Toronto Spadina Subway Extension Emergency Exits | ?m | 1s | TTC | IBI Group

[Steve X]

If it wasn't for Rob Ford, FWLRT would be up and running already.

As for the terminals, it's mainly the 35, 60, and 195 routes that are frequent. The rest come once every 20-60 minutes. Same with the YRT routes. I'm not sure how many YRT routes will keep going to Pioneer Village, given that there is another bus terminal at VMC, and at Highway 407. These routes are not too frequent. One large terminal could have easily handled it at Pioneer Village. You do realize that with Pioneer Village, Highway 407 and VMC, there are 4 large bus terminals in such a small area with extremely low density. Instead of spending money on these large terminals, the TTC should have sold the land and integrated some commercial development into these lands.

The rest come once every 20-60 minutes??? You're very misinformed and clearly clueless about the area. I'm not sure what era you're in but none of the TTC routes are as infrequent as 60 min in the past decade. Most of the TTC routes are 20 min or less in rush hour. For YRT, they wanted large bus terminals which isn't a TTC problem. York Region is paying for them. TTC is only getting one large terminal at Pioneer Village and a small one at Finch West. York Region don't want to use a TTC bus terminal and pay rent like they do at Don Mills and Downsview.

You can read up on YRT's bus plans: https://www.yrt.ca/en/about-us/reso...016-Spadina-Subway-Strategy_Summary-Intro.pdf
It's been revised from the original 2015 version.

Nothing wrong with TTC's only large terminal. York U area is very busy with ridership that's much higher many parts of the city. Many of the current terminals are overcrowded. A slightly larger one will give room to grow.
As for frequency, TTC plans to keep everything the same. A subway won't divert people off their local routes, mostly just the 196.
The headways are during rush hour:
35: every 5 minutes - 12 buses every hour
41: every 10-11 minutes - 5 buses every hour
41E: every 13-15 minutes - 4 buses every hour
60 EB: every 7-8 minutes - 8 buses every hour
60E EB: every 8 (AM)/12 (PM) minutes - 8/5 buses every hour
60 WB: every 7-8 minutes - 8 buses every hour
84D: every 20 minutes - 3 buses every hour
106: every 7.5 (AM)/10 (PM) minutes - 8/6 buses every hour
107: probably every 20 minutes - 3 buses per hour
108: every 6-8 minute - 10 buses every hour
195: every 8-10 minutes - 7 buses every hour

So none of the routes run less than 20 minutes in rush hour with half of them running less than 10 minutes with up to 72 buses per hour in AM rush hour. With growth within a decade, it will be close to a bus entering and leaving every half-minute. 10 bus bays is the minimum that would work.

As for development, I'm not sure who wants to leave on top of a bus terminal. There's been numerous amount of complaints with the condos next to Kipling.

For YRT, I won't defend them. They think BRT lanes for a service every 15 minutes is acceptable. Again, York Region is paying for their own monster terminals and don't want to share with the TTC. Note Highway 407 station would also be used by the Zum 501 and many GO buses. VMC will see decent amount of bus traffic. Pionner Village is oversize of YRT.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This thing is shaped like a Cylon base star.

How very 6ix of you.

AoD

 

[rbt]

It's good to share facts, but no need to call people clueless. Everyone on here is passionate on the topic and we also should just pursue learning and informing others.

MOD: Sent on forum because I can't find how to send a private message.

Clueless was used by dictionary definition in that sentence: "having no knowledge".

Based on the facts that followed it seemed a pretty accurate portrayal of the statement with regards to bus service in that area.

IMO, avoiding a perfectly accurate simple word because it doesn't "feel nice" isn't actually helpful when saying the same thing "you have no knowledge on the topic" is acceptable.

 

[Megaton327]

MOD: Sent on forum because I can't find how to send a private message.

Clueless was used by dictionary definition in that sentence: "having no knowledge".

Based on the facts that followed it seemed a pretty accurate portrayal of the statement with regards to bus service in that area.

IMO, avoiding a perfectly accurate simple word because it doesn't "feel nice" isn't actually helpful when saying the same thing "you have no knowledge on the topic" is acceptable.

That message came off as condescending and rude. There's really no need to get upset over such a simple discussion. Intelligent discussions work better when there is a certain bare minimum level of mutual respect and decorum between participants.

Was "I'm not sure what era you're in" also used by its dictionary definition? If so, I strongly suggest the author seek professional help, once again going by dictionary definitions.

 

[Steve X]

It's good to share facts, but no need to call people clueless. Everyone on here is passionate on the topic and we also should just pursue learning and informing others.

I agree the word clueless is direct and a bit harsh. His 60 minutes headway statement just blew my mind how unaware he is with TTC services and transit in the area. It's like claiming NYC has too many subway lines based on a map.

 

[amnesiajune]

The "Fare integration takes time" excuse doesn't even work here - they've had a decade to figure it out.

It doesn't take time. It takes political will - political will from Toronto to do what's best for the whole region, and political will from the province to be more forceful about it. The TTC only adopted Presto because they were forced to, with the province making it a condition for funding Rob Ford's fully-underground Crosstown LRT. If the province wanted to they could propose a model and refuse to fund any public transit in cities that don't adopt it, or (even better) they could just end the two-tiered craziness and create a single, regional transit system that's provincially-controlled and provincially-funded. That would also free up city council to spend their time debating whether or not to let someone build a five-storey building on Bloor or let someone move a tree a few meters away from its current location.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It doesn't take time. It takes political will - political will from Toronto to do what's best for the whole region, and political will from the province to be more forceful about it. The TTC only adopted Presto because they were forced to, with the province making it a condition for funding Rob Ford's fully-underground Crosstown LRT. If the province wanted to they could propose a model and refuse to fund any public transit in cities that don't adopt it, or (even better) they could just end the two-tiered craziness and create a single, regional transit system that's provincially-controlled and provincially-funded.

The province doesn't give a hoot about fare integration. If they did, they'd be willing to pay for it. But they insist that fare integration needs to cost them nothing, and remain unwilling to boost the TTC's disastrously low subsidies.

 

[amnesiajune]

The real problem is that the TTC doesn't want to give up power that they currently have. Adopting Presto meant that the city would no longer have control over fare media. Fare integration means that the city would no longer have the power to pass costs onto transit users. City council would also have the power to increase funding for the TTC - perhaps by increasing property taxes on condos and single-family houses from it's current 0.5% rate closer to the ~0.65% rate that the rest of the GTA pays or the 1.44% rate paid by Toronto's apartment buildings - but that's even more politically inconvenient.

 

[Steve X]

It doesn't take time. It takes political will - political will from Toronto to do what's best for the whole region, and political will from the province to be more forceful about it. The TTC only adopted Presto because they were forced to, with the province making it a condition for funding Rob Ford's fully-underground Crosstown LRT. If the province wanted to they could propose a model and refuse to fund any public transit in cities that don't adopt it, or (even better) they could just end the two-tiered craziness and create a single, regional transit system that's provincially-controlled and provincially-funded. That would also free up city council to spend their time debating whether or not to let someone build a five-storey building on Bloor or let someone move a tree a few meters away from its current location.

I disagree with moving transit to the province. One fact is removing all local inputs and the second is the current province is mismanaging everything. BC move out of managing Vancouver and has privatized operation of that system as it became increasing difficult to manage a complex system. The province will privatize it's operations like the GO trains. There are pros and cons with that.
A GTA system could maintain a unified brand like NYC created the MTA. It would still maintain the current operators like the TTC. This would continue to allow residences to complain to their councilors about their local bus route oppose to having another level of governance to deal with.

A regional system would be routes would be more integrated meaning routes don't terminate at Steeles. This could mean more overlapping of routes that would increase cost that the province would be billed for.

 

[amnesiajune]

A GTA system could maintain a unified brand like NYC created the MTA.

The MTA isn't just a brand. It's a state agency responsible for transportation in New York, analogous to Metrolinx but operating on a much broader scale. So are other cities' equivalents like Transport for London, the RATP, MBTA and SEPTA. They manage the city's buses, subways and commuter rail and most of the major bridges and tunnels within NYC.

 

[Edward Skira]

MOD: Sent on forum because I can't find how to send a private message.

Click on the person's name and then click "Start A Conversation".

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I disagree with moving transit to the province. One fact is removing all local inputs and the second is the current province is mismanaging everything. BC move out of managing Vancouver and has privatized operation of that system as it became increasing difficult to manage a complex system. The province will privatize it's operations like the GO trains. There are pros and cons with that.

You won't find a "world class city" of note that doesn't run transit regionally. No one is copying our model. Giving transit "to the province" doesn't mean (as soon seem to imagine) that some clerk in Thunder Bay is now deciding how often the 42B TTC bus should run. It just means that the scale of government is at the same scale of the problem so it can be properly addressed and recognizes that the municipal law in Ontario does not allow something like this currently.

As pointed out elsewhere, most of these places (e.g. New York) have transit AUTHORITIES; we have a transit agency. The MTA receives funding from multiple sources. Technically there is no reason this can't happen here; it would be pretty new but Ontario would hardly have to invent the idea from scratch. But everyone (especially the provincial cabinet and the city of Toronto) would have to divest themselves of power for "the greater good."

It's fine to say above that "the province" doesn't want fare integration but who's that? Metrolinx? Wynne? MTO?

Hey, they might just shelve it after spending years working on it - lord knows they did it with revenue tools! - but the work is going on. Point is "time" and "political will" are not different things at all. David Miller had the time to make road tolls happen, but they didn't. Now (apparently) its time has come, for Toronto. These other things will come too and it will happen when there's a politician with the will; and they'll be able to act upon that will because of the time.

Hopefully it's soon.

 

[TransitBart]

You won't find a "world class city" of note that doesn't run transit regionally.

Fair enough. RATP and RER are one group in Paris too for example.

As pointed out elsewhere, most of these places (e.g. New York) have transit AUTHORITIES; we have a transit agency. The MTA receives funding from multiple sources.

What would change if we followed this model? Outline your thoughts.

 

[amnesiajune]

No one is copying our model.

Not true. Major cities like Detroit and Baltimore are using the same model. And so does Calgary, but Calgary has hardly any suburbs - more than 90% of the metro area's population lives in the city proper and it's largest suburb is roughly has roughly the same area and population as Aurora.

 

[MisterF]

I agree with the sentiment that a single body needs to be created to run transit in the GTA. We've lived with the urban, suburban, and regional transit systems being separate for so long that it's easy to forget how disfunctional it all is.

Not true. Major cities like Detroit and Baltimore are using the same model. And so does Calgary, but Calgary has hardly any suburbs - more than 90% of the metro area's population lives in the city proper and it's largest suburb is roughly has roughly the same area and population as Aurora.

lol....we're in good company with Detroit and Baltimore.