[kEiThZ]

The subway system is not likely to expand at all into the 905, apart from the Yonge and Spadina extensions.

IMHO, expansion into Mississauga is quite likely the moment Hazel keels over and they get a more transit friendly mayor. Further construction in York region is also possible ie. loop along Hwy 7 or further northward extensions.

It will be best for every transit system in the entire Metrolinx zone to have a single fare system, either by distance or by time. The TTC could be operationally split up into subway and local bus/streetcar/LRT divisions, but ultimately it would still be part of the big Metrolinx "family" of transit services and the brand would only exist for customer convenience.

This would be quite similar to how London Underground operates under the Transport for London (TfL) umbrella. This has always been my preferred solution for Toronto.

And my favourite side benefit would be the breaking up of the union so that the subway and bus services don't go on strike at the same time.

 

[Disparishun]

As we discuss how best to facilitate and fund the construction of subways into York Region, I thought it might be alright to revive this thread and ask if the TTC should be broken up...ie separate the subway from the LRT and bus services, thereby, focusing the subway system on developing in a more regional as opposed to a Toronto-centric fashion.

It is true that the subway may cross into more than one municipality (gasp!) whereas it is easy to make sure that buses never cross municipalities. If mode-separated agencies were running, then you'd probably want another non-operating agency to act as a planner, regulator, or coordinator.

But is it really desireable to decide that, while the subway may cross more than one municipality, buses shouldn't? What about cross-border neighbourhoods and arteries?

In other words, what was done during most of the TTC's history, when it was a multi-municipality agency? Did the TTC simply report to Metro Toronto, and leave it to Metro Toronto to work things out with the various municipalities? I honestly have no idea -- anyone?

 

[urbanfan89]

I heard there was an easy solution for those who don't want the subway to cross the sacred 416/905 boundary: the Ontario Legislature votes to transfer the parcel of land under Kipling Subway station from Toronto to Mississauga, and to rewire the station phones to the 905 area code. Moving Mississauga to the subway will cost $500, while moving the subway to Mississauga will cost many billions.

Similarly the subway can be extended to Richmond Hill as planned, and then the stations north of Steeles can be transferred to the jurisdiction of the City of Toronto by a vote at Queen's Park. That way the 416 is kept in the subway.

 

[RedRocket191]

In other words, what was done during most of the TTC's history, when it was a multi-municipality agency? Did the TTC simply report to Metro Toronto, and leave it to Metro Toronto to work things out with the various municipalities? I honestly have no idea -- anyone?

During most of the TTC's history they did the same thing - when you crossed into Toronto (then the old city of Toronto) you had to pay a second fare and a third fare when you crossed the border between Metro and what is now the 905. It remained this way until the early 1970s when a tipping point occured - populations shifts resulted in more people living in the boroughs than in Toronto so they got more seats on metro council. The second fare within Metro was eliminated but the Steeles boundary remained. Apparently this was the last year the TTC made a profit.

 

[CDL.TO]

I heard there was an easy solution for those who don't want the subway to cross the sacred 416/905 boundary: the Ontario Legislature votes to transfer the parcel of land under Kipling Subway station from Toronto to Mississauga, and to rewire the station phones to the 905 area code. Moving Mississauga to the subway will cost $500, while moving the subway to Mississauga will cost many billions.

Similarly the subway can be extended to Richmond Hill as planned, and then the stations north of Steeles can be transferred to the jurisdiction of the City of Toronto by a vote at Queen's Park. That way the 416 is kept in the subway.

Heh heh. I like your 416 addition to the plan. We also may have to rename the GO Trains to "subway lines" in order to keep everyone happy.

 

[Disparishun]

During most of the TTC's history they did the same thing - when you crossed into Toronto (then the old city of Toronto) you had to pay a second fare and a third fare when you crossed the border between Metro and what is now the 905. It remained this way until the early 1970s when a tipping point occured - populations shifts resulted in more people living in the boroughs than in Toronto so they got more seats on metro council. The second fare within Metro was eliminated but the Steeles boundary remained. Apparently this was the last year the TTC made a profit.

But who did they pay second and third fares to -- North York Transit et al.? Did they then amalgamate all of these transit commissions in the 1970s?

 

[RedRocket191]

But who did they pay second and third fares to -- North York Transit et al.? Did they then amalgamate all of these transit commissions in the 1970s?

The TTC was the only player in town, so you could potentially need a ticket good for zones 0 to 5 if you wanted to go from Richmond Hill to Union Station. It was a gradual increase - not the double-fare we have today. This map best illustrates it. Dated February 8, 1954 from Mike's Transit Stop - an excellent site for TTC historical info:

 

[Disparishun]

The TTC was the only player in town, so you could potentially need a ticket good for zones 0 to 5 if you wanted to go from Richmond Hill to Union Station. It was a gradual increase - not the double-fare we have today.

That's great stuff -- thanks for the info, and the link. Interesting to see the zone boundaries, too. On Yonge, anyway, Zones 1, 2 and 3 break at North York's southern and northern boundaries. With the next two dividers at Uplands and Carrville Road, the current Yonge extension falls -- I think -- into zones 2 (Cummer/Drewry and Steeles), 3 (Steeles, Clark and Royal Orchard) and 4 (Longbridge/Langstaff and Richmond Hill Centre). The TTC's zone 5 only started well into central Richmond Hill!

 

[Ansem]

TTC a barrier to transit plans, Metrolinx says

http://www.thestar.com/GTA/Transportation/article/572011

Transportation body's demands for more authority over municipal agencies detailed in frank report

Jan 16, 2009 04:30 AM


Metrolinx wants the province to designate it a mega-transit authority, with the power to decide where TTC and other regional transit systems will pick up passengers, and which fares and transfers riders use when crossing city borders.

In a frank report to the Metrolinx board – hastily withdrawn earlier this week from the online agenda for today's meeting – Metrolinx staff accuse the TTC of being the major obstacle to a fully integrated route and fare system in the region.

The kind of seamless transit service throughout the Toronto-Hamilton area envisioned by Metrolinx, says the report, will never happen if it's left up to the municipal transit agencies. The TTC, by far the largest of the nine involved, still hasn't committed to the proposed Metrolinx fare card, called Presto.

It has also refused to end its "closed door" policy in Mississauga and York Region, where two systems run buses along the same routes.

Mississauga buses travelling along Burnhamthorpe Rd., for example, can drop passengers at Toronto's Islington subway station, but can only pick up passengers there who are headed for Mississauga. They can't carry local riders from one stop within Toronto to another, meaning they must bypass rush-hour commuters inside Toronto.

The same occurs in York Region, where York's Viva buses and TTC vehicles both travel from Downsview station to York University.

The TTC has told Metrolinx it is no longer interested in a cost-sharing agreement that would have seen the TTC cede this duplicate service to Mississauga and York Region – an arrangement that would let riders get on a bus sooner and save taxpayers about $1.5 million annually, according to Metrolinx.

Toronto transit observers are viewing the report as a power play, based on arguments for relatively small efficiencies. They say route harmonization would affect only about half a dozen of approximately 3,000 bus routes in the region.

"They are using two simple examples of `waste' in route duplication as a justification for a much more aggressive takeover of fare and service integration," says transit advocate Steve Munro.

"However, they have not discussed any policy issues regarding fares and revenue-sharing, nor have they touched on the role of GO in a regional fare structure. Basically, the report is premature."

Since it submitted its 25-year Regional Transportation Plan to Queen's Park last fall, the future role of Metrolinx has been unclear.


The TTC has been adamant that Toronto maintain control of its own system or risk diluting service and seeing dollars migrate to regional systems with less substantial ridership. About 85 per cent of all transit users in the region use the TTC for at least part of their trip.

TTC chair Adam Giambrone refused to comment on the report, but said, "obviously the TTC is working to improve inter-regional transportation." The report will probably come back to the Metrolinx board in some form in the spring, said chair Rob MacIsaac.

 

[RedRocket191]

The conclusion made by the star is a big leap in my opinion, but I've always had a "if they can cooperate then leave it alone" opinion. It's clear to me that they can't, so maybe it might be time for these to be discussed.

With respect to Mr. Munro's comments, while it is only two examples of waste, it goes to the bigger issue of the TTC's way of doing things. I don't blame them for wanting to keep their citizen's needs at the top of the list - that's the goal of any government. But I believe that regional needs outweigh local needs when it comes to long-distance fare policy, among other things. That's my two cents anyway...

 

[scarberiankhatru]

With respect to Mr. Munro's comments, while it is only two examples of waste, it goes to the bigger issue of the TTC's way of doing things. I don't blame them for wanting to keep their citizen's needs at the top of the list - that's the goal of any government.

There's kind of a conflict of interest with councillors serving the TTC board, though, since councillors have constituents in the 416 that they are responsible to but the TTC does not...it is responsible to its riders within the urban area of Toronto, many of whom do not live/work in the 416. Not that it would happen, of course, but the TTC can't afford to lose its 905 riders, particularly since thousands park/kiss'n'ride at subway stations, which saves the TTC a bundle by not needing to funnel them in on surface routes.

 

[rbt]

The conclusion made by the star is a big leap in my opinion, but I've always had a "if they can cooperate then leave it alone" opinion. It's clear to me that they can't, so maybe it might be time for these to be discussed.

With respect to Mr. Munro's comments, while it is only two examples of waste, it goes to the bigger issue of the TTC's way of doing things. I don't blame them for wanting to keep their citizen's needs at the top of the list - that's the goal of any government. But I believe that regional needs outweigh local needs when it comes to long-distance fare policy, among other things. That's my two cents anyway...

TTC's mandate is to Municipality of Toronto.

Metrolinx needs to put together a package that compensates for funding concerns (including added complexity) and to ensure minimum service levels as set by TTC are met.

Only then should the TTC consider such an option -- and I say that as a Toronto property tax payer.

As an Ontario income tax payer I expect Metrolinx to solve the waste issue such that both transit agencies are happy (service and funding secure) and overall cost is reduced.

 

[Disparishun]

There's kind of a conflict of interest with councillors serving the TTC board, though, since councillors have constituents in the 416 that they are responsible to but the TTC does not...it is responsible to its riders within the urban area of Toronto, many of whom do not live/work in the 416.

You know, there is surely a story here. You are referring, I think to the way the TTC describes its mandate:

The Commission is responsible for the consolidation, co-ordination and planning of all forms of local passenger transportation within the urban area of Toronto, except for railways incorporated under federal and provincial statutes, and taxis.​

Reading this, it made me wonder whether the TTC wasn't in some way, at some level of its mandate, decoupled from the City of Toronto and free to explore actual urban Toronto as it exists in the real world. After all, why else would they specify "the urban area of Toronto"? Alas. A little digging shows that the TTC is just a Board of the City of Toronto. I have no idea why they specify the "urban area of Toronto", and am sure there is some interesting history there, but don't think it can mean they don't have responsibility to the City of Toronto, as they are merely a Board of it.

There is something to this, though. Apparently, before the time that the 5-zone system in RedRocket191's map was in place, the TTC (or its forerunner, rather) was a provincial agency.

With 1954 and the subway it become an agency of the regional entity, Metro Toronto -- but it was still running a 5-zone system providing (albeit thinner) service to a much larger area than it does today or, indeed, than it will after the Yonge and Spadina extensions are built (they only go to zone 4).

Today, and since the creation of a monolithic City of Toronto, it is an agency of that single municipality. Is Toronto better served for it? And, in some ways, wouldn't uploading everything to Metrolinx really put Metrolinx in a position similar to the one that the TTC was once in?

Heck, if the TTC's resistance to regional cooperation is all about not wanting to share power, can't we just give it responsibility for the whole region and eliminate the conflict altogether?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

It's obvious - they specify the urban area of Toronto because, unlike city councillors, their interest and influence extends into the 905. The board is responsible to the city of Toronto but the service it provides has an explicitly larger purview. Part of serving 416 taxpayers is helping people travel across the 416/905 boundary, but it's easy for councillors to forget that.

 

[Disparishun]

It's obvious - they specify the urban area of Toronto because, unlike city councillors, their interest and influence extends into the 905. The board is responsible to the city of Toronto but the service it provides has an explicitly larger purview. Part of serving 416 taxpayers is helping people travel across the 416/905 boundary, but it's easy for councillors to forget that.

That makes sense to me. Bringing 905ers into 416 and, to a lesser extent, getting 416ers to jobs and shops and destinations in the 905, is very much in the City of Toronto's interests. But do they really think that way, too? From everything we have seen from the TTC's leadership, it is hard to believe.