Jump to content

York Region Transit \ Viva


YRT-Guy
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mike said:

For Route 102 they could do the following TTC runs 102A/B/C from Warden Stn to Centennial/Steeles, YRT runs 102D from Scarborough Town Center to Major Mackenzie.  I would think that this would produce a much more reliable service north of Steeles (as you would lose the 11km one way trip to Warden south of Progress and replace it with 2.5km trip to STC).

I guess that depends on where those people are destined to.

 

If they are going to the subway, then yes, your idea makes sense.

 

But if they are destined for locations on Markham Rd., or that are more easily served by connecting at Markham Rd., then your idea will be quite a bit problematic for those riders.

 

This is the reason why some of those still-existing cross-border services are the way they are - those people aren't going to the subway. The 68B isn't likely to be changing anytime soon. Same goes for the 17C.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To note as well - nothing in the reports mention that YRT (or MiWay) will be taking over operation of TTC-contracted services operating north of Steeles.

The report is actually going to allow for the same arrangement to happen in reverse, in that MiWay and YRT buses will be semi-formally contracted by TTC to operate and pick up passengers south of Steeles. So you will see TTC routes like 50 Burnhamthorpe and 105 Dufferin North eliminated, and MiWay/YRT buses operate all services along the corridor (including it sounds like short turn branches operating solely within the City of Toronto to provide an additional level of service if warranted).

Another example I'm more familiar with would be the Don Mills/Leslie corridor - if the pilot project is expanded, I can easily see TTC cancelling the 25C branch, with YRT route 90/90B buses providing all of the local service along Don Mills Road between Sheppard and Steeles. There may need to be a new YRT 90 branch (90C?) operating only between Sheppard and Steeles, to make up for the lost capacity (since YRT 90 buses currently operate at most every 15 minutes, while 25C buses currently operate every 7-8 minutes during rush hour).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, smallspy said:

I guess that depends on where those people are destined to.

If they are going to the subway, then yes, your idea makes sense.

But if they are destined for locations on Markham Rd., or that are more easily served by connecting at Markham Rd., then your idea will be quite a bit problematic for those riders.

This is the reason why some of those still-existing cross-border services are the way they are - those people aren't going to the subway. 

Markham Rd (and adjoining areas) north of Steeles seems to be largely residential and south of STC it is also largely residential so I can't see why an earlier (faster) connection with the subway wouldn't be useful as people north of Steeles are likely heading either to the subway or to employment area between Steeles and Progress. 

 17C north of Denison passes through an employment area so there are likely people not just from the subway but also from residential area south of Steeles and from other routes transferring to 17C to get to the employment area.

Similar story with 68B large employment area between Steeles and hwy 7 and residential areas south of Steeles and north of hwy 7 that are taking those employees to work and not necessarily all to the subway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mike said:

Markham Rd (and adjoining areas) north of Steeles seems to be largely residential and south of STC it is also largely residential so I can't see why an earlier (faster) connection with the subway wouldn't be useful as people north of Steeles are likely heading either to the subway or to employment area between Steeles and Progress. 

 17C north of Denison passes through an employment area so there are likely people not just from the subway but also from residential area south of Steeles and from other routes transferring to 17C to get to the employment area.

Similar story with 68B large employment area between Steeles and hwy 7 and residential areas south of Steeles and north of hwy 7 that are taking those employees to work and not necessarily all to the subway.

You want to recalibrate your answer? You just described Markham Road and Warden Avenue as being the same in many respects - and they are - but came to completely different conclusions.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, smallspy said:

You want to recalibrate your answer? You just described Markham Road and Warden Avenue as being the same in many respects - and they are - but came to completely different conclusions.

I might not have been very clear...
for 102 -  I see travel pattern for area north of Steeles to be either to businesses between 401 and Steeles or to the subway - which would be helped if subway connection is earlier (STC - that is once Scarborough extension is built).  Until Scarborough extension is built having a branch to STC is of questionable value especially if RT is shut down for good. 

For 68 I see travel pattern as either from subway and south of Steeles to busineses between Steeles and Hwy 7 or from residential north of Hwy 7 to subway or those same businesses.  Whether those riders from subway will benefit from connecting to subway at Don Mills or to STC is harder to answer.

As with many other similar questions - having access to Presto data would certainly make them easier to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Gil said:

I forgot to include the map with cross-border routes from Steve Munro's post:

20220210_serviceplan_crossboundaryroutes-1.jpg?w=1024

I don't know how long it will take to get to Phase 3, but with the Scarborough subway extension up to Sheppard and McCowan, could a YRT-operated 102D MARKHAM ROAD and 129A McCOWAN NORTH run out of the new Sheppard East (or whatever Metrolinx decides to call it) station?  You'd run into the same issue with York U for anyone trying to get to Centennial, but at least there wouldn't be the potential penalty of paying another fare for the last leg of the trip. 

It'd be a bit of a detour for the 68B WARDEN.  Maybe a return of the 268 WARDEN NORTH to Don Mills?  I don't know where the final destination of passengers boarding in Markham are headed, so I'm just spitballing here.  With the duplication of service on the northern stretches of Don Mills and Victoria Park, I wonder with open-door service if the TTC would consider cutting back or reducing service north of Sheppard.

The 160 BATHURST NORTH and 17A BIRCHMOUNT would probably be the last holdouts for TTC-operated routes into York Region given how shallowly they run north of Steeles.

As they did with the route handover in Vaughan after the opening of the subway, YRT kept the TTC's numbers.  Are the passengers so set in their ways that they couldn't use new route numbers to reflect that YRT was operating the route and they were being truncated to the new subway stops instead of Wilson or Downsview?

Interestingly, if on an interim basis YRT did get service down to STC or Centennial College they'd get a transfer point with DRT.

YRT likely opted to keep the TTC numbers as a way of eliminating confusion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mike said:

I might not have been very clear...
for 102 -  I see travel pattern for area north of Steeles to be either to businesses between 401 and Steeles or to the subway - which would be helped if subway connection is earlier (STC - that is once Scarborough extension is built).  Until Scarborough extension is built having a branch to STC is of questionable value especially if RT is shut down for good. 

For 68 I see travel pattern as either from subway and south of Steeles to busineses between Steeles and Hwy 7 or from residential north of Hwy 7 to subway or those same businesses.  Whether those riders from subway will benefit from connecting to subway at Don Mills or to STC is harder to answer.

As with many other similar questions - having access to Presto data would certainly make them easier to answer.

I can help, at least with the 68 (and to a lesser degree the 17).

 

There is a very small proportion of ridership from the business areas north of Steeles going to the subway. I would also endeavour to say that the same goes for the residential areas north of 7 as well. Most people from north of Steeles are connecting to/from another major east-west route - Sheppard and Ellesmere seem to be particularly busy, and Finch sees a lot of transfers as well.

 

There is a much stronger proportion of ridership from about Finch and down to the subway.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gamer Studios said:

YRT likely opted to keep the TTC numbers as a way of eliminating confusion

Yet the colour of the bus and the connection point to the subway both changed.  In the case of the 107, even the route name changed (slightly).  YRT did have alternate numbers in keeping with their numbering scheme if I remember correctly in the lead-up service planning prior to the subway extension opening.

3 hours ago, smallspy said:

I can help, at least with the 68 (and to a lesser degree the 17).

 

There is a very small proportion of ridership from the business areas north of Steeles going to the subway. I would also endeavour to say that the same goes for the residential areas north of 7 as well. Most people from north of Steeles are connecting to/from another major east-west route - Sheppard and Ellesmere seem to be particularly busy, and Finch sees a lot of transfers as well.

 

There is a much stronger proportion of ridership from about Finch and down to the subway.

 

Dan

So routing the 68B and 17A to either Don Mills or Sheppard East would cover most needs, and depending on which station it connected to could also provide a one-seat ride for passengers not headed to the subway but to points along Sheppard.  I don't know that YRT would want to venture as far south as Ellesmere to connect to Scarborough Centre given how far north some of their routes go.  Perhaps on the McCowan or Markham routes, but then again by the time it gets to that the Scarborough subway extension should already be completed with a terminus further north.

One of the biggest things to iron out is fare collection, especially with children (12 and under) who currently ride free on the TTC.  Does YRT adopt that standard or does the TTC begin charging again?  There's going to be a bit of an imbalance if one bus provides a cheaper fare than the other, especially when YRT has the highest fares in the GTA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gil said:

Yet the colour of the bus and the connection point to the subway both changed.  In the case of the 107, even the route name changed (slightly).  YRT did have alternate numbers in keeping with their numbering scheme if I remember correctly in the lead-up service planning prior to the subway extension opening.

So routing the 68B and 17A to either Don Mills or Sheppard East would cover most needs, and depending on which station it connected to could also provide a one-seat ride for passengers not headed to the subway but to points along Sheppard.  I don't know that YRT would want to venture as far south as Ellesmere to connect to Scarborough Centre given how far north some of their routes go.  Perhaps on the McCowan or Markham routes, but then again by the time it gets to that the Scarborough subway extension should already be completed with a terminus further north.

One of the biggest things to iron out is fare collection, especially with children (12 and under) who currently ride free on the TTC.  Does YRT adopt that standard or does the TTC begin charging again?  There's going to be a bit of an imbalance if one bus provides a cheaper fare than the other, especially when YRT has the highest fares in the GTA.

Your 68B proposal was attempted before when Line 4 first opened back in 2002. That route was called 268 and it didn't last too long iirc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Orion V said:

Your 68B proposal was attempted before when Line 4 first opened back in 2002. That route was called 268 and it didn't last too long iirc.

If Smallspy's assessment is correct then having to make the transfer at Don Mills then at Sheppard was perceived to be too onerous than riding down to Warden and transferring at Yonge for those riding downtown.  Was it the TTC or YRT that pulled the plug on the 268 WARDEN NORTH? 

Would running to Sheppard East be any better (possibly if the transfer traffic was headed to Agincourt instead of Don Mills/Fairview)?  The TTC seems set to keep the regional terminal at STC so I don't know exactly what they have planned at Sheppard East. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gil said:

If Smallspy's assessment is correct then having to make the transfer at Don Mills then at Sheppard was perceived to be too onerous than riding down to Warden and transferring at Yonge for those riding downtown.  Was it the TTC or YRT that pulled the plug on the 268 WARDEN NORTH? 

Would running to Sheppard East be any better (possibly if the transfer traffic was headed to Agincourt instead of Don Mills/Fairview)?  The TTC seems set to keep the regional terminal at STC so I don't know exactly what they have planned at Sheppard East. 

Another thing regarding the 91 BAYVIEW, awaiting the North Yonge extension, they can reroute their buses from Finch to Sheppard-Yonge via Bayview and Sheppard re-creating the old 26 BAYVIEW NORTH route. The 11 BAYVIEW cuts back to Sheppard/Bayview.

It won’t be a bad idea if they extended the 99 YONGE bus to York Mills Station to avoid duplication of the 97 YONGE, recreating the old 59 NORTH YONGE bus. 
 

Why not extend the 8 KENNEDY to Scarborough Centre via Kennedy, Progress, William Kitchen (NB only), Triton? People have been transferring from the 43 to the 8 to get to Markham. With the 8 extended, it could be like this until Sheppard East Station opens which will see the 8 rerouted to Sheppard to the station.

  • Confused 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gil said:

So routing the 68B and 17A to either Don Mills or Sheppard East would cover most needs, and depending on which station it connected to could also provide a one-seat ride for passengers not headed to the subway but to points along Sheppard.  I don't know that YRT would want to venture as far south as Ellesmere to connect to Scarborough Centre given how far north some of their routes go.  Perhaps on the McCowan or Markham routes, but then again by the time it gets to that the Scarborough subway extension should already be completed with a terminus further north.

No, it wouldn't - and that's why it only lasted a couple of years after the opening of the Sheppard Line.

 

Most people in the afternoons heading south on the Warden bus are travelling east of Warden, not west. That's away from the subway. I'm going to assume that they are reversing that flow in the mornings, but as they are already standing at the stop once the bus arrives, it's harder to have actual observations.

 

An extended Sheppard subway - or a Sheppard LRT - would benefit them, because they would then have a faster ride. But the current subway system doesn't do anything for them at all.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Kobayashi said:

Another thing regarding the 91 BAYVIEW, awaiting the North Yonge extension, they can reroute their buses from Finch to Sheppard-Yonge via Bayview and Sheppard re-creating the old 26 BAYVIEW NORTH route. The 11 BAYVIEW cuts back to Sheppard/Bayview.

It won’t be a bad idea if they extended the 99 YONGE bus to York Mills Station to avoid duplication of the 97 YONGE, recreating the old 59 NORTH YONGE bus. 
 

Why not extend the 8 KENNEDY to Scarborough Centre via Kennedy, Progress, William Kitchen (NB only), Triton? People have been transferring from the 43 to the 8 to get to Markham. With the 8 extended, it could be like this until Sheppard East Station opens which will see the 8 rerouted to Sheppard to the station.

Why would extending 99 to York Mills be a good idea?  Yes, you might help some people that work in the office buildings on Yonge, but reliability of service would go down as there is quite a bit of traffic on Yonge and you would be adding 8.5 km to the route.  As for recreating the 59 North Yonge aside from transit fans no one would care since the route has been gone since 1977.  I wouldn't be surprised if route 99 was cut back to Steeles when North Yonge extension opens.

For route 11 if people that live between Steeles and Sheppard want to go past Sheppard or vice versa you just gave them an extra transfer.  If people from north of Steeles have a desire to go to Sheppard more than Finch you can extend the 91 there, but don't need to cut back the 11.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Why would extending 99 to York Mills be a good idea?  Yes, you might help some people that work in the office buildings on Yonge, but reliability of service would go down as there is quite a bit of traffic on Yonge and you would be adding 8.5 km to the route.  As for recreating the 59 North Yonge aside from transit fans no one would care since the route has been gone since 1977.  I wouldn't be surprised if route 99 was cut back to Steeles when North Yonge extension opens.

For route 11 if people that live between Steeles and Sheppard want to go past Sheppard or vice versa you just gave them an extra transfer.  If people from north of Steeles have a desire to go to Sheppard more than Finch you can extend the 91 there, but don't need to cut back the 11.  

Yes Yonge has traffic. I've been stuck in traffic on yonge in morning rush when I was on the 953

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2022 at 10:48 AM, Mike said:

Why would extending 99 to York Mills be a good idea?  Yes, you might help some people that work in the office buildings on Yonge, but reliability of service would go down as there is quite a bit of traffic on Yonge and you would be adding 8.5 km to the route.  As for recreating the 59 North Yonge aside from transit fans no one would care since the route has been gone since 1977.  I wouldn't be surprised if route 99 was cut back to Steeles when North Yonge extension opens.

For route 11 if people that live between Steeles and Sheppard want to go past Sheppard or vice versa you just gave them an extra transfer.  If people from north of Steeles have a desire to go to Sheppard more than Finch you can extend the 91 there, but don't need to cut back the 11.  

Overlapping of service isn't primarily efficient but I wonder if it would change once TTC and the connecting agencies (i.e MiWay, GO Transit, DRT, YRT/VIVA) figure out the fare integration issue (likely using PRESTO).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Gamer Studios said:

Overlapping of service isn't primarily efficient but I wonder if it would change once TTC and the connecting agencies (i.e MiWay, GO Transit, DRT, YRT/VIVA) figure out the fare integration issue (likely using PRESTO).

If fare integration is figured out and actual travel patterns are better understood between now and when the Yonge extension opens then we could end up with routes not on anyones radar at the moment.

For example if Bayview riders north of Highway 7 travel predominantly either to the subway or transfer at highway 7, while those between highway 7 and Steeles predominantly go to Finch Station and those between Steeles and Finch transfer at Finch or Sheppard to east-west routes/subway rather than travel by bus south of Sheppard then perhaps the following split could occur:

 

TTC 11 Bayview Station to Sheppard

TTC/YRT or both route from Sheppard Station to Richmond Hill Transit Terminal

YRT 91 From Richmond Hill Transit Terminal north on Bayview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how long they plan on keeping the 300 series New Flyers?

I thought they were going out the door in 2021 as they were going to be 18 years old. However, almost all of the buses have received some body and cosmetic work both on the exterior and interior relatively recently.

There used to be holes all along the body of the bus on the side. The floor looked like it was rotting under the heat vents. It seems they've refreshed these buses with the purpose of extending their life in service a little bit. They installed stainless steel metal plates and new underseat lighting along the floor of these buses. They also repainted the black steps near the back of the bus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mike said:

If fare integration is figured out and actual travel patterns are better understood between now and when the Yonge extension opens then we could end up with routes not on anyones radar at the moment.

For example if Bayview riders north of Highway 7 travel predominantly either to the subway or transfer at highway 7, while those between highway 7 and Steeles predominantly go to Finch Station and those between Steeles and Finch transfer at Finch or Sheppard to east-west routes/subway rather than travel by bus south of Sheppard then perhaps the following split could occur:

 

TTC 11 Bayview Station to Sheppard

TTC/YRT or both route from Sheppard Station to Richmond Hill Transit Terminal

YRT 91 From Richmond Hill Transit Terminal north on Bayview.

91B already exists from RHCT to Oak Ridges

2 hours ago, York Transit said:

Does anyone know how long they plan on keeping the 300 series New Flyers?

I thought they were going out the door in 2021 as they were going to be 18 years old. However, almost all of the buses have received some body and cosmetic work both on the exterior and interior relatively recently.

There used to be holes all along the body of the bus on the side. The floor looked like it was rotting under the heat vents. It seems they've refreshed these buses with the purpose of extending their life in service a little bit. They installed stainless steel metal plates and new underseat lighting along the floor of these buses. They also repainted the black steps near the back of the bus.

They did mention "18 years shelf-life"...probably holding onto them a bit longer until they can order new buses...or figure out the plan to consolidate SW division with BRT division. I heard eventually YRT plans to consolidate Miller as well with BRT...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, York Transit said:

Does anyone know how long they plan on keeping the 300 series New Flyers?

I thought they were going out the door in 2021 as they were going to be 18 years old. However, almost all of the buses have received some body and cosmetic work both on the exterior and interior relatively recently.

There used to be holes all along the body of the bus on the side. The floor looked like it was rotting under the heat vents. It seems they've refreshed these buses with the purpose of extending their life in service a little bit. They installed stainless steel metal plates and new underseat lighting along the floor of these buses. They also repainted the black steps near the back of the bus.

Considering that they are still operating reduced service, Region of York most likely deferred replacing buses if they don't need them immediately with the reduced mileage. With their cost cutting measures to try and not increase the cost of service with lower ridership. 

The AG300 buses (82xx units) were supposed to be replaced last year. It is still on their books since the final batch is what will complete the current contract for Nova buses that were issued years ago. 18 years is a pretty long time to keep a bus running with all the wear and tear along with kilometres racked up over that time period.

A330 buses are slated to be retired next year pending what decisions are made if they are going through more refurbishment to hold them together. With a lot of mileage on them, older buses become more unreliable the longer they operate even with extensive work to keep them together. 

1 hour ago, Gamer Studios said:

They did mention "18 years shelf-life"...probably holding onto them a bit longer until they can order new buses...or figure out the plan to consolidate SW division with BRT division. I heard eventually YRT plans to consolidate Miller as well with BRT...

You are referring to Southeast which is indeed Miller Division. There are plans to merge Miller (Southeast) with BRT Division since Miller's site lacks the amenities that can handle articulated buses. Which is why the 90/90B Leslie is assigned out of that yard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, GTAmissions1 said:

Considering that they are still operating reduced service, Region of York most likely deferred replacing buses if they don't need them immediately with the reduced mileage. With their cost cutting measures to try and not increase the cost of service with lower ridership. 

The AG300 buses (82xx units) were supposed to be replaced last year. It is still on their books since the final batch is what will complete the current contract for Nova buses that were issued years ago. 18 years is a pretty long time to keep a bus running with all the wear and tear along with kilometres racked up over that time period.

A330 buses are slated to be retired next year pending what decisions are made if they are going through more refurbishment to hold them together. With a lot of mileage on them, older buses become more unreliable the longer they operate even with extensive work to keep them together. 

You are referring to Southeast which is indeed Miller Division. There are plans to merge Miller (Southeast) with BRT Division since Miller's site lacks the amenities that can handle articulated buses. Which is why the 90/90B Leslie is assigned out of that yard.

The a330's are still reliable. Honestly I would say that it depends on maintenance on how buses are reliable  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PrimeTio said:

When’s the next order or buses come in? Will they be electric or diesel?

If it's for other divisions then it's diesel. If it's slated for north division then likely electric 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, menath said:

If it's for other divisions then it's diesel. If it's slated for north division then likely electric 

Is their a way I can see when YRT orders buses? The 2021 order was never mentioned anywhere so I’m curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PrimeTio said:

Is their a way I can see when YRT orders buses? The 2021 order was never mentioned anywhere so I’m curious.

I don't know. Fans became aware of the 21xx order when photos of new yrt buses being built surfaced in a facebook group

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, GTAmissions1 said:

Considering that they are still operating reduced service, Region of York most likely deferred replacing buses if they don't need them immediately with the reduced mileage. With their cost cutting measures to try and not increase the cost of service with lower ridership. 

The AG300 buses (82xx units) were supposed to be replaced last year. It is still on their books since the final batch is what will complete the current contract for Nova buses that were issued years ago. 18 years is a pretty long time to keep a bus running with all the wear and tear along with kilometres racked up over that time period.

A330 buses are slated to be retired next year pending what decisions are made if they are going through more refurbishment to hold them together. With a lot of mileage on them, older buses become more unreliable the longer they operate even with extensive work to keep them together. 

You are referring to Southeast which is indeed Miller Division. There are plans to merge Miller (Southeast) with BRT Division since Miller's site lacks the amenities that can handle articulated buses. Which is why the 90/90B Leslie is assigned out of that yard.

No Im not just referring to Southeast...I heard from someone they plan to consolidate Southwest as well...

1 hour ago, PrimeTio said:

Is their a way I can see when YRT orders buses? The 2021 order was never mentioned anywhere so I’m curious.

The most recent 2021 order was for the XE40s (2101-2106) allocated to North Division.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...