.

The facilities currently at Finch are not exactly much to write home about either - it's mostly an open air terminal, with just the small building where Gateway is located. Pretty easy to demolish the existing curbs, regrade and turn it into more commuter parking. GO may still have some use of the terminal for its buses coming from the south (there's very little offices located north of Bishop Avenue), but YRT will not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Articulated said:

The intention with the original design for the Steeles terminal is that it would serve both YRT and TTC buses. TTC really only needs 6 platforms at Steeles (53, 60, 98, 953, 960, unloading), but the original plans had somewhere closer to 15 platforms.

It's 2km from Steeles to Finch - that's a long way to be duplicating service. That stretch of Yonge Street is also pretty notorious for congestion, and the left turn from Yonge to Steeles can hold buses up for 5+ minutes easily. There's a lot of operational money that can be saved from not running all those buses down and up Yonge Street.

The facilities currently at Finch are not exactly much to write home about either - it's mostly an open air terminal, with just the small building where Gateway is located. Pretty easy to demolish the existing curbs, regrade and turn it into more commuter parking. GO may still have some use of the terminal for its buses coming from the south (there's very little offices located north of Bishop Avenue), but YRT will not.

Not sure where you would put two bus terminals at Steeles - maybe underground.  Although that would get quite expensive...

As far as more parking at Finch instead of current terminal, it would not be needed if there would be new commuter parking lots for stations at the 407.   I would think that the existing parking lots  would empty out quite a bit once there are subway stations and a parking lot at the 407.

Alternate plan:

2 extended via Yonge to Richmond Hill terminal or via Clark to Promenade mall. 5/77 extended to Richmond Hill terminal. 91 shortened via High Tech Road to Richmond Hill terminal and 98/99 shortened to Rh terminal as well. To compensate for shortened 91 we organize a circular route from Richmond Hill terminal via High Tech Road, Bayview, Steeles and Yonge to Richmond Hill terminal.  23/88 are added to the Steeles Station terminal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mike said:

Not sure where you would put two bus terminals at Steeles - maybe underground.  Although that would get quite expensive...

Of all the plans thrown about for this extension, at least the 2 most recent ones called for a large bus terminal underground. One version was a cruciform shape right under the intersection of Yonge and Steeles, and the most recent one that I can recall was a long, east-west alignment that featured ramps in the middle of Steeles east and west of Yonge for access.

 

So yeah, an underground terminal here definitely seems to be in play.

 

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, smallspy said:

Of all the plans thrown about for this extension, at least the 2 most recent ones called for a large bus terminal underground. One version was a cruciform shape right under the intersection of Yonge and Steeles, and the most recent one that I can recall was a long, east-west alignment that featured ramps in the middle of Steeles east and west of Yonge for access.

Ramps east and west on Steeles would make it hard for YRT buses to access it off Yonge, but 23/88/91 could get in there.  TTC 97 might need rerouting as well if they want it to access the station. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike said:

Ramps east and west on Steeles would make it hard for YRT buses to access it off Yonge, but 23/88/91 could get in there.  TTC 97 might need rerouting as well if they want it to access the station. 

In the 2009 Environmental Project Report the proposal was to have an underground 25 bay terminal with portals on Steeles east and west of Yonge as well as one on Yonge St north of Steeles (see page 100). However, in the 2012 Conceptual Design Report, the terminal was redesigned to only have 16 bays. This was justified mainly by proposing the majority of the YRT routes to terminate at Clark Station instead (see page 58 for Steeles, 84 for Clark). 11 of the 16 bays would be used for TTC (7, 11, 60, 53, 97, 98) with the remaining 5 going to YRT (88, 91, 99).

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, smallspy said:

Of all the plans thrown about for this extension, at least the 2 most recent ones called for a large bus terminal underground. One version was a cruciform shape right under the intersection of Yonge and Steeles, and the most recent one that I can recall was a long, east-west alignment that featured ramps in the middle of Steeles east and west of Yonge for access.

 

So yeah, an underground terminal here definitely seems to be in play.

 

Dan

It seems Metrolinx is a bit more forthcoming to Steve Munro as he reported in correspondence with them:

How Did Metrolinx Save So Much?

I asked Metrolinx how there could be such a large-scale change in the cost estimate from $9 billion down to $5.6 billion. They replied:

One of the primary reasons staff were able to reduce costs was by limiting the amount of excavation required for tunnels and stations. This is achieved by taking the northern segment of the alignment east of Yonge Street to meet the CN rail corridor, allowing the tracks to rise to the surface and run at grade, instead of underground.

The previous proposal also called for an underground train storage facility near the end of the extension, along with a bus terminal at Steeles station that was planned be built below the ground. Our design and planning teams determined that placing these facilities at ground level will significantly reduce costs while maintaining important benefits of the project.

Placing the train storage facility at surface level brings the proposal in line with the TTC’s five subway train maintenance and storage facilities, which are also above ground. This approach is common for transit support facilities all over the world. Cities like Vancouver, Chicago, and New York all have ground level train storage facilities that successfully integrate into residential areas while meeting the needs of their transit networks.

Source: Email from Scott Money, Metrolinx Media Relations, March 19, 2021

Based on the Metrolinx maps it appears they're considering a surface terminal at the southwest corner of Yonge and Steeles in Centrepoint Mall's parking lot.  The alternative on the York Region side of the street would likely require cobbling together a few properties on the northwest corner or running into residential opposition on the northeast corner adjacent to the Esso gas station.  Centrepoint offers the largest single owner tract of land for which to build a surface terminal at Steeles.

I suppose a signalized intersection at Nipigon with and entrance into the terminal (possibly along with a realigned entrance into Centrepoint depending on how/if/when they want to redevelop the mall) along with another signalized terminal entrance off of Steeles.  That still doesn't really address the general traffic at the intersection that isn't siphoned off by the subway line.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gil said:

IBased on the Metrolinx maps it appears they're considering a surface terminal at the southwest corner of Yonge and Steeles in Centrepoint Mall's parking lot.  The alternative on the York Region side of the street would likely require cobbling together a few properties on the northwest corner or running into residential opposition on the northeast corner adjacent to the Esso gas station.  Centrepoint offers the largest single owner tract of land for which to build a surface terminal at Steeles.

I suppose a signalized intersection at Nipigon with and entrance into the terminal (possibly along with a realigned entrance into Centrepoint depending on how/if/when they want to redevelop the mall) along with another signalized terminal entrance off of Steeles.  That still doesn't really address the general traffic at the intersection that isn't siphoned off by the subway line.

Since all of TTC bus routes (except for 97) at Steeles Station are east-west an entrance at Nipigon isn't very useful. However, changing the entrance between the Bay and 2001 AV to a signalized transit entrance would work.  I haven't heard of any proposals to redevelop Centerpoint mall only the strip malls along Steeles on the north side west of Yonge (there the plans are for huge redevelopment that certainly doesn't involve a bus terminal.

If the Esso Station is torn down on the north east corner, it could provide the room for the YRT terminal. Two new traffic lights would need to be added - one just north of Steeles and one just east of Yonge.  These new traffic lights certainly wouldn't help with moving traffic along in the area.  From that point of view an underground terminal  would be better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...