News   May 24, 2024
 8.2K     2 
News   May 24, 2024
 1.2K     0 
News   May 24, 2024
 468     0 

TTC: Easier Access Phase III

While unfortunate it does make sense from a practical standpoint.

The Lowther exit is far from the manned entry/exit point and hardly used. It makes sense from an accessibility standpoint to put it from track level to the corridor but for the amount of people that would use the Lowther exit it does not make economical sense to put an elevator in.
 
The Lowther exit is far from the manned entry/exit point and hardly used. It makes sense from an accessibility standpoint to put it from track level to the corridor but for the amount of people that would use the Lowther exit it does not make economical sense to put an elevator in.
Unless I'm completely blind, there is no Lowther exit - and I've certainly looked for one. I'd think one there would be better used than the Kendal exit.
 
Apologies. I was thinking of it as Lowther, you are right it is Kendal.
I can certainly understand the hesitancy about putting in elevators. But if they are doing so ... adding a simple staircase to the surface at the same time would seem relatively minor.

At the same time forcing those with wheelchairs at Kendal Spadina to instead go half-a-kilometre south to the entrance at Bloor and back to the elevator at Lowther - does that meet accessibility standards? It's about the same distance as if you told them to go north to Dupont instead - and I doubt they'd get away with that!
 
TTC has already announced they were putting elevators in at Lowther for Spadina station. What's unfortunate, is that they only seem to extend from the walkway to the platforms, rather than providing a surface entrance.

Maybe by the 22nd century, they'll have politicians who actually use public transit.
 
I can certainly understand the hesitancy about putting in elevators. But if they are doing so ... adding a simple staircase to the surface at the same time would seem relatively minor.

At the same time forcing those with wheelchairs at Kendal Spadina to instead go half-a-kilometre south to the entrance at Bloor and back to the elevator at Lowther - does that meet accessibility standards? It's about the same distance as if you told them to go north to Dupont instead - and I doubt they'd get away with that!

I don't believe the AODA requires more than one entrance of any station to be accessible--correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the majority of stations with more than one street level entrance only have (or are slated to have) one accessible entrance.

I also don't believe that it contains any provision such as this one I just made up: "you don't have to make more than one entrance of the station accessible, as long as each entrance is within 200 metres of an accessible entrance; if any entrance is more than 200 metres away from an accessible one, it must be made accessible".

Logically, at Spadina, it makes sense. The vast majority of the traffic at that station is undoubtedly for Line 2 and the 510. Additionally, while I do not know if these statistics are published, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the surface level entry and exit to/from that station occurs at the entrances at Bloor and Spadina, and Bloor and Walmer; and also that the vast majority of the passengers for Line 1 there are transferring to/from Line 2 or the 510 or accessing those busier street level entrances/exits. I would be interested to know if there is an exact number of passengers daily/yearly/whatever who use the Kendal entrance--I would suspect it is a small number, on the order of 5% or less of the station's street-level traffic. So, having elevators from the Line 1 platform that enable a passenger to get to/from Line 2, the 510, and the Bloor-Spadina entrance, satisfies the vast majority of customer needs to the point that the station can be called accessible. And all that aside, I also expect that there are more daily Line 1/2 to/from 510 transfers, than there are surface level entries/exits, so Kendal might be in the 1% here, if not less.

I do sympathize with a hypothetical wheelchair-bound passenger living at or reasonably near Spadina and Kendal who wishes to get on Line 1. But realistically, it is probably a very, very small number of people. There are probably secondary entrances elsewhere in the system that might have hundreds of people with accessibility needs being forced to travel a total of maybe 150 or 200 metres to the nearest accessible entrance, per day; is it fair to say that, hypothetically, 5 people at Kendal being forced to go ~500 metres around, are suffering more than 100 or 200 people at some other station being forced to go 150-200 metres around? At any rate, while an interesting philosophical question, it would be a logistical and budgetary nightmare if the AODA required every entrance of every station to be accessible.

To provide some examples after curiosity got the better of me: using Google Maps' measure distance tool, at Yorkdale station with only the northern entrance being accessible and not the southern Ranee entrance, a passenger living at a house just west of the Ranee entrance could get there in 160 metres if they were on the south end of the train; if they were on the north end and had to use the northern exit, it takes 360 metres to get there, 200 metres longer. From the south end of Queen station to the north, it is 190m. I strongly expect that some of these secondary entrances have more, potentially many more, passengers with accessibility needs than Kendal does.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe the AODA requires more than one entrance of any station to be accessible--correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the majority of stations with more than one street level entrance only have (or are slated to have) one accessible entrance.

I also don't believe that it contains any provision such as this one I just made up: "you don't have to make more than one entrance of the station accessible, as long as each entrance is within 200 metres of an accessible entrance; if any entrance is more than 200 metres away from an accessible one, it must be made accessible".

Logically, at Spadina, it makes sense. The vast majority of the traffic at that station is undoubtedly for Line 2 and the 510. Additionally, while I do not know if these statistics are published, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the surface level entry and exit to/from that station occurs at the entrances at Bloor and Spadina, and Bloor and Walmer; and also that the vast majority of the passengers for Line 1 there are transferring to/from Line 2 or the 510 or accessing those busier street level entrances/exits. I would be interested to know if there is an exact number of passengers daily/yearly/whatever who use the Kendal entrance--I would suspect it is a small number, on the order of 5% or less of the station's street-level traffic. So, having elevators from the Line 1 platform that enable a passenger to get to/from Line 2, the 510, and the Bloor-Spadina entrance, satisfies the vast majority of customer needs to the point that the station can be called accessible. And all that aside, I also expect that there are more daily Line 1/2 to/from 510 transfers, than there are surface level entries/exits, so Kendal might be in the 1% here, if not less.

I do sympathize with a hypothetical wheelchair-bound passenger living at or reasonably near Spadina and Kendal who wishes to get on Line 1. But realistically, it is probably a very, very small number of people. There are probably secondary entrances elsewhere in the system that might have hundreds of people with accessibility needs being forced to travel a total of maybe 150 or 200 metres to the nearest accessible entrance, per day; is it fair to say that, hypothetically, 5 people at Kendal being forced to go ~500 metres around, are suffering more than 100 or 200 people at some other station being forced to go 150-200 metres around? At any rate, while an interesting philosophical question, it would be a logistical and budgetary nightmare if the AODA required every entrance of every station to be accessible.

To provide some examples after curiosity got the better of me: using Google Maps' measure distance tool, at Yorkdale station with only the northern entrance being accessible and not the southern Ranee entrance, a passenger living at a house just west of the Ranee entrance could get there in 160 metres if they were on the south end of the train; if they were on the north end and had to use the northern exit, it takes 360 metres to get there, 200 metres longer. At St Clair W, to get from the main entrance to Heath St and Lower Village Gate it is 460m, vs. 160m if the Heath exit were accessible, a net +300m. From the south end of Queen station to the north, it is 190m. I strongly expect that some of these secondary entrances have more, potentially many more, passengers with accessibility needs than Kendal does.


There are many gaps in the law.

We still have stations that lack a complete up-escalator path.

Museum has no up escalator path, nor does Rosedale or Summerhill.

While up escalators exist at Broadview and Christie, both have steps leading up to them which could be a challenge for someone mobility impaired, (or with luggage or a stroller) who can use an escalator........

@drum118 rightly notes with some regularity the problem of not having a redundant elevator in most/all stations.

If nothing else, it means that during maintenance activities the stations in question become inaccessible again.

I'm not sure that calls for an elevator at every exit, as for some stations that might mean as many as 8 elevators from the platform level (3 exits, 2 side platforms, one redundant elevator to the bus terminal).

I recognize that there are practical limits.

On the other hand; we're by and large a long way from those, and too far from a reasonable minimum standard.

We need to both appreciate how much further we are along than many systems in the world; but also realize how meaningless that is to someone who can't use their local station due to its current level of accessibility.
 
Last edited:
I noticed that Moss Park station on the Ontario Line will only have one entrance according to the document. Is this a violation of some TTC or AODA ruling? The standard is that there is always at least two entrances for every station. Also can this mean two doors but one big building, like with York University.
 
Sorry, I forgot the name at the time. It's the preliminary design business case for the Ontario Line. link
1609471744705.png
 
I noticed that Moss Park station on the Ontario Line will only have one entrance according to the document. Is this a violation of some TTC or AODA ruling? The standard is that there is always at least two entrances for every station. Also can this mean two doors but one big building, like with York University.
It suspect it's that "two exits are required" for fire safety reasons, but the relevant regulations don't mind if one is an emergency exit. For upgrades of existing stations, the TTC probably wants the most bang for it's buck. The minor increase in costs for a full purpose entrance/exit is probably deemed worth it.
 
It suspect it's that "two exits are required" for fire safety reasons, but the relevant regulations don't mind if one is an emergency exit. For upgrades of existing stations, the TTC probably wants the most bang for it's buck. The minor increase in costs for a full purpose entrance/exit is probably deemed worth it.

That is correct; the 2-exit requirement; specifically 2 paths of egress from the platform in the event that a fire obstructs one path of egress.

There is no requirement the second exit be full-service.

But the accretive cost of making the 2nd exit full-service is generally quite modest relative to having to build a set of stairs anyway.
 
That is correct; the 2-exit requirement; specifically 2 paths of egress from the platform in the event that a fire obstructs one path of egress.

There is no requirement the second exit be full-service.

But the accretive cost of making the 2nd exit full-service is generally quite modest relative to having to build a set of stairs anyway.

Making the 2nd exit full-accessible (escalators and/or elevators) is another story.

Here's Line 5's Caledonia's secondary entrance. No escalator. No elevator.
1598283952526-png.265356

From link.
 
I don't believe the AODA requires more than one entrance of any station to be accessible--correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the majority of stations with more than one street level entrance only have (or are slated to have) one accessible entrance.

I also don't believe that it contains any provision such as this one I just made up: "you don't have to make more than one entrance of the station accessible, as long as each entrance is within 200 metres of an accessible entrance; if any entrance is more than 200 metres away from an accessible one, it must be made accessible".

Logically, at Spadina, it makes sense. The vast majority of the traffic at that station is undoubtedly for Line 2 and the 510. Additionally, while I do not know if these statistics are published, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the surface level entry and exit to/from that station occurs at the entrances at Bloor and Spadina, and Bloor and Walmer; and also that the vast majority of the passengers for Line 1 there are transferring to/from Line 2 or the 510 or accessing those busier street level entrances/exits. I would be interested to know if there is an exact number of passengers daily/yearly/whatever who use the Kendal entrance--I would suspect it is a small number, on the order of 5% or less of the station's street-level traffic. So, having elevators from the Line 1 platform that enable a passenger to get to/from Line 2, the 510, and the Bloor-Spadina entrance, satisfies the vast majority of customer needs to the point that the station can be called accessible. And all that aside, I also expect that there are more daily Line 1/2 to/from 510 transfers, than there are surface level entries/exits, so Kendal might be in the 1% here, if not less.

I do sympathize with a hypothetical wheelchair-bound passenger living at or reasonably near Spadina and Kendal who wishes to get on Line 1. But realistically, it is probably a very, very small number of people. There are probably secondary entrances elsewhere in the system that might have hundreds of people with accessibility needs being forced to travel a total of maybe 150 or 200 metres to the nearest accessible entrance, per day; is it fair to say that, hypothetically, 5 people at Kendal being forced to go ~500 metres around, are suffering more than 100 or 200 people at some other station being forced to go 150-200 metres around? At any rate, while an interesting philosophical question, it would be a logistical and budgetary nightmare if the AODA required every entrance of every station to be accessible.

To provide some examples after curiosity got the better of me: using Google Maps' measure distance tool, at Yorkdale station with only the northern entrance being accessible and not the southern Ranee entrance, a passenger living at a house just west of the Ranee entrance could get there in 160 metres if they were on the south end of the train; if they were on the north end and had to use the northern exit, it takes 360 metres to get there, 200 metres longer. From the south end of Queen station to the north, it is 190m. I strongly expect that some of these secondary entrances have more, potentially many more, passengers with accessibility needs than Kendal does.
At the intersection of spadina and lowther there is a French school (Alliance Francaise) and I think the main building there may be considered “heritage” by the city of Toronto. I‘m wondering if the TTC had extensive consultations with the property owners (alliance francaise) and possibly the city since the buliding there might be considered “heritage” before excavating a shaft for the elevator for the line 1 part of Spadina Station?

I’m just giving my opinion on this issue because I’ve been to this location Alliance Francaise for French class for a few years.

B4AE7233-BDBA-4B09-8F04-35F57CAAFC12.jpeg
 

Back
Top